Landscape Journal - Autumn 2012

landscapeinstitute.org

Autumn 2012

The Journal of the Landscape Institute

This issue: Beyond London 2012, Masterplanning for Rio in 2016 Landscape Institute Awards

A celebration of this year’s winning schemes

All about the Olympics

Design, technology and new ways of working

High Line for London

Mushroom farms to swimming routes — imaginative approaches to green infrastructure

2 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Regulars 6 Quick look The landscape of Petrochemical America Landscape is the official journal of the Landscape Institute

9 Debate Should landscape architects be activists? Leading figures discuss the question

ISSN: 1742–2914 © November 2012 Landscape Institute Landscape is published four times a year by Darkhorse

15 News analysis The All London Green Grid will give London a coherent approach to green infrastructure

Editorial Darkhorse Design and Advertising Ltd 42 Hamilton Square, Birkenhead Wirral, Merseyside. CH41 5BP T 0151 649 9669 www.darkhorsedesign.co.uk Editor Ruth Slavid landscape@darkhorsedesign.co.uk

P.19

Managing director, Darkhorse Tim Coleman tim@darkhorsedesign.co.uk Design director Richard Sargent Production director Clare Moseley

Ian Thompson CMLI Jill White CMLI Eleanor Atkinson Amanda McDermott

70 Interview John Hopkins discusses the Olympic Park and the global garden

Landscape Institute president Sue Illman PLI

74 A word...

Tim Waterman on the hippocampus

LI director of policy and communications Paul Lincoln Membership enquiries Charles Darwin House 12 Roger Street London WC1N 2JU T 020 7685 2651 Twitter @talklandscape www.landscapeinstitute.org

P.27

Landscape is printed on FSC paper from a sustainable and well managed source, using environmentally friendly vegetable oil based ink.

COVER IMAGE: AECOM’S MASTERPLAN DESIGN FOR THE 2016 RIO OLYMPICS

64 Technical Innovation with water at the Olympic Park 67 Technical Treating and creating soil for the Olympics

Senior artworker Jon Allinson Editorial advisory panel Tim Waterman, honorary editor Merrick Denton-Thompson CMLI Edwin Knighton CMLI Jo Watkins PPLI Jenifer White CMLI John Stuart Murray FLI

61 Practice The new role of the landscape engineer

19 High Line competition Winners and shortlisted projects from a competition to design a High Line for London

The views expressed in this journal are those of the contributors and advertisers and not necessarily those of the Landscape Institute, Darkhorse or the Editorial Advisory Panel.

For details of how to advertise in Landscape, visit: www.landscapeinstitute.org/contact

27 Landscape Institute awards

A special supplement showing all the winning and highly commended schemes

Join the Landscape Institute Join the Landscape Institute and enjoy the benefits of an organisation devoted to the promotion of landscape architecture. Benefits include Landscape, our quarterly journal, and a fortnightly email news service with the latest Institute, professional and industry news, as well as the best jobs in the profession. Full details are on our website: www.landscapeinstitute.org Subscribe to Landscape Keep up to date with the latest thinking and the most interesting schemes in the UK and overseas.

For an annual subscription to the quarterly journal, visit: www.landscapeinstitute.org/publications

Features

52 Remaking cities Robert Townshend discusses Brindleyplace and King’s Cross 54 Olympic review

A look at what makes the Olympic Park so special

P.72

72 Looking forward

Olympic masterplanning from London to Rio AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 3

4 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Editorial Beyond the capital

Below: Honorary editor Tim Waterman with the new team from Darkhorse. Left to right: Tim Waterman, Ruth Slavid, Tim Coleman and Clare Moseley.

BY RUTH SLAVID EDITOR

PHOTOGRAPHY: AGNESE SANVITO

L

et me start this piece with a

confession. I am a Londoner, born

and bred. I love my city, where

I have lived almost all my life, and

I intend to continue doing so.

My name is Ruth Slavid and I am a Londoner.

If this sounds slightly apologetic it is because this issue of Landscape has a, largely unintentional, bias toward the capital.

With the Olympics over and the silly bans on publicity evaporating, now is the time to celebrate the achievements of the Olympic Park, the creation of a piece of landscapeled infrastructure the like of which we are unlikely to see again for some time. We have examined it from the point of view of the design, the technology used and the people involved. And as if that were not enough, it has also deservedly won the President’s Award in the LI awards, so it has a starring role in our awards supplement as well.

The focus on London does not end there.

We publish all the shortlisted schemes in the High Line for London competition, the winner of which was announced at a highly successful seminar on green infrastructure, held at the Garden Museum in — where else? — London. In addition, in this issue, Jamie Dean of Design for London explains the thinking behind the All London Green Grid. And even Robert Townshend, interviewed because he gave this year’s Jellicoe Lecture last month (in Birmingham, please note), discusses two projects, one of which is King’s Cross, London.

This should not be the basis for an apology, since all these projects are furthering the cause of intelligent landscape design and of the engagement of landscape professionals in the future shape of our infrastructure. They all have lessons to teach that extend way beyond London.

But still. London is noisy and attention seeking, and there is a not-unreasonable assumption by those who do not live there that it considers itself to be the only place that matters. This is the first issue of Landscape that I have edited — a role that I am delighted to have — and it is all about my home city. Is this the state of things to come?

Most certainly not. The intention for the journal is that it will continue to cover the

best thinking and design, wherever they come from. And I may be a Londoner but much of the work in producing this issue has been done in Wirral, the home of Darkhorse Design, the company that is now publishing and designing Landscape. Its office in Hamilton Square is in a stunning urban setting which, I have to admit, rivals anything London can offer.

So this is definitely not a London-centric operation, and we will be looking for inspiration wherever we can find it.

If you would like to help in that process, please email me at landscape@ darkhorsedesign.co.uk. It would be a great pleasure to hear from you — wherever you live.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 5

PHOTOGRAPHY: © RICHARD MISRACH, COURTESY OF PACE/MACGILL GALLERY, NEW YORK; FRAENKEL GALLERY, SAN FRANCISCO; AND MARC SELWYN GALLERY, LOS ANGELES

Quick look

Petrochemical America

6 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Below – left: Sugar Cane and Refinery, Mississippi River Corridor, Louisiana,1998, from Petrochemical America (Aperture 2012). Below – right, top: Trailer Home and Natural Gas Tanks, Good Hope Street, Norco, Louisiana, 1998, from Petrochemical America, photographs by Richard Misrach, Ecological Atlas

by Kate Orff (Aperture 2012). Below – right, bottom: Hazardous Waste Containment Site, Dow Chemical Corporation, Mississippi River, Plaquemine, Louisiana, 1998, from Petrochemical America, photographs

by Richard Misrach, Ecological Atlas by Kate Orff (Aperture 2012).

P

etrochemical America, written

by Kate Orff with photographs

by Richard Misrach, is an

investigation of the landscape of

‘Cancer Alley’, a 150-mile-long strip of land alongside the Mississippi River that is home to much of the US’s heavy industry. Orff has created overlays for the photos which show history, plans and the context of industrial processes or lost biodiversity. She calls the process ‘unpacking’ and has said in an interview that it is ‘something that I had been independently exploring on several levels in the office — how to reveal complexity of environmental systems and stories embedded in the landscape’. The book analyses the way that petrochemicals have permeated every aspect of life in contemporary America. Orff explained that with landscapes that have been polluted to this extent, individual efforts at cleaning up particular sites will have a limited impact. ‘ So rather than focus on design concepts for individual places,’ she said, ‘ we set our sights on analysing the networks and systems of culture and production that have formed the landscape of the lower Mississippi corridor over the last fifty to sixty years.’ The book combines this research and discussion with the strangely haunting beauty of one of the most toxic landscapes in the developed world.

The book is published by Aperture www.aperture.org and costs £50.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 7

8 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Debate Should landscape architects be activists?

Work is in short supply, funding is tight and environmental issues are ever more pressing. What should landscape professionals, or any construction professionals do in these circumstances? Sit tight and get on with any work that comes their way? Or go out and try to reshape the world — or at least a part of the world — in the form that they believe is appropriate? Should they be activists? This is the question that we posed to four key members of the landscape profession, and also to the president of the RIBA.

PHOTOGRAPHY: ROBERT TAYLOR (ALL EXCEPT ANGELA BRADY IMAGE)

SUE ILLMAN

President of the Landscape Institute

I

was inspired years ago by the stance that Merrick Denton-Thompson, then chief landscape architect for Hampshire County Council (and now an eminently respectable member of Advisory Council), took over the proposals that would destroy Twyford Down to create a new bypass around Winchester. Not many risk their career to start a High Court action

against the Department of Transport in opposition to their employer. Did it effect change? No, in that the proposals went ahead, but yes, in that the whole affair was a public-relations disaster for the government, and it learned that it should never try and force a controversial decision against such vociferous opposition again (who remembers Swampy?).

However time moves on, but the lesson has recently been relearned, albeit rather more peacefully but no less forcibly over the proposed sale of English forests, and this time the public won.

So where could activism take us?

What might it achieve? These are difficult questions to answer and require a good cause that will engage not just with government, but more importantly with the public from the grass roots level upwards.

Is the promotion of our profession, and our desire to deliver sustainable, liveable spaces enough? Unfortunately, I don’t think so within the current political climate. So what can we do?

In the first instance, I believe that we must ally our arguments for good design, better places, and a better quality of life for people with the current obligations of government. Previous governments have signed up to a range of European and international agreements that require them to deliver significant improvements to the environment. We are now approaching a point when radical action is required on water quality, carbon emissions and a range of other environmental indicators if we are

to meet our targets. The campaign flag of being ‘the greenest government ever’ is becoming increasingly tattered when hesitantly waved in the relentless battle of promoting economic growth. Its own White Paper on the Natural Environment promoted the economic benefits of the ‘green economy’, but the government doesn’t appear to believe it own words.

Quite what ‘sustainability’ now means in the eyes of the government is an interesting question to ask. So ask it we must.

Secondly, most local authorities now have policies within their regional or local plans that promote the European Landscape Convention, sustainability and

QUITE WHAT SUSTAINABILITY NOW MEANS IN THE EYES OF THE GOVERNMENT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION TO ASK.

green infrastructure. Local officers and more particularly members must not be afraid to use those policies to promote and support good local decision-making.

Thirdly, we must engage much more widely with the public to show how their best interests are served by improvements to their own local environment. Finding /...

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 9

the right issue or approach that will engage the public’s concern is challenging, and often occurs only when disaster happens.

Hosepipe bans and flooding were a small starting point this summer, particularly when they happened together, with the public suitably confused by the apparent contradiction.

There is a need for revolution within the profession, as just doing what we do, and hoping people realise its value, isn’t good enough. We have to believe in what we do, and be prepared to stand up, and shout about it, articulately, effectively and with passion and most importantly in a way that clearly shows how we can solve some of today’s real environmental problems in an economically effective way. We have to be sure of our ground, well versed in policy, abreast of new technologies, and prepared to speak out and lead.

So, is that activism, revolution or just political expediency? Is it possible? Watch this space, as we have no choice but to try.

VAL KIRBY

Landscape and heritage consultant

I

don’t use the term ‘activist’ to describe what I do. So my first reaction on being asked to contribute to this edition, was to think that the label didn’t fit. Then I thought. Am I an activist without knowing it? Do I want to be labelled an activist, and if not, why not?

Of course, I thought, being an activist landscape architect may simply mean being an active landscape architect — doing a good job for the landscape and for clients and employers. I’ve done that for more than 40 years. I’ve worked in landscape conservation and management, lectured, undertaken research, worked as a sole principal and as an employee, advised the UK government and been a volunteer with the Landscape Institute. I’ve been very active and achieved a lot: perhaps I am an activist after all. But on reflection that’s not enough.

10 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

An activist, I think, is someone who does all that, but is also seen and heard: not just that, she is listened to, understood, and can change the way people have previously thought about the landscape — a single site or the whole country; a design, a plan, a policy or a piece of research. Writing that makes me wonder why the label ‘activist’ bothers me? Because it sounds brilliant.

I think it is because I’ve associated activism with being strident, argumentative, even a bit of a bully. An activist is someone who will stand up and be counted, take part in street protests, even man the barricades.

I don’t do that.

I’VE BEEN VERY ACTIVE AND ACHIEVED A LOT. PERHAPS I AM AN ACTIVIST AFTER ALL

My way through this puzzle has two sources. The first is a reflection on bits of my career, especially my influence on the advice that Natural England has been giving to Defra since late 2006 on how to implement the European Landscape Convention (ELC) in England.

When the UK government, after years of reluctance, ratified the ELC, Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) asked Natural England for advice about what needed to be done. That advice had to be clear and articulate, but definitely not strident. It had to touch a nerve that already existed. The guidance, networks and events that followed would not have happened if bullying tactics had been used.

Two events in 2010, the tenth anniversary of the ELC in action, are excellent examples of what can be achieved through a subtle approach to activism. The UK Landscape Conference in Liverpool that November not only brought together landscape professionals and community groups from across the UK and overseas, but also saw the announcement of the winner of the first UK Landscape Award, Durham Heritage Coast, which went on to be runner up in the ELC Landscape Award early in 2011. The people who made all that happen had to be

activists, but in a subtle, sensitive sense, not a strident one.

The second source of help is a bit of word play, taken from another part of my personal world, as a Quaker. ‘Speaking truth to power’ is a saying that underlines what goes on when people stand up to governments, or big business, or any powerful group that appears to be misusing their power. But ‘speaking truth to power’ can be done in a confrontational way — we’re back in strident, bullying territory, where I am not comfortable. Recently I heard a variant that I greatly prefer: it is ‘seeking truth with power’. It sums up so much. It supports what landscape architects do as activists in a subtle, persuasive way.

We need to engage with power, seeking solutions to problems that are so large they are terrifying — including farming and food, health and wellbeing, energy and environmental sustainability in their widest senses — of course we already are; and long may we continue.

All that is very positive, but a more negative story is emerging. There are signs that the government is rethinking its support for landscapes everywhere. A lack of funds and of qualified and experienced people in the right places in government, is putting the work of recent years at risk.

As I retire from public service, I am suddenly challenged with the prospect of finding ways of seeking truth with power from the outside. I may be forced to adopt a more strident voice. We shall see!

MERRICK DENTONTHOMPSON Independent landscape professional

T

oday the landscape profession

has a particular responsibility

to society to be an effective,

critical friend to the Government,

even though striking the right balance is never easy. It must continue with the excellent collaborative work it is doing, such as transforming the Government’s policy on Green Infrastructure, but it has to

take risks in being an activist on developing new policies on sustainability. We are in a period of evolution and cultural change where we do not have all the answers and professional judgement is as important as having all the facts.

TO SURVIVE WE HAVE TO REPOSITION THE PROFESSION AND WE HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE WAY WE OPERATE

As a profession we sit in a unique position, managing the interface between change, driven by humanity, and natural systems. That interface will become an increasingly volatile place as more and more pressure is put on the world’s ecosystems.

However to survive we have to reposition the profession and we have to make changes to the way we operate.

We are making two fundamental errors in the way we market our services, the first is the prominence we give to ‘good design’ which is fraught with problems of variations in taste and subjectivity. Design is a process not a product and the link with subjectivity immediately banishes us to a ‘nice to have service’ making our services immediately vulnerable in a recession, across both the private and public sectors .

The second failing is the prominence we give to the word Architect because of the common perception of architects by the general public but also because of the narrow scope of influence the word implies.

Whether we like it or not we are all too often locked in to the same box — an esoteric profession building monuments to themselves. We really ought to know how the public perceive us but the probable answer — ‘oh! They do the gardens don’t they? ’— would make most of us cringe.

As damaging is the perception that as Landscape Architects we are confined to working around buildings and follow the architect.

There is evidence of a deteriorating image of the profession in a recent survey by the Landscape Institute into the state of employment of the landscape profession in

the public sector. The survey recorded the loss of 22% of all posts nationally, over the last four years. But this is only half the story because the 157 positions lost came from a 13% return rate, so the true figure is almost certainly much higher. This will have a major impact on the private sector as the symbiotic relationship between public and private is disrupted. We should however be as worried by the reasons given for removing the positions from the establishment — simply that Landscape Architects do not provide a priority service.

So ‘Where do we want to be in 2032?’ seems a very crucial question posed by Kate Bailey and Ian Houlston in opening the debate on the future of the profession in the summer issue of Landscape.

We are at yet another crossroad. Do we as a profession want to confine our prospects to working in the main around architects and engineers with a minority working to a wider brief or are we prepared to work outside of our comfort zone, using our skills and knowledge to embrace fully the sustainability imperative? If we choose to engage with the wider brief there will always be plenty of work for the landscape architect within the landscape profession, working alongside landscape researchers, landscape scientists, landscape planners, landscape ecologists and landscape managers.

KATE BAILEY

Planning and landscape consultant

I

n my view, landscape architects are members of a pragmatic and creative profession that is actively involved in the promotion of sustainable forms of development. Look at the issues we concern ourselves with: surface water management, sustainable energy, health and wellbeing, climate change, habitat creation, SuDS, green infrastructure planning, air quality, biodiversity, water quality. Our schemes contribute to economic and social progress whilst safeguarding landscape character and

environmental quality.

So is it enough to do a creative job well, to make landscapes that people appreciate and enjoy using? Landscape architects often seem to be modest individuals, content to think of themselves as bringing about a quiet revolution, head down in the office, designing award winning schemes and stunning projects such as the Olympic Park.

The disadvantage of this approach, as I see it, is that we are a tiny profession compared with others such as architects and urban designers. Unless we learn to speak out, few people will ever understand the broad range of our skills and experience.

OUR PART IN ANY MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS TO ACHIEVE DAMAGE LIMITATION, MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION, AND THE CREATION OF HIGHQUALITY LANDSCAPES

Personally my form of activism (low key but often effective) is to try to raise public awareness of landscape, encouraging ordinary people to look around, to see their surroundings and think how their area could be improved. I started in the 1970s with Housing Improvement Areas, moved into environmental strategies for Development Corporations, worked for Groundwork with schools and youth groups and have been active for many years as a Planning Aid volunteer, supporting local community groups.

Now the government has adopted ‘localism’ as its mantra, giving communities the opportunity to make decisions about their own neighbourhoods, I feel justified, as a landscape consultant, in persuading both public- and private-sector clients that involving local people is the key to success for any plan or project. Residents know their own areas better than any consultant. They want change to bring positive benefits for themselves and their families and they will live every day with the results. In such situations we have to become activists, informing, influencing, motivating and encouraging local people, /...

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 11

Debate cont. school pupils and college students to expect better-quality public spaces and lively, attractive community landscapes in their neighbourhoods.

It is much more difficult for the landscape architects who find themselves working with mineral-extraction companies, with developers of energy and waste-treatment schemes, of major infrastructure projects such as wind farms, power lines and rail routes, or engineering projects such as transport routes, coastal defences and high-capacity pipelines. Their commissions may bring them into opposition with local residents, activists and campaigners such as CPRE and the National Trust, who tend to consider major infrastructure schemes in the countryside to be unacceptably damaging. This is when landscape architects really do need to become activists, by demonstrating that our part in any major development project is to achieve damage limitation, mitigation and compensation, and the creation of highquality landscapes.

Case studies prove that where we have been successful in persuading developers and investors to focus on the landscape, we have contributed to the transformation of waterfronts, dockland areas, derelict land, former coalfields, quarries and industrial sites. The Olympic Park is the most persuasive example of all. Why would landscape architects not be activists when we have such inspiring achievements to tell people about?

ANGELA BRADY President RIBA

I

strongly believe that architects must be activists and campaigners for a better- designed built environment. As architects we have the vision to create and lead and a responsibility to people who live in, work in and visit our buildings, places and spaces. We have a responsibility to society to bring value to our environment

12 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

WE HAVE TO BE ACTIVISTS IN ORDER TO HELP CREATE THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH WE CAN FULFIL THESE RESPONSIBILITIES

in implementing a sustainable integrated design in an holistic way. We have to be activists in order to help create the conditions in which we can fulfill these responsibilities.

I have established three pillars to my RIBA presidency which are: to improve procurement practice, starting with local authorities and government; to internationalise the RIBA, both for members overseas and for those seeking work there and to ‘bring architecture to the public’ so that people will realise the value of what a quality built environment can do for society. All these involve outreach work and campaigning across our professions.

I have been working hard to promote the very best of British architects in fastdeveloping nations such as China, Russia and Vietnam where RIBA has great respect and admiration, while the economy remains slow at home.

In terms of procurement, I have been working cross-professionally with a large team of dedicated people to ensure that architects have a voice in the ongoing public procurement debate. We are working closely with stakeholders to reform the procurement process throughout the construction industry.

In terms of bringing architecture to the public, we need more media coverage to reach a wider and more diverse audience.

I believe it is vital to champion the importance of architecture to the wider public, to schools and in the media-TV and radio, including social media via Twitter and Facebook.

With London celebrating the great architectural and engineering achievements of the London 2012 games, I have championed the roles of professions in directing a film called ‘Designing for Champions’ which will celebrate the achievements of architects, engineers and designers in delivering the Olympic

Games. A fast-acting campaign was needed to enable us to film and record these magnificent achievements before the venues were dismantled. We held an official ‘name drop’ campaign at the RIBA to draw attention to all the architects and engineers involved in the games and note the fact that they were unable publicly to mention their involvement.

I have also spent many years campaigning for diversity and for more women and BAME representation in architecture. I chaired Women in Architecture for five years, and personally curated an exhibition called ‘DiverseCity’ which travelled to 34 cities over six years.

I have encouraged and helped set up Women in Architecture groups across the world. My mantra is ‘Women and men together make better architecture’.

The RIBA Equality group, Architects For Change, has been active in setting up mentoring programmes, return-to workcourses and role models that adopt a school and promote careers in architecture.

WE DO NOT APPROVE OF THOSE PRACTICES WHICH DO NOT PAY STUDENTS

I have encouraged active campaigning within the RIBA which has, like all similar bodies, suffered from a reputation for being slow to react. I have been working to create a ‘light touch, fast acting’ RIBA, which is able to represent, champion and promote the best of British architecture in UK and around the world.

It is also so important to support our next generation of architects who will find higher fees difficult to manage. The RIBA is supporting architecture students through fund-raising events like the president’s auction and dinner held annually.

Equally, we are insisting that all architecture internships are paid posts and we do not approve of those practices who do not pay students. We need to support our profession by bringing value to what we do and to show that we can add value to society.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 13

Growers of gold medal winning plants Assured supply to complex or simple projects Did you attend our workshop? Download the report — visit our website

palmstead.co.uk 14 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

News analysis All London Green Grid

Jamie Dean is Senior Design Manager with the Greater London Authority’s Design for London team.

BY JAMIE DEAN

The recently introduced All London Green Grid brings a coherent approach to the implementation of green infrastructure in our capital city. Building on the success of the East London Green Grid, it identifies key areas of action that can knit together the wealth of green resources that the city already has. Jamie Dean explains the detail.

PHOTOGRAPHY: Š JASON ORTON

L

ondon is a green city. It owes

this, its character and its spatial

form to the landscapes of the

Thames and its tributaries, to the

big green metropolitan spaces at its fringe, and to the distinguished cultural legacy of its squares, avenues and notably its great parks.

These various and unique assets reinforce a sense of place and identity, improve health and well-being, boost environmental resilience and make the capital a more attractive, admired, prosperous and liveable city. The All London Green Grid (ALGG) Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), the recently published Green Infrastructure Strategy for London, sets out to capitalise on these assets.

It expands upon the existing network of open spaces to establish a key supportive infrastructure that can operate alongside roads, utilities and other physical

Even non picturesque areas have a surprising amount of green space.

infrastructure to address the environmental challenges ahead. It offers a landscapescale vision for London to shape and support sustainable growth, respond to the challenges of climate change and deliver improved quality of life.

It is both local and metropolitan in scale.

And when seen in conjunction with the Green Belt and Blue Ribbon Network

policies it can be seen as landscape as urbanism. Building on the successes of the East London Green Grid, the ALGG extends across the capital using the key landscape corridors of the Thames tributaries and identifying transverse links in-between.

It incorporates established open spaces and recent achievements such as the Olympic Park and recognises opportunities /...

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 15

News analysis cont.

for new ones, such as the Wandle Valley Regional Park; it integrates designated and protected landscapes and connects with the often neglected and in parts degraded urban fringe.

MULTIFUNCTIONALITY The ALGG is a progression from perceiving London as a city punctuated by parks, green spaces and surrounded by countryside, to an appreciation of this network as part of the city’s fundamental infrastructure. It advances large-scale thinking and integrated action to plan, develop and manage open space and natural landscapes in relation to the many uses they can serve.

London has around 50,000 ha of publicly accessible open space over 1ha in size.

However deficiencies in provision create gaps in London’s spatial character and wider open-space network. These have been identified alongside proposals to address them via an approach to mapping and addressing deficiency that has been used in London since the Greater London Development Plan published in 1976, which itself drew on the great landscape and open-space plans of 1929 and 1943-44. The ALGG looks similarly closely at deficiencies in access to sites of nature conservation importance.

While London’s existing flood defences, drainage systems and green space networks already contribute to managing flooding, the increasing risk resulting from climate change will require creative

16 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

solutions to be incorporated into the design of existing and new development. The ALGG SPG promotes an expanded and reshaped network of green infrastructure significantly to absorb and temporarily retain rainwater, reducing both strategic and local flood risk. In addition, the ALGG draws on lessons from warmer cities, reinforced by technical studies, to examine how green spaces and trees can have a cooling effect on the surrounding built environment.

Designated cycling and walking networks support and promote sustainable transport choices, leisure options and physical activity. They pass through and help form the green infrastructure network in a mutually beneficial way and they link up transport hubs and places of landscape, cultural and heritage interest.

This contributes to the world-class status of the capital as a visitor destination. The green spaces and extensive parklands of

Left – below: The All London Green Grid will link London’s green spaces. Right: The grid will create new green corridors.

Greenwich Riverside in East London and London’s Arcadia in South West London complement and expand the visitor experience to some of London’s most historic sites. The ALGG also aims to promote sustainable food production.

Using land for food growing promotes active lifestyles, better diets, food security and social cohesion.

MAKING IT HAPPEN Having set the vision, the SPG proposes an enhanced framework for delivery.

The starting point is the identification of 11 Green Grid Areas (GGA) and the establishment of partnerships throughout London to promote cross-boundary working.

This approach does not replace but seeks to work through existing projects and partnerships. It unites them at the landscape scale and acts as a resource to achieve greater integration, providing both strategic and local impact. It has been extremely successful in accelerating delivery in East London through the East London Green Grid (ELGG) and the Thames Gateway Parklands Initiative. The ALGG consolidates this work, builds on this experience and establishes a pan-London framework using the support of and input from a broad base of partners with a wide range of aspirations.

The ALGG concept is also to be embedded in Neighbourhood Plans, Local Development Documents, Area Action Plans, Intensification Area Planning

Frameworks, Community Strategies, Open Space Strategies, regeneration framework initiatives, master plans, development proposals, projects and other appropriate pan-London strategies including the Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Local Transport Plans.

Furthermore the GLA is working with boroughs and other stakeholders to put into place the appropriate governance structures needed to drive forward the ALGG and secure the resources for its delivery. It will work with partners to prepare a Delivery Plan that identifies and develops key Green Grid projects for investment, drawn from the 11 Green Grid Area Frameworks.

CONCLUSION As the city adapts to the challenges and opportunities of the 21st Century, traditional infrastructures must be re-considered and augmented to integrate a range of environmental and social functions.

The ALGG is a framework that promotes landscape as such a complementary and integrated infrastructure. It provides a multi-scale spatial structure, to positively shape and support growth and to deliver

a mode of sustainable movement and inhabitation. At its most successful it links the landscape scale with the everyday life of the city and the many overlapping cultures of a given place.

In London as is the case elsewhere landscape architects are at the heart of this approach. The ALGG SPG and the wider associated strategies, area frameworks etc are proposed to frame and support their attempts.

NOTES — The ALGG expands on major themes and commitments first set out in the Mayor of London’s public realm manifesto— London’s Great Outdoors and associated guides Better Streets and Better Green and Water Spaces. The ALGG SPG has been prepared by the GLA’s Design for London, Environment and London Plan teams in close collaboration with the London Boroughs, adjacent districts and counties, Transport for London, Environment Agency, Natural England, Groundwork London, London Parks and Greenspaces Forum, Geographic Information Greater London (GIGL), London Wildlife Trust and English Heritage.

Aspects of the ALGG SPG are drawn from eleven Area Frameworks planned at the landscape scale and prepared by a range of leading landscape consultants including; Adams and Sutherland with Jonathan Cook Landscape Architects, Gross Max, East Architecture and Landscape, J+L Gibbons, Lyn Kinnear, Peter Beard / Landroom, 5th Studio and Shape Landscape Architects.

The final draft was prepared with support from the Mayor of London’s Design Advisory Panel and its ALGG Expert Panel: Terry Farrell, Val Kirby, Peter Neal and Ken Worpole.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 17

18 SUMMER AUTUMN 12 12 LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE

FEATURE: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE COMPETITION

Green Infrastructure Competition The winners and shortlisted schemes in the High Line for London green infrastructure competition provide an imaginative glimpse into a possible future for the approach.

By Ruth Slavid

G Right: High Line founders Joshua David and Robert Hammond take part in the judging of the competition at the Garden Museum.

reen infrastructure is coming of age. What

once sounded like a nice idea if a little left

field, is now playing a part in the thinking

of mainstream developers, who realise that

it is not only likely to be popular, but could actually save them money. The projects shown on these pages were the shortlisted and winning schemes in the ideas competition run by the Mayor of London, Garden Museum and Landscape Institute to design a High Line for London.

Appropriately, they were judged and the winners announced at the Green Infrastructure day of a weekendlong conference on the High Line held at London’s Garden Museum. And while the projects themselves had only to be inspirational and did not need to address practicalities, the day showed that even hard-headed developers are embracing the idea of green infrastructure. Speakers from Grosvenor and from the team behind the development of Nine Elms on London’s south bank, which will include the American Embassy, showed how central green infrastructure is becoming to its thinking.

The Landscape Institute can take much of the credit for this, as it has been promoting green infrastructure by talking, writing and publishing for some time. And it is not resting on its laurels. It has just published a

statement entitled ‘Delivering the next generation of green infrastructure’ which makes six recommendations that it believes must be followed if green infrastructure is to receive the same priority as other forms of infrastructure such as transportation and waste management, and become central to the way we manage our land. The recommendations form part of a new position paper on green infrastructure which will be published later this year.

Go to www.landscapeinstitute.org/gi to download the full recommendations. /...

PHOTOGRAPHY: SIXPENCE IMAGES

Judging Panels The judges for the competition were an impressive and international group: Joshua David and Robert Hammond, co-founders of New York’s High Line; Dr Penelope Curtis, director of Tate Britain; Mark Brearley, head of Design for London, and leading landscape architects Kim Wilkie and Jo Gibbons. Hammond said: ‘The response to this competition shows how many ideas are just waiting to happen, on, over or under the streets of London.’ Curtis added: ‘During this Olympic summer it was clear that London’s public spaces are coming alive as never before. There is now a popular appetite for making our outdoors more useable and more wonderful. This competition has revealed how much talent and how many good ideas we have at our disposal as we work together to make a great outdoors.’

There were an impressive 170 entries to the competition. A separate panel assessed them all, and created the shortlist of just 20. This panel comprised: Ian Houlston from LDA Design; Robin Buckle of Transport for London; Jamie Dean from the Greater London Authority: and, independent curator, Meredith Gunderson.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 19

WINNER POP DOWN

by Fletcher Priest This project creates an urban mushroom garden lit by sculptural glass-fibre mushrooms at street level inside the ‘Mail Rail’ tunnels beneath Oxford Street.

It therefore introduces green infrastructure at a level (subterranean) where it is never normally considered.

The judges said, ‘The winner and runner-up have this strong linear nature connecting neighbourhoods and the city. Whether or not they are ever realised they help people to see the city in a different light.’

RUNNER UP THE LIDO LINE by [YN] Studio The runner-up, The Lido Line, describes an idea to insert a clean, safe ‘basin’ in the Regent’s Canal in which to swim the ‘Lido Line’ from Little Venice to Limehouse.

20 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

FEATURE: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE COMPETITION

HIGHLY COMMENDED BUS ROOTS

by Wynne James An idea to make use of the many empty roof spaces of bus shelters to create raised gardens with sparrow colonies, insect hotels and miniature wildflower meadows.

Each bus shelter garden would be looked after by its local community, school or street.

HIGHLY COMMENDED BRIDGE-IT

by HTA Landscape Design An idea to unlock inaccessible transport corridors around the existing transport network — green linear parks built over, under and beside railway lines, opening up cycling and walking networks.

HIGHLY COMMENDED BARGE WALK

by Erika Richmond and Peggy Pei-Chi Chi A design to re-connect people with water via the creation of a linear park, farm and wetland on floating barges at the edge of Canary Wharf.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 21

ENTRY

ENTRY

GREEN ARTERIES

By Bell Phillips Architects, Spacehub and Aecom A scheme to transform London’s flyovers into productive and beautiful green arteries to reduce the heat effect and traffic noise and encourage biodiversity.

[RE]STRUCTURE

by Scott Badham and Ian Fisher Biocentric ‘mats’ and ‘sleeves’ to be layered onto buses, trams and trains to create mobile gardens.

ENTRY

ENTRY

A GREEN NORTH BANK

by Yue Rao and Chuanwen Yu The creation of a new linear park from Blackfriars Bridge to Lambeth Bridge.

GREEN LUNG RETROFIT

by Jerry Tate Architects Transform Tower 42 into a tower of green. Wrap ‘green jackets’ around the City’s offices to cool excess heat.

22 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

FEATURE: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE COMPETITION

ENTRY

ENTRY

GROW BOX

by Atkins Landscape Architects A do-it-yourself green infrastructure toolbox containing product and professional advice vouchers to empower local community groups to improve their local playgrounds, parks and allotments.

A small-scale initiative aimed at improving green infrastructure in London one small step at a time.

STREET ORCHARD

by Laura Rowland and Claire Beard Create miniature orchards around existing bus shelters to become shared cultivation areas. Insulated beehives placed within the trees and sloped sedum roof would catch falling fruit and collect rainwater.

ENTRY

ENTRY THE NEW RIVER

by Place Design + Planning Breathing new life into a forgotten waterway and collecting fresh water at source in Stoke Newington.

RETRACING LONDON’S DROVERS’ ROAD

by Howard Miller and Rowena May Revitalising the ancient route used to move livestock from pasture to market between Hackney and Bishopsgate, includes rowan trees and new ‘slow landscape’ areas.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 23

ENTRY LEA VALLEY RAIN FARM

by Andres Briones Create a ‘rain farm’ in the Lea Valley to store run-off and rainwater to serve the local neighbourhood.

ENTRY

ENTRY

OLD STREET GREEN

by Mailen Design Transform the traffic roundabout above Old Street Underground station into a new garden to connect the underground space with the exterior street space.

ROOTS FOR THE FUTURE

by Hassell, We Made That and AOC A network of ‘indus-tree-ous’ miniature woodlands planted in London’s left-over spaces (parking lots, derelict land).

24 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

FEATURE: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE COMPETITION

ENTRY

ENTRY

FLEET RIVER CHANNEL

by Richard Reynolds Re-instate the shallow stream of the Fleet, one of London’s lost waterways, in a cutting one storey beneath street level at Blackfriars.

SUBURBAN KISS

by Ireland Albrecht Landscape Architects Transform London’s arterial routes into new green spaces linking the Green Belt to the city. Road verges and pavements become multi-functional landscapes for pedestrians and cyclists.

ENTRY LONDON PARKS LIBRARY

by Me & Sam Ltd Establish small book exchanges within London’s many parks and green spaces. A record card inside each book would tell the story of the invisible network and movement of book and people through London’s parks.

ENTRY HIGH, LOW, FAST AND FLUID LINES

by Terra Studio A series of four green infrastructure schemes: a fast commuter cycleway on raised railway viaducts, ‘air rail’ gardens beside railway sidings, a new iconic green bridge over Blackfriars Bridge and a floating flower show on static pontoons on the River.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 25

26 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

Photography: LDA Design

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 27

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

Introduction

By Paul Finch

B

uildings tend to get

a better press than

landscapes when it

comes to awards.

Inherently easier to present as objects, they have the advantage of being stars on a big stage. That stage, of course, is the subject of the awards contained in this publication. There is no predicting the scale of the idea, though the awards are neatly divided into different sizes for some categories, to allow the judges to compare apples with apples.

Even given the division by scale, it is a tough job comparing landscape designs because of the differences, vagaries or ambiguities of the brief, and of the decisions that may have been made while the landscape has had time to mature.

While urban design landscapes tend to be relatively complete the moment they are opened, and will represent the same idea even

28 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

when (as it were) the trees have grown, there are other examples of landscape thinking which are dependent on time to do its work. That is both advantage and disadvantage to the designer, since the disbenefits of incompleteness will be offset by growing satisfaction at a nurtured outcome.

The president’s award this year is recognition of both these conditions and is a welcome sign of understanding that excellence can be both evident and potential, in this case in relation to the Olympic Park. This was a project that was tough to achieve because of the imposed circumstances behind the project; difficult to remember now, but the London bid was one year behind that of competing cities because of an inability on the part of the UK government to make its mind up whether to offer support.

The masterplan that managed to get us to first base in the

competition, and then helped us win the bid, was a joint production

by Allies and Morrison, EDAW (now AECOM) and Foreign Office Architects, which envisaged in conceptual form the ‘dumbbell’ design which gives distinct character to the north and south ends of the Olympic park.

The evolution and improvement of the landscape with its changing cast of designers over five years is a fascinating story, full of incident and dramas (many of which had little to do with landscape architecture as such). That is the nature of great collaborative projects, and all one can say is that the end of the journey, or at least the first part of it, was greeted with the congratulations of all who had the pleasure of experiencing the Park during the Games.

As with most landscape stories, the Games were just the beginning. How the Park (and

Paul Finch chairs Design Council Cabe, and is deputy chair of the Design Council. He is Programme Director of the World Architecture Festival, and Editorial Director of Architectural Review/ The Architects’ Journal.

exemplary work by Vogt on the Olympic Village) turn out will be the subject of observation and analysis for years to come, no doubt accompanied by changes in thinking about some elements of the facilities as they adjust to their new legacy condition.

In this, the Park project and LDA’s significant achievement with Arup and Atkins, not their only winning design this year, represent to some extent the generality of the landscape condition. Control of landscape and public realm is notoriously difficult to establish and/or predict; how is the landscape designer supposed to anticipate what may happen in respect of ownership, management, enhancement and change? With a building it is rather simpler: adjustment; adaptation; refurbishment, retrofit or ultimately demolition. But the building does not change of its

own volition. That is obviously not the case where nature is involved (cf wildflower meadows), and the extent to which a successful landscape project is predicated on greater or lesser degrees of intervention post-completion is a fascinating subject all of its own.

By coincidence, LDA Design has also won this year’s Heritage and Conservation category, where it had to deal with the consequences of no-doubt benign neglect of a landscape condition, resulting in the dislocation of a relationship between a building and its grounds because of unrestrained nature asserting itself in the way it knows best.

The resulting cutting back of trees to restore a semi-picturesque landscape and mansion was a reminder that designed landscapes are man-made, not an accident of nature. But without a profound understanding of nature, landscape

architecture is impossible to achieve. How wonderful, then when that knowledge is applied to the equally man-made surroundings of the contemporary city, introducing life to the inert.

Today, the landscape project has moved inexorably on from the traditions of Capability Brown or Geoffrey Jellicoe. An understanding of crowds becomes a parallel to the individual journey around the walled garden; materials become as important as planting; water takes on an almost autonomous life as urban attribute rather than rural given.

The awards represented in this publication each tell a particular story, but combined they tell us something about our attitudes to aesthetics, to buildings as well as landscapes, and to love and manipulation in respect of the natural world.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 29

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

President’s Award

T

his year’s President’s

Award has gone to LDA

Design with Hargreaves

Associates, Arup and

Atkins for its work on the Olympic Park. Unusually, it has won this award although not winning the category for which it was submitted (design over 5ha).

This is because the unusual nature of the park was such that it did not satisfy the exacting criteria of the category for which it was entered — although the project had been completed more than a year ago it had not been in continuous use since then. How could it have been in continuous use, when it was locked off from the public for all but the periods of the Olympic and Paralympic Games? And the scheme that was submitted — just before the opening of the games — is one that no longer exists in detail, as work has now started on the transformation phase of the project.

The President’s Award is a recognition not only of the special nature of the project, but also of the extraordinary achievement that it represents.

Winner

LDA Design with Hargreaves Associates, Arup and Atkins for Olympic Parklands and Public Realm

Lead landscape architect, masterplan and detail design: LDA Design with Hargreaves Associates. Landscape engineer, EIA co ordination: Atkins.

Landscape engineer: Arup. Client: London Legacy Development Corporation (formerly Olympic Delivery Authority). Design management: Buro Four. Ecologist: LDA Design Ecology. Horticulture: University of Sheffield. Garden designer: Sarah Price. Lighting designer: Sutton Vane Associates.

Sustainability: Fulcrum. Irrigation: Waterwise. Accessibility consultant: CAE. Arts commissioning: Modus Operandi. Maintenance & management plan: ETM Associates, TEP. Mountain bike track: Trails Inc.

30 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Sue Illman president of the Landscape Institute, writes: ‘The challenge for the Olympic Park was to become Europe’s most significant landscape project for a generation, through the transformation of this part of the Lower Lea Valley. However, LDA Design with Hargreaves Associates, Arup and Atkins, and their project team created something even more special, a landscape that quite simply engaged the public through its beauty and the pleasure of being there, enhanced of course, by the

magic of the Olympics. It is rare that a project can attract so many superlatives and such a consensus as to its achievements, whilst also providing practical lessons in restoration, sustainability, regeneration and the art of the possible. In selecting this project for the President’s Award I salute the skill, determination and commitment of the project team in delivering an Olympic Park that inspired us all, and made the country proud.’

Photography: LDA Design

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 31

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

Peter Youngman Award

T

his year the Peter Youngman Award is

presented as a celebration of the leadership, innovation, skill and dedication shown by all members of the landscape profession involved in the planning, design and creation of the Olympic Park.

The park has been universally praised and succeeds on so many levels: a beautiful park which has delighted and inspired visitors; a sustainable and durable landscape rich in biodiversity and which provided a magnificent setting for the games. This project has served as perhaps the most significant demonstration of the value and importance of investment in landscape at the heart of high quality public open space. The role of the landscape profession is continuing via the transformation of the Olympic venue into a public park, which will be such an important part of the Olympic legacy. This award, therefore, recognises the contribution of each and every individual and practice involved in the creation of the Olympic Park. The Award is presented to the Olympic Delivery Authority as the client body responsible for the creation of the Olympic Park.

32 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Winner

Olympic Delivery Authority

Photography: LDA Design

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 33

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

Design under 1ha Winner

Brockhole Jetty

Landscape architect: Planit-ie.

Client: Lake District National Park Authority. Contractor: Chris Brammall. Project management + cost consultant: Turner and Townsend.

This was the first new jetty built for cruise boats on Lake Windermere in 70 years, designed to attract more visitors to the Lake District National Park Visitor Centre at Brockhole. The jetty and its landside facilities had to integrate with its surroundings.

Planit-ie used local materials and craftsmen to create a deliberately hidden facility that did not impose on the local landscape. Access to the jetty is via a footbridge and the waiting area is separated from a footpath by the extension of an existing dry stone wall. This sheltered area can accommodate up to 150 people. The copper roof of the waiting area extends over the timber-clad drum of the ticket office. Planit-ie has led a project that might more commonly be architect-led with the utmost sensitivity to its surroundings.

The judges said: ‘The materiality of this project is exceptional and grounds the project in the sensitive environment. It is a progressive project for the profession in terms of concept and quality.’

Photography: Planit-ie

34 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Highly commended:

Highly commended:

Landscape architect: HTA Landscape Design. Client: Rother District Council.Architect: Stanton Williams Architects. Delivery architect: HTA. Architecture.

Horticultural adviser: Dr Noel Kingsbury. Cost consultant and QS: Ian Sayer & Co. Structural engineer: Alan Baxter Associates.

M&E engineer: Mendick Waring.

Contractor: The Landscape Group.

Landscape architect: New Leaf Studio. Client: Bristol City Council Structural engineer: Structural Solutions Archaeologist: Bristol and Region Archaeological Services.

Arts Consultant: Situations, Bristol.

Artist: Hew Locke. Main contractor: E R Hemmings (Building).

Next Wave (Phase 1), Bexhill-on-Sea

Below left, top Next Wave (Phase 1), Bexhillon-Sea, Photography: HTA. Below left, bottom Arundel Square, London Borough of Islington, Photography: remapp. Below right Brunswick Cemetery Gardens, Bristol, Photography: Oliver Roberts, Bristol City Council.

Every space has been given meaning in this public realm alongside the De La Warr Pavilion — now a biodiverse linear landscape that is beautiful, informative, highly adaptable and low maintenance.

The judges said: ‘This is a simple yet beautifully designed waterfront space. The process of plant selection and use should be held up as best practice.’

Brunswick Cemetery Gardens, Bristol

A disused and run down cemetery in one of Bristol’s most deprived areas has been transformed into a popular destination and valued park. New Leaf Studio respected the history of the site while giving it a new layer, embracing wider uses and meeting modern needs.

The judges said: ‘The sensitivity to location and choice of materials is excellent. There is fabulous planting and beautiful, evocative public art.’

Highly commended:

Arundel Square, London Borough of Islington Landscape architect: Remapp.

Client: London Borough of Islington/ Greenspace. Structural and civil engineer: Price and Myers. Quantity surveyor/CDM co-ordinator: Baillie Knowles Partnership. Soil scientist: Tim O’Hare Associates.

Consultation and community engagement teams: Platformer / Building Exploratory.

This roof garden extension on a platform over a railway line allows the creation of a 21st Century London square.

The judges said: This classic yet modern design is appropriate as a new London square. There is rich planting for an urban environment and excellent response to site constraints.’

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 35

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

Design 1– 5ha Winner

Potters Fields Park, London

Landscape architect: Gross Max. Client Team: M ore London, The Pool of London Partnership, Southwark Council. Project Team: Gross Max, SKM Anthony Hunt, DPA Lighting, Piet Oudolf.

Main contractor: Skanska Mc Nicolas. Soft landscape contractor: The Gavin Jones Group.

Granite supplier: Miller Druck International Stone. Metalwork contractor: Ballantine Creative Ironworks & Metalcraft.

This park alongside the Foster and Partners-designed Greater London Authority on the south bank of the Thames had to reconcile the needs of many different users in a small and intensively used space.

The intimate neighbourhood park facing the residential areas gradually opens up towards the

36 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

river with a series of stepped terraces. It introduces the unique perennial planting style of Piet Oudolf to the UK. Gross.Max introduced the idea of setting up a park trust which made it possible to appoint a head gardener as the financial gain from using the park for a wide variety of (commercial) events directly funds the maintenance and management of the park.

The judges said: ‘This scheme demonstrates how the transition can be made seamlessly between the neighbourhood high street and a metropolitan river front.

It is a benchmark for the design of high-quality open space. We were particularly impressed by the arrangements for its long-term management through a trust.’

Photography: Gross.Max

Highly commended:

Fordham Park and Walpole Road Underpass, London

Landscape architect: The Landscape Partnership.

Client: London Borough of Lewisham. Structural engineer: Jane Wernick. Associates.

Lighting designer: Light Bureau.

Civil engineer: Scott White and Hookins. Cost control/CDM: Turner and Townsend. Artist: Heather Burrell. Main contractor: Volker Highways.

Below left, top Cathedral Square, Peterborough, Photography: Claire Borley/LDA Design. Below left, bottom Three Mills Green, London Photography: Churchman. Below right Fordham Park and Walpole Road Underpass, London, Photography: The Landscape Partnership.

In an area where there is a deficiency of open space, the £1.8m regeneration of a park and underpass has delivered a safe and accessible route, and public open space that is well used and appreciated by the community.

The judges commented: ‘This is a concept and a design that successfully transformed a space into a place. It responds to community needs in a considered, pragmatic and coherent way.’

Highly commended:

Highly commended:

Cathedral Square, Peterborough

Three Mills Green, London

Landscape architect: LDA Design. Client: Opportunity Peterborough/Peterborough City Council. Lighting: Sutton Vane Associates. Engineer: Pell Frischman. Accessibility: Centre for Accessible Environments.

Contractor: Osbourne.

Contract administration: Peterborough City Council.

Landscape architect: Churchman Landscape Architects. Clients: Lee Valley Regional Park Authority/ London Development Agency. Fat Walk design: 5th Studio. Ecology: The Ecology Consultancy. Tree services: Arbtech Environmental Services. Flood risk assessment: Walsh Associates. Quantity surveying: Jackson Coles. Public engagement: Creative Process.

This project, which included the removal of a tower block to create public space, has completely changed perceptions of the city centre, and provided a catalyst to attract new business.

The judges commented: ‘This accomplished and confident scheme is the product of a clearly expressed concept translated into an elegant and understated spatial design complementing historic buildings. The design successfully “declutters” an under-used asset, creating a modern but appropriate setting for urban life.’

As a component part of the future Lea River Park, Three Mills Green provides a high-quality open space that will act as both a catalyst for long-term support and a core around which a future park can grow.

The judges commented: ‘The project has a clearly expressed concept and design which created an attractive space for this emerging area. Of particular note was the innovative response to contamination on the site.’

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 37

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

Design over 5ha Winner

Coworth Park, Dorchester Collection, Berkshire

Landscape architect: Macfarlane Wilder. Client: Dorchester Collection. Architects: Purcell Miller Tritton, EPR. Engineers: Wallace Whittle, Considere Engineers, AKS Ward, Bellamy Roberts. Main contractor: Galliford Try. Landscape contractor: Elite Landscapes. Project manager: Buro 4. Planning consultant: Gregory Gray Associates.

In 2006, the Dorchester Collection commissioned a select team to prepare designs for a full planning application for a new 6* hotel and spa at Coworth Park.

The 240 acre site included the derelict historic manor house with neglected gardens, stables, cottages and two polo pitches. Six years later, the new Dorchester hotel and spa has won numerous awards and

38 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

sits within a magnificent restored landscape.

Macfarlane Wilder was involved from initial stages of inception to completion, over a period of five years. In designing the 14 ha of land surrounding the Coworth Park Hotel, Macfarlane Wilder had to meet client expectations to deliver a high quality new landscape as well as being sensitive to the local historic heritage of the scheme.

The judges commented: ‘This was an ambitious and sensitive transformation of significant lost heritage landscape into a successful commercial asset.

It was an extraordinary synthesis of traditional and contemporary design in a challenging planning context, resulting in an exemplary luxury destination.’

Photography Horizon Images

Strategic Landscape Planning Winner

Temporary Greenspace Study

Image: Optimised Environments Ltd

Landscape architect: OPEN (Optimised Environments).

Client: Edinburgh & Lothians Greenspace Trust (ELGT) with Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN). Quantity surveyor: Thomas & Adamson.

Policy, guidance, implementation of projects: City of Edinburgh Council. Urban regeneration companies and implementation of projects: PARC; Waterfront Edinburgh.

OPEN was commissioned in late 2010 to prepare a feasibility and mapping research study exploring the potential for vacant, derelict, and ‘stalled’ land to be used in the short or medium term for temporary greenspace and other interim land uses. The pilot study was commissioned by the Edinburgh and Lothians Greenspace Trust (ELGT) in the context of the NPG2 National Projects agenda. It asked OPEN to identify actions which achieve environmental and social benefits, and to propose temporary

landscapes that are fundable and maintainable on a temporary yet self-sustaining basis.

The pilot study is the first of its kind in Scotland, and has been instrumental in bringing the discourse on feasible and practicable uses for vacant and derelict land to the forefront.

It uniquely applies emerging government policy in a project which melds research with practice to promote the value of landscape architecture. In doing so, it has highlighted to a wide range of professional and public bodies the role that landscape architecture offers when resolving issues relating to urban land use.

The judges said: ‘The temporary use of sites for amenity, recreation and growing food has been discussed for many years and few doubt its important role to the health and wellbeing to urban and indeed rural, communities especially in the current economic climate.

‘This study is likely to be influential in that debate as

a result of its extremely clear, legible, focused and fun message.

Enthusiasm and energy leaps from the page and it is this passion that is likely to extend its impact well beyond Edinburgh.

‘The study is structured in such a way that the creativity and imagination come to the front.

The authors cut through the analysis to provide just enough to justify what follows without losing the thread of the idea. The study presents inspiration from around the world and generates some of its own.

‘We were most impressed with the ideas that were of their place and of their time (the unique challenges of feeding pandas in Edinburgh is an example). We were enthused by this piece of work in its themes, approach and presentation. It is a piece of work that can inspire other landscape architects and to that end it changes us and our expectations.

It suggests a vibrant, imaginative and sometimes humorous future for our profession.’

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 39

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

Heritage & Conservation Winner

The restoration of Clifton Park, Rotherham

Landscape architect: LDA Design.

Client: Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Architect: Marsh Grochowski. Quantity surveyor: Davis Langdon.

Structural engineer: Price & Myers.

M&E engineer: Waterman Group.

Water feature technical designer: The Fountain Workshop.

LDA Design led a large multidisciplinary team to restore a park that was of major importance in Rotherham but had been in decline for decades. Following comprehensive historical research coupled with extensive public consultation, it has restored historic features while introducing new elements to provide the facilities that are wanted in parks today. It has paid close attention to

40 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

interpretation and has addressed sustainability in a thorough-going and imaginative way, including using timber from trees that were felled within new buildings.

The judges commented: ‘The project clearly demonstrates the benefit of having the continuity of the lead consultant through the life of the project, from the absolute beginning to the final completion. The understanding of the historic development of the landscape is clearly demonstrated in the decisions to innovate in critical elements of the scheme that make it relevant to contemporary uses and its community. This is a scheme that stands as a benchmark of excellence in its field.’

Photography: LDA Design

Highly commended:

Highly commended:

Ouseburn Parks Newcastle upon Tyne Landscape architect: Southern Green. Client: Newcastle City Council Leisure Services.

Garden historian: Fiona Green.

Architect: Mosedale Gillatt Architects. Civil and structural engineer: Patrick Parsons Consulting Engineers. Mechanical and electrical engineer: Sine Consulting. Ecologist: E3 Ecology.

Arboricultural consultant: AllAboutTrees. Quantity surveyor: Faithful + Gould. Main contractor for landscape contract: John Hellens Contracts.

Bushey Rose Garden, Hertfordshire

Restoration of a vast park with many and varied historic features, on a steeply sloping wooded setting returned it to coherence and refreshed the parkland setting.

The judges commented: ‘The approach adopted for the restoration of this landscape is spare and classical, skilfully adopting a “less is more” philosophy in delivering a large and complex scheme, with each individual project standing on its own merits, but ever more impressive in concert with its neighbour.’

Landscape architect: LUC. Client: Hertsmere Borough Council. Contractor: Vinci Construction.

In 2009 LUC was commissioned as part of an HLF project to help restore this rare example of Thomas Mawson’s work in the south-east, dating from 1913. It was in such a state of disrepair that the historic core of the garden had been shut. LUC undertook extensive historical research and managed the challenges of heavy

ground conditions, poor weather and seasonal constraints of traditional materials such as lime mortar, to produce a scheme that successfully rejuvenated Mawson’s original vision.

The judges commented: ‘This is an admirable scheme full of imagination and charm that maximises the use of the heritage assets and their role in a reinvigorated garden. It is a very well researched and finished scheme that those involved can be truly proud of.’

Photography: Southern Green

Photography: Hertsmere Borough Council

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 41

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

Neighbourhood Planning Winner

Kilmahew/St Peter’s, Cardross

Image: erz Limited

Landscape architect: erz.

Architect for regeneration of buildings: Avanti Architects.

Overall project cost plan: Armour Construction Consultants.

Advice on transportation and site infrastructure: Mayer Brown.

Planning advice: Knight Frank.

The project represents a fresh response to the longstanding challenge of securing a viable future for the derelict modernist masterpiece of St Peter’s Seminary, set within the 133 acre Kilmahew Estate landscape in Cardross, registered as one of the World Monument Fund’s most endangered cultural landmarks.

Instead of focusing exclusively on the building, it considers this remarkable building and

42 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

its landscape setting together, creating a public landscape that becomes a locus for an ongoing creative process, with the ongoing creative and educational programme realised through the ‘Invisible College’. In this way the landscape leads the regeneraton. The aim is, in every possible respect, to shift people’s relationship to the landscape from one of being a passive observer or detached consumer to having an active physical or intellectual engagement.

The judges commented: ‘erz has put forward a scheme that draws on a unique, exciting and innovative approach to landscape architecture. It makes the reader think and reflect, and pushes the discipline forward.’

Highly commended:

Highly commended:

The Gatherings, Bakewell Town Centre Public Realm Framework

Woodberry Wetlands, Stoke Newington, London

Landscape architect: Allen Scott Landscape Architects. Client: Woodberry Wetlands Partnership (London Wildlife Trust, London Borough of Hackney, Thames Water, Manor House Development Trust, Berkeley Homes, Genesis Housing, Natural England). Visitor development and business planning: Acorn Tourism Development Consultants.

The brief for this project was to take forward the partnership’s vision of a ‘Woodberry Wetlands’ using the current East and West

reservoirs of Stoke Newington which are currently not open to the public. The solution is a highly fundable project that will bring 21 hectares, in the middle of one of the densest areas of London, into public use and protect the special wildfowl habitats.

The judges commented: ‘This is a creative landscape-led scheme, showing good collaborative working with the stakeholder group on options appraisal.

It demonstrates realistic team collaboration and is a supported by a well-developed business plan.’

Image: London Wildlife Trust (LWT)

Landscape architect: Maxim Urban Design. Client: Peak District National Park Authority; Derbyshire Dales DC; Derbyshire CC; Bakewell Town Council.

Other consultant: Evans Vettori Architects.

This public realm framework has challenged a small town to embrace a vision that confronts its complacency, embraces its past and establishes an authentic aspiration. It creates a vision for persistent incremental improvement broken down

into five key areas. It defines the shared vision as one that has a central focus around the Rutland Square market, that reduces the current emphasis on the car and that capitalises on heritage and environmental assets.

The judges commented: ‘This is a well-presented and thorough appraisal of public realm function, purpose and practical use. It is an appealing communitybased plan with realistic priorities for delivery.’

Image: Graham Marshall

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 43

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

Urban Design and Masterplanning Winner

Queenborough & Rushenden Masterplan, Isle of Sheppey, Kent

Image: Rummey Design plus others

Landscape architect: Rummey Design. Client: SEEDA, Chatham office. Land agent: Harrisons.

Engineer: GC Partnership Specialist marina advisor: Marina Projects. Engineer (latter part): Campbell Reith.

The small port of Queenborough and the post-war housing estate of Rushenden on the Isle of Sheppey were separated by decay, distance and history. The shops, station and school were all in Queenborough, leaving Rushenden with very little. Rummey Design successfully evolved the idea with both communities that there was everything to gain by introducing a third group

44 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

of new residents, through new development to complete both existing communities and create a better place. This new community would consist of 2300 new homes (5000 people), shops, marina, employment, art and culturally focussed facilities. It has been adopted in the local development framework. Overcoming local inertia and depression, Rummey Design has unlocked pride in a community that had expected a bleak future.

The judges said: ‘We were particularly impressed by the level of creativity and energy that was demonstrated in the proposals, which seems to “fit” the character of the place and the challenge.’

Highly commended:

Stoneywood Estate Development Framework and Masterplan, Aberdeen Landscape architect: OPEN (Optimised Environments). Client: Dandara. Planning consultant: Knight Frank. Environmental consultant: Ironside Farrar.

Drainage consultant: Quattro Consult. Transportation consultant: SBA. Utilities consultant: Troup Bywaters + Anders. Aboricultural consultant: Donald Rodger Associates.

Below left Stoneywood Estate Development Framework and Masterplan, Aberdeen, Image: Optimised Environments. Below right, top Belfast Streets Ahead Masterplan, Image: David Lloyd, AECOM. Below right, bottom Meridian Water, Enfield, London, London, Image: LDA Design.

The project highlights the importance of a bespoke design response to a challenging site, showcasing the unique perspective that landscape architecture can bring to sustainable masterplanning.

The judges said: ‘This masterplan is generated from the landscape of the site and proposes to enhance the existing woodland and make it a key amenity for the site. The provision of mixeduse development is particularly encouraging, as is the proposal to develop new place-appropriate housing types.’

Highly commended:

Highly commended:

Belfast Streets Ahead Masterplan

Meridian Water, Enfield, London

Masterplan / urban design / landscape architect: AECOM Design + Planning (formerly EDAW). Client: Department for Social Development (DSD).

Quantity Surveyor: Turner Townsend. Engineering: Mouchel.

Planning: Ostick & Williams.

Contractor: Farrans Construction.

Structural, civil, mechanical and electrical engineering: Atkins.

Landscape architect: LDA Design.

Client: London Borough of Enfield Planning. Economic viability: BNP – Paribas. Traffic, transport, sustainable infrastructure: Atkins.

This project created a new vibrancy in the City Centre, by bringing a wholly new character to the streets and public realm environment, leading to increased footfall and visitor numbers.

The judges said: ‘We were highly impressed by the thoroughness and rigour which was evident in the execution of this project. The incorporation of maintenance considerations is a particularly welcome innovation which we feel should be built into every public realm project.’

Meridian Water project involved the development of a strategic vision and delivery plan for the regeneration of brownfield and under-utilised employment land on the Lee Valley in Enfi eld, North London.The masterplan has been resoundingly endorsed to date and is due for adoption as SPD in January 2013 following final consultation.

The judges said: ‘This project is a very thoroughly worked through masterplan which establishes a strong proposal for a new urban neighbourhood. It is responsive to its context and capitalises on green and water infrastructure to provide a pleasant new area to live in.’

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 45

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

Student portfolio Winner

Amy Kirk, MA Landscape Architecture, University of Sheffield

Image: Amy Kirk

The portfolio submitted was for the detailed design of a hospice in the Graves Park area of Sheffield.

Kirk wrote: ‘I chose the site specifically for its difficult design challenges and controversially to try to challenge the perception of what hospices are, making a facility that was more transparent, welcoming and a valuable resource for the community, that had a chance of being accepted.

‘I found inspiration in the new Maggie’s Cancer Care Centres that aim to make themselves visible within communities as a place to meet and talk whilst keeping a homely, comfortable appeal.

46 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

‘The main challenge I faced was the need for private and public space to coexist whilst not being compromised. I used horticultural therapy as a medium for the crossover between the community and the hospice. My idea was that this could integrate the current horticultural therapy site users, gain funding for the hospice, create diverting activities for day visitors, increase public interest in the site and most importantly create a site full of activity and interest making the hospice patients feel a part of the community still.’

The judges commented: ‘This is an exemplary piece of work.

It shows great attention to detail, and excellent communication and graphic skills. We would like to commend Amy Kirk for choosing a difficult site and an equally difficult topic and yet producing a design that is ready to be implemented. This project could function as a model for hospices everywhere.

‘We particularly appreciated the attention to sustainable approaches in water management and the specificity and detail of the planting design. This scheme really has achieved humanity in a naturalistic landscape setting.’

Student dissertation Highly commended:

Highly commended:

Helen Hoyle, MA Landscape Architecture, University of Sheffield The title of Hoyle’s project was ‘The use of cutting and irrigation to delay the flowering of native wildflower meadows’. The aim was specifically to explore the effect during the London 2012 Olympics from 27th July onwards, approximately six weeks later than would be the norm for flowering in southern England. Detailed trials were carried out on two 9m by 3m plots on the Olympic site,

Roisin O’Riordan, MA Landscape Architecture, University of Sheffield

where conditions were varied and results monitored every week.

These results were compared with previous trials in Sheffield, and found to tally.

The judges said: ‘This is an interesting and timely piece of research. The aims are clear and the research is thorough and well documented. It would be interesting to reflect on the implications for future projects.’

Photography: Helen Hoyle

The title of O’Riordan’s project was ‘Petrorhagia saxifraga germination response to masonry block substrates for use in living walls’. An experimental approach was used to assess the germination success and survival of the succulent Petrorhagia saxifraga on masonry-like blocks of two different aggregate types: sharp sand and grit. This was done with the aim of determining the success of a new type of living wall, in which plant-covered masonry blocks would be used as a building façade, using drought tolerant plants such as Petrorhagia saxifraga to reduce the need for regular irrigation.

Five different cement mixtures were used to make the blocks,

each with cement, aggregate (sharp sand or grit) and organic material at varying ratios. The different mixtures produced varying textures, thus varying pore structures and water holding capacities. The aim of the research was to identify the mixture that created the greatest water holding capacity. This was determined by the germination success and survival of the seedlings across the blocks of different aggregates and mixture proportions.

The judges said: ‘This is a thorough and detailed piece of research which is well-structured and analysed. There is potential to develop it further to real-world applications.’

Photography: LDA Design

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 47

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

Communications & Presentation Highly commended:

Highly commended:

The Garden of the Beasts

Landscape architect: Davies White.

Client: Historic Royal Palaces.

Project Team: Davies White with Room60, House of Fairy Tales, Dan Lobb Garden Design, & James Bennett Architects.

The Garden of the Beasts is Davies White and Room 60’s proposals for the creation of a new childrens’ garden at Hampton Court Palace.

The team communicated their ideas through innovative design

Cairngorm National Park Entry Points

and vision. They used hand drawings but also embraced film while exploring other mediums of communication such as model making and revenue branding.

These were used not just as marketing tools but as part of the design process.

The judges said: ‘The use of animation demonstrated its untapped potential as a communication tool for landscape architects.’

Image: Room60/Davies White

48 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Landscape architect: Ian White Associates Landscape Architects.

Client: The Cairngorms National Park Authority. Marker design: Aaron Lawton Associates.

Quantity surveyor: David Campbell Associates. Engineer: ADAC. Granite sign manufacturer: Fyfe Glenrock.Installation contractor: Hunter Construction (Aberdeen).

This project helped to establish the identity of the Cairngorm National Park by the design and placing of entry markers and associated work to make the entries clearer. Markers were black ospreys (the park logo) on local granite.

The judges said: ‘We felt that this was an excellently communicated project that clearly met the brief.’

Photography: Ian White Associates

Landscape Policy & Research Highly commended:

Forestry Commission Scotland, Practice Guide, ‘Conserving and managing trees and woodlands in Scotland’s designed landscapes’ Landscape architect: Peter McGowan, Peter McGowan Associates. Client: Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS).

Project manager: Nicholas Shepherd, landscape & cultural advisor. Steering Group: Representatives of Historic Scotland, Woodland Trust, Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers, Garden History Society, National Trust for Scotland, Archaeology Scotland and Scottish Borders Council.

Landscape design styles and historic periods section: Christopher Dingwall, landscape historian.

Illustration: Clare Hewitt. Layout and presentation: FCS Design and Interpretation Services.

This FCS publication is the first comprehensive and detailed guidance to be published on the management of designed landscapes in Scotland. It has been welcomed and used, among others, by Historic Scotland and FC officers in England. The consultant’s brief from Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) was to produce guidance ‘that contributes towards the effective and efficient management of all the tree components to be found within designed landscapes throughout Scotland’.

While the guidance was intended primarily for land managers and their advisers, to help develop their management

proposals for the trees, tree features and woodlands in designed landscapes, it will also be useful for all those who regulate, licence and provide grant aid for forest management activities, and for those with a general interest in Scotland’s designed landscapes.

The judges said: ‘This practice guide is thoughtfully and sensitively written and addresses important considerations for landscape architecture.

The contextual descriptions and references make it a delightful document that could be extended to urban environments and other regions.’

Image: Peter McGowan

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 49

Landscape Institute Awards 2012

Thank you The Landscape Institute is very grateful to the sponsors of the awards.

The Landscape Institute would like to thank all the judges of the awards who gave up their time to scrutinise the entries.

The sponsors are: The judges were:

Design under 1 ha — Chair — Louise Wyman, Homes and Communities Agency.

— Francesca Berriman, Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists.

—C arola Enrich CMLI, Townshend Landscape Architects.

— Donncha O’Shea, Gustafson Porter.

— Carolyn Willits, Carolyn Willits Design.

Design 1– 5 ha —C hair — Robin Buckle, Transport for London.

— Sue Evans CMLI, Central Scotland Forest Trust.

— Matthew Jessop CMLI, Mouchel.

— Peter Massini, Greater London Authority.

— Robert Rummey CMLI, Rummey Design.

Design over 5 ha ­— Chair — Alan Thompson, Design Council CABE — Allan Cox CMLI Broadway Malyan — John Pegg CMLI craft:pegg

50 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Heritage & Conservation — Chair — Victor Callister, City of London.

— Deborah Evans CMLI, English Heritage.

— Seán O’Reilly, Institute of Historic Building Conservation.

Landscape Policy and Research —C hair — Ed Wall, Kingston University.

—T im Johns CMLI, TEP. —T im Waterman, Writtle College.

Student Portfolio and Dissertation — Chair — Blanche Cameron, RESET. — Prof. Eckart Lange, University of Sheffield.

Strategic Landscape Planning —C hair — David Marshall, Royal Town Planning Institute.

— I an Houlston CMLI, LDA Design.

— Toby Jones CMLI, Toby Jones Associates.

Neighbourhood Planning — Chair — Kate Bailey CMLI, Envision.

— Sue Percy, Chartered Institute of Highways & Transportation.

— Kate Pinnock, Ingham Pinnock.

Communications and Presentation — Chair — Peter Holland, Linear Structure. ­— Micheline Mannion, Graphic Designer.

— Claire Thirlwall CMLI, Thirlwall Associates.

Urban Design and Masterplanning — Chair — Karen Anderson, Architecture + Design Scotland.

— Romy Rawlings CMLI, Woodhouse.

—E wan Smith CMLI, Arup.

Landscape Institute Awards Committee —C hair — David Withycombe CMLI — Rob Beswick CMLI — Nicola Cox CMLI — Anne Evans CMLI — Paj Valley FLI — Jo Watkins PPLI CMLI

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 51

Remaking cities When he gave the Jellicoe lecture in Birmingham last month, Robert Townshend, founder of the eponymous landscape architecture practice, compared two great urban regeneration projects and also touched on More London, contemporaneous with Brindleyplace

L

ondon may like to see itself as the city that sets the trends for the country, but as far as Robert Townshend is concerned, it was the innovations that were made in Birmingham in the 1990s

that paved the way for one of the most exciting recent developments in the capital. The Birmingham project was Brindleyplace, and the London one is King’s Cross Central, so far largely manifested in Granary Square.

Both were carried out by Townshend Landscape Architects, the practice that Townshend created. Both are 52 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

for the same client, Argent. And both, says Townshend, were ‘based on doing the public realm first’. The other link between them is that they formed the basis of the Landscape Institute’s second Jellicoe lecture which Townshend delivered, appropriately, in Birmingham last month. Entitled ‘From Brindleyplace to King’s Cross’, it compared and contrasted the projects. In both, the landscape architect was what Townshend describes as ‘one leg of a stool’, working with two very different architectural practices, Allies & Morrison, exponent in its buildings of a cool modernism, and the far more traditionalist Porphyrios Associates. Another shared characteristic is the length of the association. At Brindleyplace this has lasted for nearly 20 years, probably coming to an end now as Argent has sold the development. At King’s Cross, Townshend started working with Argent in 2000 and the collaboration should have plenty of time to run.

Both these sites were urban areas that for various reasons had been neglected and unloved. Brindleyplace was the former home of small industries that had been superseded, and the site had been cleared leaving almost nothing apart from an old school which subsequently became the Ikon Gallery. The site had the Birmingham to Wolverhampton Canal running along one side and Broad Street, a major street, running along another. King’s Cross also had rail and water. It was locked in behind railway lines, and had been a major depot for the transfer of goods from rail to canal. In retrospect the solutions to each looks obvious, so it is worth remembering that each had suffered a long period of blight.

Brindleyplace had passed through several hands and had planning permission for an earlier masterplan when Argent acquired the site. The most radical decision was to make the main frontage of development on a new square, Brindley Square, rather than on Broad Street, which would have seemed the ‘obvious solution’. The danger with concentrating on Broad Street would have been that everything behind it could then have seemed like a low value ‘backlands’. With the new square, the next important decision was to use a variety of architects, and not to allow any single building to dominate. The plot sizes were set up so that they could be developed as single, relatively modest buildings, or as double plots. The urban form would work in either case. Later another smaller square, Oozells Square, was developed.

It was the detail of the thinking that made the project work. For instance, the design and project scheduling ensured that there were good routes in to the areas to be developed, and enough depth in the development sites to allow some flexibility. Ideas that seem run of the mill now were revolutionary at the time. For example, putting retail at the base of office buildings, which almost all new developments have now was, says Townshend, ‘considered brave’. And so was putting a café in a square, although Townshend feels that this has become a bit of a cliché now and is often not the best decision, since they can prove expensive and unrewarding to operate.

Brindleyplace has come full cycle, with all buildings complete and the practice recently revisiting one of the

FEATURE: KINGS CROSS

PHOTOGRAPHY: LEFT-ABOVE © ARGENT. RIGHT © TOWNSEND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

early ones as the tenancy had come to an end, to change the access arrangements — it is no longer necessary, but was considered essential first time round for executives to be able to drive to the front door!

The long association with Brindleyplace — and of course its success – has fostered great affection in Townshend. ‘I am very fond of it,’ he said. ‘We all cut our teeth there.’ Doubtless the same affection will develop at King’s Cross, even if all the team members are well established. ‘We started with Argent in 2000 when they entered the competition for King’s Cross,’ Townshend said.

‘It was all about creating a new part of London, not an estate. We submitted the planning application in 2004 and won permission in 2006.’

The conversion by architect Stanton Williams of the former Granary Building and transit sheds into a home for the Central St Martin’s art college has received universal acclaim. Argent has also been praised for making its first building such an unusual type, using art students to animate the space, and give a feeling to the area that will encourage further development. The new square in front of it, Granary Square, which steps down to the canal is both noble and relaxed. Townshend was the landscape architect for this, but it is only a relatively minor part of the work that it has done and is doing.

Options were created for every zone within the development, and architects tested these to see if they would work with trial designs. ‘About 20 architects were appointed to do these tests,’ said Townshend. These fed into the parameter plans which set the maxima in terms of height, and determined where the roads would go. At the same time, explained Townshend, ‘The landscape was trying to establish the character and quality of the space.’

There are two large open spaces within the masterplan.

One is Granary Square, which was always intended to be a piece of hard landscape, and the other is Long Park which is an elongated square with planting at its centre.

Not only has the masterplan to create a range of different

spaces, and to open the scheme to the water, it also has to deal with different heights of development. So the tallest item, a tower of student housing, is going at the northern end. Too often, says Townshend, developers put a tower at the southern end of an important element and it then overshadows everything to the north of it.

Many materials will reflect those that are used throughout Camden, the borough within which King’s Cross sits. This both makes it feel like a part of the borough, and means that if the council adopts the roads in future, it will be dealing with materials with which it is familiar.

At Brindleyplace there was less integration, mainly because the design team disliked the brick paving which had been adopted in that part of Birmingham, and did not feel it would be appropriate.

In King’s Cross, Townshend is not designing all the spaces. ‘One of the lessons I have learnt,’ said Townshend, ‘is that the longer I have worked on King’s Cross, and the more people have become involved, the richer in terms of diversity the scheme has become. The place can’t be created by one single mind or group of minds. King’s Cross is big enough to accommodate a lot of ideas but some over-riding ideas about the public realm will always be there.’

This relatively relaxed attitude is one derived from the confidence that the practice now has in itself and in its client, knowing the commitment not just to letting landscape lead the development but also to making the landscape of the highest quality. The project is demanding not just because of its size, at 302ha, but also because of its limited access and the fact that many services are having to be introduced for the first time. Townshend’s practice is involved in many different ways, sometimes sitting on juries for instance to select other designers.

The sense that one gets from these two projects is of a 20-year relationship with a developer who, although evidently determined to make a profit, wants to do so through a long-term approach which is of benefit to the two cities, to the landscape — and to the landscape architect.

Left-above: Granary Square, King’s Cross.

Right: Brindley Square, Birmingham.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 53

D

ennis Hone, the chief executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority, is, not surprisingly, a happy man. Having delivered a hugely successful Olympic Games in London, he is pleased with every aspect of the organisation. Yet, he still says, ‘I love all the individual venues, but the landscape is the glue that holds it all together. We have ended up with no ordinary park.

We came out with a park with a huge number of sporting venues. I am a fantastic fan of the landscape. We could have dumbed it down. We recognised that it had to be of exceptional quality.’ The reference to dumbing down is particularly pertinent because, until he replaced David Higgins in 2011 in the top job, Hone was director of finance at the ODA. He was determined throughout the project not to compromise on quality, but at the same time to stay within the budget. It is easy to imagine that the park could have been a casualty.

Olympic overview The Olympics may be over, but the park that housed the main venues is a lasting and vital part of their legacy.

54 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

FEATURE: OLYMPIC REVIEW

PHOTOGRAPHY: LDA DESIGN

Left: Visitors were enchanted by the planting around the main stadium.

Below: Drawing showing different approaches at different levels. All images LDA Design.

Now, of course, it is impossible to imagine London 2012 without the park. As the visitors poured into the games, they tweeted, blogged and shared photos that inevitably included the wildflower meadows and the splendours of the 2012 Gardens. Parts of the park were almost loved to death, with special platforms having to be erected to allow visitors to get in among the flowers for photos without destroying the very thing they were admiring.

But if it was the flowers that caught the imagination first, they are certainly not the only element that matters.

The Olympic Park is not gardening writ large (although it contains some superb gardens). It is something much bigger. It was a means to create a setting for the games and to kickstart the development of a new part of London, by putting landscape at the heart. It will, when it reopens after transformation, provide an enormous range of facilities to serve the local community and the broader city. It will facilitate the development around its edges by ensuring that it will happen not in the midst of bleak barrenness but knitted into and overlooking a maturing landscape.

And that is not all. It follows the One Planet Living guidelines drawn up by Bioregional (a set of 10 sustainability principles based on an aspiration to only use the resources available on a single planet, unlike the threeplanets’ worth currently used in Europe) with ambitious targets for sustainability and biodiversity that it has achieved. It has pioneered new approaches to treating and working with water and with soil. It has alleviated flood risks in surrounding areas, and integrated art in a way that has rarely been done before. And it has done all this from the most unpromising of starts, in an area of polluted ground and choked waterways that formed one of the least appealing environments in London.

I LOVE ALL THE INDIVIDUAL VENUES, BUT THE LANDSCAPE IS THE GLUE THAT HOLDS IT ALL TOGETHER...

The oddest element of the park was how hidden it was for much of its genesis. Early masterplans drawn up by the team led by EDAW (later part of AECOM) were accompanied by CGIs of the park, but since then of course it has been part of an immense building site with heavy security. And although in general terms, like most of the Olympic project, it was substantially complete a year before the Games, areas such as the annual meadows were only planted three months before opening. Even at the London Prepares events in the summer, part of the rigorous programme of testing, many areas were fenced off. As a result, it really was a surprise on the opening days – and a delightful one.

Now it is inaccessible again, as the temporary venues and overlays are removed and it segues into transformation mode, due to re-open partially next year on the anniversary of the start of the games, and fully the following year.

That makes this a good time to draw breath, to look at what has been achieved so far as well as at what is to come. While the Olympics are special in many ways, they also offer many lessons in terms of management, of approach and of technology, which have been recognised in the Learning Legacy, a programme that includes a large number of reports that are freely available, as well as activities such as the series of videos that the Landscape Institute is producing.

This work reflects the fact that, while few professionals in the UK will have the opportunity to contribute to a project of this scale, the knowledge that has been required can be applied and developed on many smaller projects.

For the landscape professions there is the additional benefit that landscape has been absolutely crucial at all stages, from winning the games to the projected future development.

Indeed, without the park London may well not have won the games. Jason Prior, who was president of EDAW and is now chief executive of planning, design and development at AECOM, is a landscape architect and urban designer.

When the team that he led entered the competition to design the masterplan that would form the basis of the UK’s bid to host the games (a bid that was not expected to be successful), it was seen as an outsider, with the Evening Standard rating its chances of winning at 100:1.

‘Putting the park at the centre was an idea that started in 2003,’ said Bill Hanway, an architect colleague of /...

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 55

Prior. ‘Our proposal was about the ability to leverage regeneration.’ Prior said, ‘We didn’t describe it as a grand architectural project. We talked about the East End in 2030. We had to come up not only with a rationale for the Olympics but some very clear themes.’

The concept of the park was therefore present from the beginning, and some of the key work to enable it to happen, such as construction of tunnels to take power lines underground so that the forest of pylons could be removed, was commissioned at an early stage. But the form of the park that exists now, and will in the future, is largely thanks to a collaboration between LDA Design and George Hargreaves Associates, appointed at a later stage as the masterplanners for the park.

‘The masterplan that EDAW did was fantastic in getting the infrastructure and the venues in the right place,’ explained John Hopkins, who was project director for the Olympic Park at the ODA. ‘The role of the landscape architect was to take that masterplan and to do a design overlay. The brief was very challenging to the designer — and LDA and George Hargreaves challenged us right back.’

Annie Coombs wrote substantial sections of the brief, and represented CABE Space and the LI on the landscape architect selection panel. She said, ‘My strong recollection of John Hopkins’ brief to me for the brief for the park’s landscape commission was “make it the most special place”. At times this seemed frustratingly unattainable with all the constraints, complexities and, albeit important, over-riding objectives. Possibly the most important words we wrote were “distinctive, inspiring and beautiful”.

Selecting consultants who could deliver this and were prepared to challenge conventional approaches was key; as was tenacious conviction of the importance of high quality design throughout brief, procurement, design and construction stages.

‘It resulted in a stunning backdrop for the Games and I feel sure it will become a great open space for all the local neighbourhoods.’

The first challenge from the landscape architects was the decision to bid to work on both halves of the park, whereas the brief was originally looking for two separate practices. The park is an hourglass shape, and it was always the intention that the two halves would have different characteristics — the southern part more active and busy and better connected, and the northern part more biodiverse and more peaceful — a place for more traditional park activities.

Contracts such as the engineering had already been let to Atkins and to Arup with the park split up in this way.

But LDA Design.Hargreaves bid for the entire project — and won it.

The next major challenge was the proposal to shrink the size of the concourses. This was not entered into lightly.

Pedestrian modelling predicted that a certain amount of space would be needed, so the landscape architects had a battle on their hands when they argued that this was too much — not least because some of the preliminary work had already been done. The trump card here was held by George Hargreaves, who had worked at Sydney and seen 56 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Below: Wide temporary bridges will reduce in width in transformation.

that the concourses, designed using the same modelling, were always relatively empty despite the success of the games.

Neil Mattinson, senior partner at LDA Design, said, ‘The original masterplan didn’t showcase the potential for green landscape.’ Once the landscape architects won the argument, a number of good things followed. The amount of hard surfacing was reduced in Games mode, meaning that there would be less to take away for legacy. But the soft landscape did not just expand — it also changed in character. Waterways that had been forced into virtual culverts were able to have much more natural banks, and the visibility of the water increased greatly as a result.

This all assisted biodiversity, and added to the public’s enjoyment of the place.

‘One of the great wins in the North Park,’ said Mattinson, ‘was the diversion of the Channelsea River.’

This had previously been constrained within a culvert, which meant that if there was high water it flooded properties to the north of the Olympic site. ‘Now the water percolates back through the park,’ said Mattinson. ‘It has taken 5,500 homes out of flood risk.’

As a result of these changes, some 350,000 woodland plants have been planted. Habitats have been created

FEATURE: OLYMPIC REVIEW

Above – top to bottom: lawns in the north park were also part of the flood strategy; building up the landscape added visual interest; visitors posted approving messages.

for otters, and there are frog ponds and fish refuges.

Everything that has been done has a maintenance regime associated with it. There is long-term thinking in, for example, the planting of oak saplings amidst stands of birch trees in the hope that these will grow up and follow the succession that is common in the natural environment.

Landforms have also been created from the recycled material on the site, with gabion walls providing structure.

As a result the park rises and falls, creating views out over London as well as more intimate areas.

The creation of this level of biodiversity in a managed landscape is revolutionary and rare. But it would not be enough for a park where many visitors will expect a zing of excitement from flowers. There is therefore extensive planting, and while much of it is as bright and visually exciting as in many municipal parks, it is a world away from it in concept and execution. Much of this is down to the efforts of James Hitchmough and Nigel Dunnett, planting experts at the University of Sheffield, who worked as a subconsultant to LDA Design. Hargreaves. They combine a creative attitude to planting with great scientific rigour. While they subscribe to an environmental agenda, they also believe in pleasure. ‘Our perspective is that we want to do environmental good,’ said Hitchmough, ‘but we recognise that it has to appeal to ordinary human beings.

We were originally shown pictures of happy people walking through fields of nettles and thistles. I wanted people to say, “this is extraordinary” ’.

Put simply, LDA Design. Hargreaves decided where the planting would go. Hitchmough and Dunnett worked out the detail of the planting and, in the case of the 2012 gardens, Sarah Price of Sarah Price Landscape determined the precise planting pattern. But, like almost every aspect of the Olympic Park, collaboration was a key to success, and so these demarcation lines became blurred.

What was not blurred was the need for speed. Part of this is due to our changing expectations. ‘When Regent’s Park and Hyde Park were laid out,’ said Mattinson, ‘they were very empty grassy spaces with a few avenues of trees. It has taken generation after generation to build up to what you see today. In the 21st Century, everybody /...

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 57

expects instant results.’ This pressure was enhanced by the needs of the Games. Not only did results have to be fast, but the many wild flowers that were used, which would traditionally have peaked in mid summer, had to be tricked into waiting and making their show as the games opened.

In this way, and only this way, there was an equivalence to events like the Chelsea Flower Show, where growers persuade plants to behave to a different timetable from the one that they would follow naturally.

There are beds of planting throughout the park, with herbaceous meadows and also ‘lenses’ of planting set into the landscape in the North Park. The greatest excitement was however reserved for the South Park, which will be the more densely occupied and the less ‘natural’. This is where the golden carpet of flowering annuals was created with the stadium as backdrop. It was one of the most successful but also boldest moves since, just three months before the Games opened, it was nothing but bare earth. Hitchmough and Dunnett had however, here as well as elsewhere, done everything possible to ensure that nothing could go wrong, carrying out trial planting in advance, and making contingency plans for the vagaries of the weather. They sourced seed from Germany since, sadly, the viability of British seed is far inferior.

In transition these annual meadows will be replaced by perennial meadows, a type of planting that also exists in the South Park. Here too the plants had to be given some help. The problem was that they needed a shot of nitrogen to make them flower in 2012, but without permanently enriching the soil, which would have led to them being overtaken by coarser species. ‘We used ammonium nitrate,’ said Hitchmough. ‘It makes them grow like crazy, then stop. There is no more phosphate or potassium in the soil than when we started.’

The naive might see these meadows as somehow having occurred naturally, and they should be largely self-sustaining. But nobody could ignore the magnificent artifice that went into the making of the 2012 Gardens, a showcase of plants from four parts of the world from which UK gardeners have drawn plants over the last 600 years.

They are, in chronological order of influence: Western Europe, the Mediterranean and Asia Minor; the temperate Americas; the southern hemisphere and temperate Asia.

They are in some sense then an educational resource, but one that communicates through the splendour of its visual experience. Like every other part of the park, these gardens are working hard, serving more than one purpose.

There are physical layers within the park, from the electric tunnels through the engineering base, to the hard and soft landscape, the buildings and the (temporary) overlay for the games. But there are also layers of function, offering relaxation, exercise, entertainment, biodiversity, communication links and a spur to development. What is so admirable is that these are all mixed together, seen as complementary and not competing. In transformation mode there will be new buildings, new facilities, and new areas of temporary and permanent planting. The park that was created for the 2012 Olympic Games was merely the first chapter in a story that will be well-worth following.

58 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Athletes’ Village The excitement about the Olympic Park makes it possible to ignore the other achievements of the Olympics in terms of landscape and infrastructure. The Athletes’ Village was a major project in its own right, as this piece contributed

by Vogt explains.

T

he public realm project of the Athletes’ Village (now renamed as East Village), was a challenge of speed and endurance. While there was

considerable pressure to deliver the Village

for 2012, the primary focus of the design team was the development of a Post-2012 Legacy Community that would contain residential, retail, office and educational facilities.

FEATURE: OLYMPIC REVIEW

Left – top: Yorkstone paving refers to London traditions. Left – bottom: The landscape was designed to manage water.

Below: there are plenty of benches for relaxation.

The East Village lies between the river Lea to the west and the existing residential area of Leyton to the east. The natural characteristics and urban context of these locations were used as landscape references to inform the design of open spaces and streetscapes. The specific geography of the surrounding natural and urban context, including topography, hydrology and native planting, informed the general composition of the different open spaces and streetscape environments, creating a cohesive district and a place of distinction.

Connecting this former industrial area to central London was one of the main design considerations. So, in addition to the strong links to the surrounding context, a central aspiration of the design was to develop a landscape that referred to the character of traditional London open spaces (alignments of plane trees, Yorkstone paving, green squares, etc.) and also to the English tradition of landscape gardens.

This pleasure landscape is also an engineered landscape the design of which was very much influenced by water management.

Close collaboration between the landscape architects, ecologists and engineers was required to develop a landscape that would not only create a sense of place but also minimise irrigation and hard surfacing, recycle run-off water, create topographical variation, possess

a diversity of structures and habitats, and make extensive use of native and naturalised vegetation throughout the scheme and wetland environments.

Rainwater from the site is collected and cleaned through different natural filtration processes and stored in large ponds, before a pumping station distributes it back to the Village to be used for irrigation. Technical structures such as the pumping station have been transformed into follies in the English tradition, disguising their purpose and incorporating other functions such as viewing platforms. In addition, circular arrangements of trees, in contrast with the surrounding planting, act as vegetal follies, enhancing the thoughtful balance between natural and manmade.

The layout of the wetland landscape was also influenced by traditional landscape gardens, with the positioning of the five ponds and planting of various types of vegetation designed to provide different experiences and events as one navigates the park. Pathways follow the undulating topography and, upon arriving at certain points, the structured planting creates viewing axes offering vistas across the wetlands. Vogt landscape also had an overview of the design of the buildings’ courtyards in order to bring consistency.

Nevertheless, since the courtyards are private,

they were considered as autonomous and introverted entities which needed to have their own designer, design and specific characters in order to create an effect of surprise, a contrast with the public realm.

Area: 150,000m² of open spaces Client: Lend Lease Team: Applied Landscape, Vogt Landscape, Fletcher Priest Architects, Arup, Biodiversity by Design, Speirs and Major Associates, David Bonnett Associates, Tim O’Hare Associates, Waterwise Solutions, BMT Fluid Mechanics, Gardiner & Theobald, RPS Planning / Quod Planning

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 59

60 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Practice Landscape Engineers

BY RUTH SLAVID

It is easy to draw parallels between the Olympic Games and the Olympic Park. Both broke speed records — one in running, cycling and swimming, the other in planning, remediation and construction. Both brought together the best talents and skills of highly trained people.

Both delighted the spectators. And on this analogy, one would have to say that the landscape engineers were the women’s boxing of the games, a sport (discipline) that had not previously been represented, and that proved a surprising source of delight.

PHOTOGRAPHY: STEVE BANKS

I

f you hear the term landscape engineer, you may think at first of it as a new professional discipline. But in fact there is no such person as a landscape engineer. It was a role played by a team, and the essential point of that role was that it was a team of engineers, led by a landscape architect. The intention — and the actuality — was that a sensitivity to landscape informed all the engineering decisions.

Because the engineering of the park was split in two, there were two teams of landscape engineers — an Atkins team in the north, led by Alison Braham, a director of the practice, and an Arup team in the south led by associate director Tom Armour. The idea for this came from John Hopkins, who was project director

Alison Braham

Tom Armour

in charge of landscape at the Olympic Delivery Authority. ‘Because the project was so complex we needed Atkins and Arup to engineer it,’ he said. ‘It’s a huge civil engineering project but it could have stuffed up what people would actually see. So I suggested the work should be led by a landscape architect, and one called a landscape engineer. If there were any design changes the landscape engineer had to take that decision and the landscape architect had to approve it.’

Effectively then, the landscape engineers acted as a liaison point between the landscape architects and the engineering team — but working within the engineering team who were their own colleagues.

The point about being colleagues was important — these landscape engineers were not parachuted in but were used to working together. Braham in particular was used to this collaborative approach having worked on large engineering projects such as motorways. ‘I am used to collaboration and working with people from different disciplines,’ she said. ‘I think it would be more difficult if you were working with people who you did not know.’

‘The whole idea of a landscape engineer is to make sure that the landscape ideas are carried right through the project,’ said Armour. The division between the two practices (made even more complicated by the fact that other members of Atkins had the role of overseeing the Arup work in the south),could have potentially been /...

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 61

Practice cont.

a problem, since there was an interface between the two where the north park met the southern half. But in fact this was not the case, and the two teams shared details. This is not surprising considering the atmosphere that pervaded the entire Olympic project – it was an exemplar for the construction industry with the ODA setting it up on the basis of cooperation not conflict. The slightly warlike feeling, a result of the very demanding programme, has resulted in everybody pulling together.

The civil engineering challenges on the project were enormous, and the park had to interface with a very large number of other elements — with all the buildings, temporary and permanent, and also with the bridges and all the utilities. Just as in a building there needs to be an architect in control to ensure that all the cabling and light switches line up properly, so on a project like the Olympic Park, there needed to be a guiding intelligence to make sure that all the interfaces had a consistent approach, and that design changes did not imperil the overall feeling of the park.

In another project, in different circumstances, one could imagine the landscape architect having this role. But here the scale of the work that had to be done was so immense (and of course had begun before the landscape architect had come on board) that it would not have been feasible. The stroke of genius was to have landscape architects within the engineering organisations and to give them the power to

62 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

veto decisions and to suggest better ways.

Both Arup and Atkins found the approach hugely successful. Braham said, ‘The really important thing was the recognition of our role and of what the landscape architect can do.’ Armour believes that this approach could be successful on other projects as well. And both believe that it is vital that the client is committed to the importance of landscape architecture — something that Hopkins, a landscape architect himself, most certainly was.

The Olympic Park should lay to rest the still too prevalent view that a landscape architect can be brought in at the end of a project to provide some pretty planting and a few nice surfaces. The team from LDA Design and Hargreaves Associates was able to shape a new piece of green infrastructure which is both an ornament to and a vital driver in the creation of a new piece of city.

The end result would not have been nearly as good without those other experienced landscape architects carrying out the gritty and unglamorous but very satisfying job of landscape engineer, making sure that the many small decisions that had to be made in the process of engineering did not have a deleterious effect on the end result.

Braham believes that the role could have succeeded if she had been working with some outside consultants, but it would certainly have been more difficult if working relationships did not already exist. If more projects are let to landscape engineers, those landscape engineers are

therefore most likely to come from within multidisciplinary, and therefore relatively large, practices.

There is not at present a profession of landscape engineer and it is hard to decide if there ever should be. It is the sympathy from those trained to design landscape that is essential in ensuring that civil engineering projects respect the aesthetic implications.

What would the training be for a landscape engineer? But that is probably a question that we need not address for some time, if ever. Wikipedia has the following definition of landscape engineering: ‘Landscape engineering is the interdisciplinary application of engineering and other applied science to the design and creation of anthropogenic landscapes.’ That is not quite what the landscape engineers at the Olympic Park were doing, but is not a bad definition of the combination of roles that they and the landscape architect performed at the Olympic Park.

The best boxers can be described as punching above their weight (the origin of that particular cliché). Braham and Armour didn’t exactly do that. They applied their skills to the best of their ability in a slightly unfamiliar role. And just as Nicola Jones’ gold medal did a tremendous amount to raise the profile of women’s boxing, so Braham and Armour have done an enormous service not just to the Olympic Park but to the profession of landscape architect. Or should that be landscape engineer?

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 63

Technical Olympic water

BY RUTH SLAVID

Scarcity and over-supply of water have both been catered for in the design of the Olympic Park.

L

ook at images of the happy people

sitting on grass watching events on

the giant screen in the North Park

during the Olympics and

Paralympics, and probably the last thing that comes to mind is ‘flood attenuation’. Yet those lawns were designed to be flooded and hold water during exceptional events. They are just one part of a thorough-going strategy about water which informs the entire design of the Olympic Park.

And, because the landscape is one that works hard, in few places is it obvious what is happening. The park represents green infrastructure at its most integrated and engaging. The one change that is obvious is entirely positive. Where once there were heavily polluted waterways, now there are fish and frogs and, soon, one hopes there will be otters — their holts have been built and they just have to decide to use them.

The creating of a waterside environment in the North Park, complete with the planting of wet woodland, was just one aspect of the work that was done to clean up the waterways.

Other aspects included the construction of a new lock, Three Mills Lock on the Prescott Channel south of the Park. Along with dredging, this deepened the channel

64 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

and allowed larger boats to access the site during construction. Additionally, because it is upstream of the Abbey Mills Sewage Treatment Works, the lock reduced the potential for sewage overflow to move upstream into the park with the tide, and so helped clean the water. River walls in the South Park were repaired and replaced, making it possible to create wider towpaths.

The Channelsea River was culverted, and this, along with the additional flood storage in the North Park, decreased the risk of flooding both within the park and to neighbouring areas.

The wet woodland itself required considerable study. In order to create the right environment, the water engineer (Atkins) had to create low embankments that would hold water after they had been overtopped. Coir blocks were used for the planting, both because they created the right conditions, holding enough water, and because they speeded installation.

But managing water is not just about dealing with having too much — scarcity is important as well. Water, particularly potable water, is an increasingly precious resource, and the design of the Olympic Park took this into account with novel approaches to both saving water and treating water.

The first important step was to reduce water demand. The planting has a large role to play, as most of it was deliberately designed not to need permanent irrigation — the only two exceptions are the London 2012 Gardens and the Great British Garden.

In contrast, the widely used perennial meadows need irrigation only for the first two years while they are establishing.

Considerable studies were carried out to find the best way to provide the water that was needed for irrigation. Abstraction from the river network was discounted as it was already near the maximum acceptable level.

Rainwater storage on site, either in swales or tanks, would have occupied too much space, and in any case most rainwater was being used within the buildings, as part of a process that also reduced their demand.

The solution therefore was the construction of something that is relatively unknown in the UK, and has never been done on this scale — a black water treatment plant adjacent to the site. Known as the Old Ford Water Recycling Plant, it takes sewage from the Great Northern Outfall Sewer and treats it to a non-potable, but high, standard. As well as its use for irrigation, this water is used for toilet flushing in the venues and also used in the Energy Centre for cooling water.

One of the great achievements of the Olympics was that there were not just nice words said about environmental issues. Hard targets were set, and were measured, and as a result, were achieved.

The use of water was one of these targets.

Potable water use was to be reduced by 40 per cent compared to standard practice.

The black water recycling and the choice of planting that did not require constant irrigation played a part. Also important were the measures that were put in place in

Below: Sections through the landscape, showing the relationship between wetland planting and water.

the buildings, such as low-water-demand appliances and rainwater harvesting.

As a result of the combination of all these measures, the target was exceeded comfortably, with a saving of a very impressive 58 per cent.

What is really impressive about the attitude to water on the Olympic Park is that in almost every case moves to improve water quality or the use of water have led to additional benefits. So the cleaning up of the waterways created an environment in which a wide variety of species could thrive. The opening up of the banks of the rivers facilitated this, and also helped with flood prevention. By allowing the water to overflow the banks it was possible not only to alleviate flooding but also to create a wet woodland environment that, while originally indigenous, is rare today. The decision to keep irrigation demand to a minimum was one of the driving factors that resulted in a planting regime that wowed the visitors and will continue to be seen as innovative for some years to come. The need for some irrigation, on the other hand, tipped the balance towards the construction of the black-water treatment plant. Like so much of the work on the site, there is evidence of innovation — but innovation that has been shown to work, and so is reproducible.

The site itself will be a repository of knowledge although it wears its learning lightly. For those who want to delve further, the creation of the Learning Legacy website ensures that the knowledge can be shared as widely as possible — as it deserves to be.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 65

66 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

Technical Olympic Soil

Stephen Floyd is a landscape architect whose practice, Forestopolis, was responsible for the landscape of the Pleasure Gardens.

BY STEPHEN FLOYD

Creating a park on a polluted site called for large-scale remediation and the creation of some carefully targeted manufactured soils.

S

ome 2.2 million cubic metres of

soil were excavated during

the construction of the Olympic

park. Considering the wide

ranging contaminants on site, it was very impressive that 80 per cent of this material was reused in the park construction, along with 98 per cent of the building rubble from demolition of the former works.

Given that landfill charges for contaminated spoil may run at rates exceeding £100 per tonne plus haulage, and that this figure equates to maybe 150,000 truck loads of soil, the pragmatic value of keeping the material on site is overwhelming. The value is both financial and environmental, one of those happy occasions when doing the right thing brings monetary rewards.

This wide availability of cut and fill has been exploited to rich effect across the park, with the new rolling topography offering rich and dynamic environments.

The early involvement of landscape design in the engineering solutions of the park was vital. It contrasts with the occurrence too often of landscape architects being detached from engineering and soil science, and so missing opportunities in the design. Too often we work at the

surface; the contamination at the Olympic site forces us to dig deeper.

CLEANING UP This site has a long and dirty history. Heavy industry, illegal tipping, chemical works and the attentions of the Luftwaffe had left a truly brownfield site. Contamination was extensive in both the soils and groundwater. Some materials could be reused immediately, such as crushed concrete in the gabion walls. Most required some treatment and careful management.

The result was Britain’s largest soil washing operation. ‘Soil hospitals’ were set up on site. Using physical separation techniques, these plants processed 40% of the material excavated. The soil hospital produced three main products: a sand, a gravel and a filter cake. The filter cake was the residual fine-grained fraction of the soil matrix and it is these fine particles that tend to hold contaminates within the soil.

The soil hospital therefore had two functions. Firstly it removed a high percentage of contaminants, and secondly it provided graded aggregates that were a useful and known product for use in further construction. The sands and gravels could then be blended to spec and used by contractors for varied construction tasks.

After much testing, analysis and experimenting with the aggregates available, it was realised that due to a variety of factors, and despite the cleaning, the aggregates from site would not

be suitable components for use in the manufacture of topsoil or soils in contact with the surface layer. One of the major problems was caused by asbestos,since its fibres are nearly impossible to remove from soils completely.

In addition, many of the aggregates were simply not suitable for the planting.

The industrial history meant that much of the ‘soil’ in fact consisted of construction rubble and would therefore have had an unsuitably high pH value and lime content for planting. The solution to this was to lay a marker layer above the landscape base layer and to import soils for all planted and trafficked areas. This was known as the living layer or human health layer.

MANUFACTURED SOILS Because of the constraints, the entire surface layer at the Olympic park consists of manufactured soils. Soil specialist Tim O’Hare Associates designed nine soil specifications specifically for the various planting habitats and soil functions in the Olympic park. Tim O’Hare has written about this in some detail as part of the Olympic learning legacy.

See www.learninglegacy.london2012.com ‘People often think about soil specification only in terms of suitability for planting but soil needs to provide so many other functions,’ said O’Hare. As part of the Olympic Park’s Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) design, the landscape soils (topsoil and subsoil) function as drainage /...

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 67

Technical cont.

routes, filters and slow-release reservoirs, largely replacing conventional land drains on site. The soils form a capping layer over contaminated ground. ‘If the landscape soils had not been introduced the remediated land beneath would not have had a suitable specification and would have had to be removed at great expense,’ O’Hare said.

The subsoils are also an essential part of the soil profile for plant establishment providing support and water attenuation.

Finally the manufactured subsoil provided an ideal working surface for vehicles and plant during the construction progress.

Manufactured soils can also have impressive green credentials as they can be manufactured from waste products from other industries. Here the general purpose topsoil is a blend of quarry overburden and green compost. The quarry overburden comes from a site in Kent, and provides the mineral component of most of the soils.

It is a waste product from the quarrying process and has a suitable range of particle sizes to act as a base for the soil. It was screened to remove unsuitable sizes.

Green compost is the magic ingredient for many of the manufactured soils. It not only provides nutrients but also contributes to particle aggregation, water retention and provides a whole wealth of living soil biota which, with the rich organic matter, provide a true soil ecosystem. Whereas fertilisers provide temporary doses of nutrients, compost-based manufactured soils provide

68 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

a complex soil matrix and a sustainable soil environment that should look after itself without future maintenance requirements.

‘It was a real pleasure returning to the site after a growing season and smelling the soil,’ said O’Hare. ‘The soils are already darker and producing their own humic acids. It is then you can see that what you’ve started is working.’

The grassed areas and structural tree soils were constructed with a high content of narrowly graded sands. The consistent particle size ensures a soil structure that can be compacted without removing its ability to translocate air and water, therefore allowing the growth of roots in areas requiring compaction for excess foottrafficking or hardstanding.

Another interesting soil element is fibreised compost. This is produced from the same stream as green waste but from oversize woody material. ‘It is specially processed into a matrix of organic fibres,’ O’Hare said. ‘The material demonstrates a good available water-holding capacity, high air-filled porosity, high organic matter content and low levels of plant available nutrients.’ This is particularly useful for areas such as the species-rich meadow as it allows the creation of a functioning but low nutrient topsoil without reliance on peat.

It is common with manufactured soils to mix aggregates on site but on the Olympic park all soil was manufactured off site.

The main advantage was that it allowed a very constant product to be created.

Anyone who has stood with a digger driver between two huge piles of brown material in a field will understand the difficulties of getting a proper mix on site.

While soil specification was freed from the limitations of site materials this is not to say that they were used arbitrarily.

The park’s design is an example of form following function and the soils follow the functions, opportunities and restrictions of the site. Meadow planting provides an attractive, diverse and low maintenance ground cover. Wetlands respond to water management, structural soils support spectator areas. The landform seamlessly holds together these functions managing water flow, framing views creating loose amphitheatre and providing the basis of this original landscape.

Such damaged sites provide the designer with a unique mix of problems and opportunities. Contamination forces us to dig and this in turn forces the consideration of landforms and water systems. As we have started with no soils and a derelict site there is a certain freedom. We can choose the ground, shape it to provide services and an amenity, take full advantage of the possibilities at no additional expense.

These magical trade offs are however only available to those who know of the options and who can see the possibilities.

Green infrastructure increasingly justifies landscape design and rightly so. The designer must be informed of technologies to be able to take advantage of them.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 69

Interview John Hopkins John Hopkins can take much of the credit for the success of the Olympic Park — now he wants to sort out the world.

F

ew practitioners become clients

and have the opportunity to view

the challenges from an opposite

viewpoint, but John Hopkins is

one of the few. After leading LDA Design’s unsuccessful bid to carry out the original Olympic masterplan, he ended up working for the Olympic Delivery Authority, effectively as client for the Olympic Park.

It was, he says, ‘the chance of a lifetime.

It was fantastic to bring my experience of being a consultant to this role. It is absolutely crucial that a client is informed — and not all clients are.’

Hopkins ended up in a new relationship with his old firm, when LDA.Hargreaves was appointed to masterplan the overlay of the park itself — a decision from which he deliberately removed himself. The Park, said Hopkins, ‘is a demonstration that the power of good design solves so many problems. It’s a multi-functional landscape.

There is the ability through great design to weave together the needs of wildlife with the needs of people.’

One of the first things that he did when appointed to his role was to give talks to all groups from senior designers to subcontractors about the importance of the role of the landscape. This didactic approach reflects the fact that Hopkins has taught for much of his life, and he now has

70 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

a full-time teaching position, having moved to the US a year ago, as visiting professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

‘I have always had a fascination with the States,’ he said, having previously taken a research masters at Louisiana State University and freelanced briefly in Boston.

‘The practice of landscape architecture here is far ahead of the UK,’ he said, speaking from the States. ‘I have always tried to bring that US excellence to the UK.’ And, crucially, it gives him time to write.

With Peter Neal, former head of public space at CABE and seconded to the ODA, he has written The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, described as ‘the only authoritative account of the planning, design and construction of the Park’. More ambitious in scope although not in length, will be his next book, a solo production called The Global Garden — Ecological Economics and Infrastructure. It is intended to be a polemic and therefore will be only 30-40,000 words long, aimed at both the general public and at decision makers.

Despite its brevity, it has been a long time in gestation. ‘I have been working on these ideas throughout my career,’ he said.

It argues that we need a new economic model that is not predicated on growth, because the pursuit of growth is at odds with the finite resources of our planet – and their inequitable distribution. Hopkins treats the earth as a ‘global green garden’ into which only sunlight enters. And landscape architects, he believes, have a vital role to play in achieving this.

His book will, he says, ‘describe how we can achieve beautiful, multi-functional landscapes for water, food, energy, biodiversity, materials, transport, waste, equity, human health and happiness based on natural and cultural resources, and ecosystem services capacity.’

He said, ‘It’s “the economy, stupid” that is driving us all in the wrong direction.

One of the problems with the economy is that it is being driven by big business. The majority of agriculture in the UK is being bought up by big business. The National Farmers Union is arguing for US-style big agriculture, which goes against the grain of the landscape.’

Fundamentally nothing will work, Hopkins believes, until we all give up our obsession with growth. ‘We measure GDP,’ he says, ‘by the amount of physical stuff put through the system. It doesn’t put a cost on the resources, on the pollution. Nor does it measure well-being. Every politician and every economist says that we have to have growth. But that is exactly what we don’t want. I hope my book will broaden the knowledge of people so that they will understand and will work for change. We have to concentrate on health and wellbeing rather than on increasing salaries.’

Why should this be of particular interest to landscape architects? ‘They have the skills,’ says Hopkins, ‘to do some national scale environmental planning and resource planning. They need to do that, but they need clients. The client at the national scale has to be government.’ The lesson from the

PHOTOGRAPHY: JOHN HOPKINS IMAGE BY BARRETT DOHERTY BOOK SPREADS COURTESY OF WILEY

BY RUTH SLAVID

14

THE MAKING OF THE QUEEN ELIZABETH OLYMPIC PARK

15

THE POWE R OF THE GAMES

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY

THE PRACTICE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE HERE [UNITED STATES] IS FAR AHEAD OF THE UK

Power of the Games Games

The

T

he tension was palpable. On 6 July 2005, Jacques Rogge, the President of the

Havana, Istanbul, Leipzig, London, Madrid, Moscow, New York City, Paris and Rio de Janeiro

International Olympic Committee (IOC), stood in front of the hushed IOC General

had all submitted bids by the 15 July 2003 deadline. On 18 May 2004, following technical

Assembly in Singapore and slowly opened the envelope. When he declared ‘the

evaluations, the IOC reduced this list to just five: London, Madrid, Moscow, New York City

Games of the 30th Olympiad in 2012 are awarded to the city of … London’, the London

and Paris. By 19 November 2004, each city had submitted their candidate files. London’s

2012 delegation went wild, as did 30,000 people gathered on the other side of the world in

550-page candidate file – the ‘Bible’ of the bid – set out how the Games would be delivered,

front of giant screens in Trafalgar Square, and at similar events across the country. London

the location of the venues, the political and economic structure, environment, finances,

had hosted the Games twice before – in 1908 and 1948 – but it had never before had to

transport, security and detailed plans for the new Park. An IOC inspection team visited

bid. And while the two previous London Games had been staged in west London, this time,

each candidate city during February and March 2005, publishing technical evaluations

support for the bid by Tony Blair and Ken Livingstone, the then Prime Minister and Mayor

on 6 June 2005. Although these reports did not contain any scores or rankings, Paris was

of London respectively, was predicated on the Games being centred on a new Olympic

considered the best followed closely by London, but with New York City and Madrid also

Park in east London. The power of the Games would be the trigger for investment and

receiving positive evaluations. Led by Olympian Lord Coe, chairman of the bid company,

regeneration of a neglected part of the city on an epic scale. Ken Livingstone promised

London went head to head with Paris for the final vote in Singapore, narrowly winning by

to ‘deliver a compact and sustainable Olympic Park, which will transform one of London’s

54 votes to 50.

Celebrations on 6 July 2005 in Trafalgar Square, London as the vast crowd went wild on hearing that London had won the bid to host the Games of the 30th Olympiad.

most neglected areas and re-connect it to the rest of London and to Europe. This will kick-

Above – left: John Hopkins. Right: pages from The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

start regeneration in east London, while bringing all parts of the city together to celebrate

The euphoria of the bid team quickly evaporated, however, as they returned from

the unifying force of Olympism.’1

Singapore to the horror of the 7 July central London bombings. The bombings set a very

122

Olympic Park is that ‘no project can move forward and not address sustainability.

Landscape architects need to be at the core of every project, and increasingly so. Biodiversity and vegetation need to work more closely at the core of the design team. We need to move to a benign infrastructure.’

Hopkins’ book will, he believes, be the first that specifically addresses ecological economics and the planning, design, delivery, management and monitoring of ecological infrastructure. ‘I have always been a deep thinker,’ he said. ‘I always wanted to understand why. It was the inspiration for travelling, for learning about cultures, civilisations and history.’

He describes himself as a Taoist which, he says, means ‘being part of the flow but you can also affect the flow,’ and this is what he hopes the book will do.

Since studying landscape architecture at Thames Polytechnic, Hopkins has worked in the public and private sectors, in large and small practices in the UK, Hong Kong, Australia and Malaysia, with teaching running in parallel for much of the time.

Moving to the Olympic Delivery Authority was a step away from practice, and the US placement is a further move in that direction. It will be fascinating to see what Hopkins decides to do next and where he does it. I suspect that even he does not know — but that the answer, when it comes, may well be surprising and will certainly be interesting. He will be making the flow, as well as going with it.

THE MAKING OF THE QUEEN ELIZABETH OLYMPIC PARK

THE AQUATICS CENTRE In January 2005 it was announced that architect Zaha Hadid, working with S & P specialist swimming-pool architects and engineers Arup, had won the competition to design the Aquatics Centre. It was commissioned as an iconic piece of architecture in support of the bid. It had a spectacular 11,000-square-metre sinuous roof inspired by the flow of water in the adjacent Waterworks river. Keith Mills, the Chief Executive of London 2012 at the time, said: ‘This is an outstanding design that will create a spectacular building,

PLANNING AND DESIGNING THE PARK

November 2009 view of the nearly complete roof structure of the Aquatics Centre designed by Zaha Hadid Architects. The 3,000-tonne steel roof has a longer single span than Heathrow’s Terminal Five and rests on just two concrete supports at its northern end and one wall at the southern end.

The temporary wings increase the seating capacity to 17,500 for the Games that, once removed, will leave a permanent capacity of 2,500. The wave-like roof won the British Constructional Steelwork Association Award in 2010. However, because it was designed prior to the research and publication of the ODA’s policies and strategies, particularly the

123

The completed wave-form roof of the Aquatics Centre with the 15,000-capacity temporary wings under construction in February 2011.

Sustainable Design Strategy, it did not benefit from the rigorous informed brief writing, sustainability targets and early design review process that so positively influenced all other venues, infrastructure, parklands and public realm from inception to completion.

delivering the essential “wow” factor for the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games

This made it a much more difficult project to deliver. The lesson is that getting the brief

… It gives the community a lasting sporting legacy.’11 The completed Aquatics Centre

right at the beginning, with all the requirements, targets and performance criteria clearly

comprises a 50m competition pool, a 50m training pool and a competition diving pool.

established, is crucial to a smoother design and delivery process.

The roof is supported on just two concrete cores to the north and a 22m wall to the south.

124

THE MAKING OF THE QUEEN ELIZABETH OLYMPIC PARK

PLANNING AND DESIGNING THE PARK

125

THE OLYMPIC STADIUM February 2011 view of the Olympic Stadium, designed by Populous, looking north across the Park. The shard paving pattern was laid with the graphic design extending to the Stadium seating.

The Olympic Stadium is the centrepiece of every Games, hosting the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and the Athletics events. At the time the design brief was being drawn up, there was no interest from any Premiership football club in taking over the Stadium after the Games – the only possible user that could fill an 80,000-capacity stadium. London had recently seen the completion of Wembley Stadium (a project that had well-publicised problems of cost, construction and late delivery that bred much scepticism about the ODA’s ability to deliver) so there was no need, no business case for another large stadium in London. Consequently, and extraordinarily, the Olympic Stadium was designed to be largely demountable, leaving a permanent 25,000-capacity home for athletics, combined with other sporting, community and educational uses. Embracing the temporary was a thoroughly pragmatic response to legacy needs. In October 2006, Sir Robert McAlpine was named as the preferred bidder to design and build the Olympic Stadium. The omens were good. Team Stadium, as it became known, had already designed and built the universally praised Emirates Stadium for Arsenal Football Club on time and on budget. It was made up of Sir Robert McAlpine, architects Populous (specialists in sports architecture having designed Sydney’s Olympic Stadium), structural and building services engineer Buro Happold, and landscape architect Hyland Edgar Driver. The eagerly anticipated design was revealed in November 2007. It was utterly unique and innovative.

An Olympic Stadium with such a large demountable structure had never been attempted before. To save space and drive efficiencies, the majority of spectator facilities were moved outside the main structure. The result was the lightest stadium of its size in the world – four times less steel was used than in Beijing’s ‘Bird’s Nest’. Architect Rod Sheard said: ‘The design is a response to the challenge of creating the temporary and the permanent at the same time – that is the essence of the design for the stadium.’12

THE VELODROME Triple Beijing 2008 gold medal-winning cyclist Chris Hoy unveiled designs for the Velodrome on 8 September 2007. Beside the 6,000-capacity Velodrome is a BMX Track that will be converted for both competitive and general public use after the Games. A onemile road cycle circuit and mountain-bike tracks will also be added. Combining cycling facilities for all disciplines in one ‘hub’, they will form what will arguably be the world’s best VeloPark, to be owned and run by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. It will also have a café and terrace offering fantastic views over the Park and the London skyline.

The design team for the Velodrome comprised Hopkins Architects, Expedition Engineering and BDSP, along with Grant Associates as landscape architects who were appointed following a design competition. It was the first venue on which construction was completed on the Park and handed over to LOCOG in February 2011. In October

Wiley is offering readers of Landscape a 25% discount on the rrp of The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. To order call Freephone 0800 243407 or visit www.wiley.com and quote promo code VBA41 when prompted.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 71

S Looking Forward

The challenges and the culture of Rio are very different from those of London, but some of the approaches will be the same — or better

72 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

hould you be lucky enough to get tickets for the Olympics in Rio in 2016, don’t expect to loll around the park in the informal way that visitors to London 2012 did.

That was a very British way of behaving, and not how people act in Rio at all. What the Cariocas like to do is to promenade, to see and be seen. The city has processional streets and beaches where this can happen, and that is also what visitors to the Olympic site will be able to do. ‘You get huge collections of people getting together to chat and hang out,’ said Jason Prior, AECOM’s chief executive of planning, design and development. ‘You see things you don’t see in public here — workout stations on the beach, rollerblading on the pavements. The Olympic Park will have huge processional spaces that you didn’t get here, with gardens to retreat into.’

AECOM, of course, is the practice that, under its previous name of EDAW, led the masterplan for London.

If winning the competition to masterplan London was a delightful surprise, then winning Rio is even more of a triumph. Although AECOM is a global organisation, Prior’s team is based in London, so the achievement seems even greater than winning in a home country. AECOM is the first practice to masterplan two successive Olympics and, lest one suspects favouritism, it won Rio in an international, anonymous, open competition.

‘We don’t typically enter anonymous design competitions,’ said Bill Hanway, executive director of operations, planning, design and development, but this was too great an opportunity for the practice to miss.

There were 59 entries, of which, said Hanway, around 10 contained very strong ideas and about five looked as if they could really deal with and carry through the commission.

IMAGES COURTESY OF AECOM

FEATURE: LOOKING FORWARD

So there was a sense of self-selection — a knowledge that there just weren’t that many practices around the world that would be up to the challenge.

In some ways Rio is simpler. There is none of the remediation work that was needed in London since the site, which formerly served briefly as an F1 motor-racing track, is level and ready. It will also contain less, since Brazil already has the Maracanã stadium, which will be used for the 2014 World Cup and is nearby but not on the Olympic site. Nevertheless, the density of seats within the site will be greater.

Brazil’s very different climate and topography will have a major impact. The city is sandwiched between the mountains and the sea, and so expansion tends to be linear, around a series of sculpted bays. It is a strip of city carved out between those two beautiful environments, a duality that the Olympic Park design recognises. Hanway describes it as ‘arguably the most beautiful city in the world’. No challenge there, then.

Development on the site is relatively recent. Unlike the Lea Valley in London, where there had been centuries of development, including a great deal of industrial pollution, the Rio site was almost entirely undeveloped until the 1950s and use has been sporadic up until now.

But the Baja area within which it sits is the next slated for development, so post-Olympics it will be built on. As in London there are three stages to design — a games mode, a transition mode while development is taking place, and a masterplan for the final, legacy mode.

The communal domain will be very much in the form of a crafted landscape, but drawing on the plants of the Atlantic rainforest, with around 40 per cent of the planting being indigenous. The intention is that

Left – above: the Rio masterplan reflects the Cariocas’ love of promenading.

Above – top: the former FI racing site fronts a lagoon.

Above – centre: Jason Prior.

Above – bottom: Bill Hanway.

the forms of the plants will inform the planting and the buildings of the common domain. ‘We will use it as a memory of what was there before,’ said Hanway, ‘and to educate people about the forest. In part we will be letting it grow back into the rainforest.’

AECOM prides itself on gaining knowledge of the places where it works. It already has some large projects in Brazil and, with the knowledge that an Olympic competition would be coming, Prior also deliberately spent some time in Rio to get the feel for the place. In addition it worked with a local practice, DG Architecture, on the bid. And, said Hanway, ‘we are looking forward to working with local architects and landscape architects to develop the ideas.’

Despite the very different conditions and response to those conditions, some ideas from the London Olympics are certainly being carried through, and developed. In particular, the sustainable agenda and the commitment to using temporary buildings will be important. ‘We have gone to the next step with the temporary venues,’ said Hanway. ‘The tennis, handball and a great number of other venues will be temporary. There was a request from Eduardo Pais, the mayor of Rio, not just to look at venues that could be taken away, but to look at creating modular buildings from which the components could be reused by the community. For instance we are looking at a handball arena from which the elements could be used to create a school.’ So AECOM will not be simply rolling out the ideas from London, and nor would it want to. ‘People hire you to push the agenda,’ said Prior.

AECOM is a massive organisation, and it includes a sports division that was greatly strengthened when J Parrish joined from Arup Sport. But however much strength there is within the organisation, Prior believes that working with others outside is crucial to bring in new ideas.

If Rio is a great success it will be largely thanks to the masterplan, although one of the biggest issues, of how the public transport system will cope with delivering people to the Olympic site, is beyond AECOM’s areas of responsibility. The hope is that that will be sorted for the 2014 World Cup, and that the Games will be as much of a success as London. There is not a lot of time — the masterplanner was appointed only five years ahead of time compared to seven in London — but the easier site conditions should help make up for that. As in London, a core of buildings has been designated for a sports legacy, and the future use of the site has been considered as carefully as it was here. Unlike Stratford it is already subject to development pressures, which may or may not be an advantage.

Olympic legacies have a mixed history at best. Even Sydney, which held one of the most successful games, has struggled to find a viable use for its park afterwards, and neither Athens nor Beijing seems to have derived much longterm benefit. London has been a game-changer in the way it has informed thinking, and for some of the intelligence behind that to help inform Rio is an excellent idea.

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 73

A word...

Tim Waterman Tim Waterman is a landscape architectural writer, speaker, and critic, who lectures at the Writtle School of Design and is a studio tutor at UCL Bartlett School of Architecture. His books on landscape architecture have been translated into seven languages.

He is the Honorary Editor of Landscape.

Hippocampus

‘I

need to get to my meeting by noon,’ you tell the taxi driver as you settle yourself in the cab. ‘I think I can do it,’ says the driver, and immediately her mind is lighting up a vast range of possibilities as she calculates time of day and traffic flows, driving distances and possible short-cuts.

She has no ordinary brain, either.

Like an athlete, she has worked out and built up her hippocampus; the sea-horse shaped area of the brain that is largely implicated in spatial understanding and memory. Through daily exercise, her hippocampus is pumped like a little bicep.

It’s full of complex spatial knowledge.

Interestingly, those whose professions and educations require lots of rote memory (such as doctors) seem not to exhibit the same tendency to bulging hippocampi.

It appears to be the spatial component of the memory involved in ‘The Knowledge’ that builds up the hippocampi.

I know of no equivalent study of the brains of designers, particularly of those engaged with complex spatial problems on the order of landscape; immensely scaled and complicated with the dynamics of culture, time, environment, and ecology.

Cognitive neuroscientists have realised that we are capable of changing the very structure of our brains consciously, much as we are able to shape and modify our bodies, and I’m convinced that the brain of a highly educated and experienced landscape designer must be a very different organ to that of most mortals, and

74 AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE

indeed to that of many designers in general.

In the process of a landscape architectural education, many students feel as if their mental capacities are being stretched to breaking point by the difficulties of training their minds to comprehend the spatial simulation required for the envisioning of design scenarios. This is to be expected, as they are much like an athlete who discovers muscles previously undiscovered. It’s the ache that follows exertion, but that leads to fitness and strength.

The mental process known as simulation is important to the designer.

If a person is asked to imagine an activity, such as lifting a glass of beer and taking a sip (stay with me, now), then the neural pathways that are activated in the act of imagination are same as those that are employed in the actual experience.

It stands to reason that we can train our imaginations and our brains for highly accurate simulation of this sort as well.

The spatial expertise that a landscape architect brings to design is more advanced than the taxi-driver’s knowledge for yet another reason. The landscape architects are not only using their brains to envision an existing place, but they are also using their knowledge and experience of existing places to envision places that do not yet exist. They are casting into the future. This is where simulation is particularly important to design. It is the anterior function of design drawing.

It includes the mental ability to simulate the occupation and the experience of inhabiting a site that is hypothetical or that is not yet built.

So a landscape architect may well have a sleekly muscled brain that is ideally adapted to dynamic large-scaled spatial imagination, simulation and knowledge, and the ability to vividly imagine possible futures. Why is all of this important? It suggests that there is a scientific argument in favour of employing landscape architects to design outdoor spaces because we possess the ideal neurophysiology for the task due to practice, education, and experience.

Landscape architects. Fit for purpose.

PHOTOGRAPHY: AGNESE SANVITO

BY TIM WATERMAN

AUTUMN 12 LANDSCAPE 75