concluding remarks
Clare Lyster You’ve just given us three images. One is depressing. Two is the technophobe that we’ve had with Archigram in the 1950s and 1960s. And three is 84
maybe what sustainability is trying to give us now—and it’s not working. My comment with the icon earlier might have been misconstrued. I’m not suggesting that we have to reinvent a formalist agenda through our infrastructural agenda. But how can infrastructure give us the image that we can then communicate, whether we’re an architect or a landscape architect? Tim Love It’s interesting. The High Line in New York has cropped up in a lot of student projects as a new symbol of infrastructure as a vision for the city. Just an observation. David Fletcher But I think you touched on one critical issue, which is this idea that architecture students and landscape architecture students should be rigorous and should develop critical thinking skills and independent thinking skills and that will allow them to create visions and to persuade people that those are the correct visions. I feel as though what we’re trafficking is not images of sustainability but unsustainable images… Tim Love Futures… David Fletcher Yeah, right, futures. We’re actually perpetuating a demand for things that we cannot afford in the future. We need to be the leaders in shaping how people perceive and value cities and landscapes. Sarah Goldhagen I found this discussion very interesting. “What is the role of the architect?” is exactly the wrong question. The question should be, “What is the vision of landscape architects, architects, engineers, and urbanists?” Let’s identify what the goals are and then the architects can figure out what their role is going to be. That should be their problem. It’s much more important to actually identify