Comments on: George Hargreaves as landscape architect for the 2012 London Olympic Park

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:40:38 +0000

In reply to Adam Hodge. The lack of easy answers is a criticism of modern landscape architecture and garden design. Form, as Louis Sullivan advised, is supposed to follow function. But outside buildings, the tendency has been to produce 'funtionalist' designs which lack functions! For me,the designer who looms largest, and best, in the combination of use with beauty, is Herbert Dreiseitl. The combination of use with beauty used to be more common and Stephen Switzer advised that: Utile quimiscens, ingentia Rura, Simplex Munditis ornat, punctum hic tulit omne. [He that the beautiful and useful blends, Simplicity with greatness, gains all ends.]

By: Adam Hodge

Adam Hodge — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:31:00 +0000

Can any of you frightfully enlightend architects point me in the direction of what you deem to be both functional and beautiful in modern day landscape design..I read these very high brow comments both in this particular days blog and many previous days but don’t know what you all see as beautiful ,as I hope you are all striving to beautify our urban world ?!

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:49:55 +0000

I could not follow the link but assume you mean Yigang Peng’s Space Syntax analysis of the Chinese Garden http://www.sss7.org/Proceedings/03%20Spatial%20Analysis%20and%20Architectural%20Theory/S079_Chen.pdf

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:26:51 +0000

So far, as I know that Yigang Peng is one of the scholars who has used ‘space’ method to analyze Chinese classical Garden.
http://www.google.com/search?q=彭一刚+古典园林分析&um=1&hl=zh-CN&newwindow=1&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&source=lnt&tbs=isz:l&sa=X&ei=lmCZTt2-H8zq8QOvkLW5DA&ved=0CAgQpwUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=706

I do believe that there is geometry-beauty in them. Unfortunately I have not found enough evidence.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:17:12 +0000

In reply to Jerry. I think a very good question is in need of a very good answer! I do not know nearly enough about modern China to give that answer but as a simple general principle I think geometry and non-geometry make good partners.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:26:58 +0000

Very good question! But what do you think about the Old Chinese garden’s design method, it seems that they are designed without the geometry . What is their design theory?- it is a important question. Do you think they also have some geometry thinking and beauty in it?

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:07:05 +0000

In reply to Jerry.

One way of categorizing styles of landscape design is Rectilinear/Curvilinear. Another is Formal/Informal. By these measures, Hargreaves design for the 2012 Park – which I believe is going to be called the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park – would be hard to classify. It is more Curvilinear than Rectilinear but it is also more Informal than Formal. This takes us to the word Geometrical. It suggests a Rectilinear design but, as you rightly say, it also applies to Hargreaves’ design for the QEO Park. So this gives me a question: if you design a park WITHOUT geometry then what would it look like?

By: Jerry

Jerry — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:08:46 +0000

Tom, I love the second photograph!

I also attended his lecture yesterday and felt that it could be better! I agree with you that the master-plan for the Olympic Park is old fashioned with an old story! While I was sitting there, a very interesting thing happened, I start to dream the future for Parks and POS. They has lots of interesting garden spaces in it and colorful! without the boring geometry lines!