in general, people take landscape design for granted, even to the extent of putting up with badly designed spaces. i dont know, perhaps theyre just grateful for whatever open space they can get!

i think this points to a major difference between the two disciplines. landscape architecture is responsive, and usually tries to respond to its surroundings. while architecture, by its nature, is an imposition. there has been a trend in recent times for landscape design to try and take its cues from architecture, to try and make a ‘statement’ but i dont think thats healthy. landscape isnt architecture and shouldnt try to be. it has its own unique considerations and needs to generate its own ideas

1. Clients have particular intentions when they brief designers.

The tower was designed for the Paris exhibition of 1889 to commememorate the centenary of the French Revolution. (It was opened by the then Prince of Wales?)

2. Designers can ‘intend’ particular meanings such that their designs are meaningful for them in particular ways.

Eiffel designed the tower to fulfil the competition brief to last twenty years. (It is still there) At the time of its construction it was the tallest building in the world. (It was until 1930)

3. Connoisseur’s respond to designs in particular ways to designs.

His design was unanimously selected as the winner of a competition out of 700 entries. (The architect for the project has been all but forgotten)

4. The public responds to designs in unexpected ways.

Letter published in Le Temps February 14 1887

“We, writers, painters, sculptors, architects, passionate lovers of beauty, until now intact, of Paris, hereby protest with all our might, with all our indignation, in the name of French taste gone unrecognised, in the name of French art and history under threat, against the construction, in the very heart of our capital, of the useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower, that public spite, often marked by good sense and a spirit of justice, has already baptised the Tower of Babel….and for twenty years, we will see stretching out over the entire city, still quivering with genius from so many centuries, we will see stretching out like a growing ink spot the hateful shadow of the hateful column of bolted iron.”

5. Eiffel’s reply.

“…The first principle of architectural aesthetics is that the essential lines of a monument should be determined by its fitting perfectly into a setting….there’s an attraction in things colossal, a special charm to which theories of ordinary art are hardly applicable….And what is the source of this admiration, if not the immensity of the effort and the granduer of the result?”

5. The judgment of history….

Perhaps you can think of a landscape example?

by the way, what is it with landscape architecture and their obsession with patterned paving? how many people are interested in looking at the ground!