The Whimsical Parameter

//the whimsical parameter//

JAIDEEP WARYA

LANDSCAPE CONTEXTUAL STUDIES MLA II, 2012-14 EDINBURGH COLLEGE OF ART

the whimsical parameter

//index// 1.

Preface++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++finishing what was begun+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++ 04-05

2.

Introduction +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++logic & whim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++06-07

3.

Parametricism+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++approach, style, substance+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++08-10

4.

Tyrannies & Significance+++++++++++++++++++++the theoretical frameworks of Corner & Treib+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++11-13

5.

Parametric Foresight++++++++++++++++++++++++Alexander & Halprin’s “Parametric” approach++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++14-16

6.

Grounding Parametricism++++++++++++++++++++++how parameters shape the landscape++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++17-22

7.

Conclusion+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++towards aesthetic parameters ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++23-24

8.

References+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 25-26

9.

Bibliography+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 27-28

10.

Glossary+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++29-30

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

//list of figures// Fig 1. A Value Topography , Plaszow Labour Camp, Krakow (Author, MLA Portfolio III Design Project) Fig 2. Sony Forest Project, AnS Studio

07

09

09

Fig 3. Sony Forest Project- Series of Seed Scattering Options

Fig 4. MAXII Centre, Rome, Zaha Hadid Architects

10

Fig 5. Parc de la Villette, Paris, Bernard Tschumi

12

Fig 6. Guadalupe River Park, Hargreaves Associates

13

Fig 7. The RSVP Cycle, Lawrence Halprin

15

Fig 8. Design Criteria, Christopher Alexander

15

Fig 9. Design Process for a South Indian VIllage, Christopher Alexander

15

Fig 10. Design Solution for a South Indian VIllage, Christopher Alexander

16

Fig 11. La Gavia Park, Foreign Office Architects

18

18

Fig 12. Gardens By the Bay, Singapore, Grant Associates

Fig 13. Governor’s Park Proposal, New York, James Corner Field Operations

19

Table 1. Geo-Morphological Parameters, (Author)

19

Fig 14. Fresh Kills Park, Staten Island, James Corner Field Operations Table 2. Eco- Systemic Parameters, (Author)

Fig 15. Longgang CIty Proposal, GroundLAB Landscape Urbanism

20 20 21

Table. 3 Spatio-Temporal Parameters, (Author)

21

Table 4 Socio-Ornamental Parameters, (Author)

22

Fig 16. Overhoff-Halprin Fountain, Seattle, Lawrence Halprin

22

1001000110111001000100011

the whimsical parameter

“…the form of anything is latent in the process.”

Lawrence Halprin, The RSVP Cycles, 1969

“(Parametric thinking) forces the designer to take one step back from the direct activity of designing and focus on the logic that binds the design together.”

- Robert Woodbury, Elements of Parametric Design, 2010

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

1. // preface // finishing what was begun

1001000110111001000100011

the whimsical parameter

I became interested in computational approaches during the second semester of my MLA course at the Edinburgh College of Art. I was attempting to use the concept of ecological succession to design a tree matrix for a park project, but found I didn’t have the requisite skills to be able to do this successfully. My research showed that practitioners around the world have also attempted similar approaches to varying degrees of success. Studios like EcoLogic in London and AnS Studio in Japan have employed parametric software such as Grasshopper and Rhino to design complex, forest-like landscapes. Having given up on a similar approach in the design studio, I wanted to learn more about these parametric approaches at least in theory. What I’ve discovered during my research is that while parametric software has only recently found its way into architectural practice in the second half of the twentieth century, the concept and the possibilities it creates have a long history, going as far back as the enlightenment era.

It was during this period that German mathematician Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz first introduced two concepts that have become relevant to architectural design recently, namely, the binary system and topology. The following century saw the emergence of the picturesque landscape style, with its emphasis on experiential quality over rationalist thinking, with the designer’s ability at the centre of the decision making process.

This hegemony continued uninterrupted till the advent of modernist, positivist ideologies in the 20th century, where non-aesthetic factors such as a wider civic agenda gained priority over aesthetic concerns. However, while these ideologies emphasised the importance of rationality they were also composed of arbitrary rules based at least partly on intuition. It was only with Ian McHarg’s seminal Design with Nature and Christopher Alexander’s path breaking Notes on the Synthesis of Form that rationalist (and I will argue parametric) thinking first became mainstream within landscape discourse, almost three centuries after Leibniz’s theses. Parametric discourse as we know it today came into being because of two concurrent but unrelated developments in the late 20th century. The first was Mandelbrot’s study of fractal geometry, based partly on Leibniz’s theories, which made it possible for practitioners to understand organic forms found in nature. The second was the rise of powerful computers that allowed for the simulation of these forms and their behaviour under parameters such as light and wind. These developments inspired a number of architects (most notably Foreign Office Architects, Asymptote and Zaha Hadid), who subsequently explored organic forms with the aid of parametric design software. This concurrence has led to a fundamental confusion about what parametric design constitutes as it is now associated almost exclusively with organic forms. Had the revolution in computing occurred during the days of McHarg & Alexander, perhaps parametric design discourse would have taken a different direction. It is interesting to note here that Ivan Sutherland, who designed the first computer aided drafting program Sketchpad in 1963 , incorporated parametric functions into it i.e. the software could not only mimic hand drafting by adding or removing geometry, it could also relate and repair elements to each other.

This is the fundamental difference between conventional design and parametric de-

sign. This feature was not a part of subsequent CAD software up until quite recently when programs such as Grasshopper and Generative Components have brought it to the forefront of the architectural design discourse. As far as my research shows, this discourse does not yet exist within landscape architecture, which is unfortunate because these software are used as much by landscape architects as by building architects.

I would like to thank Ross Mclean for the guidance and advice he has provided me during the course of this research. While the vastness of the subject matter has meant that many adjacencies suggested by him have been left unexplored, I hope to follow up on them in the future and carry this research forward.

I would also like to thank Kenny Fraser for his feedback and for organizing this course which has been a great learning experience.

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

2. // introduction // logic and whim

1001000110111001000100011

06

the whimsical parameter

Parametric software such as Grasshopper and Generative Components are well-established in the fields of architecture and urban design. Now they are also finding their way into the discourse of landscape architecture. Here, however, they enter an arena that offers more complexity than is offered by the inert materials of building architecture, for landscapes are composed of living materials that change over time. The field within which the interaction of landscape materials takes place is ecologically complex and thereby any intervention on a landscape effects all contiguous systems. Historically, the ‘logic’ upon which landscape design is based has been a predominantly aesthetic one i.e. landscape architecture has been based primarily on the aesthetic whims of the designer. The word ‘whim’ is not used here in its pejorative sense, but as a way of expressing the reliance of individual landscape designers on design styles. Today, the advent of modern computational tools has created new and unexpected possibilities, chief among them being the ability to simulate complex ecological or morphological natural processes (Hansen, 2012) . This has allowed designers to incorporate ecological complexity into their designs from an early stage while simultaneously pursuing an aesthetic agenda.

From a theoretical standpoint, defining parameters for the design of landscapes is not a novelty; texts such as Design with Nature and Notes on the Synthesis of Form, both published in the 1960’s, are attempts at developing rational, relational models for landscape design. The conceptual models proposed in these texts are software-independent; i.e. their methodology, while being parametric, is a conceptual one which does not fall apart due to the lack of computational resources.

This dichotomy between computation-based practice and parametric theoretical models is at the centre of this essay. Software today uses computation for more than just an objective understanding of nature. Rather, it is used as a tool for the generation of landscapes, a mediator between observable fact structures and designer’s agency, ultimately leading to a synthesis. This mediation is done through ‘parameters’; mathematical expressions of real world phenomena that determine the constraints of the design.

These parameters are used to relate different elements of the design in order to create various permutations of a design and also capture design history (Woodbury, 2010).

Fig.1 A Value Topography , Plaszow Labour Camp, Krakow (Author, 2013)

However, on what basis are these parameters selected? And does this selection have a formal impact on the landscape? If yes, what is the relationship between these parametric landscapes and established theories of landscape architecture? The essay discusses these issues with a view to identifying various typologies of parametric landscape design, which can then be located within the wider discourse of landscape theory.

07

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

3. // parametricism // approach style substance

1001000110111001000100011

08

the whimsical parameter

Woodbury (2006) defines parametrics as a way of capturing design history with a view to extrapolating it into design futures . Design history refers to the various stages of the decision making, the unfolding of the design. He proposes that parametric design is the design of constraints, with its main distinguishing feature being the ability to relate and repair parts of the design, while conventional design can only add and subtract. This ability to link elements and sub-systems of a drawing to one another can be imagined as an Excel spreadsheet, where modification of one cell creates a ripple effect throughout the design. This relational quality is achieved through programming- writing algorithms that explicitly link different parts of a drawing or 3D model to each other. The limitations of this approach are obvious; firstly, it requires all contextual factors to be assigned numeric values, leaving very little room for the discussion of more abstract concerns like spirit, tradition, symbolism and experience. Secondly, the designer is now distanced from the act of actual design, not concerning directly himself with formal aspects such as shape and layout but instead allowing these to be determined by mathematical relations he designs. The advantage of this approach, Woodbury argues, is that distancing from the actual act of designing objects liberates the designer from stylistic concerns and allows him to concentrate on the relationships that bind his design together.

An example is the Sony Forest Project in Tokyo , Japan, by AnS Studio. The designers employed computational techniques to create a planting design that mimics a forest(Takenaka, Okabe, 2011) (Fig 2) .The designers followed a six step process. The first step involves a random scattering of seeds in the garden, followed by stages of analysis and optimisation using geometric patterns like Delaunay Triangulation and Voronoi diagrams, and finally a stage where the designer selects a final layout from among the options produced by the computer. The critical stage here, though, is the first. Each seed is an intelligent object within the software, containing environmental data like the amount of light, wind, soil nutrients etc. it requires to grow well. The designer generates a series of possible eventualities (Fig 3), each of which will allow the individual seeds to grow into healthy trees. The random scattering of seeds here is thus not random but informed. Embedded in this approach is, as Corner (1991) calls it, the tyranny of positivism ; the belief that natural process can be accurately understood and instrumentalised. Similar parametric approaches have been utilized to design at various scales, from high rise towers (Madkour, Neumann, Erhan, 2011) to urban neighbourhoods (Schnabel, Karakiewicz, 2007) . At each scale, what remains consistent within parametric approaches is the stage where parameters are enumerated. In the case of the Vancouver Housing Tower design by Madkour et al (2011) , these included shading impact, views and inhabitant density. In the case of the Hong Kong urban design studio described by Schnabel and Karakiewicz (2007), these included pedestrian flow, noise, wind and property values . These parameters are subsequently used to create what Woodbury(2010) calls dependencies, where individual

09

Fig.2 Sony Forest Project, AnS Studio- This seemingly naturalistic design was developed through the use of parametric software and algorithms.

Fig.3 Sony Forest Project, AnS Studio- Series of seed scattering options ‘generated’ by parametric software

elements of the design derive their characteristics (shape, form, colour, texture) from data collected through the study of the site context. This approach relocates the subjective hegemony of the designer to different stages of the design process. The designer no longer determines the attributes of a design through direct intervention, but through selection; once at the beginning of the process and once at the end .

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

At the other end of the Parametric debate is Patrik Schumacher, who sees parametricism as a style (Schumacher, 2010), akin to modernism; simultaneously its anti-thesis and logical successor. He points out five agendas for parametricism (Schumacher, 2008); inter-articulation (inter-dependence of sub-systems), responsiveness (to contextual factors), accentuation (prioritising differentiation of sub-systems), figuration (complex geometries) and urbanism (as an end goal). Schumacher (2011) calls for optimal utilization of the power of computational tools. He suggests that while these tools can easily be employed by designers to create modernist or even neo-classical architecture, it is the design of fluid, organic forms like those of the MAXXII centre in Rome (Fig 4) by Zaha Hadid Architects that best utilizes them and elevates them to the status of a style. Schumacher’s definition is less relevant to the design of landscapes

primarily because of its insistence on particular shapes. This reduces parametricism to a formulaic style by associating it with a rigid image. While Woodbury (2010) emphasises dependencies, Schumacher (2010) emphasises rule-based differentiation; the act of making constituent elements of a design (walls, ground surface) deliberately nonuniform.

We are left, then, with two ways of looking at parametricism; as a style characterised by organic forms and bio-morphological jargon, or as an approach characterised by mathematical, relational thinking. In order to place parametricism within the discourse of landscape theory, though, one needs to understand what some of these theories are.

Fig.4 MAXXII Centre, Rome, Zaha Hadid Architects- The archetypical design used to argue for Parametricism as a style within architectural discourse.

1001000110111001000100011

10

the whimsical parameter

4. // tyrannies & significance // the theoretical frameworks of Corner and Treib

11

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

Numerous frameworks have been proposed by landscape theorists, identifying various typologies into which constructed landscapes can be grouped. Broadly, they can be broken down into two main approaches. In the first kind, landscapes are grouped together on the basis of the underlying ideas behind their form and function. James Corner (1991), for instance, describes four main theoretical models underpinning landscape design; the Positivist, the Avant-Garde, the Paradigmatic and the Hermeneutic . In the second kind of approach, the process of design itself is used as a basis for grouping designs into discernable clusters. Christopher Alexander(1964), for example, divides all design processes neatly into the Self-conscious and Unselfconscious .

Positivist approaches are based on a scientific outlook, where substantive theory and procedural theory together generate a design methodology. This basis of positivist approaches lies in the attempt to simultaneously explain phenomena and describe logical design procedures by which those phenomena can be ‘put to work’ (Corner, 1991, p.117) According to Corner (1991), the entire premise of the positivist approach is that we can accurately explain and control natural phenomena. He criticizes the assumption that nature’s essence can be described mathematically. This is an important criticism when analysing parametric approaches, for while they are not necessarily purely positivist, their basic premise is identical. Corner also criticizes the idea of master-plans, pointing out the inevitability that rigid plans will be overtaken by time.

This is a reference to the fact that realizing designs on the ground takes enough time for the conditions on which it was based to change, as well as to the fixed nature of all master-plan proposals, unresponsive to the changes around them. Parametric approaches, as this essay will later discuss, endeavour to overcome both these criticisms.

‘newness’ of form. Corner differentiates between avant-garde ideas and avant-garde forms, observing that avant-garde ideas may lead to traditional or paradigmatic forms. He gives the example of Bernard Tshcumi’s Parc de la Villette (Fig.5), which to him resembles early 20th century constructivist design even though it was considered avant-garde at the time of its inception. He sub-divides avant-garde approaches into those of evolution, where design re-examines the boundaries of the profession, and transgression, where design is the negation of certain ideas. Schumacher (2008) also makes this distinction, observing that styles can contain both positive and negative heuristics. The negative heuristics of Parametricism, he posits, consist of the avoidance of familiar typologies, platonic solids and repetition.

Its positive heuristics are the desire to ‘inter-articulate, hybridize, morph, de-territorialize’ (Schumacher, 2008). Seen in this way, it is easy to accept Parametricism as avant-garde in both conception and form, with both evolutionary and transgressive tendencies. This way of looking at Parametricism is the basis of Schumacher’s case for considering it a style. Is it not possible, then, for Parametricism to produce paradigmatic, modernist forms? By articulating the negative heuristics of Parametricism as intrinsically anti-modernist, Schumacher (2008) makes the question itself seem redundant. His argument essentially seems to imply that parametricism cannot generate modernist form because then, by definition, it is not parametricism.

Paradigmatic approaches seek out successful models of design and replicate them.

These models could be ecological, historical or based on any ideology the designer considers an archetype. What is common to these models is that they are static by definition, advocating a single ideology for design regardless of site or situation. In their widest sense, paradigmatic approaches include Positivism and Parametricism, for these too advocate a particular methodology for all sites and situations. Typically though, paradigms are better understood as styles; modernism, post-modernism, constructivism, de-constructivism. Each has a geometric vocabulary which manifests itself in the eventual form a design takes; clean, straight lines in modernism, disjointed shapes in deconstructivism. Similarly Parametricism, if considered a style, also falls in the category of being a paradigmatic approach, albeit with a positivist premise. This is the approach taken by Schumacher (2011) , who sees Parametricism as a universal style of design, characterised by splines, blobs and nurbs instead of platonic solids and ‘fields’ instead of spaces . Parametrically designed forms are, therefore, the ‘not-modern’.

Fig.5 Parc de la Villette, Paris, Bernard TschumiAvant Garde approach, Constructivist design?

Avant-garde approaches reject mimesis and concentrate on creating a discernable

1001000110111001000100011

12

the whimsical parameter

Hermeneutics relies on the creative use of metaphor and rhetoric to allow the landscape to be read as a text. It does not concern itself with whether the picture being painted is accurate but whether it is evocative and meaningful. While it may seem that this definition automatically excludes parametric approaches due to their positivist premise, this is not necessarily the case. One of Parametricism’s defining characteristics, relation (the formal inter-dependency of its constituent elements) is only possible if data is weighed. And data, according to Corner (1991), is always value-impregnated . The selection of data and how to weigh it in order to create meaningful parametric relations can be an act of interpretation.

The idea of the avant-garde is closely related to the idea of the Zeitgeist- the ‘spirit of the times’, which is one of the categories Marc Treib (1995) describes in his taxonomy of landscape theories . Often it is the spirit of the times that guides avant-garde landscape design. De-constructivism, post-modernism and even modernism are all theories that entered the world of architecture from without.

Parametricism (or algorithmic thinking) is well-established in a number of fields such as economics, computer programming and engineering. It is, in that sense, the spirit of the times and an intrinsic part of post-fordist society with its inherent complexity and reliance on networks (Schumacher, 2009). Treib also uses the example of Tschumi’s Parc De La Villette, suggesting that it attempts to evoke the spirit of the times by using ideas borrowed from cinema and post-structural theories.

The other approaches articulated by Treib (1995) are the didactic, the neo-archaic, the vernacular and the genius-loci. Treib’s categorization is based on observation of landscape form and intent. Didactic design evokes the processes that created the design, such as Hargreaves Associates’ design for Guadalupe River Park (Fig.6), whose landforms suggest that they were formed by fluvial processes. NeoArchaic design references past practices, such as the design of spiral mounds to evoke Neolithic burial practices. Vernacular designs attempt to imitate rural designs whose conventions are established by traditional construction practices.

And, lastly, designs which try to evoke the Genius Loci do so by revealing what in their opinion is the characteristic feature of a site, formally or metaphorically.

What is interesting to note here is that Corner and Treib’s categorizations subsume one another. Treib’s (1995) catalogue of approaches can all be considered hermeneutic since each seeks to interpret the landscape, while Corner’s (1991)catalogue of approaches can be considered entirely didactic. The formal manifestation of each of his approaches is inherently instructive of the design philosophy that created it. Positivist approaches lead to landscapes that are “mathematically efficient…while the poetries of space have been blindly erased” (Corner, 1991, p. 118) Paradigmatic approaches take the shape of whichever ideology they propagate,

13

Fig.6 Guadalupe River Park, Hargreaves Associates- fluvial landforms attempt to reflect river processes

such as the dogmatic use of classical architecture by historicist Leon Krier. Avantgarde approaches tend to employ the geometric syntax of their source material, a case in point being de-constructivism’s use of fragmentation and asymmetry.

Where within these theoretical cosmologies does Parametricism belong? While it is clearly based on a positivist premise, it cannot be classified as a positivist approach because, unlike modernist planning, it prioritises creative use of mathematics. It accepts that all observed data is value impregnated and uses this fact to its advantage by allowing data to generate forms. Neither can it be classified as a paradigmatic approach and clubbed with historicism and post-modernism, for it does not look for universal solutions. Instead, it looks for a universal approach that can provide localized, site specific solutions. It can also not be considered an avant-garde approach, for it has a clear historical basis and a number of practitioners have employed parametric approaches without employing the geometries associated with Parametricism today.

On the other hand, Parametricism can be slotted into many of the categories proposed

by Treib. Because it does not seek to signify any philosophical outlook or world view in particular, parametric designs can be didactic, vernacular or neo-archaic. They can even possibly refer to the Genius Loci of a site, albeit only by somehow converting it into a mathematical parameter. This is possible mainly because parameters selected by the designer can be of any nature; geometric, numeric, systemic, temporal. This is further demonstrated by the existence of parametric approaches in the pre-computer era.

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

5. // parametric foresight // Alexander and Halprin’s “parametric”approach

1001000110111001000100011

14

the whimsical parameter

Parametric approaches to landscape design have existed since long before the term itself was coined. Lawrence Halprin’s RSVP cycles (resources, scores, valuaction, performance) in particular, exemplify computation-without-computers. Like Woodbury (2010), Halprin states that ‘the purpose of the RSVP cycles is to make the creative process visible’ (Halprin, 1969, p. 4). Words like ‘generative’ and ‘emergent’, so in vogue now within the discourse of Parametricism, can be found in his 1969 text . Halprin bases his cycle (Fig.7) on Jung’s Compass of the Psyche. Resources refer to all human and physical assets available to the designer. Scores are the description of the design, like sheet music is a description of a symphony, often mistaken for the design itself.

Valuaction is the conscious act of analysing scores involving judgment and re-evaluation; a process within a process. Performance is the resultant outcome of the scores and valuaction. In landscape architecture it is the actual act of construction on site.

He demonstrates his approach through the design of a village in India, exhaustively listing all the factors that affect its design, expressing them with abstract symbolism and then ‘solving’ problems in the abstract before attempting to turn them into ground reality (Fig 9). Alexander’s abstractions are not conventional orthographic projections but a personal language of signs and symbols which, importantly, stay consistent throughout the design process. Design solutions are generated as an advanced, formal abstraction independent of styles or theories of architecture(Fig.10).

He lists 141 parameters (1964, pp. 137-142) while at the same time maintaining that it is impossible for a designer to take cognizance of all factors affecting a design. A similar admission is made by Halprin (1969) who says that when listing resources, one should try and include every inventory item one can think of. Nowhere is the claim made by either person that their list of parameters is exhaustive.

Fig.7 The RSVP Cycle, Lawrence HalprinThe design process can begin at any point on the circle and progress in any direction,RSP, SVP,VSP,RVP etc

Fig.8 Design Criteria- A Design Problem as a diagram of Forces, Christopher, Alexander,

There is an obvious parallel here to parametric approaches and their discourse. In both approaches there is an emphasis on the values one attaches to data. The stages S and V of the cycle are analogous to “patterns” and “constraints” in parametric design.

Halprin (1969, p.7) might as well have been explaining parametricism when he says; ‘A score is a system of symbols which can convey, or guide, or control the interactions between elements such as space, time, rhythm and sequences, people and their activities and the combinations which result from them.’

Another example of a parametric approach is the abstract diagramming of Christopher Alexander (1964), who proposes that all design processes can be broken down into two categories; self-conscious and unselfconscious , and that all design is simply a search for ‘good fit’ between form and context. He is critical of intuitive design, claiming that it is unnecessarily fetishized. The synthetic understanding of the world designers need can be achieved, according to him, through a synthetic, abstraction-based approach. He considers forms to be diagrams of forces (Fig 8).

15

Fig.9 Design Process for a South Indian VIllage, Christopher Alexander- All design problems are solved through abstract diagramming

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

Fig.9 Design Solution for a South Indian VIllage, Christopher Alexander- Final Design solution that fulfills all 141 criteria

The same is true today of the parameters that are used to generate forms in computational design; there is an element of arbitrariness in criteria selection that cannot be rationalized by mathematics. This is the first degree of intuition or whim that finds its way into the parametric design process. Halprin (1969) and Alexander (1964) accept that the context (the world) is ultimately indescribable. This is critically important when analysing Parametric approaches, which are founded upon the belief that constraining forms mathematically somehow enriches the design because the data is derived from the ‘real’ world. The second degree of whim is apparent when the final form is being selected. Both their processes are designed to generate a number of options from which the designer picks a final solution. The same is true for parametric approaches, though it must be noted that the creation of options is a much more immediate act in the latter due to the power of computation today. These design options are what Woodbury (2010) referred to as design futures.

All parametric designs have intuition built into them regardless of how rigorous their mathematical basis or how extensive the set of options they generate. Ultimately, the decision of which parameter should be valued and which design future is to be performed, to borrow Halprin’s phrase, comes down to intuition, either mathematical or visual. Parametric approaches are, therefore, inherently intuitive with a positivist basis, have existed before and without modern computational power , do not constitute a coherent style and can be placed in multiple categories of landscape theory. Parametricism is a multiplicity, not a singularity like the one proposed by Schumacher (2009). In order to comprehend this multiplicity it is necessary to further break it down into simpler, clearly identifiable sub-types.

1001000110111001000100011

16

the whimsical parameter

6. // grounding parametricism // how parameters shape the landscape

17

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

The use of parametric approaches in landscape design has altered the way landscapes are being shaped. Whether this shaping is the result of the process itself or whether it is simply the application of negative heuristics, as per Schumacher (2010) , can be understood by studying its manifestations. Hansen (2012) proposes four ways in which parametric techniques are used to generate landscapes ; faceting, mimesis, recursive patterning and topology. These are all geometric concepts that parametric software enables.

Faceting, the act of simplifying complex geometry into angular approximations, can be calibrated via parametric software. Typically this results in triangulation, the reduction of all shapes into constituent triangles. An example is La Gavia Park (Figure 11) by Foreign Office Architects, which treats the site surface as malleable and creates a new, artificial landscape (Zaera-Polo, Moussavi, 2003) through topographical folding, or faceting. On site, this faceting is realized by shifting large volumes of earth to achieve the desired physical formation. The triangulation here is visually subtle but the technology used has clearly left its mark on the final outcome.

Fig.12 Gardens By the Bay , Grant Associates - Mechanical “Super-Trees” mimic trees in form as well as performance

its inspiration from natural forms such as black holes and fractals. Parametric mimetic designs, though, additionally incorporate a performative component, as is evident in the Gardens by the Bay project by Grant Associates in Singapore (Fig 12), where “super-trees” collect and pump water, absorb and disperse heat and at the same time also generate electricity via the photovoltaic cells they house.

Recursive Patterning and Topology are the most obvious utilization of the power of parametric software. In the former, patterns are applied onto a landscape quite literally while in the latter, the goal is to achieve a seamless ground surface where the lines between building and landscape are blurred .While precedents for both can be found in the pre-computation era, both of these techniques are made significantly easier due to the speed afforded by parametric software.

Fig.11 La Gavia Park, Madrid, Foreign Office Architects - parametric software as form giver

Mimesis refers to designs that replicate morphologies found in nature with the assumption that this will also result in a replication of performance. Mimetic design typically results in organic shapes scaled up to a degree that makes the design easy to comprehend and also construct, for the difficult intricacy of these natural forms is lost with the scale. Mimesis can, of course, be a purely rhetorical device, as in the case of Charles Jencks’ Garden of Cosmic Speculation, which draws

However, the limitation of this kind of categorization is that it reduces the role of computational software to one of a mere enabler; a technological replacement for human hand-eye co-ordination. It also sees landscape architecture as an exercise in mere form-finding; a goal oriented endeavour obsessed with shapes and morphologies. The real impact of computational software is actually felt in the approaches it allows. Parametric software, by implanting parameters between the designer and the design, allow landscape architects to investigate the nature of design itself. Which brings us back to the question: what is the logical basis, if any, of the parameters that generate landscapes in computational design?

1001000110111001000100011

18

the whimsical parameter

On conducting a survey of contemporary landscapes generated via parametric approaches, a four-fold classification can be created on the basis of parameters selected; Geo-morphological, Spatio-temporal, Socio-Ornamental and Eco-systemic. These categories can be considered ‘styles’ within the larger umbrella of parametricism.

In the tables that follow, each sub-style is plotted against established landscape theories to understand its characteristics. Theories the sub-style is clearly based upon or reflects in its implementation are rendered darker while others it may reflect are rendered light and those which are unrelated are left uncolored.

Geo-morphological parameters (Table 1) are geometric attributes (shape, size, curvature) of natural morphologies. These can be used to create an overall design, as is the case in Grant Associates’ Gardens by the Bay which takes the form of an orchid, or to create elements within a design. Hargreaves Associates’ Guadalupe River Park exemplifies this with its flood control landforms inspired by fluvial processes (Fig 5). Geo-morphological parameters tend to be didactic, in that they inform the user of the workings of a natural process. This is most clearly demonstrated in the proposal for Governor’s Park, New York. (Fig 13) by JCFO. Molluscs are re-interpreted as landforms and their biological ability to filter-feed is mimicked to create flood

Table 1 Geo-Morphological Parameters (Author)

Fig.13 Governor’s Park Proposal,New York, JCFO - natural shape used as a performative parameter

19

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

Fig.14 Fresh Kills Park, Staten Island, JCFO - ecological interaction as a performative , shape-giving parameter

water control systems. Geo-morphological parameters also tend to be hermeneutic, in that they are impossible to create without an interpretative ‘reading’ of a site.

Eco-systemic parameters (Table 2) are similar to geo-morphological parameters insofar as they are based on interpretations of nature. However, they do not depend upon formal re-interpretation but on the approximation of natural performance.

Performative parameters may include vegetation types, ecological inter-dependencies, erosion rates and other such numerically verifiable data. Fresh Kills Park in Staten Island (Fig 14) by JCFO imagines a landfill site transforming over time as a result of complex ecological interactions between plants and animals. The landscape is not designed but ‘activated’ by setting performance parameters instead of articulating shapes. It is ultimately left to plants, birds, squirrels and other animals to act upon the landscape and shape it. These are complex relationships which even computation cannot mimic, and yet the design is parametric as it structures the site and limits possible future outcomes simply by valuing certain criteria (ecological diversity, public education) over others. These parameters too tend to be didactic and hermeneutic, but are most certainly also a part of the zeitgeist today.

Table 2 Eco-Systemic Parameters (Author)

1001000110111001000100011

20

the whimsical parameter

Spatio-temporal parameters (Table 3) are perhaps the most positivist of all. They are dynamic and regard design proposals to be fluid, animate realities rather than fixed schemes. The rationale for these parameters is that as time progresses and field conditions (social, economic, environmental) alter, a landscape should respond spatially.

These parameters are usually concepts such as FAR, population density, building height etc. The Longgang City proposal by Castro et al (2008), instead of offering a fixed master-plan vision for the city, provides a series of spatial eventualities. The matrix (Fig. 15) maps the different possibilities of city growth that would result from the adoption of different building typologies. Spatio-temporal parameters leave little room for interpretation as they rely heavily on data to generate morphology, which is a reinforcement of the positivist assumption that the world can be described mathematically.

Lastly, socio-ornamental parameters (Table 4) are derived from social practice or abstraction of socio-cultural artefacts and are implemented on landscape elements (ground or enclosure) in response to site conditions. This is the only type of parameter that comes close to the world of art and deals head on with issues of aesthetics. At the same time, it can also respond to site conditions, giving it a performative quality. The Seattle Centre Fountain (Fig 16) design by Halprin changes its water effects based on parameters such as the time of day (related to the number of people expected to be the vicinity), wind , water pressure etc.

Table 3 Spatio-Temporal Parameters (Author)

Fig.15 Longgang City Proposal, GroundLab-the antimasterplan

21

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

Designed using Halprin’s RSVP methodology, the fountain allows the selected parameters to determine the performance of the fountain. Didactic to the extent that it attempts to mimic the behavior of waterfalls, it is nonetheless free of positivist allusions as it does not prioritize morphology or systems over desired effect.

These four sub-styles attempt to encompass the spectrum of parametric design strategies being used within the profession of landscape architectrue today i.e. each landscape that has been conceived using parametric software can be put identified as belonging to one or more of these categories.

Table 4 Socio-Ornamental Parameters (Author)

Fig.16 Overhoff-Halprin Fountain, Seattle, Lawrence Halprin - time based parametrics to generate form

1001000110111001000100011

22

the whimsical parameter

7. // conclusion // towards aesthetic parameters

23

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

While Parametricism is implicit in the landscape design process, software makes this parametricism explicit, allowing landscape designs to be more didactic. This desire for explicit parametricism in not novel, with clear precedent available in the work of Christopher Alexander and Lawrence Halprin, who attempted computational approaches before computers became ubiquitous. Parametricism itself is neither a style nor a process; it is an acceptance of the fact that the real world exerts verifiable pressures on design proposals which can be incorporated into the design itself. Whether this incorporation takes place at the conceptual level or at the level of formal implementation depends on the type of parameters employed. Eventually, four kinds of parameters are employed in parametric landscape architecture; Geo-morphological, Spatio-temporal, Socio-ornamental and Eco-systemic. Each of these sub-types exhibit traits of design approaches already well-established within landscape discourse, and constitute a multiplicity rather than a singularity. However, Parametricism on the whole has found it difficult to escape the mechanistic tendencies of positivism and engage with the abstract. Historical references, prototypes and archetypes, crucial in the development of landscape architecture as a profession (Thompson, Aspinall, 1992) , play little role in the selection or utilisation of parameters. Incorporating these may add much needed complexity which is missing from contemporary parametricism, which is currently still attempting to reconcile the desire to utilize computational power optimally with the necessity of creating meaningful landscapes. The selection of parameters ultimately has little theoretical basis, with designers choosing to fall back on positivist or ecological arguments to justify their selection. This has turned the selection of parameters into an anything-goes activity, meaning that landscapes created by this process are perhaps as intuitive as landscapes created by more traditional approaches

Jaideep Warya Research Essay Landscape Contextual Studies MLA II- 2014 Words: 4875

Not Including Citations and References

1001000110111001000100011

24

the whimsical parameter

Alexander, C. ,1964, Design Criteria [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.colloquiumcreation. com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/3061746490_c44475a87b.jpg [Accessed 16 November 13].

Alexander, C. 1964, Design Process for a South Indian VIllage [ONLINE]. Available at: http:// predmet.fa.uni-lj.si/siwinds/s2/u4/su4/S2_U4_su4_p4_4.htm [Accessed 16 November 13].

Alexander, C. ,1964, Design Solution for a South Indian Village [ONLINE]. Available at:http:// predmet.fa.uni-lj.si/siwinds/s2/u4/su4/S2_U4_su4_p4_4.htm [Accessed 16 November 13].

8.

Alexander, C., 1964, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press AnS Studio, 2011, Sony Forest Project [ONLINE].

Available at: http://www.ans-studio.com/projects/ [Accessed 19 December 13].

// references //

AnS Studio, 2011, Sony Forest Project- Seed Scattering Options [ONLINE].

Available at: http://www.ans-studio.com/projects/ [Accessed 19 December 13].

Bernard Tschumi Architects, (1982-1998), Parc de la Villette [ONLINE].

Available at: http://www.tschumi.com/projects/3/ [Accessed 29 December 13].

Corner, J., 1991, A Discourse on Theory II: Three Tyrannies of Contemporary Theory and the Alternative of Hermeneutics, Landscape Journal [e-journal] Volume 10 (2), pp. 115-133, Available through: University of Wisconsin Press via University of Edinburgh Library website, http:// lj.uwpress.org.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/content/10/2/115.full.pdf+html [ Accessed 22 October 2013] Flexdream, (1964), Garden of Cosmic Speculation [ONLINE]. Available at: http://gardendrum. com/2013/04/17/the-garden-of-cosmic-speculation/, [Accessed 18 December 13] Foreign Office Architects, (2003), La Gavia Park [ONLINE]. Available at: http://isites.harvard. edu/fs/docs/icb.topic939539.files/Week%202/110907_GSD_2241_Week%202_Lecture_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 20 December 13].

GroundLAB Landscape Urbanism, (2008), Longgang City Proposal [ONLINE]. Available at: http://groundlab.org/portfolio/groundlab-project-deep-ground-longgang-china/ [Accessed 17 November 13].

Hansen, A., 2011, From Hand to Land: Tracing Procedural Artifacts in the Built Landscape, [online article], Available at: www.landscapeurbanism.com, < http://landscapeurbanism.com/article/digital-relics/> [Accessed 2 November 2013] Hargreaves Associates, Guadalupe River Park [ONLINE]. Available at: http://landscapeurbanism.com/article/digital-relics/ [Accessed 02 November 13].

25

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

Halprin, L., 1969, The Overhoff -Halprin Fountain[Scanned Image], p.56, The RSVP Cycles: Creative Processes in the Human Environment New York, George Braziller,Inc. Halprin, L., 1969, The RSVP Cycles: Creative Processes in the Human Environment, New York, George Braziller,Inc. Halprin, L. , 1969, The RSVP Cycles [online]. Available at: http://nomountaincollege. org/2013/10/08/rsvp-cycles-and-nmc/ [Accessed 16 November 13].

James Corner Field Operations, 2008, Governor’s Park Proposal [online]. Available at: http:// www.wilkinsoneyre.com/projects/governors-island-competition.aspx?category=masterplanning [Accessed 07 December 13].

James Corner Field Operations, 2006, Fresh Kills Park [online]. Available at: http://indalandscape2011.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/fresh-kills-park-case-study.html [Accessed 01 December 13].

Madkour, Y., Neumann, O., Erhan, H., 2011, Programmatic Formation: Practical Applications of Parametric Design, International Journal of Architectural Computing [e-journal] Volume 7 Issue 4, pp. 587-603, Available through: Metapress via University of Edinburgh Library website, < http://www.metapress.com.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/content/wr81hh6685k333t2/fulltext.pdf> [Accessed 14 October 2013] Schnabel, M.A. and Karakiewicz, J., 2007, Rethinking Parameters in Urban Design, International Journal of Architectural Computing [e-journal] Volume 5 Issue 1, pp. 84-98, Available through: Metapress via University of Edinburgh Library website, < http://www.metapress.com.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/content/u021l05521606123/fulltext.pdf> [Accessed 14 October 2013]

Takenaka, T. and Okabe, Aya., 2011, Development of the Seed Scattering System for Computational Landscape Design, International Journal of Architectural Computing [e-journal] Volume 9 Issue 4, pp. 421-436, Available through: Metapress via University of Edinburgh Library website, http://www.metapress.com.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/content/033l35g11l752m56/fulltext.pdf [Accessed 14 October 2013] Thompson, C.W. and Aspinall, P., 1996, Making the Past Present in the Future: The Design Process as Applied History, Landscape Journal [e-journal] Volume 15 (1), p p. 36-47, Available through: University of Wisconsin Press via University of Edinburgh Library website, <http:// lj.uwpress.org.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/content/15/1/36.full.pdf+html> [Accessed 05 November 2013] Treib, M., 1995, Must Landscapes Mean?: Approaches to Significance in Recent Landscape Architecture, Landscape Journal [e-journal] Volume 14 (1), pp. 47-62, Available through: University of Wisconsin Press via University of Edinburgh Library website, http://lj.uwpress.org. ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/content/14/1/46.full.pdf+html [Accessed, 27 October 2013] Woodbury, R., 2010, Elements of Parametric Design, New York, Routledge Zaera-Polo, A. and Moussavi, F., 2003, Phylogenesis: foa’s ark, Barcelona, Actar Zaha Hadid Architects, 1998-2009, MAXXII Centre, Rome [ONLINE].

Available at: http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/maxxi/ [Accessed 25 December 13].

Schumacher, P., 2008, Parametricism as Style- Parametric Manifesto, [online article], Available at: www.patrikschumacher.com,<http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Parametricism%20as%20Style.htm>, [Accessed 19 November 2013] Schumacher, P., 2009, Parametricism- A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design, Architectural Design- Digital Cities, Volume 79, No. 4, July/August Schumacher, P., 2010, The Parametricist Epoch- Let the Style Wars Begin, The Architects’ Journal , Volume 231, Issue 16, pp. 41-45 Schumacher, P., 2011, Parametricism and the Autopoiesis of Architecture, [online article], Available at:www.patrikschumacher.com,<http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Parametricism%20and%20the%20Autopoiesis%20of%20Architecture.html> [Accessed 19 November 2013]

1001000110111001000100011

26

the whimsical parameter

9. // select bibliography //

27

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

Books Autopoiesis of Architecture by Patrik Schumacher, 2011 Elements of Parametric Design by Robert Woodbury, 2010 Notes on the Synthesis of Form by Christopher Alexander, 1964 Phylogenesis-foaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ark, Foreign Office Architects, 2003 The New Mathematics of Architecture by Jane Burry & Mark Burry The RSVP Cycles by Lawrence Halprin, 1969

Articles A Discourse on Theory I: Sounding the Depths, by James Corner, 1991 A Discourse on Theory II: Three Tyrannies of Contemporary Theory and the Alternative of Hermeneutics, by James Corner, 1991 Between Hermeneutics & Datascapes, by Richard Weller, 2001 Must Landscapes Mean?: Approaches to Significance in Recent Landscape Architecture, by Marc Treib, 1995 From Hand to Land: Tracing Procedural Artifacts in the Built Landscape, by Andrea Hansen, 2011

1001000110111001000100011

28

the whimsical parameter

10. // glossary of terms //

29

0011000110011001000110001

landscape contextual studies

Whimsical – playfully quaint or fanciful, especially in an appealing and amusing way adjective Parameter – a numerical or other measurable factor forming one of a set that defines a system or sets the conditions of its operation. or a limit or boundary which defines the scope of a particular process or activity Algorithm – a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer. noun Computation– the action of mathematical calculation.. noun Zeitgeist – the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time noun Topology– the study of geometrical properties and spatial relations unaffected by the continuous change of shape or size of figures Or the way in which constituent parts are interrelated or arranged.

Hermeneutics– the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of literary texts. noun Paradigm – a typical example or pattern of something; a pattern or model. noun Positivism– a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof. noun Mimesis – imitative representation of the real world in art and literature noun

1001000110111001000100011

30

Cover Image, By Author : Parametric Post-Modernist Deconstructive Landscape? (Based on e-book 24 Historic Styles of Garden Design by Tom Turner, available at www.gardenvisit.com) Back Cover, By Author: A Parametric Word Cloud