The street, a landscape: A task for the landscape architect
StreetWorks The StreetWorks project gave me the opportunity to delve deeper into the subject at hand, since, to put it dramatically, it gnawed at me. What was gnawing at me was this coalescing concept: could it be possible that the rise of landscape architecture after 1985 was made possible by the demolition being carried out in city planning? And if so, where did these city builders ‘suddenly‘ acquire their fascination with landscapes? Did the classical principles and references for landscape architecture that were cherished in Wageningen play any role? It was appropriate that StreetWorks was the context for this research, since the essence of the problem could be formulated in terms of the conquest of the street as a landscape. In writing this essay, I had the opportunity to speak at length with a select group of people. And perhaps it is good to clarify from the start: it is not the case that the entire field of city planning, or the architecture programme in Delft as a whole, was captivated around 1980 by the design, the city centre and the landscape. On the contrary, it was in fact a select group of people, which included a number of figures who continue to play a part in the debate concerning city planning and landscape architecture even now. Rein Geurtsen and Maurits de Hoog have already been mentioned, but Frits Palmboom, Dirk Sijmons, Jan Heeling, Gerrit Smienk and Henk Engel can also be noted. As an aside, it is worth mentioning that this list of names includes two former heads and a director of the Amsterdam Academy of Architecture. Also, these people held very different opinions on the topic; I am not defining a coherent group here. In some sense, the group was in fact so small that it helps to define part of the success of landscape architecture. Urbanism in general, and certainly urbanism in Delft, had alienated itself from design in the 1960s and 70s. The field had been severely fragmented by conflict concerning the legacy of modern construction on the one hand and process-oriented urban renewal on the other. In the 1980s, when the opportunities for design increased as a result of all sorts of factors, and the landscape (or, in a more abstract sense, concepts like environment, ecology, identity) occupied a stronger position, city planning did not immediately have a response ready — except for the aforementioned small group. Landscape architecture was able to formulate an answer in a broader sense. I do not believe that the field of landscape architecture originally was aware of its role: it happened because landscape architects were given a chance in individual projects. It is only in retrospect that we can see this as an important shift in the tasks that are considered part of the domain of landscape architecture. A concise summary of where I am headed here could be: but we can be grateful to the urban designers for the route they mapped out first. That image is not unequivocal, either: designers in both disciplines work actively to explore the interfaces between city planning and landscape architecture. However, landscape architecture has without doubt expanded as a result of the exploration of this borderline; an expansive oeuvre of hard-surface and urban designs were added. The chance that urban designers were given to map out that route can certainly be attributed to their proximity to the architectural discourse — a discussion far removed from ‘my‘ Wageningen. One thing inspired sincere amazement in me while researching the background for this essay. My inquiry into the motives of the aforementioned group of urban designers introduced me to worlds in which I stumbled around by feel alone, where landscape architecture only 56
Drawing