Ground 21 – Spring 2013 – Politics

21

Landscape Architect Quarterly 06/

12/

16/

Round Table Ethics, Politics, and Practice Features Parks for People Climate Supremacy

Publication # 40026106

Spring 2013 Issue 21

Contents

03/

Up Front Information on the Ground Politics:

06/

Round Table Ethics, Politics, and Practice

President’s Message

Editorial Board Message

President’s Message

Editorial Board Message

I am often asked why the OALA is continually conducting surveys of members’ opinions. My answer is that the importance of member participation is beyond measure—we need to hear your views. Council can only understand what all members want if each member speaks up. As a delegated authority, Council can only advance what we believe is best for the profession if you advise us along the way.

One line drawn on a page can change acres of ground, move earth, and displace people. Our profession is one of remarkable power, for better or for worse. Where there is power, there is politics: ideas struggling against one another, voices lifted and others suppressed. From the politics of practice to the practise of politics, the persuasion of civic beliefs is central to landscape architecture.

CO-MODERATED BY TODD SMITH AND JOCELYN HIRTES

12/

16/

20/

Parks for People Victoria Taylor, OALA, in conversation with Dave Harvey, founder of Toronto Park People Climate Supremacy Denise Pinto in conversation with Fionn Byrne Letter From… the Occupied West Bank

Decision-making is inherently political, particularly when the issue being decided is a matter of common interest among a number of people. Within our Association, we have many committees that provide opportunities for members to get involved in issues of common interest.

Some might see these opportunities as a whole lot of work in the arena of compromise! But in a self-governing environment such as the OALA, members do have the opportunity to voice dissenting opinions and alternative views. In my experience, dissenting views force discussion and consensus on issues of governance through a reasonable process. Members can voice alternatives to ideas with which they disagree through communication with Council and committee members, and by registering their vote at the Annual General Meeting.

TEXT BY SUZANNE HARRIS-BRANDTS

24/

Technical Corner Data Mapping TEXT BY NADIA AMOROSO, AS TOLD TO ERIC GORDON, OALA

26/

28/

42/

Professional Practice Ethics in Action The OALA’s Professional Practice and Ethics Committee Notes A miscellany of news and events Artifact What Flows Below TEXT BY LORRAINE JOHNSON

When members have differing ideas, as is often the case, the result is typically a debate that explores all aspects of the issue. Debates can result in all sides working together to refine ideas on how to better effect action on formative matters.

This can only work if committee members (and non-committee members) who disagree are willing to listen to one another, and accept that there can be merit in opposing viewpoints and compromise. Solutions must be our ultimate goal and, as designers, we are well trained at finding viable and sustainable solutions.

While we function in a political environment, we can make this work to our advantage when we choose to communicate amongst members, with allied professions that will be our partners in the future, and with those writing the terms of our professional practice as we advance our own legislation in the coming years.

I am very proud to be president of the OALA during this very exciting time and thank you all for the opportunity to serve!

JOANNE MORAN, OALA PRESIDENT@OALA.CA

Spring 2013 Issue 21

In the following pages we unpack ideas about private and public interest in urban parks, drill into the OALA’s Code of Ethics, look at the politics of cultivation, and wonder about the effects of war on terrain. Victoria Taylor’s interview with Dave Harvey, Executive Director of Toronto Park People, looks at the trend of turning to citizens and private funders to come to the defence of urban parks and their sustained maintenance. They discuss moving from models of public dependence to a civic attitude that empowers people to be stewards of places they care about.

On the topic of landscape and justice, both social and ecological, our Round Table panel waxes philosophical on the deep ethics of our profession, taking on issues such as dependence on cars, use of soil amendments, and intensification of communities. What holds us to protecting certain values in our work? And what is the role of the OALA’s Code of Ethics in all this?

Whatever our values, singular or combined, we enact them on the land—and that is a big idea. As landscape architects, and certainly as human beings, we are pulled in many directions before moulding our projects into what we feel is the most useful and productive for the world. Politics is about shifts in attitude, about readiness and change. We hope we’ve piqued your interest in reading about how a variety of members and collaborators see that change playing out in the world.

DENISE PINTO CHAIR, EDITORIAL BOARD

Masthead

.21

Editor Lorraine Johnson

2013 OALA Governing Council

OALA Editorial Board Nancy Chater Eric Gordon Adrienne Hall Jocelyn Hirtes Karen May Leslie Morton (on leave) Kate Nelischer Denise Pinto (interim chair) Maili Sedore Lisa Shkut Todd Smith Brendan Stewart Netami Stuart Victoria Taylor Dalia Todary-Michael

President Joanne Moran

Art Direction/Design www.typotherapy.com Advertising Inquiries advertising@oala.ca 416.231.4181 Cover Suzanne Harris-Brandts’ apiary and wildflower proposal for occupied territory in the West Bank.

See page 20.

Ground: Landscape Architect Quarterly is published four times a year by the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects.

Ontario Association of Landscape Architects 3 Church Street, Suite 407 Toronto, Ontario M5E 1M2 416.231.4181 www.oala.ca oala@oala.ca Copyright © 2013 by the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects All rights reserved ISSN: 0847-3080 Canada Post Sales Product Agreement No. 40026106 Ground is printed on 100 percent post-consumer, processed chlorinefree paper that is FSC certified.

The paper is manufactured by Cascades in Canada with 100% postconsumer waste using biogas energy (methane from a landfill site) and is EcoLogo, FSC® and Processed Chlorine Free (PCF) certified.

Vice President Morteza Behrooz Treasurer Sarah Culp Secretary Doris Chee Past President Glenn O’Connor Councillors Alana Evers Jonathan Loschmann Moreen Miller Associate Councillor—Senior Inna Olchovski Associate Councillor—Junior Katherine Pratt Lay Councillor Linda Thorne Appointed Educator University of Toronto Elise Shelley Appointed Educator University of Guelph Sean Kelly University of Toronto Student Representative Sara Ahadi University of Guelph Student Representative Sarah Taslimi OALA Staff Registrar Linda MacLeod

OALA

OALA

About

About the OALA

Ground: Landscape Architect Quarterly is published by the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects and provides an open forum for the exchange of ideas and information related to the profession of landscape architecture. Letters to the editor, article proposals, and feedback are encouraged. For submission guidelines, contact Ground at magazine@oala.ca.

Ground reserves the right to edit all submissions.

The views expressed in the magazine are those of the writers and not necessarily the views of the OALA and its Governing Council.

The Ontario Association of Landscape Architects works to promote and advance the profession of landscape architecture and maintain standards of professional practice consistent with the public interest. The OALA promotes public understanding of the profession and the advancement of the practice of landscape architecture. In support of the improvement and/or conservation of the natural, cultural, social and built environments, the OALA undertakes activities including promotion to governments, professionals and developers of the standards and benefits of landscape architecture.

Upcoming Issues of Ground Ground 22 (Summer) Play Deadline for advertising space reservations: April 22, 2013

Ground Advisory Panel

Ground 23 (Fall) Site Deadline for editorial proposals: May 14, 2013 Deadline for advertising space reservations: June 22, 2013 Ground 24 (Winter) Media Deadline for editorial proposals: August 14, 2013 Deadline for advertising space reservations: October 21, 2013

's environmental savings with Cascades paper Compared to products in the industry made with 100% virgin fiber, Ground: Landscape Architect Quarterly's savings are:

Administrator Aina Budrevics

15 trees

Coordinator Joanna Wilczynska

55,306 L of water 158 days of water consumption 838 kg of waste 17 waste containers 2,178 kg CO2 14,566 km driven 25 GJ 113,860 60W light bulbs for one hour 6 kg NOX emissions of one truck during 20 days

www.cascades.com/papers

Andrew B. Anderson, BLA, MSc. World Heritage Management Landscape & Heritage Expert, Oman Botanic Garden John Danahy, OALA, Associate Professor, University of Toronto George Dark, OALA, FCSLA, ASLA, Principal, Urban Strategies Inc., Toronto Real Eguchi, OALA, Eguchi Associates Landscape Architects, Toronto Donna Hinde, OALA, Partner, The Planning Partnership, Toronto Alissa North, OALA, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, Principal of North Design Office, Toronto Peter North, OALA, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, Principal of North Design Office, Toronto Nathan Perkins, MLA, PhD, ASLA, Associate Professor, University of Guelph Jim Vafiades, OALA, Senior Landscape Architect, Stantec, London

.21

Up Front

03

.21

PLANNING

looking at section 37 Section 37 of the Ontario Planning Act has garnered substantial media attention of late. Although there has long been controversy surrounding its merits as a tool to extract community benefits from development projects, the recent call for its abolition by Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and Toronto Councillor Doug Ford on their Newstalk 1010 radio show has inspired an even more lively debate.

Section 37 allows Ontario cities to negotiate increases in height and density of proposed development projects in return for “facilities, services or matters” provided by the developers. The goal of this statute is to provide benefits to the community in the immediate vicinity of the development to ensure quality of life is maintained amid changes to the neighbourhood. The most frequently applied benefits in Toronto are parks and streetscapes, which often generate opportunities for landscape architects, but the benefits can also include in-kind or cash-inlieu commitments to providing or improving public art, cultural facilities, transit, recreation, non-profit childcare facilities, heritage conservation, affordable housing, libraries, and other projects set out in a Community Design Plan for the area at hand. Between 2007 (when the City of Toronto adopted the Section 37 Implementation Guidelines) and 2011, $137,869,430 in community benefits was secured from developers.

Although Section 37 provides obvious value to the community, its implementation remains controversial. There is no specific formula for determining the rate of contributions based on increased densities because a set rule would in effect be a tax. The rate of contributions can vary between 10 and 30 percent of the value of the portion of the

Up Front: Information on the Ground

01

often opt for visual amenities—such as parks and streetscape improvements—over supporting more pressing community needs, in the hopes of showcasing their positive impacts on the community and winning votes in the next election.

Concerns also arise when considering the effects of Section 37 funds city-wide. Wards with the most development interest, usually those in the downtown area, are able to secure the most Section 37 agreements.

02

development that exceeds zoning restrictions. The City of Toronto’s Protocol for Negotiating Section 37 (2007) clearly states that Section 37 should only be employed when the proposed development already aligns with the objectives and policies of the Official Plan and constitutes good planning; however, much of the negotiations are left in the hands of individual councillors. City planning staff consult with the ward councillor prior to discussions with the developer and provide insight on what value and kinds of community benefits would be appropriate—but after that point the councillor is free to negotiate directly with the developer. This is where the process is open to political influence, and where much of the controversy stems from.

Dubbed “re-election slush funds” by Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, the influential role of councillors in the Section 37 process has been widely criticized. Many argue that councillors

03 01/

Cloud Gardens in Toronto was funded in part by Section 37 agreements from the Bay-Adelaide Centre.

IMAGE/

Casey Morris

02/

Toronto’s Bloor Street Transformation project came in part from Section 37 agreements with local developments.

IMAGE/

Casey Morris

03/

The Wychwood Barns project in Toronto secured $1 million in Section 37 funding from a condo development at Bathurst and St. Clair.

IMAGE/

Casey Morris

Up Front

Thus, the community benefits are not necessarily awarded to those neighbourhoods with the greatest needs. Some argue that Section 37 funds should be pooled city-wide and allocated appropriately by Council, but this is in direct opposition to the intended goal of ensuring that the community in the immediate vicinity of the new development is not negatively impacted by that development.

Developers are also split on the success of the process. Some see Section 37 as a way to achieve their ideal height and density and reduce the risk of community opposition. Others argue that the required contributions force developers to raise housing and office leasing rates. In Mayor Ford’s words, Section 37 is a “shakedown” of developers and a method of “extortion” that could dissuade developers from investing in the city.

Although Toronto has been debating the benefits of Section 37 for many years (the permitting language was written into the City’s 2003 Official Plan), Ottawa only adopted a formal policy in 2012. After seven years of drafts and refinements, the Section 37 Implementation Guidelines now provide Ottawa with a framework with which to enforce Section 37. Ottawa has implemented a slightly more standardized method of determining the value of Section 37 contributions, based around the development’s “value uplift.” The “value uplift” refers to the new land value of the development, which is calculated based on the increased Gross Floor Area from the original zoning to the newly approved zoning. The rate is determined annually by Council based on two zones within the city: the inner urban area ($250 per sq. m. of GFA) and the outer urban area ($130 per sq. m. of GFA).

Although this appears to be a more transparent approach to calculating Section 37 charges, the large geographical areas that these rates cover do not directly align with the actual increase in value of individual developments as a result of zoning changes and therefore could result in diminished community benefits.

Referred to as the “crack cocaine of planning” by urban affairs writer John Lorinc in the Globe and Mail, Section 37 remains a contentious issue. Although capable of providing valued and necessary neighbourhood improvements, the arbitrary nature

04

.21

of its implementation leaves room for bad planning practices with lasting negative effects on communities.

experiences to date provide lessons regarding the opportunities and potential challenges of such partnerships.

Across the varied approaches to Section 37, it is apparent that the implementation of the planning tool could be improved. Planner John Gladki called for greater public involvement in the process during a presentation at the Centre for City Ecology in Toronto in 2012. Consulting the community on its needs in relation to possible Section 37 funding, making the financial formulas and negotiations more transparent and accessible, providing accounts of funds raised, and tracking spending could all assist in making Section 37 more effective in fulfilling its intended goal—to serve the community.

Since it opened in 1860 as a botanical garden, which was then purchased by the city in 1888, Allan Gardens has had a long and complex history as a significant public space in Toronto. Designed as a picturesque landscape in the English garden tradition, the park has seen much change over the years. The original grand Victorian fountain that was once a centrepiece of Allan Gardens, for example, was replaced in the early 1960s with an Austin Floyd-designed modernist fountain, complete with a series of cascading terraces, which was demolished in the 1990s.

TEXT BY KATE NELISCHER, A MEMBER OF THE GROUND EDITORIAL BOARD, WHO WORKS IN DESIGN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP.

Another of the park’s distinctive features, its ornate conservatory housing an impres-

04 COMMUNITY

art in the park In an era of funding cuts to city parks, municipalities throughout Ontario are looking at ways to form partnerships with community groups and corporations in order to both bolster budgets and to engage local citizens in neighbourhood greenspace. Models for such partnerships can vary from one-off projects to more committed and long-term involvement.

One group that is in for the long haul is Friends of Allan Gardens (FOAG), a volunteer organization in Toronto that is working with the city, local residents, and others to revitalize a somewhat neglected gem in the heart of the near-east-end. FOAG’s

sive collection of tropical plants, has fared better and continues to provide a unique botanical retreat and educational resource for the city.

In 2002, FOAG was founded with a mission to improve Allan Gardens. As FOAG member Brendan Stewart, OALA, puts it, “I think everyone would agree that the park is not what it used to be.” He notes that the city developed a revitalization plan for Allan Gardens in 2006, and adds, “We see ourselves as partners in implementing some of the great ideas in the city’s plan.”

Many of FOAG’s members work in the design world and their professional expertise is informing and enhancing their voluntary contributions to the

Up Front

05

.21

long-term Allan Gardens project.

Currently, the group is focusing its efforts on developing a public space design competition. As a multi-disciplinary competition still being refined, “Explore the Edge” is an attempt to promote thoughtful urban design and art installation: “We want to do something that sparks people’s imagination,” says Stewart.

As a first step towards that goal, FOAG is commissioning renowned landscape architect Claude Cormier, OALA, to design an installation for the park. Cormier’s current proposal is to symbolically resurrect the memory of Allan Gardens’ former grandeur by invoking the presence of the cast-iron Victorian fountain that used to mark the heart of the park. “The sculpture will be a reference to the original fountain, offset from its previous location and painted green,” explains Marc Hallé, OALA, an associate at Claude Cormier + Associés Inc. Cormier’s Green Fountain is actually a revision of an earlier proposal for Allan Gardens. Cormier had originally planned an installation called Green Tree, which used a dead wych elm tree in the park for a narrative rumination on transition and sexual diversity (Allan Gardens is near Church and Wellesley, Toronto’s historic gay village and currently its most recognizable LGBTQ neighbourhood). Decorated with green plastic balls, the dead tree was to remain defiantly green throughout the winter and then the following summer be replaced by an eastern white pine,

05

06

completing the tree’s transition from elm to evergreen. Although negotiations for the project were well under way with the city, the elm was, according to Cormier, “unexpectedly cut down shortly after the scheme was announced.” But from the ashes of one plan, another grows.

This, indeed, might be one of the central lessons from FOAG’s experiences to date. “We’re committed to a collaborative approach, with the city and with others,” says Stewart, “and that means being flexible, open-minded, and incremental in our approach.”

In other words, like the city itself, Allan Gardens will morph and change over time. And FOAG will be there to help steer its many, inevitable transformations.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT WWW.FRIENDSOFALLANGARDENS.CA/.

TEXT BY LORRAINE JOHNSON, EDITOR OF GROUND.

07

04/

As the city has expanded around it, Allan Gardens has remained an important greenspace and cultural landmark.

IMAGE/

Friends of Allan Gardens

05/

Historic postcard of Allan Gardens

IMAGE/

Friends of Allan Gardens

06/

Proposal for Claude Cormier’s Green Fountain

IMAGE/

Claude Cormier + Associès Inc.

07/

Allan Gardens

IMAGE/

Friends of Allan Gardens

Round Table

.21

Our Round Table panelists explore some key notions of responsibility in the profession of landscape architecture, using the OALA’s Code of Ethics (the full text of which is available at www.oala.ca) as the starting point for a wide-ranging discussion* *The panelists unanimously embraced Ingrid Leman Stefanovic’s suggestion that this Round Table conversation be dedicated to the memory of Michael Hough (1928—2013).

CO-MODERATED BY TODD SMITH, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL INTERN, AND JOCELYN HIRTES, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL INTERN

06

Round Table

BIOS/

LISE BURCHER IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH, WHERE SHE DRAWS ON HER EXTENSIVE PRACTICE BACKGROUND IN COMMUNITY AND URBAN DESIGN AND HER RESEARCH EXPLORATIONS ADDRESSING HUMAN BEHAVIOUR IN DESIGNED ENVIRONMENTS. FIRST ELECTED TO THE GUELPH CITY COUNCIL IN 2003, LISE PROVIDES LEADERSHIP WITHIN THE POLITICAL REALM TO ENHANCE COMMUNITY LIVEABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY, FOCUSING HER ENERGIES ON COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION, ENHANCING PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES, AND STRIVING FOR DESIGN EXCELLENCE AND AN ENHANCED QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE COMMUNITY. LISE CHAMPIONS THE CAUSE OF MUNICIPALITIES THROUGH HER ELECTED POSITION AS A DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES (FCM), AS A DIRECTOR OF THE GREEN MUNICIPAL FUND, AND AS THE CHAIR OF FCM INTERNATIONAL. SANDRA COOKE, OALA, IS PROJECT MANAGER AT DOWNSVIEW PARK, WHERE SHE OVERSEES DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE NATIONAL URBAN PARK, EACH WITH AN EMPHASIS ON SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY. PRIOR TO JOINING THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM AT DOWNSVIEW PARK, SANDRA WORKED IN PRIVATE PRACTICE ON VARIOUS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROJECTS WITHIN THE GTA. SANDRA IS ALSO A SESSIONAL LECTURER IN THE MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO. JOCELYN HIRTES, MLA, ASLA, ISA, IS ON THE GROUND EDITORIAL BOARD AND IS A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL INTERN AT VICTOR FORD AND ASSOCIATES INC. DAVID LEINSTER, OALA, FCSLA, MCIP, RPP, ASLA, IS A PAST PRESIDENT OF THE OALA AND HAS PRACTISED FOR 28 YEARS PRIMARILY IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES. HE IS A PARTNER WITH THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP IN TORONTO AND HAS LED NUMEROUS AWARD-WINNING PROJECTS. DAVID IS A GRADUATE OF THE DANIELS FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPE, AND DESIGN AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO AND IS A REGULAR CONTRIBUTOR TO THE FACULTY AS A PROFESSIONAL ADVISOR AND GUEST CRITIC. HE IS CURRENTLY THE CHAIR OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA'S URBAN DESIGN REVIEW PANEL AND SITS ON THE CITY OF TORONTO'S PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING DESIGN REVIEW PANEL. PHIL POTHEN IS A LAND-USE PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER—THE ONLY LAWYER IN ONTARIO WITH A MASTERS DEGREE IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE. HE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD, THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO, THE MINING AND LANDS COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO, AND A RANGE OF OTHER COURTS AND TRIBUNALS, AND PROVIDES LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING PUBLIC-SECTOR PROCUREMENT ISSUES AND THE DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS. PHIL IS A FORMER OALA COUNCILLOR, AND WAS ONE OF THREE LAWYERS INVOLVED IN DRAFTING ONTARIO’S “DESIGN OF PUBLIC SPACE STANDARDS” REGULATION, WHICH CAME INTO FORCE IN DECEMBER, 2012.

TODD SMITH, MLA, ISA, IS ON THE GROUND EDITORIAL BOARD AND IS A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL INTERN AND CERTIFIED ARBORIST AT IBI GROUP IN TORONTO. INGRID LEMAN STEFANOVIC IS A PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AND FORMER FOUNDING DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO. HER TEACHING AND RESEARCH CENTRE ON HOW VALUES AND PERCEPTIONS AFFECT PUBLIC POLICY, PLANNING, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING. RECENT BOOKS INCLUDE SAFEGUARDING OUR COMMON FUTURE: RETHINKING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND THE NATURAL CITY: RE-ENVISIONING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, CO-EDITED WITH STEPHEN SCHARPER.

07

.21

Todd Smith (TS): Politics and ethics are closely linked. The OALA has a Code of Ethics that addresses standards of professional practice that all OALA members are expected to follow. I’d like to talk about how ethical decisions are made, on the ground, so to speak, and how politics and instinct temper those decisions.

Phil Pothen (PP): My basic approach is to conceptualize landscape architecture as a branch of public policy. The design of public spaces is a public policy instrument that needs to be analyzed in exactly the same way as you would analyze a statute or bylaw, which is—among other things— from the point of view of the Charter, from the point of view of human rights legislation, and from the point of view of social justice and environmental objectives.

Ingrid Leman Stefanovic (IS): But laws— whether in a legal sense or a moral sense—are all open to interpretation. I was looking at the OALA Code of Ethics; as with most codes of ethics, it is very general.

And, of course, particular cases are going to invite particular interpretations.

PP: I agree. Particularly problematic in its generality is the code’s statement that “members shall always respond morally and ethically against all personal, social, political, economic, environmental, and technological influences.” Unlike, say, the Hippocratic oath, the OALA code offers few bases to decide whether a particular design is ethical or unethical given the context.

However, there are bodies that do assign specific meaning and content to some aspects of ethics and to those principles.

I’d be the last person to suggest that the law comes anywhere close to addressing all the ethical issues raised by public space design. However, I have reviewed cases before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in which issues of physical design are specifically dealt with—where if you, as the designer, make the wrong decision, there is liability for the client. Separate from broad human rights legislation, there are binding regulations that apply to design, and you either comply with them or not. If there is a dispute, some third party may be in the position of determining whether or not your design complies with ethical standards.

I think the values and specific rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are the most important and overlooked aspects of landscape architecture ethics. Although we don’t have a Practice Act in Ontario, the closest thing to exclusive domain for landscape architects is the design of public space. Courts have paid a lot of attention and given special status to physical public space as an essential element of the political and democratic process. Courts will find that government entities are breaching the Charter if they intervene in a way that stops public space from performing effectively as a venue for civic discourse. With respect to regulations that directly limit the use of public space— for example, a ban on postering —some have already been ruled as unconstitutional. And, recently, the courts have also found that designs which have the effect of neutralizing public space or making it less efficacious, from the point of view of expressive activity, are either directly or indirectly generating constitutional breach. In a case involving the City of Montreal, the court effectively found that because postering boards were not situated in a way that would be seen by people, or designed in a way that they would effectively communicate to the population, there was a constitutional breach.

The court ruling was more complicated than this, but that’s the long and short of it. And so, social factors as much as public health and safety need to play into a landscape architect’s ethical calculus.

Lise Burcher (LB): This is a much larger issue of how we serve society, particularly in the public realm. It is much more challenging to actually mandate that through a regulatory framework. But I do think that it requires that we, in all aspects of the profession, start to look at the much broader aspects of social and environmental justice. It is quite challenging to be specific about what to do and how to deal with those in very specific ways.

For me, the critical part would be to educate students and the profession to very much serve as champions of the broader public good, well beyond the specifics of the regulatory framework.

David Leinster (DL): I think landscape architecture is a very ethical profession. Most practitioners feel very passionate about

Round Table

social and environmental justice issues.

As well, it’s a very small profession, and it’s actually quite rare, in my view and in my history as a past president of the OALA, to have individual practitioners in breach of our Code of Ethics. Albeit, the code is very general, but there are some aspects that are more specific, like conflict of interest.

IS: Every professional association needs a code of ethics. But that is not the end of the story, by any means. There are really important questions about how you educate professionals. How do you make people into virtuous citizens so it is not something that they have to look up in a how-to manual, but that they are, instead, trained right from the start to be an ethical kind of person.

I was looking at the OALA Code of Ethics and I was very interested to see Item 3.4: “within the limits placed upon them by their responsibilities to the general public, their clients and the profession, members shall exert every effort toward the protection, preservation and the enhancement of the earth’s environmental resources.” I don’t think you need the first part of that sentence to actually make the point. You don’t need to worry about limits to the general public because that is all part and parcel of doing your job the right way.

Sandra Cooke (SC): I was struck by that point as well when I was re-reading the code, and it made me think of a particular situation. We are in the process of building an event space—essentially a large open lawn—and we have had to implement extensive soil amendments so that the area would be free-draining. The design is going to require a lot of maintenance and fertilizers just to keep the sod alive, which is problematic from an environmental ethics standpoint. But this is also tempered by the demands of the site and the demands of the park’s programming, as well as public safety—if the events field doesn’t drain, it becomes a slippery, muddy mess. It’s a revenue-generating site, and that is part of the park’s mandate along with being a sustainable park. So there are all these balances we have to strike.

IS: That balance is, I think, very important.

Everything is far more complicated than either/or, and it does require some kind of

.21

a negotiation between recognizing where the human interests are and recognizing what the landscape interests are, and then trying to make a decision. It’s always an interpretive moment, and one that probably requires a lot of dialogue and conversation when a decision is being made.

PP: This discussion about balance makes me think of certain provisions in the new Design of Public Space Standards. For example, the regulation deals directly with the relationship between ecological integrity and making a space barrier-free, and from a human-interest perspective, making it a just space. That was basically the main dialectic in our whole process of creating that regulation and drafting how to achieve both and reconcile what mechanism is used or reconcile the two in any given circumstance.

DL: It’s interesting that Item 3.4 of the OALA Code of Ethics doesn’t reference social ethics—it says, “every effort toward the protection, preservation and the enhancement of the earth’s environmental resources”— and in a lot of cases our role is actually to find balance between social and environmental objectives. We can’t necessarily always protect, preserve, and enhance; there’s a certain amount of degradation inherent with human settlement and there are often conflicts with environmental objectives. So I think Item 3.4, in particular, is really a bit misleading.

Jocelyn Hirtes (JH): It sums up in that one sentence the problems we have in navigating these things: responsibility to your client, responsibility to public safety and welfare, and responsibility to the stewardship principle. How do we navigate through all of these things and make sure that we are doing the best job we possibly can?

PP: I’m going to suggest that maybe the profession of landscape architecture isn’t that ethical if we consider it in the deepest way. We are ethical in the sense of process questions, in the sense of conflict of interest and handling money, dealing honestly with clients, and protecting short-term public health and safety. Those are the areas that are enforced. But real landscape architecture ethics, I think, is about the substantive social and environmental outcomes of the

08

design. As far as I’m concerned, for example, a car-dependent design is not an ethical design given what we know about automobiles and their effect on climate and community life. The site plan for a large subdivision or a commercial development effectively dictates whether it is practical to live without a car. Certainly in Toronto or Ottawa or Brampton or Pickering, a car-dependent site plan is a breach of the obligation to protect the environment. But the OALA doesn’t call people out for stamping that sort of design. Especially because the stamp is required by many municipalities, the OALA may have a real opportunity to put a collar on unethical patterns of development in communities. The OALA could say, you know what, if you stamp a giant parking lot and you don’t do everything possible to make walking or cycling preferred alternatives to driving—if you don’t make every effort to ensure that there are actual populated public spaces in your site plan designed to foster spontaneous social interaction—then you are an unethical landscape architect and we will discipline you accordingly.

DL: I think the paradigm you describe is out-dated. I don’t think it reflects planning in Ontario based on the current provincial policies, especially the current provincial policies related to intensification. Most municipalities aren’t planning greenfield development in that way; they are looking at it much more comprehensively and much more in terms of higher-density development. Municipalities like Markham are looking at how to intensify newly developing areas and, in the case of Mississauga, intensifying areas that are already developed. I think that there has been a real paradigm shift in the last ten years and although I take your point, I just don’t think it reflects current practice.

PP: I am not suggesting it does, but I am questioning whether it is the code of ethics that has changed things or whether landscape architects were forced to change by progressive policy.

LB: When I look at what has been done, I really do believe it has been led by provincial policy. The difference between subscribing to the code and adhering to that, versus

Round Table

being innovative and progressive, is quite interesting. One of the challenges I see is that quite often a lot of the work that the majority of our profession is involved in is not at the lead of the planning and design process.

Just to give an example, one of my students’ thesis projects looked at the sustainable practices of design offices, and examined a number of things they were doing, such as car sharing, printing, various commonplace initiatives. The outcomes were surprisingly bleak. And another research project looked at municipalities in Southern Ontario to see what kinds of sustainable practices they were doing, such as sustainable place initiatives, to find out where they were in that general spectrum. Out of a half dozen municipalities, there was only one that was doing very progressive things, with measured outcomes. So, I think we all certainly subscribe to the notion of leadership on various issues, but the rigor is not necessarily there.

IS: I think Phil’s point has really opened up a can of worms, because it goes beyond standard business ethics. What you are pointing to is much more interesting in terms of ethics in the profession. How do you actually foster a sense of place? And, if you are not fostering an ethic of place, then maybe you are not doing your job properly.

And so, how do you actually incorporate that in a code of ethics? I am always sorry to see how codes of ethics become very boring and focus on “running- a-business” kinds of programs as opposed to really getting you to think differently. I think you are right, David, that things have changed, absolutely, with policies of intensification, and it is good to make note of that, but it’s nowhere in here in the OALA Code of Ethics.

SC: To Lise’s point, though, we are often not in the position of being the lead consultant in these sorts of projects. And by demanding through our code of ethics that we not participate in projects that put the car in priority, for instance, I believe you run the risk of cutting the landscape architect out of the process, which, I think, puts us all in a much worse position.

09

.21

PP: I agree that a landscape architect is in a different moral position as a junior consultant—an optional part of the team—than she is in when she has the professional stamp and the project she is working on cannot proceed without her stamp. But I think there is maybe something to take from legal ethics in those circumstances—probably the majority where the landscape architect has limited direct power. As a lawyer, if your client is doing something improper (short of killing people), you are not obligated as their lawyer to stop them from doing it; indeed, you are prohibited from telling other people that your client is going to do something improper because you have to maintain client confidentiality. But you are obligated to tell them that what they are proposing is unethical and to spell out in very clear terms that if they do this, they will be violating X, Y, or Z law.

There is a parallel here for landscape architects, because landscape architects are trained to understand social factors and to consider what will be the behavioural outcomes of their interventions. If you put a design or plan in front of a client and you spell out unambiguously, verbally and in writing, that “Well, the social consequences of this would be that”—for example, “there won’t be an effective public space” or “the space won’t be accessible using a wheelchair”—then you can indirectly force the client’s hand, because a public sector client does need to comply with the Charter, and any commercial or government client needs to comply with human rights code. As a landscape architect, you may actually be in a stronger position than a lawyer to influence the client on some of these questions.

That is because any advice you provide must be produced before courts and tribunals and is fair game for anyone who sues or complains about the client in future.

They can’t claim ignorance.

DL: I have never felt compromised from an ethical point of view. Where I thought I would be, I have opted to not take part in the project. It’s all about your perception of what you are contributing. And I don’t think the code of ethics gives you parameters to make that call. It’s too general. I have worked on projects that cause some people to question my intentions, and that’s certainly their prerogative. That is the nature

of working in the public realm. There are many perspectives on what that ethical design solution is.

LB: I think there is quite a diversity of practice, a very diverse spectrum, from very small communities to large urban communities, and the practices are different, the politics are different.

DL: Is the code not somehow defining enough?

IS: I guess that’s the problem with codes of ethics. They sound so empty and so obvious that they are not really helpful in guiding planning and decision-making.

LB: I would agree, fully.

IS: And yet we all recognize how important it is to act ethically. I think it would be really interesting to try and shape a different sort of code of ethics for the profession that would capture some of these ideas. That would be groundbreaking, actually.

LB: I wonder if it is more a case of values than it is of ethics. We can certainly prescribe ethically what it is that we should and shouldn’t be doing, but I am not sure that a more detailed code of ethics will ever capture the kinds of things we are talking about now, which is really how to be progressive, how to be innovative, how to strive for more. I think that the code typically tries to frame the range that we work within; it’s not saying the best, it’s trying to catch the worst. Maybe we are asking too much of a code of ethics…

JH: In some ways, a more general code of ethics allows for the way that perceptions change—for example, how we think about environmental issues these days is different from how we used to. Rather than writing a different code of ethics every time there is a change in general thinking, maybe if there is a broader framework, then it allows a way for us to operate within that?

PP: This is all connected with trying to define what the value is that a landscape architect brings to a project, and carving out some territory for the landscape architect to give her a more central role in projects. If landscape architects become as schooled as

Round Table

they should be in the way design engages with ethics and social policy objectives—and then frame their design and their advice in terms of substantive ethical issues—then that can protect them from being marginalized relative to engineers or other consultants. Take parks, for example. A policymaker might say, “Okay, we are going to build a park. People like parks.” But what if we frame a park or a design intervention as a solution to certain types of problems? So, someone would say, “There is a lot of crime in this neighbourhood and my son was attacked,” and then you say, “Well, actually, we are making design interventions to make this area more pedestrian-friendly and increase pedestrian traffic so that the neighbourhood becomes safer.” If you start framing what you are doing as responsive to human rights issues, and responsive to the Charter, then all of a sudden, I think you get more attention and you legitimize yourself a little bit more.

.21

DL: One of the things that we have been involved with to some degree over the past five years or so is an emerging area of public health—looking at the suburban model and the astronomical rates of obesity and the impact of that on our health system.

None of that is referred to in any way in our code of ethics.

LB: Bridging disciplines within the urban design area—bringing in issues related to public health, for example—is finally being seen, more and more, as the value of our contribution as landscape architects. We used to have to carve out space, but it does seem that now we are not having to fight for space, we are legitimately in a very significant role.

TS: I’d like to change tack a bit. We are talking about ethics informing practice, and how it is ethical to create a safe public space. What about environmental rights?

Does the environment have a right to be protected as much as a human has a right to be protected?

DL: Over the past 27 years I’ve been practising, the role of the landscape architect has changed dramatically. Landscape architects are not just another member on the team, they are leading a lot of very important public space and environmental projects.

In some ways, what we may be looking at here is a code of ethics that was really crafted for a profession that was in a different place in time, and maybe there is a need to revisit it.

PP: The NDP government in Ontario actually did, at least nominally, legislate a right to the environment, and it’s on the books. It’s called the Environmental Bill of Rights and it is Section 2c: “Protect the right to a healthful environment.” There are not a lot of mechanisms to enforce this right, I should say, but it is there.

IS: Yes, think about how the United Nations has changed its human rights code; it becomes part of the educational process. In terms of our earlier example, with the car-dependent settlement, you are not necessarily turning a job down, but you are certainly obliged to raise certain questions or to enter into a dialogue that is somewhat different than simply whether the stamp is appropriately placed. How do you actually capture some of these issues in your code of ethics? It’s not just a matter of whistle-blowing, it’s a matter of the cultural paradigm.

IS: The problem is that this is taking a human-based notion called “rights” and extending it to non-humans. Rights-based language is useful to a point, at which point we have to try to find a different language; I am not entirely sure what. Sometimes it becomes awkward when rights-based language makes its way into the environmental field, which is why a lot of environmental ethicists say that we should stop being wedded to this language and find some other words that can be a little more compelling and still capture what you are trying to indicate there.

PP: The tricky thing about assigning rights to the environment is that it implies a consciousness. But does the environment “care” what happens to it? It will still be the environment if it is something different…

01

10

LB: And other cultures don’t necessarily separate themselves from the “environment.”

IS: Yes, people distinguish between Western ways of viewing ourselves as apart from nature, as opposed to a part of the natural world. But I think it is an interesting conversation and it takes us back to what constitutes an ethical conversation for landscape architects. It is not an easy conversation to have, sometimes, but it’s great to have it.

TS: I would like to round out our time together with one more question about how ethics can vary from country to country. How do landscape architects from Ontario deal with accepted practices in other countries and how would you interpret your own code of ethics if you were working within another country?

IS: The concept of Western ethics has always been about trying to come up with some kind of universal framework, meaning that it is going to be applicable globally. But, increasingly, ethicists have come to recognize that ethics is very much culturally bound, and that part of a code of ethics has to both show respect for the difference of cultures and at the same time recognize that there are certain cultural practices that we will feel uncomfortable engaging in even if they are locally acceptable. So the question is a huge one. Where do you draw the line when you are beginning to feel uncomfortable even though you recognize that local cultural expectations are going to make something acceptable?

LB: The differences can be tremendously significant even within our own country— what we perceive to be appropriate is hugely diverse. There are different value bases, and it’s a tremendous learning curve to engage in that. But, I must say that I do cringe a little when I see the work that is done internationally by some Canadian landscape architects. It can be wonderful work but it can also be devoid of any touchstone to a value base that relates to that population, particularly in countries that are not at all democratic, where there is no

Round Table

citizen engagement, no public consultation… I struggle with the notion of engaging in anything that doesn’t involve community directly.

DL: In my limited experience working in that realm, I would say that by working with local professionals, landscape architects from abroad bring knowledge to share that everyone benefits from. I can’t imagine, however, working in that environment without having someone on the team who has a really solid and nuanced understanding of the cultural ethics of the place.

PP: I wonder if this is another place where there is an opportunity in the OALA’s Code of Ethics? Ontario’s ethical standards could be a kind of a seal of approval for projects overseas. There is nothing in the code of conduct on the face of it that limits the application of the code to Ontario itself.

LB: As much as we think about what we do, it is incredibly important to think about how we do it. For me, the notion of engagement or working for the public good means that there should be some public involvement.

Maybe that should be articulated within the OALA’s Code of Ethics?

PP: But going back to that idea of publicspace design being another branch of public policy, the consultation might not always be at your end of the process. But if you frame the issues properly for the democratically elected policy-maker—if you very clearly say, “These are the consequences,” in such a way that she can’t help but turn her mind to it and apply her democratic mandate to your project—then even if you don’t have that type of consultation process at your end, it can be an ethical process.

IS: In the field of ethics now, there are some philosophers—and I think I am one of them—who are arguing that ethics isn’t just providing you with a list of things to do and not to do, but that there is always this interpretive moment and that ethicists should really be interpreters of core values in processes of stakeholder negotiation. A col-

11

.21

league of mine from out west, Bruce Morito, gives an example of how he was negotiating between First Nations communities who refused to allow industry to come in and build a dam, and one of the industry proponents was saying to Bruce, “I don’t understand, we are giving them greater than market value for the land; how can they turn this down?” Bruce turned to him and said, “Do you have a daughter? I’m going to offer you greater than market value to purchase your daughter.” And the proponent said, “That is out of the question.” Bruce said, “Well, that is the kind of core value that we are dealing with in that community.” So, the process is to try to make people understand that those core values are to be respected and then figure out which values are actually negotiable. It is a process; ethics becomes a process of interpreting and understanding.

SC: I don’t have any personal experience with international work, but through speaking with colleagues who have come back from working in other countries, I think I would have difficulty with some of the issues that go beyond our own profession and relate instead to things like workers’ conditions in construction sites.

DL: Several years ago, I was working on a wonderful project in Korea with Michael Hough. We were brought over because of the ecological work that we had done. We had a tour at one point of a site for a proposed countryside resort, a beautiful, evolving landscape that had been completely destroyed by the Korean War. And looking over to the distance, you could see that a developer had flattened a mountain to make a golf course! They could destroy these environments with bulldozers so quickly, and it was really a moment of realization for me. I don’t mean to cast aspersions. I am well aware of what we have done and continue to do to the Canadian landscape in the name of progress.

LB: I had an amazing “Aha” moment six months ago, after working for two years with a neighbourhood group. The site was in a very old neighbourhood, it was a huge brownfield site, it had been a manufacturing site, and people were confronted with a

massive new development. And, of course, they were lobbying me, and my objective was to actually engage them so that they could be self-organizing, self-determining, and respond as a group with capacity to deal with that situation. We had tremendously supportive staff (people at the City of Guelph are just remarkable in every way!) and we did design charrettes and resources were put towards this group to help them determine their own perspective.

Our urban design planners worked with the neighbourhood group at every step of the way. At the very point that the residents understood that it is coming from their perspective and everyone was delightfully happy with it, our residents turned to our urban designers and the city staff and said, “Now what do we do?” And the staff looked at each other—brilliant people—and said, “We cannot advocate for you.” It was an amazing moment because staff are paid by taxpayers’ dollars, but they, professionally, saw themselves as being in a very different situation. They could help people determine what it was they wanted, become selfdetermining, make their own decisions, but they said, “Basically, we are done now; we can’t lobby for you.”

So it was a very real moment because what it meant is that there is a tremendous gap in the process as established by the province, because the planners and the urban designers would continue to serve the client and the land owner. I mean, we come to a client, we do legitimate processes, we try to engage fully but we don’t ever really empower citizens to decide for themselves what they want to do. We haven’t figured out the part about who represents whom, and who could help people speak for themselves and what the limits are to that. It’s a huge, huge challenge!

WITH THANKS TO DALIA TODARY-MICHAEL FOR TRANSCRIBING THIS ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION.

Parks for People

12

.21

Community engagement in public spaces 01/

A workshop in Toronto’s Ben Nobleman Park Community Orchard animates the park through programming.

IMAGE/

Ben Nobleman Park Community Orchard

On a crisp January morning, Victoria Taylor, OALA, met with Dave Harvey, founder and Executive Director of Toronto Park People, to discuss parks and politics. Their conversation took place in Toronto, in the Palm House at Allan Gardens, a five-acre public oasis founded in the mid-1880s on land donated by George William Allan, a former Toronto mayor and plant lover. Surrounded by tall palms and flowering begonias, Taylor and Harvey began their chat.

Victoria Taylor (VT): As the founder of Toronto Park People, the first city-wide group to encourage civic engagement for better parks, what experiences led you to start this non-profit organization?

Dave Harvey (DH): On a personal level, I’ve always cared about the environment and nature, but I’m a city person. I love city parks that bring together the dynamic elements of cities. Plus, on a professional level, I’ve always been interested in urban greenspaces. When I had a career change a few years ago, I wanted to do something about city parks.

VT: It seems hard to believe that there was no non-profit group in Toronto working on behalf of our parks.

01

DH: There are fantastic park friends groups in every Canadian city working to improve and animate their local parks, and excellent organizations that are doing great things for the protection and expansion of our national and provincial parks, but there’s never really been any attempt to create a city-wide, or regional or national, organization specifically for city parks. Because of that gap, a lot of my inspiration for city-wide park advocacy work was inspired by efforts in the United States. During the period of my career change, I received a year-long fellowship from the Metcalf Foundation and had the luxury of studying the issues related to Toronto parks and writing a research paper with recommendations about how we could get better parks in the city. A number of people who read my paper were interested in moving some of the recommendations forward, particularly the recommendation to create an advocacy organization. I put these people in a room and out of that came Toronto Park People. It has really taken off.

Parks for People

13

.21

04

VT: The park benefits you list in your report, Fertile Ground for New Thinking—Improving Toronto’s Parks, such as cleaner air, cleaner water, and better property values, are all realistic grounds for better parks, but somehow there has been a disconnect between these factors and the money and public will to support the upkeep and maintenance of parks. Can you help us understand why?

02

03 02/

Opening celebration for a new playground fundraised by Friends of Jeff Healy Park in Toronto

IMAGE/

Toronto Park People

03/

A hike in Toronto’s Wigmore Park connects newcomers to nature in their communities.

IMAGE/

Toronto Park People

04/

Educational tours of parks are popular events that can lead to more engagement with public space.

IMAGE/

Toronto Park People

DH: I think there are a number of factors, some of which are Canada-wide and some of which are specific to Toronto. Like many things in this city, we’ve taken some of our good assets for granted. We had a very good system of parks, and we still do to a degree, and the city did and does do a pretty good job. But in the past we used our parks less intensively and there was not a strong public demand for top-quality design in our parks. But when you’re getting the increases in density that we are getting today, combined with people living in smaller places, there is a change in park usage. In the past I think people would say, “Why should I worry about parks when I have my own backyard?” Or, “I can drive to my cottage…or drive 15 minutes to get to a beautiful natural area.” But that’s just not the

case anymore in Toronto. We’re seeing far more intensive use of parks and people bringing in far more creative uses of parks…for food, for entertainment. Recently, there has been a lot more demand on parks, but the city has just not been able to meet these demands.

VT: I guess this city shortfall sets up the situation for residents to initiate their own programming, perhaps using their own funds and relying on volunteers and community organizing.

DH: Yes. This can lead to a whole range of new opportunities for other partners, but these efforts have been slow.

VT: What tools are available to help individuals push for park improvements?

DH: Not enough. That’s the big thing.

Possibly one of the successes of our group in such a short time is that we have been able to take advantage of this pent-up interest from the public and foundations and also the private sector, too, to get more involved in parks—and, particularly, to focus funds more directly to meet urban

Parks for People

14

.21

needs. I think people want more active uses, more variety of uses, and a higher standard of design to meet the needs of increasing densification and a heavier use. There is a pent-up demand and the city government has been overwhelmed by that.

VT: What is Park People doing to take advantage of this new interest?

DH: The most obvious and effective tool is the creation of park friends groups. When Park People got started, our first effort was to connect the more than 40 park friends groups existing around the city. Some had been around for decades doing fantastic work, but there was little awareness of their successes beyond their particular communities. Friends of Dufferin Grove Park, for instance, has been around for almost 25 years, and Friends of the Spit has been around for almost the same amount of time.

Our first job was to connect all the existing groups, through our events, website, and social media, so they could learn from and share with each other and become a stronger voice collectively in terms of the things they wanted, or to defend the city’s parks budget.

In a year and a half, we have added another 35 park friends groups across Toronto and there are probably another 20 out there just ready to get going.

The great thing is that it’s not just people saying, “What’s the city going to do to make things happen in my park?” Now, it’s “What can I do to make things happen, and how can the city make it easier for me to do it?”

VT: So the process for positive change starts with a change in civic attitude and an understanding of what’s possible?

DH: I think so, yes. There certainly is some tension in terms of how we encourage this change and what our role should be to push change along. Many of our initial Park People supporters felt that our advocacy role was only to speak up for bigger municipal parks budgets. We feel that’s part of our role, but it’s also about building new types of partnerships and encouraging the community to be part of the system.

Then there are people saying to us, “But you’re bringing in volunteers to take over work that the city should be doing and that people are paying taxes for.” This is also part of the tension. Also, some people argue that some of the solutions we are putting forward are great for downtown parks, where there are more affluent neighbourhoods and denser communities, but don’t work so well for lower-income neighbourhoods and parks outside the city. We’re trying to take steps to address these issues.

VT: Have you been involved in expanding your efforts outside of Toronto? What’s going on elsewhere?

DH: We’re a very small organization and we try to stay focused on Toronto. We have had parks departments from other municipalities contact us for our Park Friends Group Guidebook [available from www.parkpeople.ca] and we put them together with other groups.

05

There actually are many parks departments that are further ahead of the curve than Toronto in terms of working with communities and bringing together partnerships. Markham has a really good adopt-apark program. Oakville has had some very good initiatives of working with communities.

VT: What are your thoughts on the role of landscape architects in this process of encouraging civic involvement in city parks?

DH: There are a few different ways landscape architects can facilitate change. Even a couple of years ago the idea of private companies putting money in city parks was controversial. And it still is today. But corporate and private interests can have an effective role. You and I are sitting in a park donated by a private individual, and the greenhouse next door was donated by a corporation, TD Bank Group.

VT: What are other opportunities for design/planning professionals?

DH: A big issue concerns the long-term maintenance of parks. Much of the focus is on the budget for capital improvements with very little, if any, thought on what opportunities there are to establish longterm, sustainable partnerships with communities, or volunteers, for maintenance, programming, and outside funding to support them.

For instance, including a bake oven in a park design is a fantastic idea, but if there is no plan for how to program and animate that bake oven, we’re doing a disservice to everyone. Having a great new facility that just sits empty is not good. I think professionals can really bring these considerations into the design process and particularly the consultation process.

VT: Designers can support this by working with the client early on to ensure that a maintenance plan is in their scope of work and encourage budgets for future park maintenance so that the design can be realized to a high standard over time.

DH: Yes, and designers can ask, “Who can we work with collectively who might be interested in some on-going funding for this?” Or, if there’s not a park friends group, ask, “How can we develop one?”

Or, if there is a park friends group, right up-front ask, “How can we use them most effectively in the design process and, more importantly, in the ongoing process of park use?”

You know, there can be tensions between city staff, community park friends groups, and designers, and it’s a challenge sometimes. I think we need to get beyond quick, one-off park design consultations

Parks for People

where the city says, “Here’s a pot of money. Here are two community meetings that resulted in a shopping list of things the community would like.” But then the designs sometimes come back without much regard to those initial desires. These changes to the design happen because of maintenance realities, and they are realities, so let’s deal with them up-front and let’s have the right discussions.

VT: Are community groups ready to have these practical and realistic discussions? Or perhaps this is where an experienced designer can represent the community and act as their liaison?

DH: Certainly. Talking about cost and maintenance realities early on works better for everyone. When the real questions don’t come out until later on in the process—for example, questions like, “Who’s going to program the community garden?“—it’s just a waste of everyone’s time.

VT: It sounds as if the city needs to start acknowledging that it cannot do it alone.

DH: Yes, the city could be saying to communities, “It’s great that you want a community garden. But the city does not have the resources to program the garden. So how can we work together to build and support a group to do that?

What outside organizations—groups like FoodShare or The Stop—can we bring in to help us do that?” It’s all about having a real discussion that addresses the challenges of what the community wants and the limits of what a city can provide.

VT: Are there examples in which a park friends group has hired a designer and created a design for presentation to their city councillor? Is this a model that works?

DH: There certainly are examples out there, and we encourage that process.

One suggestion we give to groups starting to approach the city and potential funders is regarding the effectiveness of having a conceptual design drawn by a professional and having good professional advice. It brings their request to a whole new level. It’s no longer just a group of people with a demand, but an organized group of people who have worked with a professional, gained an understanding of the decision

15

.21

process and what works and what can’t work. With city capital dollars so limited, the community group is much more credible when they’ve already done a lot of prep work with the help of a designer.

VT: Can you talk about what you’re seeing out there in terms of investments in parks?

DH: Private companies and foundations, such as Walmart, TD Friends of the Environment, Home Depot, Trillium, and Kaboom, are all contributing to community efforts, and I think this will start to happen more and more. As we know from experience in the U.S., it is happening.

An incredible example of new philanthropy coming into Canada’s parks is the recently announced Weston Family Parks Challenge.

This exciting new initiative from the Weston Foundation in partnership with Toronto Park People will see considerable new philanthropic support for parks in Toronto.

[See Ground Notes section, page 30.] I think it’s a game changer.

The story of arts funding is a good comparison. Thirty years ago, 90 percent of the funding came from governments, but today it’s assumed that half the funding will come from outside sources. You only need to look at the recent fundraising achievements of the AGO and the ROM to see this potential.

VT: So it’s more about an attitude shift in funders who recognize the cultural potential of parks as just as important to the health and life of cities as hospitals and museums. To influence this shift, designers can play a critical role by being more vocal about the benefits of parks, since city parks’ budgets can only go so far.

DH: Yes. Evergreen Brick Works is an amazing example of successful private fundraising for a public urban space. And while high-quality design is important, so much about what makes a great park is programming and animation. You really don’t need millions of dollars for that. What makes a park like Dufferin Grove in Toronto a fantastic, dynamic park is the ongoing community involvement of volunteers.

I’d like to see students or younger landscape architects getting involved on a volunteer basis with parks groups.

Working with communities is a great way

06

to get practical work experience. As well, pro bono work can be a lot more “leading edge,” so it can be quite satisfying creatively. Plus, the work can gain an experienced landscape architect exposure in a new market. Park People can link landscape architects up with community groups—to the benefit of both parties.

Much of our work focuses on lower-income and priority neighbourhoods—places where there are great greenspaces but the programming is lacking. Even without capital dollars, there’s great opportunity to turn these spaces into community centres and community spaces.

I really think we’re going to see a lot of changes around Canada in the approach to city parks and public space in the next few years. Canada has always had this challenge of not seeing ourselves as an urban nation, but we really are and we’re finally waking up to that. Around our public open spaces, our focus has been on the north and great, wild, open spaces, so city parks have been an afterthought. Finally, that’s changing!

BIO/ DAVE HARVEY IS THE FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TORONTO PARK PEOPLE, A TORONTO-BASED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS FOR BETTER PARKS. VICTORIA TAYLOR, OALA, LAUNCHED VTLA/VICTORIA TAYLOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN 2012 TO PURSUE PROJECTS THAT EXPOSE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AS AN ARTISTIC AND CULTURAL PRACTICE. SHE IS CURATOR OF GROW OP: EXPLORING LANDSCAPE + PLACE, A FOUR-DAY EXHIBITION AT THE GLADSTONE HOTEL IN TORONTO, AND IS A CRITIC AT THE JOHN H. DANIELS FACULTY FOR LANDSCAPE, ARCHITECTURE, AND DESIGN AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO.

05/

Watching salmon in Highland Creek on a “Follow the Fish” walk in Toronto’s Morningside Park.

IMAGE/

Toronto Park People

06/

Residents of the Parkdale neigh bourhood in Toronto organized a parade, complete with an “art raft,” down to Lake Ontario, using art programming to activate public space.

IMAGE/

Adam Krawesky

Climate Supremacy

.21

Denise Pinto, chair of the Ground Editorial Board, in conversation with Fionn Byrne, MLA, about his research into environmental modification and the question of who controls large-scale changes to natural systems

16

Climate Supremacy

17

.21

01

01/

IMAGE/

Diagramatic axonometric of a hydroengineering project in which 100 tonnes of iron sulfate (1) was dumped into the Pacific Ocean (2). The iron fertilized a 10,000square-kilometre plankton bloom, which attracted a large diversity of wildlife (3).

Uneaten plankton died and sank to the ocean floor (4).

(Diagram not to scale.)

Fionn Byrne

Denise Pinto (DP): Environmental modification is what landscape architects do; and, of course, it’s what humans, and what human societies throughout history, have always done. However, you’ve been researching a very specific use of the term “environmental modification.” Could you describe how you came to be interested in the subject?

Fionn Byrne (FB): My interest was piqued after reading Peter Sloterdijk’s book Terror from the Air. He quotes from Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice: “You take my life, when you do take the means whereby I live.” Previously, I’d always considered this to be an economic proposition, but Sloterdijk reframes the words quite effectively to introduce an argument for the power of one’s environment to play a deciding role in allowing or denying life.

DP: So Sloterdijk is framing “environmental modification” in a military context?

FB: The position Sloterdijk takes is that the era of modernity was reached when, in World War I, the extirpation of the enemy’s life was effected not by targeting the individual directly, but rather by targeting the enemy’s environment. Atmospheric warfare, the use of poisonous gas, proved highly efficient and effective. Having not previously before considered the use of the environment as a weapon I was curious to know the extent of this military program. Beyond the trenches of WWI, what research and development was done and how was the environment targeted for military purposes?

Mike Hill’s Ecologies of War was very useful in introducing me to the history of environmental modification.

I started cataloging programs and operations that targeted the environment directly.

Weather modification is a big one, like Operation Popeye, in which the U.S. has experimented with modifying rainfall.

Probably the best-known example would be Operation Trail Dust or Ranch Hand, which involved the spraying of Agent Orange and other active agents to destroy vegetative cover and food crops during the Vietnam War. But there are others too, like communication disruption through Operation Fishbowl (a high-altitude nuclear detonation),or plant matter experiments like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Blue Angel program, an initiative

Climate Supremacy

As far as public perception goes, I am surprised by how muted the dialogue is

18

.21

that is seeking to produce vast quantities of a plant-based vaccine in a short time frame.

DP: Do the examples you mention, such as human interventions in the weather, create strategic advantages for the military? How widespread is this?

FB: Operation Popeye was widespread, and it most definitely provided strategic advantage. The project involved the aerial dispersal of silver iodide into the atmosphere of the enemy’s (the North Vietnam Army’s) controlled area of operations. (The US military conducted the cloud seeding between 1967 and 1972.) Silver iodide acts to “seed” clouds and ultimately to produce rainfall. Dump enough rain on your enemy’s supply route (the Ho Chi Minh Trail) and you can disrupt their logistical network, making it less effective and impeding their ability to transport troops, fuel, weaponry, and supplies.

The opposite tactic has also been employed. Project Stormfury, operational between 1962 and 1969 and supported by the U.S. government and the U.S. Air Force, dispersed aerial silver iodide in an attempt to force precipitation from tropical storms, weakening their strength and helping to ensure reliable trans-Atlantic supply routes.

DP: What is ENMOD? FB: It is an international treaty that was entered into force in 1978: The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. My research has not extended beyond the United States military, but up until 1978, projects and operations like Popeye were seen, I would suspect, by the U.S. military and governments as critical research because there was a lack of knowledge about the long-term impacts or unforeseen consequences of large-scale modifications to the environment. Of course, humans have always been modifying their environments, but not at the scales or speeds that military technology now enables. Could these experiments be contained? Would there be crossover to other environmental systems that were not directly targeted? There was enough concern that environmental modification was banned, for hostile uses, through an international treaty.

DP: Is there a connection between what is popularly called “geoengineering” and the term “environmental modification”? I suppose one could argue that the re-branding of these activities suggests an attempt to distance them from a troubled past…

FB: I would say that geoengineering could be called geological modification.

Technically, we could categorize modifications as geo- or litho-, or atmo-, bio-, or hydro-engineering. I am more inclined to place them all under the term “environmental modification.”

DP: It’s not a very well-known or publicized term.

FB: As far as public perception goes, I am surprised by how muted the dialogue is.

I can see interest growing, but for me it is worrisome that the push to conduct these sorts of tests seems to be ahead of the discussion over whether we even want to experiment with whole earth systems.

DP: Is there a positive case to be made?

Obviously support for this exists.

FB: Yes, absolutely. I am not staking a position against environmental modification or taking a moral position against the application of technology towards anthropocentric environmental goals. The global climate is changing. This will place pressures on economic and ecological systems: power, waste, food, water. Powerful nations will do what they can to mitigate these pressures.

What I am saying is that I expect the modern military of powerful nations will have an expanded role in forcing localized changes in climate. More powerful nations will offset climatic change at the cost of other environmental systems and geographical locations.

I might even go so far as to say that I hope the military takes a leading role in this regard, because the alternative I see developing is that corporations will look to environmental modification to keep a warming climate from affecting their profits.

Climate Supremacy

At what scale do local environmental modifications effect global environmental change?

19

.21

DP: When we were speaking earlier you cited a recent example—the dumping of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean—as an important case. It was conducted without government or military oversight. Could you describe this event?

FB: In July of 2012, Russ George, an American businessman working with the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation, dumped 100 tonnes of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of British Columbia, in international waters. It was reported that the iron acted to fertilize a patch of sea over 10,000 square kilometres.

The goal of the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation was to attract salmon, which would come to feed on this algae bloom fertilized by the iron. Another goal was to have the uneaten algae die and sink to the ocean floor, taking with them the carbon sequestered in their biomass. In this way, ocean fertilization could be used to capture atmospheric carbon dioxide, and corporations could profit from carbon credits. In theory, the project could be called a win-win.

Profit is generated from the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and the circle is now closed: carbon is extracted from the geosphere, generating profit; carbon is released into the atmosphere, generating profit; carbon is then captured and driven to the depths of the hydrosphere, generating profit. I think you can see why I am advocating for critical discussion, controls, and regulations.

DP: What is the role of landscape architects in addressing this?

FB: I think the public is generally reactionary, responding to news stories documenting what has already happened. But I think there is, here, a vital opportunity for landscape architects. We have the tools to create dialogue about what could happen, utopian or dystopian. Drawing or designing the future lets us ask if this is the future we want or the future we don’t want. I mean, we do this all the time: almost every rendering is a projection of the future conditions of a site. The client and the public are asked to approve or disapprove of the proposed changes. Expand the site context and draw farther into the future, and suddenly using your same skills becomes an act of representing science fiction.

DP: Is it always a question of scale?

FB: That is a fascinating question. At what scale do local environmental modifications effect global environmental change? The impacts of larger-scale projects are easier to understand, but it is not necessarily true that they will have the greatest effect on the environment. I spent some time in the Yukon and Northwest Territories in October of 2011 with a class of students from the University of Waterloo. While traveling down the Dempster Highway, I must say that the landscape was breathtaking, but the point of this story is that we were told that a single footstep on the landscape can compact the low-growing vegetation and mosses and begin a positive feedback loop of warming the ground below, which might not stop until massive amounts of earth have been shifted from their frozen state. This example demonstrates a need for caution when manipulating environmental systems. Small changes can have much larger unforeseen consequences.

DP: Where is this research taking you at this point?

FB: Apart from just truly enjoying the process of research, this work has informed two of my recent projects, both of which are published in the Bracket book series: Operation ‘Hello Eden,’ Bracket [goes soft], edited by Neeraj Bhatia and Lola Sheppard, and Operations ‘Early Breakfast,’ in Bracket [at extremes], edited by Maya Przybylski and Lola Sheppard. This year, I’m focusing on the Oil Sands—not a military project, but also a large-scale environmental modification.

BIO/ FIONN BYRNE IS A DIRECTOR AT THE OFFICE OF PEDONIC OPERATIONS, AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF ARCHITECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO, AND A LANDSCAPE TECHNICIAN AT HOK. HE WELCOMES DISCUSSION; VISIT PEDONICOPERATIONS.COM OR SEND HIM AN EMAIL AT MR.FIONN.BYRNE@GMAIL.COM. DENISE PINTO IS CHAIR OF THE GROUND EDITORIAL BOARD AND OPERATIONS DIRECTOR AT JANE'S WALK.

Letter From… the Occupied West Bank

20

.21

01 TEXT BY SUZANNE HARRIS-BRANDTS

Reflections on politics and nature in the Occupied West Bank

The pastoral lands of Wadi Al-Makhrour—a sinuous, dry watercourse of fertile land situated near the West Bank village of Battir— could be called the ideal setting of rural Palestinian living. With its rocky but productive hills, the wadi is a place yet to be touched by rapid, sprawling urbanization or the mass industrialization of agriculture; it is a place where thyme, rosemary, and jasmine grow wildly, their scents gently filling the air. Viewing the centuries-old olive trees and stone terraces, it would be easy to assume that this majestic terrain, near Jerusalem, was among the most peaceful places on earth. Yet having come to this beautiful landscape to understand the complex relationship between nature and politics under conditions of foreign military rule, I am reminded that just below its pastoral surface lies a dark underbelly: exposed patches of vandalized olive trees, demolition ruins, and unauthorized dump sites slowly appear before me.

Following almost half a century of military occupation, the politics of ethnic conflict and territorial dispute have entered into almost every aspect of life in this small region sandwiched between Israel and Jordan. Concrete walls, checkpoints, and barriers scar the landscape; complex permit requirements and military-issued decrees dictate everything from the roads that Palestinians may use, to where they can graze their animals and which species of crops they can plant.

Letter From… the Occupied West Bank

21

.21

By now, issues surrounding water scarcity and mineral extraction in the Middle East are well known. Yet in the West Bank, competing claims on natural resources are only one aspect of the deeply woven relationship between nature, landscape, and politics. When unravelled further we can see an even wider spectrum of important implications tied to issues as broad-spanning as ecological conservation, environmental contamination, and the economy of the agricultural sector. At the root of many of these problems rests an out-dated law originating from the Ottoman Empire, which has remained due to the complex legal framework of the occupation in the West Bank. The 1858 Ottoman Land Code links agricultural cultivation to land possession, a measure that provided the Ottomans with a source of revenue generation via land taxation. Following Israel’s 1967 occupation, however, this law has been revived as an effective tool for state land seizure on the grounds of absentee ownership and under-cultivation. Some 133,800 hectares—more than 20 percent of the West Bank—is now de-facto Israeli-seized property as a result of this subverted policy alone.1 With agricultural cultivation so integrally tied to land access and ownership, tree and plant classification, species, size, growth cycle, and water requirements have also been thrust into the political equation. Many farmers (desperate to hold onto their land) rely increasingly on forms of cultivation that are plain to see—in

01/

The author’s proposed “extraterritorial” wildflower growth for apiary feeding occurs on the lands surrounding a West Bank Israeli Jewish-only settlement.

IMAGE/

Suzanne Harris-Brandts

02/

The author’s proposed “extraterritorial” wildflower growth along the side of an Israeliaccess-only bypass road in the West Bank.

IMAGE/

Suzanne Harris-Brandts

02

Letter From… the Occupied West Bank

22

.21

Tactical Procedure: Extraterritorial Appropriation

Wildflower Seeds Protected by the Israeli Nature Reserves Authority and the Israeli Society for the Protection of Nature

Nutrient-rich Plant Growth Base

Complete Cultivation Capsule

01. Create Cultivation Capsule

02. Use Capsules to Plant in Closed Areas

WEEK 8 28cm

WEEK 4 12cm

WEEK 1 5cm

03. Extraterritorial Growth & Feeding 03

04. Local Apiary Management

Letter From… the Occupied West Bank

particular, reverting to the ancestral olive tree, which can be easily detected by Israel’s satellite monitoring photography.2 The annual Palestinian olive harvest has become a highly politicized event—at times becoming violent—as Palestinian farmers and Israeli settlers vie over mutually desired plots of land.3 Outside the “politics of cultivation,” nature contributes to this conflict in many other ways. Environmental conservation policies—long seen as an indicator of Israel’s progressiveness—have taken on greater, more malignant characteristics in the state’s occupied areas. Beyond protecting nature from man, such designations (in the absence of mutually agreed sovereignty) have begun serving the dual political purpose of safeguarding rural lands away from Palestinian ownership and use. Consequently, nature reserves exist as strictly monitored spaces where Palestinian land purchase is forbidden, Palestinian residential construction is prevented, and even animal grazing is in violation of the law. The designations of “forest,” “park,” “nature reserve,” and “agricultural field” all carry with them provisions as to who can own and access such lands—all predicated by the occupying authorities.4 Landscape architects entering into this legalistic quagmire are therefore becoming political actors (whether knowingly or not), producing and transforming territorial alignments directly through their work.

By way of design, the relationship between humans and the natural environment is translated and sculpted to suit our specific human needs. Nevertheless, globally there remains a disconnect between designers and the potential political implications of their projects.

In many ways, what is most thought-provoking about a study of nature’s politicization for designers is that it asks us to confront how much or how little we choose to familiarize ourselves with our sites’ complex surroundings and histories. Moreover, it challenges us to overtly position our work within its broader political framework and decide whether we aim to maintain the current dominant power framings or undermine them—and ultimately, how that decision relates to our clients’ desires.

Through my own self-directed research and theoretical design work, I have sought to approach the volatility of the West Bank’s landscape with an equally open-ended, malleable series of spatial design tactics for civilian-driven Palestinian territorial reclamation. As a specific example, through one of my design proposals I have found that within the vagueness of the occupation’s laws there lies an overlooked opportunity to reactivate the West Bank’s highly restricted closed military zones. The proposed tactic introduces new beekeeping initiatives as the means of such reactivation.

03/

Cultivation capsules are used as a projectile to plant wildflowers for apiary feeding in closed military areas of the West Bank.

IMAGE/

Suzanne Harris-Brandts

23

.21

Palestinian permit restrictions pertaining to “closed area” entrance and access presume that land usage is inseparably tied to the land’s human occupancy. However, by using a proxy form of agricultural planting (which relies upon small projectile seed capsules thrown over military barricades) and by enlisting honey bees as agents for their nectar collection, trespassing restrictions are obviated. As a result, large swaths of previously unusable lands are converted into nectar feeding grounds for honey bees, a step that in turn would contribute to the re-activation of the Palestinian apiary sector and local honey economy. This apiary re-invigoration reinforces the biodiversity of this scarred landscape and reinstates a Palestinian claim to lands that have been unilaterally seized as a result of the Israeli occupation.

The blooming of thousands of protected native wildflowers in the West Bank’s derelict, closed military zones resides at the tension between a pragmatic agricultural design and a more poetic landscape art installation. As such, it is finally intended to produce a visual register, broadcasting the underlying confining conditions of Palestinian land access and use hidden within the occupation’s ruling system.

While the above examples only begin to hint at nature’s politicization in the West Bank, discussing landscape’s role in such highly conflicted territory leads back to a series of broader and more challenging questions for the landscape architecture profession as a whole. What is the designer’s moral obligation and responsibility to society, nature, and ecologies? How much or how little is it appropriate to abide to environmental and planning regulations within a contested and militarily imposed legalistic framework? In the occupied terrain of the West Bank, landscape architects are beginning to have a window into such issues, which provides them with a glimpse of nature’s less-exposed political complexities.

BIO/ SUZANNE HARRIS-BRANDTS IS A GRADUATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO’S SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, WHERE SHE IS NOW AN ADJUNCT ASSISTANT PROFESSOR. IN 2010 AND 2011 SHE WAS AN “ARCHITECT IN RESIDENCE” AT DECOLONIZING ARCHITECTURE (DA/AR) IN BEIT SAHOUR, PALESTINE. HER WORK HAS BEEN EXHIBITED AND PUBLISHED GLOBALLY, INCLUDING IN THE NEWLY RELEASED BOOK BRACKET [GOES SOFT]. SHE IS INTERESTED IN THE INTERDISCIPLINARY CONFLUENCE OF ARCHITECTURE, URBANISM, GEOPOLITICS, BOUNDARIES, AND LANDSCAPE.

1 2 3

4

SEE COHEN-LIFSHITZ, ALON AND NIR SHALEVL. “PROHIBITED ZONE: ISRAELI PLANNING POLICY IN THE PALESTINIAN VILLAGES IN AREA C.” BIMKOM. (2008): 68.

SEE BRAVERMAN, IRUS. PLANTED FLAGS: TREES, LAND, AND LAW IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE. CAMBRIDGE, UK: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2009.

SEE “OLIVE HARVEST FACTSHEET.” OCTOBER 2011, UNITED NATIONS OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMAN AFFAIRS; AND “THE ROAD TO OLIVE FARMING: CHALLENGES TO DEVELOPING THE ECONOMY OF OLIVE OIL IN THE WEST BANK.” OXFAM. (2010).

SEE COHEN, SHAUL E. THE POLITICS OF PLANTING: ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN COMPETITION FOR CONTROL OF LAND IN THE JERUSALEM PERIPHERY. CHICAGO: UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, 1993.

Technical Corner

Nadia Amoroso, founder of DataAppeal, which provides mapping tools through a webbased GIS application, describes how data-maps transform numerical data into powerful communication tools, and how this technology can be used in landscape architecture

01

24

.21

01-02/

Washington Avenue Corridor Study, Miami; hotspot locations; data-map and design by Florida International University landscape architecture students

IMAGES/

FIU students using DataAppeal software

03/

Number of Facebook users by U.S. state; data sourced from U.S. government census website

IMAGE/

DataAppeal

02

Technical Corner

25

.21

03

05

04 AS TOLD BY NADIA AMOROSO TO ERIC GORDON, OALA

The DataAppeal platform visually represents geo-referenced raw data into spatialdesigned maps, providing an instant and clear understanding of the information. The visual representation of the data allows users to quickly analyze the information and start to draw conclusions from previously hidden trends, areas of interest, and through quick comparisons of results. In a nutshell, DataAppeal is a web-based application that renders raw locationbased data (such as that in spreadsheets) as 3D or animated maps on the Google Earth platform, and the user can actually immerse themselves into their data-map and walk through their data on street view or drill down to the source.

No GIS training is required to use our tool.

Users can simply upload a spreadsheet (csv, Excel, and shapefiles) and design their data through a palette of visual options. It’s quite intuitive to use.

Users typically upload all types of data from various industries and sources. For example, environmentally based data is a popular type of data; we have groups that have uploaded and visualized CO2 levels, smog, and pollution readings. Data regarding pri-

mary site-analysis values is another type.

We have had landscape architects and students upload assessment values through a matrix data spreadsheet to visualize the site-analysis values along street corridors, river banks, as well as city districts and development sites. They have used our platform to visualize a matrix or scoring value for a given section on the site as part of their SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis.

Some of the data that has been visualized includes: green development infrastructure growth; number of people using a space at a specific time; tree coverage; nightlife activity; cultural venues count; façade beautification, just to name a few.

We have also had users create data-maps using well-being data from various municipalities, including diabetes rates per neighbourhood, income levels per neighbourhood, and even cervical cancer screenings.

Typically, the data is collected by the users.

Sometimes individuals upload data from open-source data providers such as NYC Open Data, Wellbeing Toronto, and other city-based open-data websites.

We host a community-data-sharing platform, called the “Data Gallery,” which provides a data market on our application for registered users. Members who have uploaded and rendered their maps have the option of posting their data publicly on our platform. Other users are then able to browse, view, and access it to enrich their own maps.

Landscapes architects and urban planners can use the created data-map as a presentation aid to show their clients areas of concern or interest. From here, these maps can be used as an instrumental device to help make better design decisions. For example, recently posted to the Data Gallery was a visual representation of the number of trees damaged in New York City and the surrounding area by Hurricane Sandy. This data-map provided a powerful visual story of the storm’s damage. Landscape architects could use this information to determine which areas deserve the most attention or replanting.

As more data becomes available and accessible, people need a way to make sense of it. I think it’s important to make the flow of data easier and more widely understood—to create an open-data culture with an ever-growing number of participants.

BIO/ NADIA AMOROSO IS THE CO-FOUNDER OF DATAAPPEAL INC, A DATA-VISUALIZATION, INFORMATION DESIGN, MAPPING, AND ANALYTICS COMPANY. NADIA IS ALSO AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH AND TEACHES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO. SHE IS THE AUTHOR OF SEVERAL BOOKS, INCLUDING THE EXPOSED CITY: MAPPING THE URBAN INVISIBLES, REPRESENTING LANDSCAPES: A VISUAL COLLECTION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, AND DIGITAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE NOW. ERIC GORDON, OALA, IS OWNER AND DESIGNER AT OPTIMICITY.

04/

Carbon dioxide levels as sampled by bicycle in Grenoble, France, captured

by Sensaris Eco-SensPods; data sourced from Michael Setton, CEO Sensaris

IMAGE/

DataAppeal

05/

Percentage of tree cover in Toronto per neighbourhood; data sourced from Wellbeing Toronto

IMAGE/

DataAppeal

Professional Practice

.21

The OALA’s Professional Practice and Ethics Committee

26

Professional Practice

27

.21

The OALA has two related committees—the Professional Practice and Ethics Committee (PP&E) and the Discipline Committee—with delegated authority to deal with various ethical and disciplinary issues related to the professional practice of landscape architects in Ontario.

The PP&E Committee is currently comprised of four members and meets regularly (approximately once every second month).

The PP&E Committee examines issues and policies of common interest to OALA members that fall under the professional practice umbrella, such as competition guidelines. The committee also receives approximately ten inquiries a year from members requesting feedback and advice regarding professional standards expected within the membership of the OALA. Another valuable, proactive service the PP&E Committee is currently undertaking is the development of guidelines to assist landscape architects in avoiding common problems, such as insufficient or poorly worded contracts. The committee is also exploring its role in the continuing education of members, particularly in relation to matters of professional ethics.

Along with its policy development and proactive work, one of the constituted tasks of the PP&E Committee is to deal with complaints. The committee receives approximately three complaints a year. These typically, though not exclusively, come from people who are not OALA members but who are working with or are having work done by OALA members. The PP&E Committee’s

role is strictly related to ethical practices (as set out in the OALA’s Code of Ethics), not civil issues. (Many of the complaints brought to the committee are related to alleged contractual disputes rather than ethical issues.)

If the committee has ethical concerns related to the complaint, the committee requests all documentation from both sides. Each committee member separately reviews the material in detail, and then the committee meets to decide whether or not there has been a breach of the OALA’s Code of Ethics. If the committee decides there has been no breach, and this decision triggers protest by the complainant, the OALA’s Lay Councillor is brought into the process to review and comment on the decision. If the committee and the Lay Councillor agree that the complaint is not warranted, the decision is final and a formal declaration is issued.

If, however, the committee determines that the complaint is warranted, either with or without Lay Councillor review, the matter is referred to the OALA’s Discipline Committee, which reviews the same material and comes to its own conclusion. The Discipline Committee’s decision is binding upon the OALA member whose conduct is the subject of the complaint and may include fines and/or suspension as well as publication of the decision.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ETHICS COMMITTEE, PLEASE CONTACT OALA ADMINISTRATOR AINA BUDREVICS AT OALAADMIN@OALA.CA. (THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUMMARY WAS PROVIDED BY THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE PP&E COMMITTEE: IAN DANCE, JOANNE MORAN, AND GEOFF BAYNE. THANKS TO EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER LISA SHKUT FOR MODERATING THE DISCUSSION WITH THESE COMMITTEE MEMBERS; TO OALA REGISTRAR LINDA MCLEOD FOR ATTENDING THE DISCUSSION; AND TO SHIRA DAVIS FOR TRANSCRIPTION.)

Notes

.21

Notes: A Miscellany of News and Events 02

01 01/

Alexander Bell’s 3rd-place winner in the H2O category

IMAGE/

Alexander Bell

02/

Alana Evers’ 1st-place winner in the H2O category

IMAGE/

Alana Evers

03/

Marina Signer’s 2nd-place winner in the H2O category

IMAGE/

Marina Signer

03

competition The OALA’s Social Committee recently held a photography competition, open to all OALA members, associates, and landscape architecture students, inviting submissions of images on the themes of H2O and Celebration. Congratulations to the winners!

28

Notes

29

.21

05

04

06 04/

David Pollard’s 2nd-place winner in the Celebration category

IMAGE/

David Pollard

05/

Stephanie Wilson’s 1st-place winner in the Celebration category

IMAGE/

Stephanie Wilson

06/

Alexander Bell’s 3rd-place winner in the Celebration category

IMAGE/

Alexander Bell

Notes

30

.21

forum The Toronto Centre for Active Transportation (TCAT) and Share the Road Cycling Coalition (STR) are hosting a joint conference in May. TCAT’s 2013 Complete Streets Forum (May 27) and STR’s Ontario Bike Summit (May 28-29) will take place at the Hyatt Regency in Toronto, and will focus on sharing resources, best practices, and creative solutions for designing safe and inviting streets for everyone. For details, see www.torontocat.ca.

08

07

announcements A new director has been appointed to the University of Guelph Arboretum, the largest and most comprehensive sanctuary of its kind in Ontario, home to more than 18,000 specimens in more than 30 plant collections as well as gardens, wetlands, nature trails, and forests. Professor Shelley Hunt, a forest ecologist and faculty member in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of Guelph, has been named director of the Arboretum.

Hunt, whose research currently focuses on forest restoration in southern Ontario, will continue to teach and conduct research at the university, where she has been on faculty since 2006.

conference Across North America, cities are shifting their approaches to developing and renewing urban infrastructure, investing money in green infrastructure such as green roofs, urban forests, wetlands, porous paving, and more. From May 2122, the Grey to Green Conference, being held at Evergreen Brick Works in Toronto, will bring together a diversity of people— designers, engineers, planners, and government policy-makers—to explore new ways of thinking about project design and maintenance, sharing what is working and what is possible. For more information, visit www.greytogreenconference.org.

books

parks

Municipal politics in Toronto is particularly polarized at the moment, and writer and editor Edward Keenan in Good Neighbourhoods, Crazy Politics and the Invention of Toronto tells the story of Toronto’s ascendance as a mature global city, with behind-the-scenes anecdotes and thorough analysis. Published by Coach House Books, Keenan’s long-awaited book is now available at stores.

The W. Garfield Weston Foundation is committing up to $5 million over the next three years to fund innovative new park initiatives across the city of Toronto.

Working in partnership with Toronto Park People, Toronto’s non-profit catalyst for better parks, the Weston Family Challenge will support projects that spark new ways to operate parks and engage the public with community and nature. Eligible applicants will include registered charities and community agencies working in partnership with the City of Toronto, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the private sector, and/or business communities.

For further information, see the program guidelines at www.parkpeople.ca.

talks Charles Birnbaum, founder of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, will be giving a talk in Toronto, co-sponsored by Ground, on May 23, 2013. In this illustrated presentation, Birnbaum will be speaking about the growing movement to assess and protect designed landscapes of cultural heritage value, including Toronto sites. For details, see the OALA website, www.oala.ca.

publications The Ontario Growth Secretariat recently published two new case studies of completed projects that illustrate key policies in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe: the King Street Reconstruction in Kitchener and Artscape Wychwood Barns in Toronto. The Places to Grow urban form case study series looks at pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development across North America. For more information about the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and to download these case studies, visit www.placestogrow.ca.

permaculture Permaculture is a design practice based on developing agriculturally productive ecosystems that echo the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. From July 21 to August 3, a Permaculture Design Course will be held near Orangeville. This 13-day intensive program will combine theory and practical activities. For more information, see www.wholevillage.org.

07/

Shelley Hunt, director of the University of Guelph Arboretum

IMAGE/

University of Guelph

08/

Malvern Action for Neighbourhood Change with school children at a clean-up day at Littles Road Park in Toronto

IMAGE/

Toronto Park People

Notes

31

.21

09

in memoriam Michael Hough (1928—2013) Michael Hough’s works (his teaching, writing, planning and design, among his many other passions and skills) were profoundly influential and pioneering. In honour of his legacy, Ground asked a number of his colleagues and friends to offer tributes for this In Memoriam. On behalf of the Ground Editorial Board, we send our condolences to Michael Hough’s family and to the many people whose lives were touched and enriched by him.

—Ground Editorial Board

Michael Hough was a significant influence in the design profession: an expert in architecture and landscape architecture as well as in the everyday practice of sustainability. He brought great gains to the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects during his professional practice.

At the recent OALA Annual General Meeting in Ottawa, Michael’s contributions to the OALA were recognized by Past President Glenn O’Connor and University of Toronto Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design Associate Dean Robert Wright. For those who were not present, the tribute can be heard in an audio-file of the OALA AGM, in the Members’ Area of the OALA website, www.oala.ca.

—Joanne Moran, President, OALA

10 09/

Michael Hough

IMAGE/

Arifa Shompa Hai

10/

Michael Hough

IMAGE/

Courtesy Tim Hough

Notes

Memories and Celebrations

By Carolyn Woodland, a colleague of Michael Hough’s for 25 years Michael Hough loved thinking about cities, the importance of urban ecology in shaping the regional landscape, and the imperative of caring for nature’s dynamic processes within the city’s neglected places. And he enjoyed talking about how things should be—nature and society as a functioning whole.

Trained as an architect and landscape architect, schooled at the L’Ecole des Beaux Art in Geneva, at the Edinburgh College of Art, and finally in the Masters of Landscape Architecture program at the University of Pennsylvania under his esteemed mentor Ian McHarg, Michael’s unique ability to bridge many professional disciplines and break new ground in urban design, site planning, and environmental planning for fifty years was truly remarkable.

When I joined Michael’s firm in 1976 as a young student on a scholarship I could not have had a better mentor. The firm Michael founded as Michael Hough Associates in 1963 had already evolved into an award-winning design, planning, and ecology practice named Hough, Stansbury & Associates. Michael had already initiated the School of Landscape Architecture at the University of Toronto, and had designed and built many landmark projects in Toronto, including Ontario Court House, Philosopher’s Walk, Scarborough College campus, and, of course, the international award-winning Ontario Place with Eb Zeidler.

With the participation of Jim Stansbury and Michael Michalski, the firm broadened its focus, linking ecological science to site planning and design solutions, which was unheard of in the architectural community at that time. The office was a real “think tank” for design and ecological explorations, and Michael had a way of making every project an adventure.

32

.21

Being truly “green” in those days was a constant struggle. Michael’s unflinching perseverance, and sometimes lack of diplomacy, earned the office the nickname Huff and Puff—sometimes used affectionately and sometimes not.

Michael Hough’s Influence on the Lake Ontario Waterfront

By Suzanne Barrett, Principal of Barrett Consulting and, formerly, Director of the Lake Ontario Program at the Waterfront Regeneration Trust

Eha Naylor, Ian Dance, David Leinster, and I were all very much entrenched in a monumental corporate transition, and our careers were built upon the design testing and explorations of Michael’s evolving ideology about the importance of an urban natural landscape from the initial design concepts right down to the construction site. Always a gentleman, Michael was on a mission to build the ultimate urban landscape theory. And so he did.

One of Michael Hough’s many contributions was his transformative influence on the Lake Ontario waterfront. During the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, established in 1988 and headed by the Honourable David Crombie, it became obvious that an ecosystem approach was needed to respond to public concerns about the deterioration of this priceless resource. At the time, Michael and his colleagues were working on a visionary report—Bringing Back the Don—that outlined ways to revitalize the river and its valley. This inspiring work provided an excellent example for the regeneration of the waterfront. David Crombie invited Michael to contribute a centrepiece essay called “Healing an Urban Watershed: the Story of the Don” in the final report of the Royal Commission, Regeneration, in 1992. This helped to transform the way that people thought not only about the Don watershed, but also about other watersheds in the Toronto region, their connections to the lake, and the waterfront itself.

In 1984, Michael wrote his first book, City Form and Natural Process, after taking a long, much-needed research, teaching, and travel break. He was determined to build his theories into major new urban renewal assignments. This era of the firm’s work was the most influential on the urban environment at a big scale. Michael pursued opportunities with the National Capital Commission in Ottawa, worked with David Crombie at the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, and worked with local residents, the City of Toronto, and the conservation authority on the Task Force to Bring Back the Don. Over his pioneering career, Michael was honoured with more than twenty awards of excellence, such as the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects Lifetime Achievement Award (2009); Conservation Pioneer Award (2007); City of Toronto Design Award (2001); Lieutenant Governor’s Conservation Award (1993); Toronto Arts Award for Architecture and Design (1991); and the American Society of Landscape Architects’ Bradford Williams Medal (1989), to name just a few.

Michael built a career of great stature as Canada’s most prominent landscape architect, and was a leader for sustainability around the world. Our healthy, green path for the future is much clearer now— because of Michael Hough.

During our next iteration as the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, we further developed these themes in the Greenway Strategy for Lake Ontario. This gave meaning and context to the Waterfront Trail and influenced new approaches to waterfront revitalization in communities of all sizes around the lake from Niagara-on-the-Lake to Belleville. We hired Michael’s firm to develop a restoration manual called Restoring Natural Habitats that not only guided restoration efforts on Lake Ontario, but also became a university text and a widely used handbook for practitioners.

Another document by the firm—Greening the Toronto Portlands—addressed the opportunities to use green infrastructure to restore degraded lands. These principles live on in much of the groundbreaking work now being undertaken by Waterfront Toronto.

Notes

33

.21

teaching-- motivated students to adopt his groundbreaking ideas. His insightful lectures, punctuated by his unique sense of humour, delighted his audiences thoroughly. Michael’s tireless and inspiring leadership has transformed the fields of planning and design. We all are responsible for our continued commitment to his philosophy.

Michael Hough’s Legacy at the University of Toronto

By Jane Wolff and Robert Wright, Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design, University of Toronto

11

Learning to “really look”

By Liette Gilbert, Associate Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University Michael Hough’s legacy lives on through his projects but also through his writings and teachings. More than ever, reading Hough remains imperative for the planning and design professions because his message is infinitely invaluable and continuously relevant. Michael’s teaching was deeply committed to place-based pedagogy in order to nurture landscape awareness. For example, he regularly took his York University students to the unusual urban ecologies of Leslie Street Spit as the site of his design studio. When it came time for interim presentations, his students shared their visions for entertainment parks and hotel complexes. So Michael took his students back to the Spit and insisted that they “really look” at the site.

He had them observe the lake, the downtown area, the resilience of fauna and flora, and the infill soil. He took them back to the site as long as it took for them to appreciate that a minimum of interference was a perfectly appropriate and even preferable response to ecological design as an integrative process.

Michael was a prolific and brilliant writer and a committed professor to his students.

Among his rich scholarship, I highlight “Looking Beneath the Surface: Teaching a

Landscape Ethic” (in Ecology and Design, edited by B. Johnson and K. Hill, 2002) for its timeless principles of thinking ecologically. Michael urges us to 1) recognize and respect unpredictability of natural and social change; 2) recognize and respect ecological continuity; 3) re-establish balance between ecology, economy, and community and between citizens and design professions; and 4) challenge design conventions so that nature becomes a priority and not an afterthought. Michael left us very challenging principles to link urbanism to nature but he also left us his resolute approach to “really look.” Moreover, I believe he left us a generative scholarship and the concomitant responsibility to “really read” Michael Hough.

Michael Hough as Mentor

By Arifa Shompa Hai, Master in Environmental Studies (2002), York University, and Master of Landscape Architecture (2008), University of Toronto; Hai’s thesis advisor for both degrees was Michael Hough Michael Hough’s pioneering work has established a powerful design language that evolves from a solid understanding of “place” and its identity. His groundbreaking writings and design projects have challenged conventional views of cities and the natural environment. As my teacher, colleague, friend, and mentor, Michael invited me on numerous walks that evolved into memorable educational experiences. His wisdom, expertise, optimism, and, above all, his passion for

Nearly fifty years after Michael Hough developed and initiated the University of Toronto’s landscape architecture program and more than forty years after he moved from U of T to York University’s Faculty of Environmental Studies, his ideas continue to influence our work here. Michael’s legacy extends in many directions. His articulation of the essential relationship between design and ecology in contemporary cities remains at the centre of our master’s degree curriculum in landscape architecture. His built projects at Philosopher’s Walk, the University College Quadrangle, and the Earth Sciences Centre Courtyard remind us of the power of spaces designed to gather communities. His advocacy work toward the restoration of the Don River serves as a model in our teaching about design and activism, and Cities and Natural Process and Out of Place are essential reading in our courses on landscape theory and metropolitan systems. Michael’s longtime colleagues and associates play an ongoing role as friends, critics, and advisors to our program, and the Michael Hough/OALA endowment brings an internationally recognized landscape practitioner to visit our faculty each year. Michael looms large in our shared understanding of the discipline of landscape architecture. We owe him a debt that can only be repaid through our continued commitment to the issues he so dearly believed in.

11/

Michael Hough at Evergreen Brick Works in Toronto

IMAGE/

Arifa Shompa Hai

Interested in being involved with Ground: Landscape Architect Quarterly?

21

The OALA Editorial Board is looking for volunteers who can help out with various tasks, such as research, transcription, and writing. Any level of commitment is appreciated, from researching upcoming events for the Notes section to transcribing Round Table discussions...

Fun, satisfying work—and the best part, no need to attend meetings!

To get involved, please e-mail magazine@oala.ca.

Artifact

42

.21

01 TEXT BY LORRAINE JOHNSON

The networks of wastewater tunnels that snake beneath a city’s surface seem to call out for exploration. Despite the stink, inaccessibility, and potential danger, there have always been people intent on breaching barriers to find routes into the hidden, underground world of urban wastewater infrastructure.

It’s easy to see the appeal, though harder to imagine the reality.

Few of us will ever don hip waders, strap on a headlamp, and illicitly venture into the sewer system.

The underground world of rivers forgotten

But we can indulge our curiosity vicariously. Jeremy Kai, an urban spelunker who has been traversing Toronto’s wastewater tunnels since 2006, has photographed his underground journeys, and a collection of his compelling images was recently published in the book Rivers Forgotten. Kai’s photographs reveal an infrastructure that is at once sinuously alluring and viscerally forbidding. These rivers of wastewater might be forgotten, but Kai brings them to light and to life.

RIVERS FORGOTTEN, BY JEREMY KAI, WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY MICHAEL COOK, IS PUBLISHED BY KOYAMA PRESS.

02

03

01/

The tailrace to the defunct Toronto Power Company hydroelectric plant in Niagara Falls

IMAGE/

Jeremy Kai

02/

Combined sewer built in 1914 near the Junction neighbourhood in Toronto

IMAGE/

Jeremy Kai

03/

The Garrison Creek sewer in Toronto near Old Fort York

IMAGE/

Jeremy Kai