著：（美）理查德·韋勒 譯：李賓 校：張?jiān)婈?/p>

19世紀(jì)晚期以來，藝術(shù)和建筑相關(guān)的美學(xué)實(shí)踐被周期性地梳理分類，而此舉在風(fēng)景園林學(xué)中卻是少見的[1]。雖然設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)院都在嘗試有邏輯地組織開展課程，但仍缺乏關(guān)于當(dāng)代風(fēng)景園林學(xué)分類法的相關(guān)著作[2]①。這里的分類法并非指傳統(tǒng)意義上的項(xiàng)目類型劃分，例如公園或廣場；而是指不同的體裁，字面上可理解為“藝術(shù)構(gòu)成的方式，如形式、風(fēng)格或主題相似的音樂或文化作品”[3]。

風(fēng)景園林學(xué)缺乏公認(rèn)分類法的現(xiàn)狀反映了學(xué)科內(nèi)部學(xué)術(shù)分析和設(shè)計(jì)批判的相對缺失，同時(shí)也反映了從業(yè)者無法在同一美學(xué)分類語境下表達(dá)自己作品的現(xiàn)狀。風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科如此多樣且廣泛，目前卻沒有一種系統(tǒng)的方法來討論這種廣度和多樣性。盡管分類法建立在剔除與約束條件下，但其確實(shí)有助于理論與實(shí)踐之間有效對話并建立起反饋機(jī)制，最終促使學(xué)科發(fā)展成熟。

在嘗試進(jìn)行當(dāng)代風(fēng)景園林學(xué)合理分類法的思考實(shí)驗(yàn)中，筆者驚訝地發(fā)現(xiàn)至少有11種顯而易見且經(jīng)得起推敲的類型。當(dāng)然，任何人都可以嘗試以不同方式來進(jìn)行分類實(shí)驗(yàn)，筆者僅討論以下11個(gè)類型：場所精神、反傳統(tǒng)主義、奇觀、賽博格、數(shù)字景觀、不確定性、管理主義、行動(dòng)主義、彈性、景觀都市主義和宏大規(guī)劃。筆者將通過實(shí)際案例對每種類型進(jìn)行簡明討論。

這些類型無意涵蓋風(fēng)景園林師所做的一切，而只是收集整理出一個(gè)工作集合：包括一系列實(shí)踐、方法和相關(guān)審美。筆者認(rèn)為無論現(xiàn)在還是不久的將來這些都將是最重要和最具參考價(jià)值的專業(yè)實(shí)踐案例[4]②。需補(bǔ)充的是，這里所指的并不是自然科學(xué)中常見的分類法，因?yàn)椴⒉淮嬖趩我坏慕M織因素可以涵蓋所有樣本。設(shè)計(jì)不是樣本，對設(shè)計(jì)的闡釋也不能簡化為遺傳特征。筆者討論的分類有助于歸納整理具有特定“形式、風(fēng)格或主題”的景觀項(xiàng)目，也反映了創(chuàng)作者的主觀、直覺和（有限的）知識背景。同時(shí)這些類型的劃分也很模糊，一種類型中的項(xiàng)目在多數(shù)情況下可以很容易地歸到其他類型，甚至跨越多種類型。實(shí)際上，也許真正“好”的風(fēng)景園林項(xiàng)目絕不僅與一種類型相關(guān)。這種分類實(shí)驗(yàn)的目的不是為了創(chuàng)建一個(gè)百科全書式的分類系統(tǒng)，而是想在目前破碎孤立的學(xué)科領(lǐng)域中找到一些共同點(diǎn)，從而達(dá)到1+1＞2的目的。簡而言之，分類法具有擴(kuò)展思考的價(jià)值。

1 場所精神

1731年亞歷山大·蒲柏（Alexander Pope）在寫給伯靈頓勛爵的書信中，敦促設(shè)計(jì)師“向所有場所中所蘊(yùn)含的精神求教”， 場所精神由此成為英國如畫園林的源泉[5]。蒲柏的忠告在大約3個(gè)世紀(jì)后被再次喚醒，20世紀(jì)后半葉，伊恩·麥克哈格（Ian McHarg）發(fā)展了“設(shè)計(jì)結(jié)合自然”的理論（1969年），克里斯汀·諾伯格·舒爾茨（Christian Norberg Shultz）發(fā)表了基于場所現(xiàn)象學(xué)（1979年）的研究，與此同時(shí)，肯尼思·弗蘭姆普頓（Kenneth Frampton）也積極主張其批判地域主義的理論（1983年）[6-8]。三人都不約而同地反對現(xiàn)代主義建筑中的無地方性與全球幽靈式的郊區(qū)蔓延。對麥克哈格、舒爾茨和弗蘭姆普頓而言，現(xiàn)代性與傳統(tǒng)、發(fā)展與生態(tài)之間的緊張關(guān)系可以在詩意和理性的設(shè)計(jì)中重新調(diào)和。

1 EMF將十字架海角的景觀意向深刻地植入到游憩路徑中，以加深游客戲劇化的體驗(yàn)Outlines of landscape vistas inscribed into the pathways of Cap des Creus by Estudio Marti Franch (EMF) to help choregraph the visitor experience

澳大利亞歷史學(xué)家和評論家喬治·塞登（George Seddon）將場所精神稱為“場所感”，他認(rèn)為，如果設(shè)計(jì)充分關(guān)注到當(dāng)?shù)氐牡刭|(zhì)、土壤、植物、水文和文化，那么幾乎可以保證與場地和諧相處[9]。風(fēng)景園林師通常認(rèn)為他們的設(shè)計(jì)可以呈現(xiàn)出場所精神或場所感，后者是前者科學(xué)合理化后的版本。20世紀(jì)中葉以來，風(fēng)景園林學(xué)的主要工作就是妥善協(xié)調(diào)現(xiàn)代化發(fā)展與特殊地方性的關(guān)系，并以此確保個(gè)體與群體健全的特性。然而，由于正確詮釋復(fù)雜的場地，尤其是挖掘其精神是無法徹底證實(shí)或否定的，某種程度上，風(fēng)景園林學(xué)對場所精神的解釋是一種無法檢驗(yàn)的自圓其說。因此，當(dāng)設(shè)計(jì)師們將設(shè)計(jì)理念和設(shè)計(jì)工作放在更廣泛的范圍來討論時(shí)，一類是堅(jiān)信基于身份認(rèn)同的場所可以貫穿設(shè)計(jì)始終，另一類則反對場所精神并將其視為本質(zhì)上的迷信。EMF景觀事務(wù)所（Estudio Marti Franch）在西班牙設(shè)計(jì)的十字架海角修復(fù)項(xiàng)目（Cap des Creus）和Topotek 1、Superflex及BIG事務(wù)所在哥本哈根設(shè)計(jì)的超級線性公園（Superkilen）則分別位于這一范疇的兩個(gè)極端。

十字架海角修復(fù)項(xiàng)目是一個(gè)純粹天才的和富有場所精神的作品，位于巴塞羅那北部的加泰羅尼亞海岬。十字架海角因該地區(qū)最著名的居民薩爾瓦多·達(dá)利（Salvador Dali）的標(biāo)志性風(fēng)景畫而聞名（圖1）。在被EMF小心翼翼地改造前，海岬被一個(gè)龐大的地中海俱樂部度假村占據(jù)。新的十字架海角更多的是通過做減法的方式，在視覺上將場地恢復(fù)到原本的“自然”狀態(tài)，同時(shí)，EMF也保留了度假村的某些痕跡，將其作為合理存在的重寫本印刻在場地中，并通過重新組織原始地形上的游覽路徑，使游客與地貌環(huán)境能更親密地接觸。如果這個(gè)地方有精神存在的話，EMF則憑借如法醫(yī)般的精準(zhǔn)操作，將它們重新帶回地表。

通常來說，通過加法而非減法來表達(dá)場所精神是非常困難的，特別是當(dāng)景觀已經(jīng)損壞到難以辨認(rèn)。眾所周知，20世紀(jì)后期場所精神的復(fù)蘇大部分被稀釋在膚淺的后現(xiàn)代主義中，對本地文化及生態(tài)加之以精巧卻難以令人信服的裝飾，而不是扎根場所來定義根本性的差異。雖然它的出現(xiàn)一開始是針對現(xiàn)代主義語境下場所所遭受侵害的必要修正，但設(shè)計(jì)無條件融入場所的愿望在邏輯上也導(dǎo)致了風(fēng)景園林項(xiàng)目隱形的審美僵局。此外，雖然風(fēng)景園林項(xiàng)目總是被建議須針對特定的場地，但在面臨不斷涌現(xiàn)的全球文化時(shí)，僅將目光局限在特定地方場所感中的設(shè)計(jì)將勢必是狹隘的。

超級線性公園是位于哥本哈根郊區(qū)的一個(gè)公園廣場項(xiàng)目，由Topotek 1、Superflex和BIG事務(wù)所聯(lián)合設(shè)計(jì)（圖2）。相較于對場地自然和文化歷史的深度挖掘，超級線性公園轉(zhuǎn)而對周邊社區(qū)中多樣性的當(dāng)代文化進(jìn)行大膽而有意義的表達(dá)。超級線性公園是一個(gè)由來自不同宗教和國度的圖案略顯局促地拼接在一起的混凝土廣場[10]。這些圖案在顛覆純粹丹麥國家民族認(rèn)同觀念的同時(shí)肯定了多元文化的鄰里社區(qū)。盡管大多數(shù)景觀設(shè)計(jì)明確尋求社會(huì)和生態(tài)的和諧，但Topotek 1的馬丁·雷恩·卡諾（Martin Rein-Cano）承認(rèn)他們的設(shè)計(jì)倡導(dǎo)活動(dòng)、空間和象征的不一致性[11]。超級線性公園對于場所的設(shè)計(jì)探討具有重要意義，其主觀地忽略神秘的場所精神，而體現(xiàn)了地方實(shí)踐中全球意識的覺醒，并能夠?qū)⑵渑c日常生活中“混亂的生命力”聯(lián)系起來[12]。

場所精神深深地印在我們的場所記憶中。然而，設(shè)計(jì)的挑戰(zhàn)在于，雖然記憶是個(gè)人的，但風(fēng)景園林師工作所涉及的公共空間卻不是。因此，風(fēng)景園林師必須應(yīng)對某種預(yù)兆，諸如不可避免且不真實(shí)的審美風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。正如弗蘭姆普頓一直堅(jiān)持的那樣，設(shè)計(jì)師要給予傳統(tǒng)信任，而非訴諸偽造遺跡和過分多愁善感。最好的狀況是，傳統(tǒng)不是對過去故事和風(fēng)格的重復(fù)，而是對其進(jìn)行當(dāng)代的重新詮釋。例如，普利茲克獎(jiǎng)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)咄蹁慕ㄖ?shí)踐和清華大學(xué)朱育帆的風(fēng)景園林實(shí)踐都有力地證明了這一點(diǎn)。

場所精神中最具爭議的問題廣泛存在于風(fēng)景園林師與當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)的合作中，因?yàn)楫?dāng)?shù)鼐用衽c場所的關(guān)系既是被深刻記憶的，同時(shí)也是日常發(fā)生的。設(shè)計(jì)師需要將自己定位為民族學(xué)家和人類學(xué)家，作為外來者去理解深刻的傳統(tǒng)，并使其在現(xiàn)在或未來都能與現(xiàn)代性和諧相融。澳大利亞風(fēng)景園林師格雷戈·格拉布奇（Greg Grabasch）的工作從這個(gè)角度來看堪稱典范，他致力于理解和服務(wù)澳大利亞土著人③。丹尼·卡爾森（Dane Carlson）最新的工作也是如此，他將大量的時(shí)間投入到尼泊爾的村莊中[13]。這項(xiàng)工作是如此復(fù)雜和重要，可命名為“后殖民時(shí)代”的一種補(bǔ)充類型來討論，而不僅限于本章中所討論的場所精神。

2 由Topotek 1設(shè)計(jì)的超級線性公園中具有標(biāo)識性的節(jié)點(diǎn)和相關(guān)鋪裝圖案細(xì)節(jié)Detail of an icon and associated paving pattern of Superkilen by Topotek 1

3 來自ARM和Room 4.1.3的澳大利亞國家博物館及澳大利亞夢花園方案平面Plan of the National Museum of Australia and the Garden of Australian Dreams by Ashton Raggatt MacDougal (ARM) and Room 4.1.3.

4 LA+Iconoclast國際設(shè)計(jì)競賽以中央公園被恐怖分子襲擊作為假設(shè)前提，促使對其進(jìn)行重新設(shè)計(jì)Central Park hypothetically attacked by terrorists as the catalyst for the LA+Iconoclast international design competition to redesign Central Park

5 丹尼爾·布倫在巴黎設(shè)計(jì)的皇家宮殿廣場Palais Royale by Daniel Buren

2 反傳統(tǒng)主義

1979年，瑪莎·施瓦茨（Martha Schwartz）在波士頓聯(lián)排別墅前院所擺放的64個(gè)百吉餅景觀，可作為對某些語境論中所預(yù)言的美學(xué)將死的反抗。相較于反傳統(tǒng)主義，百吉餅花園更像是一個(gè)遲到的波普藝術(shù)作品，但至少打破了花園的規(guī)則，影響并啟發(fā)了其他設(shè)計(jì)師，如肯·史密斯（Ken Smith）、克勞德·科米爾（Claude Cormier）和弗拉基米爾·西塔（Vladimir Sitta）。

藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域的反傳統(tǒng)主義司空見慣，其定義為“對所珍視的信仰、制度或既定價(jià)值觀、實(shí)踐的‘攻擊’或明確‘反對’”，而風(fēng)景園林作品中的反傳統(tǒng)主義則極為罕見[14]。之前所討論的超級線性公園可以被認(rèn)為是反傳統(tǒng)主義的，而2001年開放的由Room 4.1.3設(shè)計(jì)的澳大利亞國家博物館“澳大利亞夢想花園”（the Garden of Australian Dreams）也是如此[15]（圖3）。除了使用非傳統(tǒng)材料外，形式也具有顛覆性，它明確拒絕對任何“自然”的直接表現(xiàn)。澳大利亞夢想花園僅對景觀的表現(xiàn)方式做出回應(yīng)，如地圖、繪畫和文本。此外，這些對象因其社會(huì)、政治方面的針對性而被選中，作為同一時(shí)期澳大利亞種族關(guān)系史和國家認(rèn)同感等爭論的象征?？上攵拇罄麃唹粝牖▓@在設(shè)計(jì)界內(nèi)外都產(chǎn)生了較大爭議，以至于批評者要求將其拆除，因此澳大利亞政府對設(shè)計(jì)意圖又重新進(jìn)行了評審[16]。

最近由跨學(xué)科風(fēng)景園林雜志《LA+》主辦的LA + Iconoclast國際設(shè)計(jì)競賽可看作是對建成作品的反傳統(tǒng)主義思考，它要求參賽者重新設(shè)計(jì)紐約中央公園[17]。沒有任何一個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)作品能比中央公園更具標(biāo)識性。它不僅作為經(jīng)典而得到專業(yè)人士的認(rèn)可，同時(shí)將景觀常規(guī)印象固化為（讓人懷疑的）公眾想象中的“自然”。

本次競賽暫時(shí)卸下中央公園所象征的、也是風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科長久以來所承擔(dān)的天堂、田園和生態(tài)美學(xué)包袱。作為回應(yīng)，許多參賽作品嘗試?yán)眉夹g(shù)使新的中央公園更生態(tài)、民主，換言之，它們?nèi)栽趶?qiáng)化中央公園原有的標(biāo)簽，而非提出挑戰(zhàn)。當(dāng)競賽者“攻擊”公園時(shí)，通常表現(xiàn)出戲劇性的、末日般的和反烏托邦的圖像④（圖4）。這些圖像的優(yōu)勢在于展現(xiàn)了對時(shí)代精神的洞察力，并預(yù)示可能存在的暴力反傳統(tǒng)主義行為，因?yàn)樗粌H是戲劇性的，還可能產(chǎn)生新的美學(xué)，反傳統(tǒng)主義不僅積極進(jìn)攻，同時(shí)也對現(xiàn)狀問題進(jìn)行披露。簡言之是對對象的解構(gòu)，而不僅是破壞。

LA+Iconoclast國際設(shè)計(jì)競賽提出的問題是，在人類世（Anthropocene）到來之際，是否會(huì)出現(xiàn)一種新的景觀美學(xué)來取代田園式與如畫美學(xué)的主導(dǎo)地位？ 根據(jù)193個(gè)參賽作品判斷，至少在Photoshop中，答案是肯定的⑤。

3 奇觀

城市在奧姆斯特德看來是令人沮喪和不健康的，對于麥克哈格而言，它是“上帝的垃圾場”，然而一些風(fēng)景園林師最近才意識到城市劇場的審美樂趣⑥?；仡櫧陲L(fēng)景園林實(shí)踐作品，包括1996年由West 8重新設(shè)計(jì)的鹿特丹劇院廣場（Shouwburgplein），卡瑞斯·恩·布蘭茲（Karres en Brands）設(shè)計(jì)的墨爾本聯(lián)邦廣場（Federation Square），丹尼爾·布倫（Daniel Buren）在巴黎設(shè)計(jì)的皇家宮殿（the Palais Royale in Paris）廣場，以及最近曼哈頓一系列由資本所塑造的奇觀。

劇場廣場中的巨型紅色可移動(dòng)雕塑燈具創(chuàng)造了一種奇觀，聯(lián)邦廣場則通過強(qiáng)化復(fù)雜平面的構(gòu)型來與背景折角式建筑強(qiáng)勢對話。兩者都成功地激活和構(gòu)建了多功能活動(dòng)空間，這些空間不僅是觀望的對象，也可作為觀望的起點(diǎn)。景觀的奇觀在這里既是舞臺(tái)背景，也是舞臺(tái)本身。就這點(diǎn)來說，沒有比丹尼爾·布倫在巴黎皇家宮殿（圖5）前精心設(shè)計(jì)的黑白相間柱陣更精妙的了。進(jìn)入空間的游客幾乎立刻轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)槲枧_(tái)上的演員，同時(shí)與柱陣開展互動(dòng)，擺出拍照的造型。事實(shí)上，許多人似乎都為了擺拍精心打扮，如同模特一般。而當(dāng)空無一人時(shí)，通過與周圍宮殿的建筑遺產(chǎn)并置，布倫的柱子提醒我們景觀可以既大膽又美麗。奇觀不需要訴諸廣告的噱頭或屈服于新自由主義城市發(fā)展所需的品牌效應(yīng)。

6 由JCFO所設(shè)計(jì)的高線公園穿越曼哈頓格網(wǎng)The High-Line by James Corner Field Operations snaking its way through the Manhattan grid

7 由托馬斯·赫瑟威克和馬修斯·尼爾森在哈德遜河中所設(shè)計(jì)的55號碼頭項(xiàng)目的圖解Diagrammatic section of Pier 55 in the Hudson River by Thomas Heatherwick and Mathews Nielsen

8 賽博格的混合身份The hybrid identity of the cyborg

受巴黎綠蔭步道（Promenade Plantee）的啟發(fā)，著名的紐約高線公園（High Line）將舊的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橐月D為背景的極具吸引力的T臺(tái)（圖6）。除了觀看川流不息的人群外，高線提供了另一個(gè)視野來觀看曼哈頓，這些視覺方面的精心布置使其成為世界上訪問量最大的風(fēng)景園林作品之一。而高線在社會(huì)和美學(xué)上處于一種嚴(yán)格的掌控中，更不用提政策影響，在某種程度上，它引發(fā)了人們將其視為當(dāng)代公共空間模型的根本真實(shí)性和價(jià)值的質(zhì)疑。

風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計(jì)經(jīng)常被要求掩飾和柔化過度的建筑與工程，高線已經(jīng)向客戶和其他設(shè)計(jì)師展示了風(fēng)景園林本身所具的潛力。因此，奇觀是設(shè)計(jì)師當(dāng)下可利用自身優(yōu)勢的有力資源，但也是一種浮士德式的惡魔交易。例如，由托馬斯·赫瑟威克（Thomas Heatherwick）設(shè)計(jì)的哈德遜河55號碼頭項(xiàng)目（Pier 55），將奇觀的定義拓展到極致（圖7）。一方面，曼哈頓島需要更多的公共空間，另一方面，在哈德遜河中建造仿佛坐落在巨型高爾夫球座網(wǎng)格上的公園如同一部荒誕劇，只有其贊助人— 媒體大亨巴里·迪勒（Barry Diller）才能承擔(dān)得起。風(fēng)景園林師馬修斯·尼爾森（Mathews Nielsen，MNLA）能否在如此極端的環(huán)境中建造出一個(gè)可行的景觀還有待觀察。

4 賽博格

從風(fēng)景園林的角度來看，女權(quán)主義學(xué)者唐娜·哈拉維（Donna Haraway）曾說過最令人難忘的事之一就是：“賽博格不識伊甸園；它既非來自于土，亦不會(huì)歸于土”[18]。隨著技術(shù)的發(fā)展，20世紀(jì)后半葉，賽博格有機(jī)體系統(tǒng)的出現(xiàn)對自然機(jī)體不可侵犯性的既定概念提出了挑戰(zhàn)。對于整個(gè)地球而言，賽博格現(xiàn)在是一個(gè)恰當(dāng)?shù)谋扔?，因?yàn)樯鷳B(tài)、電信和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施系統(tǒng)都整體地交織在了一起，形成了文化和自然兩個(gè)古老支柱的新混合體。

賽博格的美學(xué)來自自然和非自然的混合，或是“正常”機(jī)體內(nèi)生長出的突變體，如臭名昭著的“人耳鼠”（Vacanti Mouse），突變體在“正?！鄙眢w上生長，或是如同終結(jié)者一樣掩藏在人類皮膚下的半機(jī)械體⑦（圖8）。雖說風(fēng)景園林的每一個(gè)實(shí)踐都具有賽博格特性，但當(dāng)代景觀美學(xué)中通過表層和基底之間有意識地相互作用來揭示賽博格的特性是亟待發(fā)展的?？萍荚陲L(fēng)景園林中的作用通常都會(huì)被掩藏。

洛杉磯河（LA River）是電影《終結(jié)者》中一些最令人難忘的場景的背景舞臺(tái)，同時(shí)也是當(dāng)今最具挑戰(zhàn)性的風(fēng)景園林項(xiàng)目之一。通過號召廣泛的支持者，勞里·歐林（Laurie Olin）和弗蘭克·蓋里（Frank Gehry）在風(fēng)景園林師米亞·萊勒（Mia Lehrer）長期不懈努力的基礎(chǔ)上，正在塑造新的貫穿整個(gè)洛杉磯混凝土河道的藍(lán)綠生命線⑧。該項(xiàng)目尚未設(shè)計(jì)，但我們事先可以提出的問題是，如果有的話，這個(gè)賽博格工程應(yīng)在多大程度上讓人回憶起“自然”。賽博格的表層是否必須代表其基底，抑或是表層可以以任何方式自由展現(xiàn)？

另一個(gè)被比喻為賽博格的項(xiàng)目是格蘭特事務(wù)所（Grant Associates）所設(shè)計(jì)的新加坡“濱海灣花園”（Gardens by the Bay），也稱超級樹（Supertrees，圖9）。在哈拉維的項(xiàng)目中，賽博格是彰顯其技術(shù)本質(zhì)的花園[19]。吉莉安·沃利斯（Jillian Wallis）和?？恕だ℉eike Rahmann）在著作《風(fēng)景園林和數(shù)字技術(shù)》（Landscape Architecture and Digital Technologies）中稱超級樹在能量流動(dòng)和熱舒適方面提供了一些重要的技術(shù)創(chuàng)新[20]。某種程度上來說，這很重要，因?yàn)闆]有生命活力的賽博格只是一種裝飾或遺產(chǎn)。例如，理查德·哈格（Rich Haag）的西雅圖油氣公園（Gasworks Park）和彼得·拉茨（Peter Latz）的杜伊斯堡北風(fēng)景公園（Duisburg Nord）并非賽博格，而是經(jīng)過美化的遺產(chǎn)。雖然時(shí)過境遷，但這些史前巨獸卻仍然矗立在定制的景觀墓園中，靜靜等待我們在周日去看望它們。相反，拉茨最近在特拉維夫（Tel-aviv）南部占地約809.37 hm2（2 000英畝）的垃圾填埋場開展的阿里爾·沙龍公園（Ariel Sharon Parc）的工作，至少在目前，顯示了治理該場地中有毒物質(zhì)的持續(xù)過程是一種有生命的賽博格。

雖然賽博格是通過肉體直接與土地相連接，但它的笛卡爾主義（Cartesian）之夢（夢魘）則是完全獨(dú)立于土地本質(zhì)的限制。雖然這似乎與風(fēng)景園林傳統(tǒng)價(jià)值觀相對立，但無論是貴族莊園中的養(yǎng)橙溫室，還是如迪士尼未來世界主題公園（EPCOT）和亞利桑那州的生物圈II項(xiàng)目（the Biosphere II project in Arizona）類似的諸多20世紀(jì)實(shí)驗(yàn)，對創(chuàng)造一個(gè)脫離外界生物圈的封閉景觀系統(tǒng)的嘗試總讓人著迷（圖10）。賽博格發(fā)展的最終歸宿，將是空間站花園和其他星球上的花園。目前最恰當(dāng)?shù)睦觿t是國際空間站中一個(gè)連接180個(gè)傳感器并將數(shù)據(jù)實(shí)時(shí)傳回NASA的如行李箱大小的玻璃培養(yǎng)皿⑨。

目光回到地球上，阿聯(lián)酋副總統(tǒng)謝赫·穆罕默德·本·拉希德（Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid）最近重新激發(fā)了人類定居外星的夢想，他委托BIG事務(wù)所設(shè)計(jì)了“火星科學(xué)城”（Mars Science City），一個(gè)由5個(gè)圓頂建筑組成的面積達(dá)17.5 hm2的建筑群，旨在模擬火星環(huán)境。這個(gè)被奉為“世界上最復(fù)雜的建筑” 是人類第2次嘗試創(chuàng)建大型自我維系的封閉生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，很容易讓我們忘記那個(gè)曾被《時(shí)代周刊》稱作20世紀(jì)最糟糕想法之一的生物圈II項(xiàng)目，后者以極度失敗而告終[21]。某種意義上《時(shí)代周刊》是正確的，但生物圈II的失敗卻也激勵(lì)了后來者。

5 數(shù)字景觀

數(shù)字技術(shù)開始在設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐中取代手繪已有30余年的歷史，建筑和風(fēng)景園林領(lǐng)域如何利用這種技術(shù)之間的關(guān)鍵差異開始顯現(xiàn)。建筑領(lǐng)域?qū)Ｗ⒂谒惴ㄈ绾萎a(chǎn)生新形式，而風(fēng)景園林卻越來越關(guān)注模擬真實(shí)的環(huán)境條件，以指導(dǎo)被條件影響的設(shè)計(jì)決策。這里包含兩個(gè)方面，第一是能夠創(chuàng)建或挖掘自身所產(chǎn)生的數(shù)據(jù)，而不僅是從權(quán)威機(jī)構(gòu)被動(dòng)接收；第二是在包含時(shí)間維度的四維層面提升模擬復(fù)雜的系統(tǒng)（如水文、生態(tài)系統(tǒng)、城市，以及地球系統(tǒng)）的能力，而不僅是三維空間的模擬。雖是數(shù)字自然類型的出現(xiàn)仍處于初期階段，但基思·范德瑟斯（Keith VanDerSys），凱倫·麥克勞斯基（Karen M’Closkey），布拉德利·坎特雷爾（Bradley Cantrell），賈斯廷·霍爾茨曼（Justine Holzman），肖恩·伯克霍爾德（Sean Burkholder）和布萊恩·戴維斯（Brian Davis）等學(xué)者正在進(jìn)行的流動(dòng)景觀模型的構(gòu)建工作卻是值得期待的[22-23]⑩。

無論在數(shù)字模擬或聚焦物質(zhì)性上，都凸顯了伯克霍爾德和戴維斯目前工作的重要性。風(fēng)景園林與地球上存在的物質(zhì)性有著深刻的聯(lián)系，并且許多領(lǐng)先的實(shí)踐者以自己對有機(jī)材料的認(rèn)知和塑造能力而自豪。在理想條件下，物質(zhì)營造之于風(fēng)景園林藝術(shù)就像詩歌之于語言。而伯克霍爾德和戴維斯對廢棄物的喜愛更甚于黃金。自20世紀(jì)70年代史密森對遍布在新澤西州帕塞伊克（Passaic in New Jersey）的工業(yè)廢墟產(chǎn)生濃厚興趣之后，伯克霍爾德和戴維斯則繼續(xù)關(guān)注其工業(yè)沉積物的流動(dòng)。受美國陸軍工程團(tuán)委托，他們的未來健康港口計(jì)劃（Healthy Port Futures project）項(xiàng)目以數(shù)字模型為基礎(chǔ)對世界上最大的內(nèi)陸水體—五大湖區(qū)（the Great Lakes of the USA and Canada ）的泥沙流量進(jìn)行科學(xué)預(yù)測。項(xiàng)目的核心是創(chuàng)建模擬技術(shù)，通過重新定向分流泥沙沉積物，從而創(chuàng)造具有生態(tài)和社會(huì)價(jià)值的新景觀，而并非將它們作為廢棄物處理。值得關(guān)注的是，伯克霍爾德和戴維斯正在進(jìn)入迄今為止完全由工程師主導(dǎo)的領(lǐng)域，并與塑造北美自然與城市間景觀的官方機(jī)構(gòu)建立起了相互信任關(guān)系。

盡管這是完全工程學(xué)的成果，2011年荷蘭海岸線“沙引擎”（Sand Motor）工程卻可被視為數(shù)字景觀的一個(gè)著名案例[24]（圖11）。“沙引擎”是一種新穎的海岸線保護(hù)方法，通過在沙灘特定位置上策略性地傾倒沙礫，使其沿海岸線穩(wěn)定地重新分布。這只能通過在沿海建立系統(tǒng)的預(yù)測模型來完成。如果沒有計(jì)算機(jī)技術(shù)的進(jìn)步，這種分析在以前幾乎是不可能的，但現(xiàn)在不僅可以在建造之前準(zhǔn)確預(yù)測沙引擎工程引導(dǎo)下的可能結(jié)果，而且還可以持續(xù)監(jiān)控在數(shù)字和現(xiàn)實(shí)之間建立起的反饋機(jī)制。

沙引擎技術(shù)標(biāo)志著人類對環(huán)境預(yù)測技術(shù)達(dá)到一個(gè)更高的水平，并即將在宏觀和微觀尺度上繼續(xù)擴(kuò)展。沙引擎無意間塑造的形式，在某種程度上也可被視為史密森所夢寐以求的?？梢韵胂螅骋嫜芯繄F(tuán)隊(duì)監(jiān)督工程師馬塞爾·桑迪（Marcel Stive）取代卡斯帕·大衛(wèi)·弗里德里希（Caspar David Friedrich）的著名油畫《海邊僧侶》（Monk by the Sea）的僧侶，對人類創(chuàng)造而非對造物主的沉思（圖12）。

6 不確定性

在1969年伊恩·麥克哈格發(fā)表《設(shè)計(jì)結(jié)合自然》（Design with Nature）時(shí)，羅伯特·史密森（Robert Smithson）在溫哥華、芝加哥和羅馬分別將膠水、混凝土和瀝青澆筑在斜坡之上[25]。雖然大地藝術(shù)對不可預(yù)測地質(zhì)過程的時(shí)間表現(xiàn)是從史密森的藝術(shù)實(shí)踐開始的，但對麥克哈格而言，自然災(zāi)害的不確定性可以通過合理的土地利用規(guī)劃來避免。藝術(shù)和科學(xué)對自然不確定性的接受源于20世紀(jì)早期量子物理的文化沖擊，以及后來數(shù)學(xué)的混沌理論，其集中表現(xiàn)在流行文化中迷幻的曼德博集合（the Mandelbrot set）的分形圖像中（圖13）。不確定性—自然的內(nèi)在隨機(jī)性不是無序，而應(yīng)是一種通向新形式秩序的途徑。

在設(shè)計(jì)文化中，1984年拉維萊特公園（Parc De La Villette）競賽中OMA的方案首次將不確定性作為設(shè)計(jì)的一個(gè)重要因素，而不是威脅[26]。伴隨著對設(shè)計(jì)非完成美學(xué)的日益關(guān)注，不確定性在1999年多倫多當(dāng)斯維爾公園（Downsview Park）競賽的最終入圍作品中占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位。所有入圍者提交的方案，包括OMA，都通過對設(shè)定初始條件而不是最終表現(xiàn)形式的關(guān)注開展公共景觀設(shè)計(jì)[27]。3年后，JCFO將不確定性作為一種主要設(shè)計(jì)方法，以一項(xiàng)靈活的30年計(jì)劃贏得清泉公園（Freshkills）設(shè)計(jì)競賽，該計(jì)劃旨在改造紐約史坦頓島（Staten Island）上的世界最大的垃圾填埋場。通過在這個(gè)開放性景觀實(shí)驗(yàn)室中開展反復(fù)試驗(yàn)，清泉公園中世界上污染最嚴(yán)重的890 hm2（2 200英畝）土地正在恢復(fù)。需要指出的是，有時(shí)技術(shù)運(yùn)用的失敗也是該不確定性實(shí)驗(yàn)的一部分[28]。

值得注意的是，不同于專業(yè)表達(dá)上常見的華麗、田園式的效果圖，JCFO的清泉公園原始效果圖表現(xiàn)了一定程度上的審美克制。也就是說，未來清泉公園的圖像在某種程度上需要反映出該場地所受到的干擾以及展現(xiàn)出低預(yù)算條件下的生態(tài)狀況。從概念方案到場所現(xiàn)狀，清泉公園是我們過度消費(fèi)世界的一面鏡子，是人類世中廢棄的景觀紀(jì)念碑，并清楚地提醒人們將生命重新投入其中是多么困難。

9 由格蘭特事務(wù)所在新加坡濱海灣花園設(shè)計(jì)的超級樹A Supertree in Singapore’s Gardens by the Bay by Grant Associates

10 一個(gè)封閉的外星球生態(tài)系統(tǒng)A closed off-planet ecosystem

11 模擬荷蘭海岸“沙引擎”工程形態(tài)變化的平面分析Plan view simulations of the change in the form of theSand Motor of the coast of Holland

雖然對不確定性持開放態(tài)度，但清泉公園的景觀仍可以通過自然演替重獲新生（圖14）。從這個(gè)意義上說，其發(fā)展的時(shí)間箭頭仍是線性的。一個(gè)更激進(jìn)的方案是由瑞士風(fēng)景園林師喬治·德康布斯（Georges Descombes）和德康布斯·蘭皮尼工作室（Atelier Descombes Rampini）所組成的Group Superpositions事務(wù)所開展的日內(nèi)瓦附近的艾爾河（Aire River）重建工程，這更像是史密森式的傾倒藝術(shù)對雕塑史的顛覆[29]（圖15）。河道部分的改造通過人工塑造菱形土方，這些土方旨在通過侵蝕、溶解并隨時(shí)間的推移重置水流方向。艾爾河項(xiàng)目在“順其自然”與“人工干預(yù)”之間搖擺。清泉公園設(shè)計(jì)期望建立一個(gè)更健康的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，而艾爾河道項(xiàng)目則同時(shí)構(gòu)建和解構(gòu)自身，也是對盧梭（Rousseau,代表櫻花樹）和普桑（Poussin，代表廢墟）的細(xì)微詩意的影射，在當(dāng)下設(shè)計(jì)語境中，暗示了如果求助于田園式美學(xué)是站不住腳的話，也許我們可以轉(zhuǎn)而寄希望于仍然存在著的浪漫主義精神。

7 管理主義

在朱利安·拉克斯沃西（Julian Raxworthy）的新著《過度生長：風(fēng)景園林與園藝之間的實(shí)踐》（Overgrown: Practices Between Landscape Architecture and Gardening）中，集中關(guān)注通過長期維護(hù)來恢復(fù)景觀的有效途徑。不僅延長了設(shè)計(jì)時(shí)間，還從根本上提高其精度和細(xì)微差別[30]。通過類似于管理員的方式來更深入地介入場地，使得風(fēng)景園林從與快速城鎮(zhèn)發(fā)展緊密結(jié)合的行業(yè)服務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橐环N迭代式的土地管理實(shí)踐。讀者可通過拉克斯沃西對著名風(fēng)景園林師，如羅伯特·布雷·馬克斯（Roberto Burle Marx）、丹·凱利（Dan Kiley）和斯文·英格瓦·安德森（Sven Ingvar Andersson）的經(jīng)典案例分析中窺測到他的探索，而在這里筆者提出了另外2個(gè)案例：丹尼斯·斯科特（Dennis Scott）在新西蘭懷赫科島（Waiheke Island）的工作和丹·詹森（Dan Janzen）、溫尼·霍爾瓦赫（Winnie Hallwach）在哥斯達(dá)黎加的瓜納卡斯特保護(hù)區(qū)（Guanacaste Conservation Area in Costa Rica）的實(shí)踐。這些項(xiàng)目的重要性在于它們超越了花園的特性，并將其擴(kuò)展到更大規(guī)模的保護(hù)議題。

雖然新西蘭享有“清潔和綠色”的全球聲譽(yù)，但現(xiàn)實(shí)情況卻相差甚遠(yuǎn)。新西蘭的景觀看起來是綠色的，但過去幾個(gè)世紀(jì)毛利人和歐洲人對其森林資源與生物多樣性造成了極度破壞。盡管如此，在過去30年間風(fēng)景園林師丹尼斯·斯科特一直與當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)和機(jī)構(gòu)合作，在奧克蘭城市郊區(qū)邊緣的懷赫科島上重新培育已經(jīng)退化了的單一文化景觀，試圖使其恢復(fù)健康狀態(tài)[31]（圖16）。

斯科特首先通過麥克哈格式的適宜性分析確定并繪制具有關(guān)鍵敏感性的土地區(qū)域，如陡峭的不穩(wěn)定斜坡、河岸帶、濕地、殘留的原始灌木區(qū)域和具有典型文化特征的區(qū)域，如考古遺址。然后，這些被稱之為“景觀共有區(qū)”的土地被劃出用于單獨(dú)管理，并與私人財(cái)產(chǎn)交織在一起。迄今為止，這個(gè)新西蘭最大的緩解土壤侵蝕并恢復(fù)生物多樣性的項(xiàng)目，在超過430 hm2的土地上已種植了130多萬株植物，成為該國生態(tài)恢復(fù)的典范工程。

同樣，兩位來自賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)的生物學(xué)家丹·詹森和溫尼·霍爾瓦赫，自1985年以來一直致力于豐富、管理和監(jiān)測哥斯達(dá)黎加北部海岸瓜納卡斯特保護(hù)區(qū)（área de’Conservación Guanacaste）165 000 hm2土地的生物多樣性。詹森和霍爾瓦赫通過現(xiàn)場協(xié)商和國際資金籌集，使該保護(hù)區(qū)幾乎從零開始逐漸發(fā)展為主要的國家公園。除了其生物學(xué)成就外，該項(xiàng)目在積極推動(dòng)社會(huì)參與和當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)合作以共同監(jiān)測和管理公園方面，具有重要意義。

詹森使用花園而非荒野的隱喻來描述他幾乎投入一生的工作，因?yàn)樗麑⒒囊暗母拍羁蚣軓乃^的“排斥到滅絕”中轉(zhuǎn)移，并將其置于家庭生活和工作范圍中來討論[32]1312。正如他所指，馴化荒野并使其花園化的過程涉及“圍欄、種植、施肥、耕作和除草……生物修復(fù)、重新造林、造林、火災(zāi)控制、禁止焚燒、人群控制、生物控制、重新引入、緩解等多種方式”[32]1313。

詹森和霍爾瓦赫的花園集中體現(xiàn)了科學(xué)與浪漫，也標(biāo)志著傾向于平衡且最好不受人類影響的荒野理想的終結(jié)。通過這種模式，既可以積極管理現(xiàn)有保護(hù)區(qū)，也可以探尋如何在完全人性化的人類世景觀中創(chuàng)建新的保護(hù)區(qū)。詹森是一位沒有刻意追求審美觀念的生物學(xué)家，但他將自己的實(shí)踐描述為“實(shí)際的風(fēng)景園林作品”，或許本身就是一種反美學(xué)行為[33]。

8 行動(dòng)主義

與管理者相類似，積極的行動(dòng)主義挑戰(zhàn)并擴(kuò)展了風(fēng)景園林師作為相對被動(dòng)的服務(wù)提供者的現(xiàn)狀。一般來說，行動(dòng)主義者不僅對社會(huì)和生態(tài)正義問題發(fā)表政治批評，而且還主動(dòng)采取實(shí)際行動(dòng)。在風(fēng)景園林語境中，這意味著將良好的設(shè)計(jì)意圖轉(zhuǎn)化為有效的空間實(shí)踐，抑或是通過揭開專業(yè)神秘面紗以加強(qiáng)社區(qū)活力。行動(dòng)主義者的工作方法有多種形式，通常包括自發(fā)式項(xiàng)目、尋求贊助者，以及積極與非營利的學(xué)術(shù)部門、政府機(jī)構(gòu)和私營企業(yè)的合作。

在眾多行動(dòng)主義實(shí)踐中，安妮·斯派恩（Anne Spirn）在費(fèi)城西部磨溪（Mill Creek）的貧窮社區(qū)所做的工作中脫穎而出[34]。斯派恩斷斷續(xù)續(xù)地與當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)合作了30年，在居民中建立了她所謂的“景觀素養(yǎng)”。斯派恩認(rèn)為，社區(qū)可以在共享景觀中找到團(tuán)結(jié)和認(rèn)同，又能夠帶來廣泛的健康益處。在磨溪案例中，這種信念成為該地區(qū)部分露天水渠成功轉(zhuǎn)化為公共空間營造的催化劑。作為學(xué)者，斯派恩利用這種獨(dú)特的實(shí)踐來拓展自己人類學(xué)式的工作方法并激勵(lì)他人。事實(shí)上，目前在費(fèi)城整個(gè)市域范圍內(nèi)所進(jìn)行的，將雨洪管理同公共空間和城市衰敗區(qū)域相結(jié)合的綠色計(jì)劃都可以追溯到斯派恩最初的草根行動(dòng)。

在設(shè)計(jì)文化的聚光燈之外，還潛藏著無數(shù)其他風(fēng)景園林師的工作，他們將個(gè)人名利置于公眾利益之后。例如，大沙盒（Big Sandbox）的首席策略師和“景觀學(xué)習(xí)”（Learning Landscapes）的創(chuàng)始人洛伊絲·布林克（Lois Brink）專為費(fèi)城和丹佛設(shè)計(jì)的公立校園。具有更高關(guān)注度的設(shè)計(jì)師，如代表SCAPE的凱特·奧夫（Kate Orff）[35]和MASS的建筑師等也為能真正地因社區(qū)參與、吸納支持者、促使地產(chǎn)融資以外的項(xiàng)目動(dòng)工而自豪。雖然 SCAPE 是一種商業(yè)實(shí)踐，但MASS專注于非洲的工作則是一個(gè)非營利性的實(shí)踐：二者都作為道德和創(chuàng)新實(shí)踐的模范，又都同時(shí)打破了與社區(qū)的密切接觸就意味著放棄審美的既定思維。

9 彈性

行動(dòng)主義越來越多地與構(gòu)建社區(qū)和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的彈性相關(guān)聯(lián)，后者因受到氣候變化的負(fù)面影響而脆弱不堪。彈性標(biāo)識了某種范式的轉(zhuǎn)變，是從灰色到綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，從集中式到分散式系統(tǒng)，從工程防洪堤到“基于自然的解決方案”的轉(zhuǎn)變[36]（圖17）。但也許最重要且值得探討的是，彈性預(yù)示著從可持續(xù)性均衡中脫離。雖然可持續(xù)發(fā)展關(guān)注自然與文化之間平衡的批判早就應(yīng)該被討論，但也不應(yīng)為了彈性描述性的變化，而放棄通過當(dāng)今無處不在的社會(huì)—政治變革浪潮來緩解環(huán)境危機(jī)的首要目標(biāo)。如果因這種變化而放棄緩解環(huán)境壓力，那么從維系最初產(chǎn)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的系統(tǒng)來看，彈性就是最好的緩解劑和最壞的慢性毒藥。然而，彈性是現(xiàn)實(shí)的且有在經(jīng)受環(huán)境變化侵?jǐn)_的社區(qū)基礎(chǔ)上建立起可持續(xù)性烏托邦的傾向。最好的情況是彈性與可持續(xù)性并不對立，而是嵌套在可持續(xù)性的元話語中的。

在面對氣候變化問題時(shí)，彈性是一個(gè)涉及多種形式的全球性問題，我們可以把目光轉(zhuǎn)向美國東海岸正在進(jìn)行的一系列以景觀作為媒介來防洪或吸收洪水的獨(dú)特工程。這些沿海的彈性項(xiàng)目或所謂的“基于自然策略”的典型代表是DLAND工作室的蘇珊娜·德雷克（Susannah Drake）、建筑研究室（Architecture Research Office，簡稱ARO）的亞當(dāng)·雅林斯基（Adam Yarinsky）和史蒂芬·卡塞爾（Stephen Cassell）的假設(shè)項(xiàng)目新城市領(lǐng)域（New Urban Ground）。2010年，他們在現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)博物館由巴里·伯格多爾（Barry Bergdoll）策劃的上升水平面（Rising Waters）展覽上展示了他們受委托的設(shè)計(jì)，一個(gè)通過沿岸濕地裙帶來保護(hù)曼哈頓島南端不受洪水侵襲的概念方案。最近海平面上升問題使得這種方法得到了進(jìn)一步的發(fā)展[37]。颶風(fēng)桑迪設(shè)計(jì)競賽（Hurricane Sandy Design Competition）在洛克菲勒“設(shè)計(jì)重建”（Rebuild By Design）計(jì)劃的支持下進(jìn)行，并輔以“沿海彈性結(jié)構(gòu)”，風(fēng)景園林師在指導(dǎo)案例研究工作中擔(dān)任主要角色[38]。

隨后，DLAND工作室和ARO基于自然的為曼哈頓島設(shè)置緩沖空間的策略變成了由建筑事務(wù)所BIG、風(fēng)景園林師MNLA和荷蘭彈性規(guī)劃師馬蒂耶斯·布尤（Matthijs Bouw）領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的BIG U方案[39]。DLAND工作室將海岸線融入有限的濕地區(qū)域內(nèi)，并集結(jié)成約12.88 km（8英里）長的土方工程和成倍的公共空間，成為環(huán)繞曼哈頓島南端預(yù)防風(fēng)暴潮的屏障。在討論中，評論家們失望地發(fā)現(xiàn)DLAND工作室項(xiàng)目中的自然主義（生態(tài)）美學(xué)明顯是恣意縱情的，但他們忘記的是，DLAND工作室看似“自然”的提案本身就源自將場地抬高1.83 m（6英尺）應(yīng)對風(fēng)暴潮的現(xiàn)實(shí)需求。

相反，荷蘭人在抗擊洪水上則較少體現(xiàn)出自然主義的彈性美學(xué)。此案不是日常所見的海岸線，而是細(xì)分荷蘭內(nèi)陸的河道系統(tǒng)。2002年，基于對萊茵河承載能力擴(kuò)大的相關(guān)研究，“還河流以空間”（Room for the River）作為一個(gè)協(xié)調(diào)和綜合的集合開發(fā)項(xiàng)目包含34個(gè)子項(xiàng)目且遍布荷蘭。通過提升、重置堤防，建渠防洪，蓄水，降壩，除壩，洪泛區(qū)開挖，河床開挖和清除障礙物以提高國家的河岸承載能力。除了國家水資源管理的實(shí)用主義外，也表明了創(chuàng)造公共設(shè)施和營造更具吸引力的河流景觀的需求[40]。

10 景觀都市主義

景觀都市主義是風(fēng)景園林學(xué)的一種理論運(yùn)動(dòng)，旨在用景觀取代建筑作為當(dāng)代城市的基本組織形式。在某種程度上，景觀都市主義也希望在城市形態(tài)塑造過程中提升風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科的影響力[41]。

通過景觀的視野來重新審視城市，景觀都市主義質(zhì)問城市的生態(tài)概念化是什么以及如何實(shí)際運(yùn)作。尋求更深層次的結(jié)構(gòu)變革而不是僅用綠化粉飾現(xiàn)有的城市系統(tǒng)。出于兩個(gè)原因，答案的論證并不簡單。首先，景觀都市主義者傾向于認(rèn)為“城市”所指的邊界應(yīng)是在星球尺度上；其次，生態(tài)視野關(guān)注的“看見”所對應(yīng)的是哈佛生態(tài)學(xué)家理查德·福爾曼（Richard Forman）所提出的“隱藏”的生態(tài)流動(dòng)和關(guān)系[42]。城市的生態(tài)愿景不僅必須在城市的源與匯之間建立空間聯(lián)系，還必須在時(shí)間層面上對其時(shí)刻保持關(guān)注，且不僅是人類時(shí)間維度，還需拓展到地球的時(shí)間維度。鑒于此，景觀都市主義一直在尋找比修辭形式更多的手法。

盡管如此，變幻莫測的景觀都市主義仍然與一系列項(xiàng)目有關(guān)。例如，OMA的拉維萊特公園方案，扎哈·哈迪德（Zaha Hadid）在新加坡One North研究型科技城中早期呈現(xiàn)的方案，JCFO的高線和珠江三角洲的前海城市設(shè)計(jì)，以及斯托斯（Stoss）被稱為景觀都市主義作品的多倫多下城規(guī)劃（the Lower Dons in Toronto）。雖然每個(gè)方案包含了若干景觀都市主義中的相關(guān)屬性，但卻都沒有能夠完全滿足景觀都市主義的全部理論要求。

12 根據(jù)卡斯帕·大衛(wèi)·弗里德里希的作品《海邊僧侶》繪制的草圖Sketched based on Caspar David Friedrich’s painting Monk by the Sea

13 曼德博集合的分形性質(zhì)概述Outline of the fractal nature of the Mandelbrot Set

如果不是整個(gè)城市，那么景觀都市主義可能將其關(guān)注重點(diǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移到城市邊緣區(qū)域和泛城市區(qū)域中，這些地方生態(tài)系統(tǒng)受城市化的威脅最大，且景觀確實(shí)作為其主要媒介存在。這一重點(diǎn)與所有城市相關(guān)，尤其是在發(fā)展中國家，快速的城市化正蔓延到殘余的棲息地周邊[43]。城市邊緣區(qū)域的規(guī)劃很少有模型或好的范例。在發(fā)達(dá)國家，一個(gè)成功的例子是巴塞羅那，在理查德·福爾曼的基礎(chǔ)分析和情景模型基礎(chǔ)上，提出巴塞羅那都市圈區(qū)域性規(guī)劃（the Pla Territorial Metropolita de Barcelona，圖18）[44-45]。在發(fā)展中國家，也可轉(zhuǎn)向戴維·加弗努爾（David Gouverneur）的“景觀電樞”（landscape armatures），該方法試圖引導(dǎo)快速發(fā)展且不受管制的城市周邊地區(qū)中非正規(guī)住區(qū)的增長[46]。

11 宏大規(guī)劃

巴塞羅那都市圈區(qū)域性規(guī)劃是城市邊緣地區(qū)的景觀都市主義作品，但因其強(qiáng)調(diào)在區(qū)域尺度上來確保土地保護(hù)問題，也可作為宏大規(guī)劃類型的范例。宏大規(guī)劃是預(yù)測城市增長和土地利用變化的大規(guī)模規(guī)劃項(xiàng)目，并試圖在氣候變化背景下確保適合生物多樣性遷移的景觀連通性。

形成大規(guī)模成片的棲息地目標(biāo)被寫入由196個(gè)國家簽署的 《生物多樣性公約》（Convention of Biological Diversity，簡稱CBD）中。該公約還為全球保護(hù)區(qū)制定了目標(biāo)[47]。目前，地球上15.4%的陸地表面受到某種形式的保護(hù)。2020年CBD目標(biāo)是17%。雖然1.6%的地球表面可能看起來不多，但相當(dāng)于近70萬個(gè)中央公園，將它們首尾相連可形成一個(gè)繞地球70圈的景觀長廊。

除保護(hù)區(qū)目標(biāo)外，CBD還規(guī)定，受保護(hù)的土地必須具有代表性和連通性。這意味著17%的目標(biāo)應(yīng)該分別來自廣泛分布于世界上的867個(gè)生態(tài)區(qū)，以便代表各自的生物多樣性，并且連接當(dāng)前一系列孤立的保護(hù)區(qū)碎片以確保物種能夠遷移。將這些定量和定性目標(biāo)結(jié)合起來意味著在全球范圍內(nèi)創(chuàng)建綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，該網(wǎng)絡(luò)的規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)需要風(fēng)景園林師參與。

兩個(gè)突出的連通性項(xiàng)目是從加拿大到美國的“黃石至育空保護(hù)倡議”（the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative，簡稱Y2Y）和遍及整個(gè)非洲次大陸的“綠色長城”（Great Green Wall）計(jì)劃。Y2Y于1993年提出，旨在合并并保護(hù)面積超過約129.5萬km2（50萬平方英里）的土地，這些土地沿著美國西北部和加拿大西南部的山脈綿延約3 200 km（圖19）。Y2Y努力將棲息地連接到包含不同用途土地的廣大地區(qū)，與300多個(gè)不同的組織、原住民團(tuán)體、私人土地所有者和政府部門合作并提供支持。風(fēng)景園林師雖尚未參與大規(guī)模的保護(hù)規(guī)劃，但已經(jīng)參與到了野生動(dòng)物遷徙的關(guān)鍵節(jié)點(diǎn)，確保在關(guān)鍵的不可通過區(qū)域中形成連通性。例如，作為 Y2Y一部分的班夫國家公園（Banff National Park）迄今為止已投入6個(gè)動(dòng)物立交橋和38個(gè)地下通道[48]。

更具野心的是撒哈拉和薩赫勒地區(qū)的“綠色長城”計(jì)劃（the Great Green Wall of the Sahara and Sahel Initiative，簡稱GGWSSI，圖20）[49-50]。這條15 km寬的綠帶從塞內(nèi)加爾延伸到吉布提，全長約8 000 km，通過恢復(fù)被沙漠侵蝕的最前沿的退化土地來防沙治沙。在撒哈拉沙漠邊緣和薩赫勒半干旱帶廣植林地的想法最初是在20世紀(jì)50年代提出的，隨后又在20世紀(jì)80年代以及2002年由當(dāng)時(shí)的尼日利亞總統(tǒng)奧盧塞貢·奧巴桑喬（Olusegun Obasanjo）再次提出。然而直到2007年，由20個(gè)國家組成的理事機(jī)構(gòu)才認(rèn)可這一想法并開始實(shí)施。在這段時(shí)間內(nèi)，綠色長城計(jì)劃已從單一的植樹計(jì)劃演變?yōu)槟芡瑫r(shí)應(yīng)對當(dāng)?shù)匚幕蜕鷳B(tài)退化的復(fù)雜拼貼。

綠色長城正在建設(shè)。這是一種進(jìn)步，與其類似的進(jìn)步則依賴于自上而下的政府規(guī)劃以及與當(dāng)?shù)匚幕嚓P(guān)的自下而上的微觀倡議之間的協(xié)同作用。如果風(fēng)景園林師可涉及相關(guān)工作，這種復(fù)雜的動(dòng)態(tài)可以得到幫助和推動(dòng)。

最后，一個(gè)具有自上而下規(guī)劃標(biāo)志但尚未得到自下而上反饋的項(xiàng)目是2008年由土人景觀和北京大學(xué)景觀研究生院提出的針對全中國的“國家生態(tài)安全格局”（National Ecological Security Patterns，簡稱NESP）[51]。經(jīng)過長時(shí)間的研究、專家研討會(huì)和麥克哈格式（McHargian）的mapping，NESP展示了國家土地中應(yīng)受到保護(hù)的土地以及可在最小的負(fù)面生態(tài)影響下進(jìn)行開發(fā)的土地。

對于諸如風(fēng)景園林行業(yè)所宣布的地球生態(tài)管理任務(wù)，NESP的方法和范圍代表了一個(gè)顯著的突破。習(xí)近平總書記2013年指出，中國必須從GDP文明轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樯鷳B(tài)文明，這一過程也應(yīng)當(dāng)關(guān)注以國家生態(tài)健康為出發(fā)點(diǎn)的大型項(xiàng)目與地方文化延續(xù)之間的協(xié)調(diào)關(guān)系。

12 結(jié)論

限于文章篇幅，這里所述的每種類型的討論都是可繼續(xù)推進(jìn)的。雖然在11種類型中引用的許多項(xiàng)目已是眾所周知的風(fēng)景園林經(jīng)典項(xiàng)目，但卻很少通過筆者所提及的類型來被認(rèn)知。使用項(xiàng)目來構(gòu)建和討論類型很重要，因?yàn)樗兄谧R別學(xué)科固有的特征和問題。隨著越來越多具有共同特征的項(xiàng)目群出現(xiàn)，對類型的認(rèn)知開始逐漸明確和清晰。填補(bǔ)了對當(dāng)代風(fēng)景園林認(rèn)知的缺口，讓研究問題和實(shí)踐領(lǐng)域可以繼續(xù)開拓。

致謝：

感謝賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)風(fēng)景園林系學(xué)生克里斯塔·賴默爾和蘇姍娜·多蘿茲對本文草稿的編輯和深入見解。

注釋：

① 在未發(fā)表的會(huì)議論文中，瓦格寧根大學(xué)景觀學(xué)者凱文·拉弗斯特和桑達(dá)·倫佐試圖對當(dāng)代風(fēng)景園林的設(shè)計(jì)方法進(jìn)行分類。例如，他們將當(dāng)代方法分為藍(lán)圖設(shè)計(jì)、框架概念、刺激性設(shè)計(jì)方法和進(jìn)化方法等類別。雖然具實(shí)用性但缺乏筆者討論的11種類型所尋求的美學(xué)特性。參見參考文獻(xiàn)[2]。根據(jù)設(shè)計(jì)理念組織，也許該領(lǐng)域最復(fù)雜的嘗試是蘇珊·赫林頓的《景觀設(shè)計(jì)理論》，她根據(jù)其理論基礎(chǔ)對項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行分類。例如，她提出了諸如虛幻空間、現(xiàn)象學(xué)、復(fù)寫和爭議空間等類別，其中一些類別可能與此處呈現(xiàn)的11種類型相關(guān)。

② 筆者與賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)的同事們（弗雷德里克·斯坦納、凱倫·麥克勞斯基和威廉·弗萊明）致力于策劃關(guān)于當(dāng)代景觀的展覽和書籍，以慶祝伊恩·麥克哈格《設(shè)計(jì)結(jié)合自然》50周年。本文探討的幾個(gè)案例也包括在2019年6月在賓大舉辦的名為“當(dāng)代設(shè)計(jì)結(jié)合自然”的25個(gè)項(xiàng)目展覽中。參見參考文獻(xiàn)[4]。

③ 參見 http://udla.com.au/people/ 。

④ Fionn Byrne試圖通過以明顯突變的形式重新種植公園的原始樹木來實(shí)現(xiàn)奧姆斯特德的美學(xué)遺產(chǎn)，參見圖5。

⑤ 設(shè)計(jì)競賽的全部內(nèi)容請參見《LA+》，第10期。

⑥ 麥克哈格關(guān)于“上帝垃圾場”的影射來自彼得·布雷克于1964年于紐約出版的著作《God’s Own Junkyard: The Planned Deterioration of America’s Landscape》。

⑦ 人耳鼠是以其創(chuàng)造者Charles A.Vacanti博士的名字命名的，他在20世紀(jì)90年代對實(shí)驗(yàn)室小鼠進(jìn)行了軟骨移植實(shí)驗(yàn)。當(dāng)圖像公開時(shí)，這只移植了人耳的小老鼠震驚了世界。

⑧ 在出版時(shí)，還未公開任何歐林-蓋里聯(lián)合設(shè)計(jì)的洛杉磯河圖紙。

⑨ 更多賽博格花園的討論參見筆者于《LA+》第10期的文章《The Terrarium: The Ultimate Design Experiment》。

⑩ 伯克霍爾德的研究參見參考文獻(xiàn)[27]。

圖片來源：

文中所有圖片均由理查德·韋勒教授繪制。

（編輯/劉昱霏）

Whereas the diversity of aesthetic practices in art and architecture since the late nineteenth century is organized and periodically reshuffled into certain genres, this is not the case in the discipline of landscape architecture[1]. Although every survey course taught in every design school must in some way attempt to logically organize the canon, due to a lack of publication on the topic, there is no working taxonomy of modern or contemporary landscape architecture[2]①. By taxonomy I don’t mean a typological differentiation of project types, such as park or plaza; I mean different genres, literally defined as categories of “artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter”[3].

The absence of an agreed landscape architectural taxonomy of genres reflects a relative lack of academic analysis and design critique within the discipline. It also reflects the fact that practitioners generally don’t articulate their work in categorical aesthetic terms. But if it is true that the discipline of landscape architecture is as diverse and broad as is often anecdotally declared, then it is problematic that there exists no systematic way to discuss this breadth and diversity. Notwithstanding that they can be reductive and constraining, taxonomies do help to structure discourse, which in turn shapes practice,establishing a feedback loop between theory and praxis through which a discipline evolves and matures.

Upon attempting the thought experiment of organizing contemporary landscape architecture into a reasonable taxonomy, I was surprised to find that at least eleven genres fairly quickly emerged and seemed to bear scrutiny. Of course, anyone can try this experiment and no doubt we would all do it somewhat differently, but here, in the order that they will be discussed in this essay, are the eleven I arrived at: Genius loci, Iconoclasm,Spectacle, Cyborgs, Digital Natures, Indeterminism,Caretaking, Activism, Resilience, Landscape Urbanism and Big Plans. For each, I will offer brief commentary and some exemplars.

These genres are not intended to cover everything landscape architects do, rather they gather and organize an array of work; a set of practices, methods and related aesthetics that I currently believe hold the most important and pertinent seeds for the profession now and into the foreseeable future[4]②. I hasten to also add that this is not a taxonomy as one finds in the natural sciences, that is; there is no single organizational determinant that cuts across all the specimens. Designs are not specimens and nor is the interpretation of design able to be reduced to molecular or genetic characteristics. Whilst the genres presented here do serve to gather projects that arguably share “form, style, or subject matter”they also reflect the author’s subjectivity, intuition,and (limited) knowledge. The genres are also fuzzy at their edges and the projects that constitute them could in many cases just as easily be filed under others, or sit across several genres. Indeed,perhaps the really ‘good’ landscape architectural project must always relate to more than any one genre. The point of this exercise is not to ‘get it right’ or create a rigid and encyclopedic filing system for a discipline; it is to find some common themes amongst what is currently a field of isolated fragments, and in so doing help shape our understanding of contemporary landscape architecture as more than merely the sum of its parts. In short, taxonomies are good to think with.

1 Genius Loci

Genius loci became the wellspring of the English picturesque when, in his 1731 Epistle to Lord Burlington, Alexander Pope urged designers to “Consult the Genius of the Place in all[5]”. Pope’s exhortation was resurrected with a vengeance some three centuries later when, in the latter half of the twentieth century, Ian McHarg developed his theory of ‘Design With Nature’ (1969), Christian Norberg Shulz published his place-based phenomenology(1979) and Kenneth Frampton argued for critical regionalism (1983)[6-8]. Consecutively, all three reacted against the placelessness of architectural modernism and the global specter of generic suburban sprawl.For McHarg, Shulz and Frampton the tensions between modernity and tradition and between development and ecology could be reconciled in the poetic and rational act of design.

Referring to genius loci as “a sense of place”Australian historian and critic George Seddon argued that if a design paid attention to the local geology, soil, plants, hydrology and culture then such reconciliation was virtually guaranteed[9]. It is common for landscape architects to justify their designs as manifesting either genius loci or a sense of place - the latter a scientifically rationalized version of the former. Since the mid-20th century,if not the early 18th, landscape architecture’s raison d’etre has been that it can synchronize modern development with the specificities of place and that this is foundational to the establishment of healthy identity for both individuals and communities.However, since correctly interpreting something as complex as place, let alone capturing spirit, can never be proven or disproven, landscape architecture’s fundamental theoretical foundation is not only selfserving but goes largely unexamined. It is left then to the individual designer to situate their design philosophy and their design work somewhere along a wide spectrum; one that upholds a faith that place based identity can be promulgated through design at one end, or rejects genius loci as essentialist superstition at the other. Two projects which sit at these respective ends of the spectrum are Cap des Creus in Catalunya by Estudio Marti Franch, and Superkilen in Copenhagen by Topotek 1, Super flex and BIG.

If you will excuse the pun, Cap des Creus by Estudio Marti Franch (EMF) is a work of pure genius. On the coast of Catalunya just north of Barcelona, Cap des Creus is known to most through the iconic landscape paintings of Salvador Dali, the region’s most famous resident (Fig. 1). Until EMF carefully removed it, the cape was dominated by a sprawling Club Med resort. The new Cap des Creus landscape is one made largely by the subtraction,rather than addition of design. Whilst returning the site to its ‘natural’ visual quality, Franch also retains certain traces of the resort as a legitimate layer of the site’s palimpsest and new pathways woven across the topography bring visitors into a heightened level of intimacy with the site’s geomorphology. If there are spirits in this place,then with forensic precision, EMF has conjured them back to the surface.

It is harder however to find and express the authenticity of genius loci through addition than subtraction, and especially so in landscapes already disfigured beyond recognition. It is little wonder then that instead of producing radical difference as place-based approaches by definition should, the resurgence of genius loci in the late 20th century has for the most part been diluted into superficial post-modern development thinly decorated with unconvincing tokens of local culture and ecology.Although it began as a necessary correction of modernism’s violence towards place, the desire for design to fit seamlessly into its context also led,logically, to the aesthetic dead-end of invisibility for the landscape architectural project. Moreover, whilst the landscape architectural project will always be well advised to be site specific, in the face of emerging global culture for design to delimit its reach to only a local sense of place would seem myopic.

A project that attempts to negotiate the tension between local and global senses of place is Superkilen, a park and plaza in the suburbs of Copenhagen (Fig. 2) by Topotek 1, Super flex and BIG. Instead of plumbing the historical depths of the site’s natural and cultural history, Superkilen is a bold and intentionally surficial expression of the surrounding neighborhoods’ contemporary cultural diversity. Superkilen is a cacophonous agora of patterned concrete in which icons of numerous different religions and homelands float somewhat awkwardly together[10]. These icons subvert any homogenous notion of Danish national identity and affirm the neighborhood’s multiculturalism.Whereas most landscape design explicitly seeks social and ecological harmony, Martin Rein-Cano of Topotek 1 admits to encouraging programmatic,spatial and symbolic discordance in his designs[11].Superkilen is significant in the design discourse of place because it manifests a global sense of the local and by ignoring the chthonic mystique of genius loci it is able to connect instead with the“messy vitality” of the quotidian[12].

14 紐約史坦頓島清泉公園的部分圖解Diagrammatic section through Freshkills, Staten Island, New York City

15 由瑞士風(fēng)景園林師喬治·德康布斯和康布斯·蘭皮尼工作是組成的GroupSuperpositions事務(wù)所設(shè)計(jì)日內(nèi)瓦附近艾爾河項(xiàng)目的平面圖解Diagrammatic plan of Aire River near Geneva by Group Superpositions, including Swiss landscape architect Georges Descombes and Atelier Descombes Rampini

Genius loci runs deepest in our memories of place. The challenge for design however is that whilst memory is radically personal, the public space in which landscape architects typically work is not. The landscape architect thus has to serve as an augur of sorts, navigating the aesthetic risk of inauthenticity that such a role inevitably entails. The designer’s role, as Frampton always insisted, is to give credence to tradition without resorting to faux heritage, or sentimentality. At best, tradition lives on, not through the slavish repetition of bygone stories and styles but through contemporary reinterpretation. This for example,is strongly evidenced in the Pritzker Prize winning architectural work of Wang Shu and in landscape architecture of YuFan Zhu in China.

Where the cloud of issues entailed by genius loci becomes thickest is where landscape architects work in association with indigenous communities whose relationship with place is both deeply mnemonic and simultaneously quotidian. Here the designer is situated as an ethnographer and anthropologist attempting to not only understand deep traditions to which they are foreign but also negotiate how those traditions intersect with modernity in the present, and the future. The work of Greg Grabasch, an Australian landscape architect who has devoted his career to understanding and serving indigenous Australians’ is exemplary here③.So too is emerging work from Dane Carlson who spends his time working with villages in Nepal[13].So complex and important is this work that it would be best served by an additional genre, headlined perhaps as ‘Post-colonial’ but for now the broader rubric of genius loci serves this essay’s purpose.

2 Iconoclasm

The revolt against what some foresaw as the aesthetic dead-end of contextualism, came in the somewhat unexpected form of sixty-four bagels laid out in the front yard of a Boston townhouse in 1979 by the landscape architect Martha Schwartz. The Bagel Garden is more a belated piece of Pop Art than it is iconoclastic, but by at least breaking the rules of the gardenesque, it helped liberate others such as Ken Smith, Claude Cormier and Vladimir Sitta who followed.

Unlike in art where iconoclasm is almost(paradoxically) routine, works which by definition“ ‘a(chǎn)ttack’ or assertively ‘reject’ cherished beliefs and institutions or established values and practices” are exceedingly rare in landscape architecture[14].Superkilen by Topotek 1, BIG, and Super flex previously discussed might qualify as iconoclastic, as would the Garden of Australian Dreams at the National Museum of Australia by Room 4.1.3, opened in 2001 (Fig. 3)[15]. In addition to using unorthodox materials and forms, the latter is particularly iconoclastic because contrary to most gardens it explicitly rejects any direct representation of ‘nature’. Instead, the Garden of Australian Dreams only includes references to other representations of landscape such as maps, paintings and texts.Furthermore, these references were selected for their socio-political pertinence as symbols in Australia’s history of race relations and contemporaneous debates about national identity. Consequently, as iconoclastic works should, the design of the Garden of Australian Dreams created controversy both within and beyond the design community, so much so that its critics called for the design’s demolition and the Australian government conducted formal reviews into the design’s meaning[16].

In lieu of other examples of iconoclastic built works, the recent international competition hosted byLA+Interdisciplinary Journal of Landscape architecture (LA+ Iconoclast) which asked entrants to redesign Central Park is also a case in point[17].No designed landscape is more iconic than Central Park. Not only is it upheld as a masterpiece by the profession, no designed landscape does more to (problematically) reinforce the stereotype of landscape as ‘natural’ in the public imagination.

The rationale for this competition’s focus on Central Park was to see what would happen when the paradisiacal, pastoral and ecological aesthetic baggage that Central Park represents and that landscape architecture is so heavily burdened with,was momentarily relinquished. In response, many of the entries tried to use technology to make the new Central Park more ecological and more democratic than the original - in other words, they tried to enhance the existing quality of the icon,rather than challenge its fundamental character.When entrants did “attack” the original, it was generally erased and replaced with melodramatic,apocalyptic and dystopian imagery(Fig. 4)④. The preponderance of such imagery provides an insight into the zeitgeist, and yet, while there might necessarily be violence in the iconoclastic act, for it to be more than histrionics and lead to new aesthetics, iconoclasm requires not only an attack,but also an expose of the status quo; in a word deconstruction, not just destruction.

The question asked by the LA+ Iconoclast competition is whether, at the dawn of the Anthropocene, a new landscape aesthetic will emerge to replace the hegemony of pastoral and picturesque scenery? Going by the 193 entries in the competition the answer, at least in photoshop,is a definitive yes⑤.

3 The Spectacle

Whereas the city for Olmsted was demoralizing and unhealthy, and for McHarg it was “God’s junkyard”, some landscape architects have more recently realized there is aesthetic pleasure in the theatre of the city⑥. A brief history the spectacle in recent landscape architecture would include, among others, the 1996 redesign of the Shouwburgplein in Rotterdam by West 8, Federation Square in Melbourne by Karres en Brands, the Palais Royale in Paris by Daniel Buren and end in the current capital of the spectacular, Manhattan.

Whereas at the Shouwburgplein it is the large kinetic lights adjacent to the square which create the spectacle, at Federation Square it is the ground plane cranked up against the backdrop of angular architecture. Both succeed by dramatically activating and framing multifunctional event spaces which are not only places to see, but places to see from.Landscapes of spectacle are in this sense both stage and stage set, and none more so than Daniel Buren’s treatment of the Palais Royale in Paris (Fig. 5) with a finely crafted grid of black and white columns.Visitors entering the space are almost immediately transformed into actors on a stage as they interact with the columns and pose for photographs. Indeed,many appear to go to great effort to dress for the occasion, posing for photographs as if they were models in a high-end fashion shoot. Equally, when devoid of people altogether, the juxtaposition of Buren’s columns with the architectural heritage of the surrounding Palais, reminds us that the spectacle can be both bold and beautiful. The spectacle needn’t resorting to the gauche gimmickry of advertising, or capitulate to the branding that neoliberal urban development now routinely requires.

Taking its cue from the promenade plantee in Paris, New York City’s High Line has turned old infrastructure into a magnetic catwalk that appropriates Manhattan as its backdrop (Fig. 6). In addition to watching the constant parade of people,from the High Line people also watch Manhattan backstage, and it is the carefully curated elasticity of these visual sensations that makes it the world’s most visited work of contemporary landscape architecture. It also requires that the High Line be socially and aesthetically controlled—not to say policed—to such a degree that it raises questions of its ultimate authenticity and value as a model of contemporary public space.

Whereas landscape architecture is often called upon to disguise and soften the excesses of architecture and engineering, the High Line has shown clients and other designers the potential of landscape itself to headline an act. Consequently, the spectacle is now a powerful resource for designers to turn to their own advantage but so too it is also something of a Faustian bargain. For example,designed by Thomas Heatherwick, the immanent ‘Pier 55’ project in the Hudson River stretches the spectacle of landscape toward breaking point (Fig. 7) . On the one hand Manhattan needs more public space, on the other, the image of a park propped up on a grid of giant golf tees in the midst of the Hudson river is the kind of folly that only its patron, the media mogul Barry Diller, could afford to take seriously.Whether the landscape architects, Mathews Nielsen(MNLA) can build a viable landscape in such extreme circumstances remains to be seen.

4 Cyborgs

From a landscape architectural perspective,one of the most memorable things the feminist scholar Donna Haraway ever said was that “the cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust[18]”. Born of technology, the appearance of the cybernetic-organism in the latter half of the twentieth century challenged established conceptions of natural bodies and their inviolability.The cyborg is now a fitting metaphor for the entire planet where the ecosystem, telecommunications and infrastructure are interwoven into a new hybrid of those old stalwarts, ‘culture’ and ‘nature’.

The aesthetic of the cyborg depends upon the conflation of the natural and the unnatural:the mutant growth within a ‘normal’ body in the case of the infamous ‘Vacanti Mouse’ or the skin pulled back to reveal cybernetic neurology as in the case of the Terminator (Fig. 8)⑦. While one could argue that every work of landscape architecture is a cyborg, the intentional interplay between surface and substrate that reveals the cyborg’s identity is something underdeveloped in contemporary landscape aaesthetics. The role of technology in landscape architecture is generally, simply buried.

It is fitting that the LA River, the backdrop for some of the Terminator’s most memorable scenes, is one of the most challenging landscape architectural projects being undertaken anywhere today. Here, Laurie Olin and Frank Gehry, building on the dogged activism of landscape architect Mia Lehrer, are now forming the constituencies it will take to weave a new blue and green lifeline through LA’s concrete corpse⑧. The project is not yet designed and the question we can ask in advance is to what degree this cyborg should recall the ‘natural’, if at all. Should the cyborg’s surface represent its substrate or is the surface free to appear in any way it wants?

16 懷赫科景觀修復(fù)前后對比，丹尼斯·斯科特在奧克蘭郊外所進(jìn)行的30年修復(fù)工程Before and after of the Waiheke landscape, a 30 year restoration project outside Auckland by Dennis Scott

17 表示人工干預(yù)（上圖）和基于自然的彈性（下圖）The same section rendered as resistance (above) and nature-based resilience (below)

One project where the tropes of the cyborg can be seen at the surface is Singapore’s ‘Gardens by the Bay’-in particular it’s so called ‘Supertrees’-designed by Grant Associates (Fig. 9). Here, per Haraway, the cyborg is the garden, one which flaunts its technological nature[19]. In their book Landscape Architecture and Digital Technologies Jillian Wallis and Heike Rahmann also claim that the Supertrees offer some significant technical innovations regarding energy flows and thermal comfort[20]. This performative aspect matters, because a cyborg without enhanced powers of one kind or another would be merely a folly, or a corpse. For example, Rich Haag’s Gasworks Park and Peter Latz’ Duisburg Nord are not cyborgs, they are beautiful corpses. Now expired, and familial to us these old monsters are laid to rest in their own landscaped cemeteries so we can visit them on Sundays. On the contrary, Latz’s more recent work at the Ariel Sharon Parc, a 2 000 hm2land fill site south of Tel-aviv where the design makes evident the ongoing process of treating the site’s toxicity, is, at least for now, a living,breathing cyborg.

Although the cyborg is spliced with flesh and earth, its Cartesian dream (or nightmare) is independence from the limitations of terrestrial nature altogether. Whilst this would seem to be the very antithesis of landscape architecture, when one considers a lineage from aristocratic orangeries to twentieth century experiments such as Walt Disney’s EPCOT and the Biosphere II project in Arizona, it is possible to trace a latent fascination with the creation of landscapes as closed systems detached from the broader ecosystem(Fig. 10). The destiny of this cyborgian inclination will be gardens in space stations and ultimately on other planets. The best we can currently do in this regard is a terrarium the size of a suitcase on the International Space Station, hooked up to 180 sensors streaming data back to NASA⑨.

Back on earth however, the dream of off-planet colonization has been most recently reenergized by the Vice President of the UAE, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid who has commissioned the architects BIG to design ‘Mars Science City’, a 17.5 hm2compound of 5 geodesic domes designed to simulate conditions on Mars.This second major attempt at creating a self-sustaining closed ecosystem is being touted as “the world’s most sophisticated building” conveniently forgetting that the first, Biosphere II, ended in abject failure and was listed byTIMEmagazine as one the worst ideas of the twentieth century[21]. On one levelTIMEmagazine is right, but on another Biosphere II failure to create a closed self-sustaining ecosystem was prescient.

5 Digital Natures

18 由景觀生態(tài)學(xué)家理查德·TT·福爾曼提出的巴塞羅那的城市邊緣區(qū)景觀結(jié)構(gòu)The peri-urban landscape structure of Barcelona planned by landscape ecologist Richard TT Forman

Now, some 30 years or so since digital technology began replacing hand drawing in design practice, key differences between how the related fields of architecture and landscape architecture are utilizing such technology are beginning to emerge.Whereas architecture is preoccupied with how algorithms can generate novel form, landscape architecture is increasingly concerned with simulating real environmental conditions in order to guide design decisions that impact those conditions. There are two aspects to this. The first is the ability to create or ‘mine’one’s own data instead of just passively receiving it from an authority, and the second is the increasing capacity to model complex, chaotic systems such as hydrology, ecosystems, cities and ultimately the earth system in the fourth, not just the third, dimension. It is early days in the emergence of the genre of Digital natures, but the work of academic practitioners such as Keith VanDerSys, Karen M’Closkey, Bradley Cantrell, Justine Holzman, Sean Burkholder and Brian Davis - all of whom are modelling fluvial landscapes,is promising[22-23]⑩.

The work Burkholder and Davis are doing is important for its use of digital simulations but also for its emphasis on materiality. Landscape architecture has a deep affinity with the materiality of the earth and many of its leading practitioners,pride themselves on their knowledge of, and ability to mold organic materials. In the fine art of landscape architecture, the ideal is to make materials to do for landscape what poetry does for language. Burkholder and Davis, however, prefer shit to gold. Picking up where Smithson left off when he wandered the industrial ruins of Passaic in New Jersey Burkholder and Davis’s subject is the flow of industrial sediment.Their Healthy Port Futures project commissioned by the US Army Corps of Engineers foregrounds digital modelling to predict sediment flows in the world’s largest inland water body-the Great Lakes of the USA and Canada. The project centers on creating simulations to show how instead of being treated as a useless waste product, sediment can be redirected so as to create new landscapes of ecological and social value. Importantly, Burkholder and Davis are muscling their way into territory hitherto completely dominated by engineers and building trust in a bureaucracy that shapes the working landscapes of North America.

Although entirely the work of engineering a remarkable example of ‘digital nature’ is the so called ‘Sand Motor’ constructed in 2011 off the coast of the Netherlands (Fig. 11)[24]. The Sand Motor is a novel approach to coastline protection in which sand is dumped on the beach at a strategic location so that the littoral drift steadily redistributes the material further along the coast. This could only be done through predictive modelling of the coastal system. Absent recent advancements in computing power, such analysis would have been previously prohibitive but now,not only could the Sand Motor’s behavior be accurately predicted before it was built, it is also continually monitored-establishing a feedback loop between the digital and the real.

The Sand Motor marks a new technological and predictive level of human engagement with the environment, one that will expand in both macro and micro scales as this century unfolds. Even if unintentionally, the sand motor is also highly aesthetic, something Smithson might have dreamt of. One can also imagine a scene where Professor Marcel Stive, the overseeing engineer to the Sand Motor’s research team, now replaces Caspar David Friedrich’s ‘Monk by the Sea’, not to contemplate God’s awesome creation, but rather ours (Fig. 12).

6 Indeterminism

In 1969, the year Ian McHarg published‘Design with Nature’, Robert Smithson poured glue,concrete and asphalt down slopes in Vancouver,Chicago and Rome[25]. Whereas time’s expression in indeterminate geological processes was celebrated by the earth art movement Smithson briefly spearheaded, for McHarg, indeterminacy in the form of natural hazards, was something to be avoided by rational land-use planning. The acceptance of indeterminacy in both the arts and sciences as a productive aspect of nature has its roots in the cultural shock of quantum physics in the early twentieth century and sometime later the mathematics of chaos theory which crystallized in popular culture as the fractal psychedelia of the Mandelbrot set (Fig. 13). Indeterminism-nature’s inbuilt randomness-is not disorder, it is a pathway to new forms of order.

In design culture it was OMA’s entry in the Parc De La Villette design competition of 1984 that first championed indeterminacy as a welcome agent of, rather than a threat, to design[26]. With an attendant aesthetic of incompletion, indeterminacy then dominated the finalists’ entries in the 1999 Downsview Park design competition in Toronto.All of the finalists, one of whom was OMA, all approached the problem of designing a major public landscape by focusing on setting initial conditions instead of representing a final form[27]. Three years later, indeterminacy materialized as a design method when James Corner Field Operations (JCFO) won the Freshkills design competition with a flexible thirtyyear plan for the reformation of the world’s largest land fill on Staten Island in New York City. Couched in terms of an open landscape laboratory, at Freshkills 2 200 hm2of the world’s most toxic terrain is being restored through trial and error. That these techniques have on occasion failed is just part and parcel of the project’s indeterminate, experimental nature[28].

Notably, as opposed to the profession’s proclivity for lavish eco-arcadian renderings, the original renders for Freshkills by JCFO showed a certain aesthetic restraint. That is, the imagery of the future Freshkills parkland reflected what could honestly be expected the site’s injured, low budget ecology. As a design concept and now as a place,Freshkills is a mirror to our world of conspicuous consumption, a monument to the depleted landscapes of the Anthropocene and a stark reminder of how difficult it is to breathe life back into them.

Whilst open to the indeterminate, the landscape of Freshkills is nonetheless expected to accrue life through succession (Fig. 14). In that sense, the arrow of time at Freshkills is still linear. A more radical proposition, something more akin to Smithson turning the history of sculpture on its head with his pour-downs, is the renaturation of the Aire River near Geneva by Group Superpositions, including Swiss landscape architect Georges Descombes and Atelier Descombes Rampini (Fig. 15)[29]. Here the river is partially rerouted through a field of lozengeshaped earth works intended to dissolve through erosion and reconfigure themselves over time with the flow of the water. Here the ecological aesthetic of the project teeters between ‘going with the flow’ on the one hand and resisting it on the other.Whereas at Freshkills the design is expected to build a healthier ecosystem, the power of the Aire River project is that it is simultaneously constructing and deconstructing itself. Embedded within Superpositions’ Aire River, there are also small poetic references to both Rousseau and Poussin (a cherry tree and ruins respectively), which, when taken in the context of the whole design, suggests perhaps that if recourse to Arcadian aesthetics is untenable,then the spirit of romanticism lives on nonetheless.

7 Caretaking

In his recent bookOvergrown: Practices Between Landscape Architecture and GardeningJulian Raxworthy focuses attention on ways in which landscapes are curated over time through practices of maintenance[30]. Not only does this dilate the time of design, it radically enhances its precision and nuance.Embedded more deeply in a place and functioning in a manner akin to a caretaker, this approach also shifts landscape architecture from a service industry wedded to fast-tracked urban development, to a practice of iterative land stewardship. Readers can refer to Raxworthy’s exploration of gardens by renowned designers such as Roberto Burle Marx, Dan Kiley and Sven-Ingvar Andersson, but here I am proposing two others; the first is Dennis Scott’s work on Waiheke Island in New Zealand and the second is Dan Janzen and Winnie Hallwach’s Guanacaste Conservation Area in Costa Rica. These projects are especially significant because they expand beyond the idiosyncrasies of gardens to larger scale conservation agendas.

While New Zealand enjoys worldwide fame for being ‘clean and green’, the reality is different. New Zealand’s landscape appears green, but it has suffered massive deforestation and loss of biodiversity over the past few centuries at the hands of both the Maori and Europeans. In spite of this, for the last thirty years,landscape architect Dennis Scott has worked with the community and the bureaucracy to nurture what was a degraded monocultural landscape on Waiheke Island at the peri-urban edge of Auckland back to health (Fig. 16)[31].

Using McHargian suitability analysis, areas of land that have critical sensitivity such as steep unstable slopes, riparian zones, wetlands, remnant indigenous bush areas and cultural features such as archaeological sites were first identified and mapped.These areas were then used to anchor a matrix of land set aside for management-what Scott refers to as “l(fā)andscape commons”-interwoven with private property. To date, more than 1.3 million plants have been cultivated over 430 hm2of this land to mitigate soil erosion and reinstate biodiversity, making it the largest such project in New Zealand and a model for the nation’s ecological restoration.

Similarly, partners Dan Janzen and Winnie Hallwachs-both biologists from the University of Pennsylvania-have devoted their lives since 1985 to enhancing, managing and monitoring the biodiversity of the 165 000 hm2landscape known as the área de’ Conservación Guanacaste on the northern coast of Costa Rica. Through negotiation on site, and fund raising internationally, Janzen and Hallwachs have literally grown this major national park from scratch. In addition to its biological achievements, the project is also important for its social engagement and incorporation of local communities in the monitoring and management of the park.

19 Y2Y項(xiàng)目位置示意，從加拿大的育空地區(qū)到美國黃石公園延綿約3 200 km（2 000英里）Location of the 2,000-mile connectivity project known as the ‘Y2Y’ stretching from the Yukon in Canada to Yellowstone in the USA

In describing his life’s work, Janzen uses the metaphor of the garden as opposed to wilderness because it shifts the conceptual frame of wildlands out of what he refers to as “exclusion unto extinction”,and places it into the sphere of domesticity (oikology)and work[32]1312. Wildland “gardenification”, as he refers to it, involves “fencing, planting, fertilizing,tilling and weeding … bioremediation, reforestation,afforestation, fire control, proscribed burning, crowd control, biological control, reintroduction, mitigation and much more”[32]1313.

Janzen and Hallwach’s garden epitomizes the end of a certain scientific and romantic idealization of wilderness as inherently inclined toward equilibrium and best kept free of humans. In this way it is both a model for actively managing existing protected areas as well as for how we might create new conservation areas within the thoroughly humanized landscapes of the Anthropocene. Janzen is first and foremost a biologist and has no ulterior aesthetic intention, but he has described his work as “a de facto act of landscape architecture”, an anti-aesthetic perhaps[33].

8 Activism

20 位于撒哈拉以南非洲薩赫勒的綠色長城所構(gòu)建的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)位置Location of the Great Green Wall across the Sahel ecosystem of sub-Saharan Africa

In a similar vein to that of the Caretaker,an Activist mode of practice also challenges and expands the convention of the landscape architect as a relatively passive service provider. Generally speaking, the activist is someone who not only launches a political critique concerning issues of social and ecological justice, but takes the initiative to do something practical about it. In landscape architectural terms this means translating virtuous intentions into spatial practices and/or transferring and demystifying professional knowledge so as to empower communities. While activist working methods take a variety of forms, they typically include self-initiating projects, building constituencies, and working with the non-pro fit and academic sector as a well as bureaucracies and private enterprise.

Among the many who maintain practices of activism, Anne Spirn stands out for her work with the Mill Creek community, a poor neighborhood in West Philadelphia[34]. Here Spirn has worked with the community intermittently over a thirty-year period, building what she refers to as ‘landscape literacy’ amongst the residents. Spirn believes communities can find solidarity and identity in their shared landscape which in turn has wideranging health benefits. In the case of Mill Creek,this belief provoked the partial day-lighting of the area’s drainage patterns as a catalyst for creating public space. As an academic, Spirn has used this situated practice to develop her own method of ethnographic engagement and to inspire others.Indeed, Philadelphia’s current Green Plan which couples storm water management with public space and urban blight at a whole-of-city scale is traceable to Spirn’s original grass roots influence.

There are innumerable additional examples of landscape architects working outside the spot-lights of design culture who place social good before fame and fortune. For example, Lois Brink, the chief strategist of the Big Sandbox and founder of‘Learning Landscapes’, specializes in designing public school yards in Philadelphia and Denver. Higher profile designers such as Kate Orff (SCAPE)[35]and the architects at MASS also pride themselves on authentic community engagement and are able to form constituencies that enable projects outside of real estate financing to break ground. Whereas SCAPE is a commercial practice, MASS is a notfor-profit practice focusing on work in Africa:both command respect as role models of ethical and innovative practice and both are breaking the stereotype that deep engagement with community means abdication of aesthetic intentionality.

9 Resilience

Activism is increasingly connected to practices of building resilience in both communities and ecosystems vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change. The word ‘resilience’ headlines a paradigm shift. A shift from grey to green infrastructure, from centralized to decentralized systems, from engineering bulkheads to so called“nature-based solutions” (Fig. 17)[36]. But what is perhaps most important, and problematic, is that resilience also heralds a shift away from the equilibrium of sustainability. Whilst a critique of sustainability’s emphasis on equilibrium between nature and culture is long overdue, its overarching aim of mitigating the environmental crisis through ubiquitous socio-political change should not be abandoned for resilience’s new narrative of adaptation. If mitigation is abandoned for adaptation then resilience is at best palliative and at worst complicit in preserving the very systems that created the risk in the first place. That said, resilience is also realistic and grounds sustainability’s utopian tendencies in the here and now of communities experiencing deleterious environmental change. At best, resilience is not antithetical to, but nested within the meta-discourse of sustainability.

Resilience in the face of climate change is a global issue taking many forms, but we can turn to the East coast of the United States where a distinct body of work is now incubating which puts a premium on using landscape as the medium of protection from, and absorption of, flood waters. The poster child for such coastal resilience projects or so-called‘nature-based strategies’ is the hypothetical project titled ‘New Urban Ground’ by Susannah Drake of DLANDstudio along with Adam Yarinsky and Stephen Cassell of the Architecture Research Office(ARO). Their concept of protecting the southern tip of Manhattan against flooding with a skirt of wetlands was commissioned for the Rising Waters exhibition curated by Barry Bergdoll at the Museum of Modern Art in 2010[37]. This approach to issues of sea level rise was furthered by the recent Hurricane Sandy Design Competition conducted under the aegis of the Rockefeller ‘Rebuild By Design’ program and the supplementary ‘Structures of Coastal Resilience’in which landscape architects generally assumed lead roles in directing the case study projects[38].

As it has played out, the DLANDstudio and ARO nature-based strategy for buffering Manhattan has now morphed into something known as the ‘Big U’ led by the architects BIG landscape architects Mathews Nielson (MNLA)and the Dutch resilience planner Matthijs Bouw[39].DLANDstudio’s dissolution of the coast line into a liminal zone of wetlands has now congealed into eight miles of earthworks and public space doubling as a storm surge barrier wrapping around the southern tip of Manhattan. In conversation, critics find it disappointing that the naturalistic (ecological)aesthetic of the DLANDstudio project has been evidently abandoned, but what they forget is that the seemingly ‘natural’ approach of the DLANDstudio proposal was itself also predicated on lifting the land up six feet to deal with storm surge.

For a less naturalistic aesthetic of resistance against flooding, we can always turn to the Dutch. In this case, however, it is not to the coast that we look to, but the inland river system that subdivides the nation. Based on a 2002 study which determined that the carrying capacity of the Rhine River needed to be expanded, the so called‘Room for the River’ project was developed as a coordinated and integrated collection of thirtyfour projects located along rivers throughout the Netherlands. Through dike improvement, dike relocation, flood channels, water storage, groyne lowering, depoldering, floodplain excavation,riverbed excavation and removal of obstacles, the overarching goal for the project was to increase the nation’s riparian carrying capacity. In addition to the pragmatism of national water management,the project also explicitly set about creating public amenity and making a “more attractive river landscape”, whatever that might mean[40].

10 Landscape Urbanism

Landscape urbanism is a theoretical movement within landscape architecture that seeks to replace the building block with landscape as the fundamental organizing device of the contemporary city. In doing so, landscape urbanism also has the intention and to some degree has had the effect of elevating both the discipline and profession of landscape architecture in the hierarchy of how cities are shaped[41].

By reappraising the city through the lens of landscape, landscape urbanism asks what an ecological conceptualization of the city might be and how it might practically work. Seeking deeper structural change than greenwashing the existing systems of the city, the answer has - for two reasons- proven to be no simple thing. First,landscape urbanists tend to argue that the boundary of what is meant by ‘the city’ is now of planetary proportion, and second; ecological vision concerns‘seeing’ what Harvard ecologist Richard Forman refers to as the “invisibles” of ecological flows and relationships[42]. An ecological vision of the city then must not only draw spatial connections between the sources and the sinks of the city, it must also draw those connections in time; and not just human time, earth system time. Given this, it is little wonder that to date landscape urbanism has struggled to find more than rhetorical form.

Its vagaries notwithstanding landscape urbanism has nonetheless been associated a range of projects.For example, OMA’s hypothetical Parc de la Villette, early renders of Zaha Hadid’s One North research campus in Singapore, the High-line and Qianhai water city in the Pearl River Delta by JCFO, and the Lower Dons in Toronto by Stoss have all at times been invoked as landscape urbanist works. And while they each have relevant attributes,none of them have been able to fully satisfy the theory of an urbanism borne of landscape.

If not the whole city, then landscape urbanism might be well advised to shift its focus to the peri-urban and the city’s regional territories where landscape is the dominant medium and where the ecosystem is most threatened by urbanization. This focus is relevant to all cities but particularly in the developing world where rapid urban growth is sprawling into remnant habitat[43]. There are few models or good examples of peri-urban planning.In the developed world, one example is Barcelona where, building on foundational analysis and scenario modelling by Richard Forman, the city has developed a comprehensive, regional, landscape structure plan (Pla territorial metropolita de Barcelona, Fig. 18)[44-45]. In the developing world, we can also turn to the work of David Gouverneur whose method of ‘landscape armatures’ seeks to direct the growth of informal settlements in the peri-urban zones of rapidly growing, unregulated cities[46].

11 Big Plans

The Pla territorial metropolita de Barcelona is a work of peri-urban landscape urbanism but since it places an emphasis on securing conservation lands at a regional scale it is also an example of what I am referring to here as the genre of Big Plans. By Big Plans I mean large scale planning projects which anticipate urban growth and land use changes whilst attempting to secure landscape connectivity suited to biodiversity migration in the face of climate change.

The aim of forming large-scale contiguous tracts of habitat is written into theConvention of Biological Diversity(CBD), to which 196 nations are signatory. The Convention also sets targets for global protected area[47]. Currently, 15.4% of the earth’s terrestrial surface is under some form of protection.The 2020 CBD target is 17%. On the face of it, 1.6%of the earth’s terrestrial surface might not seem like much, but it equates to nearly 700 000 Central Parks,which, when put end to end would form a landscape corridor that runs seventy times around the planet.

In addition to protected area targets the CBD also stipulates that protected lands must be both representative and connected. Respectively, this means that the 17% target should be distributed through the world’s 867 ecoregions so as to be“representative” of this biodiversity and that the current array of isolated fragments of protected areas need to be “connected” to enable species movement. Taken together these quantitative and qualitative aims imply the creation of green infrastructure on a planetary scale, and the planning and design of this network is work landscape architects should be involved in.

Two prominent connectivity projects are the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative(Y2Y) reaching from Canada to the USA and the so called ‘Great Green Wall’ reaching across the entire African sub-continent. Founded in 1993, the Y2Y aims to amalgamate and secure over half a million square miles of land running 3 200 km along America’s northwestern and Canada’s southwestern mountainous spine(Fig. 19). In its effort to connect habitat across this vast region of different land uses, the Y2Y works with and supports over three hundred different organizations, First Nations, private land owners, and government entities. Landscape architects have not yet been engaged with the massive scale of this conservation planning, but they have been involved in the details of wildlife crossings that forge connectivity at crucial impasses. For example, Banff National Park which is a part of the Y2Y has to date put in six animal overpasses and thirty-eight underpasses[48].

More ambitious yet is the Great Green Wall(GGW)-formally known as the Great Green Wall of the Sahara and Sahel Initiative (GGWSSI, Fig. 20)[49-50].Spanning approximately eight thousand kilometers from Senegal to Djibouti, the fifteen kilometer deep greenbelt aims to restore degraded lands at the forefront of the encroaching desert to combat desertification. The idea of a wall of trees at the edge of the Sahara and the semi-arid belt of the Sahel was originally proposed in the 1950s, revisited in the 1980s, and again in 2002 by then-President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria. However, it was not until 2007 that the governing bodies, comprised of twenty nations, endorsed the idea and began to undertake the project. The Great Green Wall has evolved over this time from a monoculture of trees to a complex mosaic of grass roots initiatives tuned to local cultures and degraded ecologies.

The Great Green Wall is a work in progress.It’s progress and that of numerous others like it depends on synergies between top down intragovernmental planning and bottom up microinitiatives linked to local culture. This complicated dynamic could be aided and abetted if landscape architects were to be involved.

Finally, a project that bears all the hallmarks of top-down planning and is not yet met with bottom up reaction, is the 2008 “National Ecological Security Patterns” (NESP) for nothing less than the whole of China developed by Turenscape and the Peking University Graduate School of Landscape Architecture[51]. After a long process of research,expert workshops and (McHargian) mapping, the NESP shows where the land should be protected and where development can take place with minimal negative ecological impact.

For a profession such as landscape architecture with its declared mandate of planetary ecological stewardship, the NESP’s method and scope represents a remarkable breakthrough. However, coinciding with President Xi’s 2013 declaration that China must transition from a GDP civilization to an ecological civilization, it also raises many questions-not least of all whether plans done in the name of national ecological health administered by a centralized,totalitarian government will overrule local culture in the same way that big infrastructure projects couched in terms of the national interest previously have.

12 Conclusion

Within the limited space of an essay, the discussion and examples of each genre offered here is a beginning not an end. While many of the projects cited within the eleven genres are already well known within the landscape architectural canon,the genres into which I have placed them are less so. Using projects to build and discuss genres as I have begun to do here, is important because it helps identify characteristics and issues that are intrinsic to the discipline. As groups of projects with shared characteristics emerge, areas of epistemological consolidation and clarity begin to appear. This also circumscribes and draws attention to gaps in our knowledge and understanding of contemporary landscape architecture, raising questions which research can broach and demarcating territory that practice can move into.

Acknowledgements:

The author thanks Penn landscape architecture students Krista Reimer and Zuzanna Drozdz for their edits and insightful comments on the draft of this paper.

Notes:

① In unpublished conference proceedings, Wageningen University landscape academics Kevin Raaphorst and Sanda Lenzholzer have attempted a taxonomy of design methods in contemporary landscape architecture. For example, they organize contemporary methods into categories such as blueprint design, framework concept, incentive design approaches and evolutionary approaches. This is useful but lacks the aesthetic specificity I am seeking with the twelve genres discussed here. See: References[2]. Perhaps the most sophisticated attempt to organize the field according to design philosophies is Susan Herrington’s book ‘Landscape Theory In Design’(Routledge, 2017) in which she categorizes projects according to what she believes to be their theoretical underpinnings. For example, she arrives at categories such as illusionary space,phenomenology, palimpsest, and contested space, some of which could correlate to the eleven genres presented here.

② The challenge of organizing contemporary landscape architecture into a taxonomy was prompted by and has benefited from working with my colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (Frederick Steiner, Karen M’Closkey and William Fleming) where, over the last twelve months we have worked to curate an exhibition and book of contemporary landscape architecture to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Ian McHarg’s Design with Nature. Several of the projects discussed in this essay are also included in the exhibition of twenty-five projects titled “Design with Nature Now” which launches at the University of Pennsylvania in June 2019. See References[4].

③ See: http://udla.com.au/people/.

④ One entry by Fionn Byrne, which received an honorable mention, did attempt to engage with the legacy of Olmsted's aesthetic by regrowing the original trees of the park in an evidently mutated form (See figure 5) .

⑤ For a full documentation of this competition see LA+Iconoclast, Issue #10.

⑥ McHarg’s reference to “God’s junkyard” comes from Peter Blake’s book, God’s Own Junkyard: The Planned Deterioration of America’s Landscape (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964).

⑦ The Vacanti mouse was so named after its creator Dr.Charles A. Vacanti who conducted cartilage transplantation experiments on lab mice in the 1990s. One mouse which had what appeared to be a human ear transplanted into its body shocked the world when images became public.

⑧At the time of publication, no images of the Olin-Gehry design for the LA River have been made public.

⑨ For more discussion of cyborg gardens see Richard Weller, “The Terrarium: The Ultimate Design Experiment”, LA+ 10 (Fall 2019).

⑩For Burkholder see References[27].

Sources of Figures:

All sketches by Richard Weller.