http://www.planetizen.com/node/66865
 |
Peavey Plaza
Minneapolis, Minnesota
nytimes.com |
Hello Everyone:
Today we're going to talk about a topic I haven;t brought up yet, urban landscapes. I may have touched on it but not really spent any time on the subject. The source for this article is an a post by Mark Hough, ASLA, a landscape architect, writer, and teacher at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Prof. Hough recently posted an article on
Planetizen, titled "Save that Funky Plaza," where he discusses why urban landscapes should be preserved. I have to agree with the first sentence of the post, "Urban landscapes seem to barely register on the radar of most preservationists..." When preservationists talk about historic landscapes, it's in reference to traditional gardens, lush parks, historic estates, battlefields-places that fit the idea of what a historic landscape should be like. However, Prof Hough states, "What it really comes down to is whether landscapes in ever-evolving cities can-or should-be preserved at all."
 |
Peavey Plaza at night
archpaper.com |
Let's consider, for the moment, that urban landscapes like Peavey Plaza in Minneapolis, Minnesota should be preserved. If we can rally the troops to save a building, why can't the same be done for an urban landscape? Prof. Hough points out that one of the problems is that the historic preservation process is skewed toward buildings and dominated by building-centric language: eaves, cornices, porches, et cetera. This places landscape architects at a disadvantage because they are generally addressed in a broad manner, using generic criteria makes it difficult to devise any systematic application across the broad. Prof. Hough points out, "While you cannot expect to craft any meaningful apples to apples comparison between buildings and landscapes since they are so inherently different, it would be nice if the playing field was a little more even."
 |
Winter/early spring time
zizaike.com |
Another statement I agree with is "Buildings are essentially objects-coherent (usually) arrangements of walls, roofs, doors, and windows-and are easily identified as such..." Stylistically and aesthetically, they can be as different as night and day but generally a building is a recognizable object and as a static object, it can be preserved. Not the case with landscapes, which are ephemeral by nature (slight pun) and constantly evolving. Thus, the term preservation, in the strictest sense, cannot be applied in the same manner you used it in reference to a work of art or a building. Since a landscape is more dynamic, it can be hard to justify saving, especially as a design expression, since the original design will look different over time. Just as a lot of the significant and not so significant modernist work of the sixties through eighties is starting to attract interest from preservationists, mid-century modernist urban landscapes are coming of age. These landscapes represent a potpourri of quality as contemporary places but, more important, embody an era which the look and function of the urban terrain was dramatically altered, thus, according to some, are preservation-worthy.
 |
Peavey Plaza fountain at night
tclf.org |
This brings us to the question of Peavey Plaza and whether or not it was worth saving. While Mark Hough fervently believes, "...the legacy of landscape architecture and urban in the making of American cities needs to be recognized, since the history of our public realm-the space between buildings-is at least as important as that of the themselves...Saving our design heritage needs to be balanced with the imperative that urban landscapes effectively meet the functional needs of contemporary life..." Thus, the conundrum set before the city of Minneapolis during the recent successful campaign by the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota and the Cultural Landscape Foundation to save Peavey Plaza, a concrete, late modernist sunken plaza designed by landscape architect Paul M. Friedberg.
No doubt it was a win for preservation, but Prof. Hough is not totally convinced that "...history is going to prove it the best thing for Minneapolis." By his own admission, Prof. Hough's encounters with the plaza are minimal. His point is that despite the fact that it is completely acceptable to to challenge the place making value of any urban landscape, there should be no one ('s) singular aesthetic judgement to influence the preservation process. This is why The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 laid out objective criteria. If we whatever is fashionable at the moment govern preservation, then we risk losing much of the foundational blocks contemporary design is built on. The consensus solution for Peavey Plaza will provide modest updates while allowing the original design to remain mostly intact. Prof. Hough cites the TCLF as a leader in promoting the need to preserve urban landscapes and allowing for updates, in a responsible manner, as the frequently best solution.
 |
Aerial view of Jacob Javits Plaza
Martha Schwartz
Manhattan, New York
dirt.asla.org
|
Professor Mark Hough suggest two alternatives to approach taken by the TCLF: 1) pure preservation-harder to effectively accomplish because the ephemeral nature of landscapes and 2) the
tabla rasa approach-wipe the slate clean and start over. The latter was the case at the Jacob Javits Plaza in lower Manhattan, that took place several times of the span of twenty years. The most recent change wiped away the pop art plaza designed by landscape architect Martha Schwartz, a direct response to an earlier design anchored by the controversial Richard Serra sculpture,
Tilted Arc. Prof, Hough describes Ms, Schwartz's design as, "...a neo-modern, Roberto Burle Marx-esque landscape by Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates." There wasn't much in the way of hand wringing over the removal of Ms. Schwartz's vision of the space and only time will tell if this new version will last longer than its predecessors.
 |
Tilted Arc
Richard Serra, Jacob Javits PlazaManhattan, New York
wirednewyork.com |
While it the the
tabla rasa approach may seem harsh, sometimes it's the most logical way to work because it keeps the space fresh and responsive to the current needs of the users. The preservation or urban landscapes, like everything else in preservation, really boils down to advocacy. If no one cares about a place, or is made to care about it, then chances are that it will be eventually lost. The preservation of urban landscapes is unique to big cities or famous places; it is applicable to towns and cities across the United States and the world that have all these really cool, funky plaza with or without a design pedigree yet still contribute to the urban fabric. As our world continues to urbanize, it becomes imperative of preservationists, planners, and community leaders to develop a good set of tools to evaluate urban landscapes objectively and effectively as reflections of their period of significance before deciding their fate.
Google+ and Instagram
No comments:
Post a Comment