采訪/整理：張博雅

訪談人物：

（美）喬治·哈格里夫斯/哈格里夫斯事務(wù)所創(chuàng)始人/美國風(fēng)景園林師協(xié)會(huì)會(huì)員/曾任教于美國哈佛大學(xué)設(shè)計(jì)研究生院，并任風(fēng)景園林系主任（1996—2003）

Profile:

(USA) George Hargreaves, is the founder and Design Director of Hargreaves Associates. He is a fellow of the American Society of Landscape Architects. He taught at the Graduate School of Design, Harvard University for 20 years, was tenured there for 12 years, and served as the chairman of the Department of Landscape Architecture from 1996 to 2003.

什么樣的設(shè)計(jì)才是“生態(tài)”的？在“生態(tài)修復(fù)”已經(jīng)上升為國家政策的今天，這是風(fēng)景園林師必須回答的問題。在中國，生態(tài)設(shè)計(jì)常常讓人聯(lián)想到未經(jīng)修剪的植被，為動(dòng)物棲息地創(chuàng)造生境等。不過，把項(xiàng)目做得“自然”就等同于“生態(tài)”嗎？在真實(shí)的項(xiàng)目實(shí)踐中，設(shè)計(jì)師所掌握的設(shè)計(jì)語匯仍然十分有限。在生態(tài)設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域，我們的歐美同行比我們更早開始探索。了解其他國家和地區(qū)的先進(jìn)經(jīng)驗(yàn)，對(duì)中國設(shè)計(jì)師大有裨益。

本刊記者邀請(qǐng)到美國著名風(fēng)景園林師—喬治·哈格里夫斯，詳細(xì)探討了他的設(shè)計(jì)哲學(xué)和生態(tài)設(shè)計(jì)思想。他所成長的20世紀(jì)60年代，是美國生態(tài)主義思想興起和發(fā)展的年代。他自80年代從業(yè)以來即接觸棕地更新類項(xiàng)目，并從當(dāng)時(shí)的新潮大地藝術(shù)中汲取靈感，創(chuàng)造性地應(yīng)用于景觀設(shè)計(jì)項(xiàng)目中。他曾參與設(shè)計(jì)了包括倫敦的伊麗莎白女王奧林匹克公園在內(nèi)的多個(gè)重要項(xiàng)目，在大型公園以及棕地更新的理論與實(shí)踐中均有突出貢獻(xiàn)。2016年，哈格里夫斯事務(wù)所同時(shí)獲得庫伯·休伊特國家設(shè)計(jì)獎(jiǎng)和羅莎·芭芭拉國際景觀獎(jiǎng)2項(xiàng)殊榮。

LA：《風(fēng)景園林》

George：喬治·哈格里夫斯

LA：讓我們從您職業(yè)生涯的開始聊起吧。據(jù)記載，您對(duì)于風(fēng)景園林最初的興趣來源于一次落基山之旅。在那次旅行中，是什么打動(dòng)了您呢？旅行結(jié)束后，又是什么讓您堅(jiān)定地走上了風(fēng)景園林之路呢？

George：探索大地景觀是很吸引人的。當(dāng)我在徒步的時(shí)候，我注意到植被隨著海拔的變化而變化。山頂?shù)闹参锖蜕侥_下是完全不同的。這對(duì)于當(dāng)時(shí)的我來說非常新奇。我對(duì)于大地景觀本身和景觀所蘊(yùn)含的空間很著迷。起初，我想或許我可以學(xué)習(xí)林業(yè)。不過，我叔叔那時(shí)候在佐治亞大學(xué)工作，他建議我考慮一下風(fēng)景園林。我去參觀了學(xué)院，那里的人在做公園之類的東西。于是我想：對(duì)，這就是我想做的。

1 三角形理論Triangle theory

LA：對(duì)于設(shè)計(jì)，您有一個(gè)“三角形理論”—設(shè)計(jì)的3個(gè)關(guān)鍵因素是在場(chǎng)地、可持續(xù)性和記憶性（圖1）。這似乎是您所有項(xiàng)目的概念基礎(chǔ)。這個(gè)“三角形”對(duì)您來說意味著什么？為什么記憶性如此重要呢？

George：我總是對(duì)場(chǎng)地很感興趣，我認(rèn)為設(shè)計(jì)應(yīng)該因地制宜。至于可持續(xù)性，很多人是從生態(tài)學(xué)的角度去思考的，但是我是從經(jīng)濟(jì)的角度出發(fā)的。我對(duì)很多古老的公園和花園印象深刻，特別是倫敦的海德公園和圣·詹姆斯公園。幾百年來，人們持續(xù)地投入大量財(cái)富去維護(hù)這些公園。在這里可持續(xù)性意味著需要有人持續(xù)付出人力物力。說到這兒就不得不提記憶性。當(dāng)一個(gè)公園被銘記、被喜愛的時(shí)候，它將與人們產(chǎn)生關(guān)聯(lián)，使用者可以從公園中獲益。如果你的項(xiàng)目只是在生態(tài)上可持續(xù)，但并不能讓人們產(chǎn)生情感共鳴，那么人們除了“可持續(xù)性”這個(gè)概念本身就再也記不住別的了。那樣的話你就失敗了。通過把場(chǎng)地變得容易被惦記、被喜愛，人們會(huì)自發(fā)地去投入、去維護(hù)你的項(xiàng)目。

LA：的確如此。您的作品的識(shí)別性都很強(qiáng)，人們很容易通過雕塑般的地形辨認(rèn)它們。這些地形的靈感來源于哪里呢？

George：我是從讀研究生的時(shí)候開始用地形做設(shè)計(jì)的。那時(shí)的設(shè)計(jì)師常常通過平面上的幾何秩序做設(shè)計(jì)，我則極力去尋找一種新的表達(dá)方式。在一些歷史景觀的啟發(fā)下，我開始嘗試做脫離平面的設(shè)計(jì)。地形就是我設(shè)計(jì)的全部。我在研究生畢業(yè)后做的最早的項(xiàng)目之一是一處25hm2的垃圾填埋場(chǎng)，而且業(yè)主只有50萬美元的預(yù)算。那意味著我們只能在場(chǎng)地上做一件事，比如全部種滿樹，或是種滿草之類的。最后，對(duì)于預(yù)算有限的大尺度項(xiàng)目，地形成為（我們的）設(shè)計(jì)語言。

LA：這樣說來，通過地形做設(shè)計(jì)在20世紀(jì)80年代是獨(dú)樹一幟的。您也是在那時(shí)開始介入棕地項(xiàng)目的嗎？

George：我是第一批把地形當(dāng)作首要設(shè)計(jì)手段的設(shè)計(jì)師之一。羅伯特·史密森等藝術(shù)家給了我靈感。我的項(xiàng)目和藝術(shù)作品的區(qū)別是，我的項(xiàng)目都是公共空間，而大部分當(dāng)代大地藝術(shù)作品都在人跡罕至之處，且只能在外部遠(yuǎn)觀。

從某種意義上說，在那個(gè)時(shí)候，是棕地選擇了我。最開始，我的公司規(guī)模很小。當(dāng)大公司在為地產(chǎn)商設(shè)計(jì)花園時(shí)，我有著完全不同的客戶。來找我們的人通常沒什么錢，而且他們有棘手的問題要處理。他們覺得我們的策略（地形設(shè)計(jì)）很有創(chuàng)意，也不用花太多錢。不言而喻，這是我們的機(jī)會(huì)，我們只能全力以赴，對(duì)吧？

當(dāng)然了，我的方法也是在不斷更新的。幾年以后，我意識(shí)到并不是每個(gè)項(xiàng)目都適合做地形。我開始更多地考慮植物等其他因素。如今，我們有一套完整的設(shè)計(jì)手段和設(shè)計(jì)元素，地形和其他要素是平等的關(guān)系。

LA：您曾經(jīng)提到過，地形是和自然過程相關(guān)聯(lián)的。這在您的項(xiàng)目中是如何體現(xiàn)的呢？

George：你知道，我不是藝術(shù)家。我認(rèn)為僅有地形是不能構(gòu)成一個(gè)項(xiàng)目的。我試著讓地形和自然過程產(chǎn)生關(guān)聯(lián)，讓地形去強(qiáng)調(diào)本就存在的自然過程。在燭臺(tái)角文化公園中，我們?cè)囍雅f金山灣區(qū)強(qiáng)烈的風(fēng)和海浪納入設(shè)計(jì)。我們讓地形和自然的風(fēng)向互動(dòng)。當(dāng)你穿過起伏的地形時(shí)，你能感受到不同的風(fēng)，有時(shí)你完全暴露在風(fēng)里，有時(shí)你又被地形庇護(hù)。我們還設(shè)計(jì)了可以讓潮汐進(jìn)出的水灣，讓原本只是垂直變化的海浪產(chǎn)生了水平方向的變化。雖然海浪一直在那里，但這個(gè)水灣讓人們看到了以前不曾看到的自然變化①（圖2～4）。

LA：說到生態(tài)設(shè)計(jì)，我們不得不提伊恩·麥克哈格的《設(shè)計(jì)結(jié)合自然》。這本書出版于1969年。在20世紀(jì)80年代，風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科逐漸從關(guān)注靜態(tài)模型轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)殛P(guān)注動(dòng)態(tài)變化。您怎樣看待這個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)變呢？

2～4舊金山燭臺(tái)角文化公園Candlestick Point Cultural Park, San Francisco

George：對(duì)我來說，《設(shè)計(jì)結(jié)合自然》是一本關(guān)于發(fā)展的書。麥克哈格在書中展示了千層餅法，它可以幫你判斷哪些土地適宜發(fā)展。這仍然是個(gè)靜態(tài)模型。真正結(jié)合了自然過程的設(shè)計(jì)與這本書不見得有必然聯(lián)系。我認(rèn)為這個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)變開始于學(xué)術(shù)界：當(dāng)人們?cè)陂喿x和思考書中的內(nèi)容時(shí)，產(chǎn)生了關(guān)于是否能把自然過程納入設(shè)計(jì)的討論。我也是從那時(shí)介入這個(gè)議題的，我嘗試用地形去表現(xiàn)自然的過程，讓靜態(tài)的物質(zhì)空間和自然的動(dòng)態(tài)變化在人的體驗(yàn)中統(tǒng)一。

LA：我們聊到了生態(tài)。關(guān)于生態(tài)設(shè)計(jì)，目前有很多影響深遠(yuǎn)的理論，比如景觀都市主義。不過，在理論和實(shí)踐之間仍有一道鴻溝。當(dāng)你實(shí)地參觀一些在這些思想指導(dǎo)下的大型項(xiàng)目時(shí)，你可能很難把眼前的空間和背后的理論相聯(lián)系。您怎么看待這個(gè)問題？

George：我覺得景觀都市主義很有趣，不過我見過的一些已建成的項(xiàng)目確實(shí)差強(qiáng)人意。我記得有個(gè)廢棄機(jī)場(chǎng)（更新）項(xiàng)目，風(fēng)景園林師在那里種了很多樹，希望景觀的改變會(huì)引導(dǎo)機(jī)場(chǎng)的發(fā)展。不過，如果你去了那兒，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)樹都不見了。所以我對(duì)于景觀能成為發(fā)展的引擎這個(gè)想法是有些懷疑的。不管尺度大還是小，每個(gè)項(xiàng)目都應(yīng)包含獨(dú)特的體驗(yàn)。僅僅一塊濕地或者一片森林是不能被算作一個(gè)項(xiàng)目的，它們也未必會(huì)帶來地區(qū)發(fā)展。說到這兒我們又回到了我的“三角形”—一個(gè)項(xiàng)目必須能引起共鳴。我們也做過一些大尺度的，創(chuàng)造性地表現(xiàn)自然過程的項(xiàng)目，不過在那些項(xiàng)目里我們也設(shè)計(jì)了像是兒童游樂場(chǎng)或者野餐區(qū)之類的地方。這些地方是讓人們和自然發(fā)生實(shí)質(zhì)性的互動(dòng)的地方（圖5、6）。

對(duì)于景觀都市主義，也許我們還沒有找到很好的方法去實(shí)踐它。彌合理論和實(shí)踐的鴻溝需要大量的工作。想個(gè)點(diǎn)子、畫畫草圖是很容易的事情，但把它們轉(zhuǎn)譯，讓它們落地，非常困難。在我們的工作中，我們盡最大的努力將想法變成現(xiàn)實(shí)。

LA：您是否覺得，結(jié)合自然去設(shè)計(jì)并非因?yàn)檫@是必需，而是因?yàn)槿绻覀冺槕?yīng)自然，我們就可以在后期維護(hù)上節(jié)省功夫呢？

George：設(shè)計(jì)結(jié)合自然并不等于你要順應(yīng)自然。阿姆斯特丹森林（圖7）是徹頭徹尾的人造景觀，人們挖掘水渠、排出地下水，并種植森林。從這個(gè)角度看，設(shè)計(jì)結(jié)合自然也意味著為了你的目標(biāo)而駕馭自然。

LA：荷蘭的土地天然平坦又含水過多。那里的人們必須改造自然，從而讓土地適宜居住。那么，結(jié)合自然的設(shè)計(jì)是否存在文化差異呢？

George：也有地理特征的差異。你沒法把阿姆斯特丹森林和瑞士的群山等同考慮，因?yàn)槟愕藐P(guān)注場(chǎng)地。這就是為什么我有三角形理論—對(duì)我來說，因地制宜、經(jīng)濟(jì)可持續(xù)和易被銘記的確是成功項(xiàng)目的關(guān)鍵驅(qū)動(dòng)因素。

5 倫敦伊麗莎白女王奧林匹克公園鳥瞰Bird-view of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London

6 倫敦奧林匹克公園局部鳥瞰Bird-view of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London (partial)

LA：您在世界各地都有項(xiàng)目，這些項(xiàng)目的背景和條件各不相同。在一個(gè)陌生的環(huán)境中，您如何開始呢？您怎樣去了解這些場(chǎng)地呢？

George：我們的大多數(shù)項(xiàng)目都是公共空間，從這個(gè)角度看它們是有共通之處的。不過，在基本的相似性之上，我們會(huì)挖掘那些獨(dú)特背景和文化，這對(duì)我來說至關(guān)重要。當(dāng)我們開始天津塘沽（海河帶狀公園）項(xiàng)目的時(shí)候，我在周邊走訪，觀察人們?nèi)绾问褂霉珗@和開放空間。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)他們和西方人的使用方式是完全不同的。西方的公園里通常有很多開放草坪，人們?cè)诓莸厣弦安突蛘咝菹?。但中國人不這么做，他們?cè)诠珗@里走來走去。所以我們?cè)谔凉林蛔隽撕苌俚目諘鐖?chǎng)地。我們種了一排又一排的樹，并讓小路在樹林間穿梭。這和我們?cè)诿绹幚碓O(shè)計(jì)的方式大相徑庭（圖8、9）。

LA：您曾參與多個(gè)地區(qū)的棕地項(xiàng)目，您覺得中國的棕地問題和其他地區(qū)的有什么不同嗎？

George：事實(shí)上我認(rèn)為這些問題越來越趨于相似。中國在過去30年做的事，在美國大概需要100年完成。棕地當(dāng)然有不同的類型，比如天津海河項(xiàng)目是高度鹽堿化的土地（圖10），而倫敦奧林匹克公園的土地堆積了“二戰(zhàn)”期間爆炸殘留物，污染嚴(yán)重（圖11、12）。首先，你要了解你在處理什么，這不難。難的是尋找創(chuàng)意。如果你的場(chǎng)地是濕地或者山地，你一開始就有借力之處。在一片平坦的廢棄地上，你很難找到設(shè)計(jì)線索。所以我們又回到了三角形理論，回到場(chǎng)地—你在哪兒？倫敦項(xiàng)目和海河項(xiàng)目的不同之處不在于棕地類型，而在于它們處在完全不同的文化中，要實(shí)現(xiàn)的目標(biāo)也完全不同。倫敦奧林匹克公園是歐洲21世紀(jì)以來最大的公園。海河項(xiàng)目則是要為未來新城發(fā)展塑造濱水空間。這意味著（設(shè)計(jì)的）語境很重要。

對(duì)所有項(xiàng)目，你都得有一個(gè)清晰的概念去統(tǒng)領(lǐng)。在倫敦，這個(gè)概念是拓寬河流并讓人們走近它、親近它。當(dāng)我們有了這個(gè)概念后，我們想到了要設(shè)計(jì)高聳的地形，這樣人們就可以在遠(yuǎn)處看到并被吸引。在海河項(xiàng)目中，我們得保證這個(gè)1km長的濱水空間在人流稀少的情況下維持10～15年仍舊保持良好風(fēng)貌②，因此我們?cè)谡麄€(gè)項(xiàng)目中使用了大量樹木。

LA：項(xiàng)目建成后你會(huì)回訪嗎？當(dāng)你回訪的時(shí)候，它們是否如你預(yù)料一般地發(fā)展呢？

George：我總是回訪，特別是我們?cè)诟浇惺裁葱马?xiàng)目時(shí)。

有時(shí)候，我們的客戶和我們?cè)诠芾砗途S護(hù)上有不同想法。我們?cè)谀碁I河項(xiàng)目中設(shè)計(jì)了引水口，但客戶討厭它?？蛻舯硎灸强雌饋砗茉愀?，因?yàn)楹铀畮砹松嫌蔚睦碗s物。我們還曾設(shè)計(jì)了不需修剪的由本土植物組成的草地，但客戶覺得那是雜草。在另一些情況下，有些我們?cè)O(shè)計(jì)的項(xiàng)目就是沒能吸引人來，或者是人們的實(shí)際使用方式和我們的預(yù)計(jì)完全不同。

7 阿姆斯特丹森林Amsterdamse Bos

我對(duì)設(shè)計(jì)“大”的景觀更感興趣—為自然和人設(shè)計(jì)容器。當(dāng)人們想要個(gè)更大的兒童游樂場(chǎng)或者音樂會(huì)場(chǎng)時(shí)，都是可以滿足的。就像海德公園（圖13～15），在18世紀(jì)初曾塞滿了當(dāng)時(shí)時(shí)髦的各種功能，但今天這些功能都不在了。今天流傳下來的是景觀的“骨架”：水道、樹林，等等。你甚至不知道歷史上曾經(jīng)發(fā)生過什么。在我自己的項(xiàng)目中，我試圖盡可能擺脫具體的功能。對(duì)公共項(xiàng)目來說這很難，因?yàn)槿藗兺ǔ８P(guān)心到底游樂場(chǎng)在哪兒，而很難理解總體上的“骨架”。游樂場(chǎng)在哪里也重要，不過如果你考慮的是100年的時(shí)間尺度的話，（具體的功能）就沒那么重要了。我們?cè)绞悄馨炎匀痪坝^本身打造得生機(jī)勃勃，它們?cè)绞悄芸高^糟糕的后期維護(hù)、不斷變化的使用需求，并經(jīng)受住時(shí)間的考驗(yàn)。

LA：這樣講來，您提到控制所有細(xì)節(jié)是不可能的，最重要的是控制總體的景觀“骨架”。這具體指什么呢？

George：說到“骨架”就不得不提我們的老朋友了：水體、地形、排水、植物材料、場(chǎng)地的質(zhì)感……對(duì)我來說它們真的很重要。我總是從自然景觀出發(fā)，再考慮具體的功能如何排布。很多人會(huì)采取相反的方法，像建筑師那樣先進(jìn)行功能布局。我嘗試另一種方法：通過組合基本元素，為多種可能的功能留出空間。

LA：您在近期工作中的關(guān)注重點(diǎn)是什么？

George：我們正在做越來越多的公園，和越來越多的小尺度項(xiàng)目（圖16～18）。2019年北京世園會(huì)的展園是一個(gè)很好的例子。此外我們最近出版的新書名為《景觀和花園》，它的名字闡釋了我們的興趣：強(qiáng)調(diào)讓景觀回歸“景觀”，回歸水體、地形等基本元素。

LA：在您看來，未來10年風(fēng)景園林的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)是什么呢？

George：我認(rèn)為在城市空間的建成環(huán)境中會(huì)有很多機(jī)會(huì)，并且人們對(duì)此抱有厚望。年輕的設(shè)計(jì)師或許會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，即便我們有了迷人的理論，也不見得能把它們變成我們想要的空間，或者是有人愿意花100萬美元去維護(hù)的地方。在你著手工作前，你需要理論支撐，也需要關(guān)于項(xiàng)目的具體概念。首先想想什么能落地，再回去想想那背后的理論。你可能會(huì)修正理論，也可能會(huì)修改設(shè)計(jì)。這是我擅長的事情：如果一條路走不通，那就試試別的。我不會(huì)被正在進(jìn)行的工作困住。如果你的方法不靈的話，那一定是有原因的。

注釋：

① 燭臺(tái)角文化公園地區(qū)原有岸線陡峭，少有平緩海灘（張博雅注）。

② 公園建設(shè)時(shí)其周邊城區(qū)還未開始建設(shè)（張博雅注）。

③ 圖1由張博雅根據(jù)哈格里夫斯講座幻燈片改繪；圖2～6、8～12、16～18由哈格里夫斯提供；圖7 引自u(píng)rbancaptures.com；圖13引自維基百科；圖14引自maps.google.com；圖15由張博雅攝。

（編輯/王一蘭）

What kind of design is ‘ecological’? Landscape architects must answer this issue, since ecological restoration has become a national policy. In China,ecological design often reminds people of untrimmed vegetation, habitats for animals, etc. However, does a natural look mean ecological design? In professional practice, designers lack a certain design language to tackle with the ecological issue. In this field, our European & American peers have started exploration earlier than us. Therefore, knowing their experience is signi ficant to Chinese designers.

George Hargreaves is one of the most famous landscape architects in America. We are glad to have this discussion on ecological design and the design philosophy of Hargreaves Associates with him. He grew up in 1960s and 1970s in America, which is an era when the ecological ideology was born and developed.He has engaged in brownfield transformation projects since the 1980s. He was inspired by land arts by that time, and applied the idea in landscape design innovatively. He has designed many vital projects worldwide, including Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London. He has made a profound contribution to the theory and practice of large parks and brownfield transformation. In 2016 Hargreaves Associates was the recipient of the Cooper Hewitt National Design Award as well as the Rosa Barba International Landscape Prize.

LA: Landscape Architecture Journal

George: George Hargreaves

LA: Let’s start from the very beginning.It is said that your initial interest in landscape architecture was inspired by a trip to the Rocky Mountains. What inspired you in that trip? What convinced you to pursue landscape architecture after that trip?

George: Discovering the landscape was inspiring. When I was hiking, I noticed the vegetation was changing with altitudes. The plants on top were very different from the ones at the bottom,that was novel to me at that time. I was interested in the landscape itself and its spatial quality. Initially I thought I could study forestry. My uncle worked in University of Georgia at the time, and he suggested to me to look into landscape architecture. When I visited the school, people there were doing parks. I thought, yeah, I want to do this.

8～10 天津海河帶狀公園Haihe River Ribbon Park, Tianjin

LA: You have a ‘triangle theory’ about design: SITE, SUSTAINABILITY, and MEMORABILITY(Fig.1). It seems to be the basis for conceptual thinking in all your projects.What does this triangle mean to you? And why memorability is so important?

George: I’m always interested in the site.I thought there should be a site-specific quality in design. About sustainability, many people take it from an ecological point of view, but I also consider it from an economic point of view. I was very impressed by many old parks and gardens,specifically Hyde Park, and St James Park in London. However, considering people have spent fortunes to maintain them for hundreds of years, in this instance, sustainability means somebody has to pay and maintain it. Then it comes to memorability.When a park is memorable, it speaks to people.People take something from it. If you only make something ecologically sustainable but not memorable, and people take nothing more than the idea of sustainability, you failed. By making the site memorable, you attract people to want to sustain it.

LA: That’s true. Your works are highly memorable. People recognize them by sculptural landforms. What inspires these forms?

George: I started working with landforms in graduate school. At that time landscape architects often worked with geometries in plan. I was really trying to find another way to develop landscape.I was inspired by some historical landscapes and started doing projects that didn’t have any plans.All I had was landforms. One of the first projects I designed after graduate school was a 25hm2landfill with only a half million-dollar budget,meaning we could only do one thing there. You could either plant trees all over, or make it grassy.In the end, landform became a way to design large projects that didn’t have money.

LA: In that sense working with landforms was very innovative in 1980s. Is this also the point you began working with brownfields?

George: I was one of the first landscape architects who worked primarily with landforms. I was inspired by artists like Robert Smithson. The difference was that my works were meant to be interacted with as public space, while of the majority of contemporary landform artworks were built in desert, and meant to be looked at from outside.

To some extent, brown fields chose me at that point. In the beginning I had a very small office.While large landscape firms were doing gardens for developers, I had different clients. The people who came to us didn’t have a lot of money, and they had a problem. They had a garbage dump or land fill, and they thought we had creative solutions that didn’t necessarily cost a lot of money. So, in the scenario we found ourselves in, you just gotta do the best you can, right?

My approach is still a work in progress. It took me years realize that not every project is a landform project. I started working more with plants, etc. And at this point, I would say landform is an even aspect of our projects, balanced with a full repertoire of tools & design elements.

11、12 伊麗莎白女王奧林匹克公園，倫敦Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London

LA: You to mentioned that landforms are connected to natural processes. How does that work in your projects?

George: Well, I’m not an artist. I think a landform on its own it’s not a project. I started trying to marry landforms and natural process, to try and let landforms accentuate natural processes.In Candlestick Point Cultural Park, we tried to work with strong winds and tides in San Francisco Bay Area. Our landforms work with the visceral action of the wind. While walking through it, one can experience a range of exposures to wind—from strong winds through to being sheltered. We created inlets to let tides come in and out, exposing the vertical fluctuation of the tide, horizontally. The tides had,and will always there but now you can register these processes in ways that you couldn’t see before①(Fig. 2-4).

LA: Speaking of working with natural process, we can’t miss Ian McHarg’sDesign with Nature. It was published in 1969. In the 1980’s,the focus of the profession gradually shifted from static models to dynamic natural processes. How do you consider this transition?

George: To me,Design with Naturewas a book about development. He showed a layering system that uncovered where you could develop and where you couldn’t. It was still a rather static model. There is probably no natural connection between his book and working with natural processes in landscape design. I think the transition came out from the academic world. When people read and digested the book, it generated discussion about the possibilities of designing with natural processes. That was also where I came to the conversation, where I was trying to make landforms that expose natural process, and connect both the physical and ephemeral as part of a uni fied experience of landscape.

LA: And now we come to the ecology issue. There are many profound contemporary theories about ecological design such as landscape urbanism. However, there is a gap between theory and practice. When you visit large scale projects that embraced these theories in design in person, it might be hard to connect the space with its theoretical underpinning. What do you think?

George: I think landscape urbanism is very interesting, but the built examples I’ve seen don’t stand up. There is a project where the landscape architect planted a lot of trees on an abandoned airport and the idea was that development would take place gradually. However, when you go there now all the trees are gone, so I became suspicious about the idea that landscape can be an agent of change. Be it a large-scale project or not, there should be a certain experiential quality to it. A wetland or a forest itself is not a project, and they don’t necessarily drive development. And, here is where I returned back to the triangle. A project must be memorable. We’ve also done several large-scale projects creatively designing with natural processes, but within those same projects we also designed picnic areas and children’s playgrounds— these are elements that landscapes also need to have to engage the public (Fig. 5, 6).

Perhaps we haven’t found a proper way to work with theories like landscape urbanism. Bridging the gap between theory requires a lot of work.It’s easy to come up with an idea and make sketches, but it’s hard to downshift the idea into a built landscape. We are trying to bring these two together as much as we can in our work.

LA: Do you think the interest in working with natural processes is not because we need to, but because the outcome might require less effort to maintain if we follow what nature does?

13 海德公園，1833年Hyde Park, 1833

14 海德公園現(xiàn)狀衛(wèi)星鳥瞰Aerial view of Hyde Park nowadays

15 海德公園Hyde Park

16～18 斯坦福大學(xué)庭院Stanford University Science and Engineering Quad

George: Working with natural process doesn’t mean you need to follow them. Amsterdam Bos(Fig. 7) is a completely made landscape. People dug the canals for drainage and planted the forest. In this sense it could also be about harnessing natural processes for the ambition you have for the landscape.

LA: Dutch landscapes are naturally wet and flat. People there must work the land to make it livable. Is that maybe a cultural difference to working with natural process?

George: There is also a difference in geology.You can’t conceptualize the Amsterdam Bos in the context of the mountains in Switzerland. You need to look at the site. That’s why I have the triangle.Site, sustainability, memorability. To me, these 3 things really drive a successful project.

LA: You have projects worldwide, and they are all in different contexts and deal with different conditions. How do you start working in an unfamiliar environment? How do you get to know your site?

George: Most of our projects are public open spaces, so in that sense they have something in common. But building from that baseline similarity,we also educate ourselves about the specific context and culture. To me that’s an important aspect. When we started in Tanggu, Tianjin, I looked around to see how people typically use parks and open space. We found that they were using it in a way very different from westerners.You have a lot of open grasslands in western parks,and people picnic or lay on the grass. Chinese don’t do that. They promenade through landscapes. So,in Tanggu, we did very few open areas. We planted a lot of trees in rows, and let the pathways go through the trees. That’s a very different approach to our projects in the US (Fig. 8, 9).

LA: You’ve worked on brownfields in many places, do you think there is a difference between the issues in China and the issues elsewhere?

George: Actually, they are becoming very similar. What China has done in the last 30 years might take US 100 years to do the same. There are of course different types of brown fields. Like in Haihe it was dealing with highly saline-alkali soil (Fig. 10),and the London Olympic Park grounds remained as a filled, polluted, contaminated and bombed remnant landscape left from WWII (Fig. 11, 12). You first need to know what you are working with, and that’s the easy part. The hard part is, finding the idea. If you’ve got a wetland or a hill, you’ve already got something to work with. On a flat and degraded site there are little clues to work with. Here we come back to the SITE—where are you? The London project is different from Haihe project. That’s not because they are different types of brownfields, but because you are in a different culture, people have different ways of using landscape. And there are totally different objectives in the projects: London Olympic park became the largest park built in Europe in the 21st century; Haihe is more about shaping the waterfront to shape and encourage the development and the City behind it. Site matters.

You need to have a conceptual driver for all projects. In London, the driver was expanding the river to let people get down to it. As we figured that out, we came up with the idea of plateaus where you can really see the park from a distance.In Haihe, the idea was figuring out how to make a 1km long waterfront stay endure as an amenity for the first 10 to 15 years without people②.

LA: Do you revisit your projects after completion? When you do, have they worked out as you expected?

George: I always go back, especially if I’ve got a new project nearby.

Sometimes the clients who manage them have different ideas than what we had regarding management and maintenance. We had a riverfront project where we created inlets for water to come in and out, and the clients hate it. They said it doesn’t look good because the water brings garbage and other debris from up-river. We also had an untrimmed native meadow somewhere else on the site, and the client said it looked like weeds. In other instances, some of the program just didn’t work out, and/or people just don’t end up using it the way we thought.

I’m more into how to do the big landscapes—how to design a vessel for both natural processes,and human. If somebody wants a bigger playground or a concert area, that’s fine. Just like Hyde Park(Fig.13-15), it used to be a highly programmed park with 18th century attractions. But if you go there today the programs are all gone. What you still have is a beautiful framework of the landscape:the watercourses, the trees, etc. You don’t even notice what happened in history. If you look at my own work, I try to not get caught up in program as much as I can. Although, it’s very difficult in a public project. It’s hard to let people understand the overall idea when they care more about where the playground is located. That’s also important to some degree, but if you take 100 years, it’s not that important… The more robust the landscape that we can make, the more it will stand up to poor maintenance, bad detailing, and changing use needs,in order to endure the test of time.

LA: Building on that, you said it not possible to control all the details, it’s more important to control a framework for the overall landscape. What do you mean by that?

George: By that we came back to our old friends: water, gradient, drainage, plant materials,and the texture of the surfaces. To me that is what is really important. I always start with the landscapes, and think where the programs might go. Many people approach design opposite, it in an architect mindset where they first figure out the programs. I try to put it the other way. By working with basic elements, you make room for the possibilities of programs.

LA: What is your recent focus in your work?

George: We are doing more and more urban parks, and doing more and more smaller projects(Fig. 16-18). The garden in the Beijing Expo 2019 is a great example. Furthermore the newest book we recently published is calledLandscapes and Gardens—where its name represents our interest in addressing the importance of making landscapes simply as landscape.

LA: In your perspective, what is the trend in landscape architecture in the next decade?

George: I think there are many opportunities for future built landscape in urban areas that people have high hopes for. The younger generation of designers might discover, even if we have a beautiful theory, they don’t always materialize as a landscape we want go to, or similarly not as a landscape somebody wants to pay 1 million dollars to maintain.You need to have both a conceptual basis for the project, and also the theory behind it, before you can work it through. Think about what’s on the ground first, and work it back up to the theory. You may change the theory, and you can change the concept.That’s what I’m good at. If something doesn’t work,then we try some else. I don’t get stuck on any one thing we are doing. If it’s not working, there is a reason why it’s not working.

Notes:

① The original sea shore of Candlestick Point Cultural Park was very steep. There was almost no gentle slope (Noted by ZHANG Boya)

② The park was built before the surrounding neighborhood(Noted by ZHANG Boya).

③ Fig. 1 ZHANG Boya redrew it according to Hargreaves’s lecture slides. Fig. 2-6, 8-12, 16-18 are provided by Hargreaves Associates; Fig. 7 Source: urbancaptures.com;Fig. 13 Source: Wikipedia; Fig. 14 Source: maps.google.com; Fig. 15 is photographed by ZHANG Boya.