VA: A Study of Landscape Architecture Design Methods - Virginia Polytechnic Institute

1,539 views
1,405 views

Published on

A Study of Landscape Architecture Design Methods - Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Published in: Business, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,539
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
86
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

VA: A Study of Landscape Architecture Design Methods - Virginia Polytechnic Institute

  1. 1. A Study of Landscape Architecture Design Methods Christopher James LidyThesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture Professor Benjamin C. Johnson, Committee Chair Professor Brian Katen Professor Caren Yglesias, Ph.D. March 22, 2006 Alexandria, Virginia Keywords: Landscape Architecture, Design Methods, Design Theory Copyright, 2006, Chris Lidy
  2. 2. A Study of Landscape Architecture Design Methods Christopher James Lidy AbstractHow do different methods employed by landscape architects impact the design outcome? This paper iden-tifies and defines design methods in landscape architecture that may be classified as part of four internaland external connections and structures categories. Methods are further examined through two designexercises. In the first design exercise, the identified methods are individually applied to the same simpledesign which is used as a control. The only variable changed is the method used to design. The resultingdesigns are shown and analyzed. In the second design exercise, three different methods are applied to acomplex design. Similar to the first design exercise, all variables are held constant except for the designmethods. The resulting design outcomes are shown and analyzed. One conclusion from this work recom-mends landscape architecture designers use at least one method in each of four categories: 1) ModelingSystems, 2) Interrelationship and Dependencies, 3) Incorporation and Adadaption, and 4) Structure Prob-lems in order to explore complex design issues more thoroughly.
  3. 3. Table of ContentsTitle Page page iAbstract page iiTable of Contents page iiiList of Multimedia Object page ivList of Multimedia Object page vChapter 1 Introduction page 1Chapter 2 Literature Review page 2Chapter 3 Methodology page 7Chapter 4 Design Exercise page 8Chapter 5 Conclusion page 33Bibliography page 36Vita page 40 iii
  4. 4. Lists of Multimedia Objects*Figure 2-1 Design Loop page 3Figure 4-1 Crowd page 8Figure 4-2 Tidal Flow page 8Figure 4-3 Environmental Heating page 8Figure 4-4 Anthropometric page 9Figure 4-5 Flower page 9Figure 4-6 Design page 9Figure 4-7 Support Structure page 10Figure 4-8 Bridge Design page 10Figure 4-9 Egg Shell Roof page 10Figure 4-10 Brain Storming page 11Figure 4-11 Stage page 11Figure 4-12 No Access page 12Figure 4-13 Unlimited Access page 12Figure 4-14 Sketch page 12Figure 4-15 Design page 12Figure 4-16 Small Town page 13Figure 4-17 Parisian Cafe page 13Figure 4-18 Cafe, Washington, D.C. page 13Figure 4-19 Steeple page 14Figure 4-20 Pattern Language page 14Figure 4-21 Andersonville Prison page 15Figure 4-22 Round/Square Peg page 15Figure 4-23 Optimization page 16Figure 4-24 Disaggregation page 16Figure 4-25 Site Plan Mowed Lawn page 17Figure 4-26 Site Plan Prairie page 17Figure 4-27 Rain Garden page 18Figure 4-28 Beaver Dam page 18Figure 4-29 Site Plan page 19Figure 4-30 Section page 19Figure 4-31 Site Plan page 19Figure 4-32 Section page 19Figure 4-33 Site Plan page 20Figure 4-34 Section page 20Figure 4-35 Site Plan page 20Figure 4-36 Section page 20 *Note: Unless otherwise noted, all multimedia created by the author. iv
  5. 5. Lists of Multimedia Objects*Figure 4-37 Site Plan page 21Figure 4-38 Section page 21Figure 4-39 Site Plan page 21Figure 4-40 Section page 21Figure 4-41 Site Plan page 22Figure 4-42 Section page 22Figure 4-43 Site Plan page 22Figure 4-44 Section page 22Figure 4-45 Site Plan page 23Figure 4-46 Section page 23Figure 4-47 Site Plan page 23Figure 4-48 Section page 23Figure 4-49 Site Plan page 24Figure 4-50 Section page 24Figure 4-51 Site Map page 25Figure 4-52 Site Map page 25Figure 4-53 Design 1 Beginning page 26Figure 4-54 Design 1 Middle page 26Figure 4-55 Design 1 End page 26Figure 4-56 Summary and Analysis page 27Figure 4-57 Design 2 Beginning page 28Figure 4-58 Design 2 Middle page 28Figure 4-59 Design 2 End page 28Figure 4-60 Summary and Analysis page 29Figure 4-61 Design 3 Beginning page 30Figure 4-62 Design 3 Middle page 30Figure 4-63 Design 3 End page 30Figure 4-64 Design 3 Sections page 31Figure 4-65 Summary and Analysis page 32 *Note: Unless otherwise noted, all multimedia created by the author. v
  6. 6. Chapter 1Introduction This thesis centers on the key question: What effect do different design methods employed bylandscape architects have on the design outcome? One component of the design process in landscape architecture is methodology, which should be aconscious choice of methods to achieve a desired result. However, many times the choice of methodologyis not given much thought. The designer chooses a methodology that she or he is comfortable with or hasused in the past with no little or no thought on how this choice meshes with the objective of the design.(Lynch, 270) While many variables shape landscape architecture design, only one variable is easily changeableat the moment of design: the choice of methods. Other components, such as experiences, perceptions orcognitive abilities, are not readily changeable at the moment one starts a design. (Winner, 28; Conner, 24-29) Methods influence three elements in design. First, they establish the structure of and connectionsin a design. Second, they have a direct determination on the design result. Finally, they serve as refer-ence points and road maps from the abstract world of design to the concrete world in which the design isplaced. In order to examine the role methods play in landscape architecture design eighteen methods areidentified, discussed, and categorized. Each method is applied to a simple design problem and the re-sults are shown and discussed. From the information generated by application of each method to a simpledesign, three diverse methods are applied to a complex landscape design problem. The body of this paperconsists of the analysis and implications of this analysis. Four points summarize the key reasons for studying methods of landscape architecture design.First, the mental processes of landscape architecture design merit continual study given the expandingfield. As a result, the process of design and how methods fit into this process is not understood, causingconfusion and frustration for students not able to understand where in the design process they might havegone off course. (Jones, xxvi) Second, the increase in computerization and information technologies canlead to a flawed confidence that any problem can be solved if one has enough information or data points.Under this assumption, if one can gather all available information, the answer will be readily apparent andwill be the only way to solve the problem. (Polk, 46) This is not true. The nonlinear and inherently humannature of landscape architecture demands an incorporation of a heuristic approach to landscape architec-ture. (Rowe, 18) Third, knowing the eighteen methods and their effects on the design outcome allows alandscape architect to choose a method that is most compatible with the designer’s end vision or designstrategy. So the methods influence on the design should match the design intent. (Jones, 75) Fourth, un-derstanding the methods in the design process allows a landscape architect to evaluate the end result of hisor her design and to quickly construct changes in the design by applying different methods. 1
  7. 7. Chapter 2Literature Review What methods are used in landscape architecture design and how do these methods affect its out-come? A significant book address landscape architect design methods: Kevin Lynch and Gary Hack’sSite Planning 1,2,3, first published in 1984 currently in its revised and expanded third edition. A secondinfluential publication is Peter G. Rowe’s “A Priori Knowledge and Heuristic Reasoning in ArchitecturalDesign published in.” The Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 36/1 (Fall, 1982). Lynch and Hack address methods of landscape architecture directly. They justify the study ofmethods the following way: “By common account, design is a mystery, a lightning flash. Men of genius receive these flashes, and they learn to receive them by following the example of other men of genius. After the revelation, there are details to develop and the work of carrying out the revealed solution. But these are separate problems, whether one thinks of them as grubby nuisances or as the overriding issues of practicality. Common account is correct: there is a mystery in design, as there is in all human thought. But the account is otherwise wrong. Design is not restricted to genius, nor is it a uniform or simple process, nor is it distinct from practicality or detail. Practicing designers are aware of its con- volutions, but they also half believe in the lightning flash. They are trained to design in one set way, which they apply to every occasion. The one way is often clumsy and wasteful. But most of the new systematic techniques now used for problem solving do not seem very useful either, since site planning is so open-ended a process. If design is the imaginative creation of possible forms (of environment in this case), which are created to achieve certain purposes and are complete with the instructions for making them, then design is practiced by many people and in many different ways. Some ways are new, some quite old, and each is relevant to a particular situation. All of them include the generation and evaluation of new possibilities. Let us begin with a descriptive inventory of the known methods of generation and selecting form possibilities.” (Lynch, 270-271) Lynch and Hack identify the following twelve methods used in landscape architecture: 1) Learn-ing Probes; 2) Subconscious Suggestion; 3) Brainstorming; 4) Evaluation Criteria; 5) Well Spaced Al-ternatives; 6) Focus on the Means; 7) Incremental Improvement; 8) Incremental Adaption; 9) BehaviorSettings; 10) Structure of the Problem; 11) Optimizing the Essential Function; and 12) Disaggregation.Lynch and Hack do not talk about process or design theory. Rather, they concentrate on the identificationand definitions of the methods. Rowe takes a very different tack and views methods as part of a generic design process. Rowedoes not identifies methods per se, but identifies forms of reasoning which are analogous to Lynch andHack’s methods. He states, 2
  8. 8. “Design is often guided by heuristic reasoning involving solution images, analogies, or re- stricted sets of form-giving rules that partially and provisionally define the “end” or solution state of a problem, i.e. what it should be like.” (Rowe, 18) Though Rowe is an architect and constructs his arguments from an architect’s viewpoint, he ap-proaches the subject of design methods in a generic manner adaptable to any design effort and not con-fined simply to architectural or landscape design. Rowe’s methods are readily adaptable to landscapearchitecture. The adaptability of Rowe’s methods to other design disciplines is described by his openingstatement. “A distinction can be made in the world of problems between those that are well defined and those that are ill defined. In solving the former kind the “ends” are known and one has to find the “means”. In the latter kind, that includes most architectural design problems, both the “ends” and the “means” are unknown at first and one has to define the problem. Architectural design problems can also be referred to as being “wicked problems” in that they have no de- finitive formulation, no explicit “stopping rule,” always more than one plausible explanation, a problem formulation that corresponds to a solution and vice versa, and that their solutions cannot be strictly correct or false. Tackling a problem of this type requires some initial insight, the exercise of some provisional set of rules, inference, or plausible strategy, in other words, the use of heuristic reasoning.” (Rowe, 18) Rowe places his methods in the context of a design process, which is helpful for illustrating whereand how methods are involved as one designs. “During the course of designing one mode of heuristic reasoning may be found to be unpro- ductive and give way to other kinds; co-mingling may even occur. As a result design appears to be essentially an emergent phenomenon where new information about a problem is generat- ed, evaluated together with a priori knowledge, and solution strategies amended accordingly.” (Rowe, 18) Rowe defines a design process loop where input is subjected to some type of process, which inturn generates output. The output is then reviewed and feedback is generated. The output then becomethe new input and the cycle continues. Rowe’s model is rather crude compared to Col. John Boyd’s loopmodel OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) (Polk, 6) Figure 2-1 Design Loop (Polk, 13) 3
  9. 9. Polk defines the following key terms.• Observe: To gather information and evidence; to discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of. In this stage the designer observes him or herself, the site and its surrounding, and the design’s objective.• Orient: To construct a mental model that allows the designer to understand the reality of the present situation and the desired state. In this stage, the designer is able to understand the present state and visualize in what direction or directions--either narrowly or broadly defined-- the design should move. It must be noted that Boyd stresses the importance of creating a new reality during this stage of the design loop. The designer must avoid using the familiar paradigms that do not reflect the current real- ity. Before the designer brings together linked elements of the observation, he or she must destruct the existing whole, break it into it elements, and then create a new perspective of reality by constructing from the specific to the general. The intent is best captured by Polk: “(Destruction of a domain or breaking the whole into its respective constituent elements) before he” (in this case the designer) “can collect linking elements to recreate a new and im- proved observation creation of a new perceptions of reality through specific to general induc- tion, synthesis, and integration of common qualities or attributes found in the chaotic world.” (Polk, 19) In this case, the chaotic world is the design. So one destroys the observed or starting reality so that the influences perceived or real of the starting reality are reduced.• Decide: To make choices of how to reach the desired state. This involves the selection of methodologies and course of action.• Act: To implement the decision. (Polk, 16-21)Returning to Rowe. Rowe classifies his methods into five branches of heuristic reasoning. “Five classes of heuristics can be identified largely according to the kind of subject matter in- volved. They are: 1) the use of anthropometric analogies, 2) the use of literal analogies, 3) the use of environmental relations, 4) the use of typologies, and 5) the use of formal “languages”. These classes were based on protocol analysis of architectural designers at work, mixed with some speculation. Each class is by no means exclusive of the characteristics of others, nor totally inclusive of the range of possible heuristics. Rather, the classification is one of practical convenience for grouping and discussing observations.” (Rowe, 18) Combining the work of Lynch and Hack and Rowe generates seventeen methods. However, itmust be pointed out that Rowe recognizes that the dividing line between classifications are not absoluteand instead are used for convenience. Rowe’s five methods have characteristics crossing classificationcategories. While Lynch and Hack do not recognize this issue, their methods are also prone to blurredclassification lines. An example is Brain Storming and Subconscious Suggestion. Brain Storming is away of welling up Subconscious Suggestions that are then further defined with the help of others in aBrain Storming session. Here Brain Storming crosses classification into the Subconscious Suggestionmethod. One interesting note is that while the methods overlap, there is no over lap between Lynch’s andRowe’s methods. This raises the question of whether all possible methods have been identified. 4
  10. 10. Many authors discuss design process, methodology, and methods but blur their distinctions. Thisthesis makes the following distinctions. The design process is considered the generic thought process of adesigner as she or he designs. Methodology is the application of methods to solve a design, while meth-ods are the structured systematic approaches to problem solving. Methodology is not design process nor isdesign process a method. One of the reasons there is so much confusion about design process, methodol-ogy and methods is that many designers use one method, which to them become the design process. Methodology is involved in the action phase of the design process. At this point, the designergenerally understands the current situation and has a general or specific end result in mind. Based on thisdesired end result, the designer then makes a conscious choice of a method or combination of methodswhich becomes the designer’s methodology. With a methodology, a designer has a roadmap for mov-ing from the general starting area to the desired end. This is a design strategy. Having a design strategyallows others to have a common framework to discuss, collaborate, and understand the working design.During a critique, how many students could answer the question “What is your design strategy?” Another area of concern is that only two authors have researched and written about architecturedesign methods. While the work of Lynch and Rowe has represented essential first steps, more researchersmight result in a more diverse, and possibly more complete, body of work on the study of design methodsin landscape architecture design. Compounding this concern is the fact that both authors completed their work around the sameperiod of time--the early 1980s. Given the dramatic increases in technology in the landscape architecturalfield since the early 1980s, this time-centric research may be dated. Evidence of this conclusion may befound by looking at the essays’ Simon Swaffield included in his Reader: Theory of Landscape Architec-ture. (2002) After Lynch and Hack’s essay excerpt, the next most recent and single scholar is BernardLassus, hardly a main stream theoretical voice. These essay talk more of process then methods. I expanded my research to include other design disciplines, such as arts, science, engineering, andcomputer sciences. However, all but one of the methods used in these field could in fit into one of the sev-enteen methods identified by Lynch and Rowe. (Jones, 192-199) The one method not identified by Lynchand Rowe is complex system modeling. It involves the study, management and construction of a complexsystem, which is defined as: “A system comprised of a (usually large) number of (usually strongly) interacting entities, processes, or agents, the understanding of which requires the development, or the use of, new scientific tools, nonlinear models, out-of equilibrium descriptions and computer simulations.” (Richards, 221) “Almost all interesting processes in nature are highly cross linked. In many systems, however, we can distinguish a set of fundamental building blocks, which interact nonlinearly to form compound structures or functions with an identity that requires more explanatory devices than those used to explain the building blocks. This process of emergence of the need for new, complementary, modes of description is known as hierarchical self-organization, and systems that observe this characteristic are defined as complex (2). Examples of these systems are gene networks that direct developmental processes, immune networks that preserve the identity of organisms, social insect colonies, neural networks in the brain that produce intelligence and consciousness, ecological networks, social networks comprised of transportation, utilities, and telecommunication systems, as well as economies.” (Rocha, 1) 5
  11. 11. Landscape architects study, manage, control, construct and interact with complex systems. Very rarelydo landscape architects deal with systems that are not complex by nature. Therefore landscape architects needa method to deal with complex systems. That method is complex system modeling or system modeling. Systemmodeling can be defined as “concerned with basic and applied research on simulations and analysis of complexsystems, as well as development of applications to understand and control such systems.” (Rocha, 1) In summation, there are eighteen types of methods used by landscape architects during a design process:1) System Modeling; 2) Environmental Relation; 3) Anthropometric Analogies; 4) Literal Analogies; 7) Learn-ing Probes; 8) Subconscious Suggestion; 9) Brainstorming; 10) Evaluation Criteria; 11) Well Spaced Alterna-tives; 12) Focus on the Means; 13) Incremental Improvement; 14) Incremental Adaption; 15) Behavior Settings;16) Structure of the Problem; 17) Optimizing the Essential Function; and 18) Disaggregation. 6
  12. 12. Chapter 3Methodology The methodology used in this study is as follows. First, methods applicable to landscape architec-ture are identified through a literature review. Each identified method then is defined and a visual repre-sentation of the method is developed. The design exercises involve two parts. The first deals with the investigation of how differentmethods effects the outcome of a simple control design. The design is simplistic to facilitate keeping allvariables constant except for the method used. Each method is applied to the design problem, and theresults are analyzed. The second design exercise examines whether a single method can be used in a complex designfairly typical of a real world design problem and whether different methods will result in a different designoutcomes. Three different methods are selected for their diversity and minimal overlap in characteristics.The resulting designs are analyzed and discussed. Established comparative strengths and weaknesses ofeach method. Reviewing these strengths and weaknesses might suggest another approach or design strat-egy based on identified design goals. 7
  13. 13. Chapter 4Design Exercise Of the four components of the process involved in the design loop, only methodologies are readilychangeable. Scholars have identified the following eighteen distinct design methods.1. System Modeling System modeling solves a design by looking at a system, understanding its function and stimuli,placing the system in the design context and substituting design elements for function and stimuli. In thefollowing example, the movement of the crowd is similar to the movement of the tide. For example, whendesigning a plaza, the crowd could be thought of as water moving with a tide and managed by the samemeans as one controls water movement. Figure 4-1 Crowd Figure 4-2 Tidal Flow2. Environmental Relations Environmental relations incorporates the proper relation between man and the environment andincludes considerations of how materials interact with the environment. The following diagram showsthe intent to use environmental heating to control the structure’s internal temperature. In the landscapearchitecture design context, landscape architects incorporate native plants into their designs to repair orminimize the environmental impact of a project. Figure 4-3 Environmental Heating 8
  14. 14. 3. Anthropometric Analogies Anthropometric analogies focus on the human body and its relationship to the design goal. Thefollowing diagrams center on the baseline relationship of the human body to the design. The program ele-ments are solved, and these solutions are then used to develop the design to completion. When designinga plaza, it is very important to incorporate how humans relate to the site. For example, is the bench toobig and uncomfortable? Can one see over the wall if standing next to it, 10 feet away or 50 feet away? Figure 4-4 Anthropometric4. Literal Analogies Literal analogies use an existing form or construct to generate the solution for the design. The fol-lowing example shows how one form influences the design. In the landscape architecture design context,if one is designing a path to a reptile exhibit, the path could be modeled after a snake moving along theground. Figure 4-5 Flower Figure 4-6 Design 9
  15. 15. 5. Learning Probes Learning probes start without a comprehensive understanding of all issues relating to the design.The design generates information used to explore the issues and understand the interplay of elements.The example starts with what known in its most basic form—what type of structure is needed to supportthe bridge. The information is used to “play” with the various elements of the structure and evaluate theresults and effects within the design. Figure 4-7 Support Structure Figure 4-8 Bridge Design 6. Subconscious Suggestion Subconscious suggestion brings forth the processing power of the subconscious to solve a design. Many find this method hit or miss and unreliable. In the following example, the roof structure takes the form of an egg shell, strong yet thin. Figure 4-9 Egg Shell Roof 10
  16. 16. 7. Brain storming Brain storming relies on a group or collective effort to generate solutions for the design. The fol-lowing diagrams the brain storming process. Figure 4-10 Brain Storming8. Evaluation criteria Evaluation criteria sets the criteria and subordinates all other design elements to this criteria. Inthis example, the criteria is for the last row to hear a pin drop on stage. Landscape architects commonlyuse a criteria for site run and design to that goal. Figure 4-11 Stage 11
  17. 17. 9. Well Spaced Alternatives Well spaced alternatives bracket a design solution by the use of extreme alternatives. In one of thefollowing photos, access is restricted by car, and in the alternative, access is unlimited by car. Neitheralternative is the design solution, but they bracket the solution. The solution is found somewhere betweenthese two alternatives. Figure 4-12 No Access Figure 4-13 Unlimited Access 10. Means-focus Means-focus plays with forms or means to generate a solution, rather than focusing on the problem or object of the design. Here the designer uses free-moving sketches to develop a roof design. Figure 4-14 Sketch Figure 4-15 Design 12
  18. 18. 11. Incremental improvement Incremental improvement enhances a design gradually. Many times this is done by the use of casestudies. A case study tries to understand the system being studied and apply it to a new situation, makingsmall improvements. In the following sketch, the designer tries to understand the feel of a small town andconvey this to a new development, at the same time improving parts that will not diminish the feeling of asmall town. Figure 4-16 Small Town12. Incremental adaption Incremental adaption applies a successful design to a similar situation. The following sketchshows how a Parisian cafe is copied in Washington, D.C. Figure 4-17 Parisian Cafe Figure 4-18 Cafe, Washington, D.C. 13
  19. 19. 13. Typologies Typologies are past solutions whose principles are considered constant and invariable within cul-tural contexts. As the following example illustrates, in the western culture, steeples are generally associ-ated with houses of worship. This is what the design intends to communicate by the use of a type form. Figure 4-19 Steeple14. Pattern languages Pattern languages are the rules representing the order and correct function of the relationship be-tween man and his environment. The following images show the underlining pattern and relationship ofthree different towns. These relationships or patterns can be applied to different designs by increasing ordecreasing the scale. For example, designing an amusement park, one or a combination of these layoutsmight be useful. Figure 4-20 Pattern Language 14
  20. 20. 15. Behavioral Setting Behavioral setting design identifies behavior patterns that are independent and stable. For ex-ample, a prison has areas designed to address certain behaviors, such as containment, food preparation,hygiene, etc. In landscape architecture design, common behaviors would include parking, gathering areas,or filtration for run off. Figure 4-21 Andersonville Prison16. Structure-of-the-Problem The structure-of-the-problem method focuses on the key problem. Once a solution is developedfor this problem, the design falls into place. In the following example, the round pegs represent standarddesign problems. The square peg is the unique or key problem that must be addressed before the designis complete. In the landscape architecture context, standard design problems include issues such as whatmaterial to use in constructing a walkway and what type of plants to use in the design. Meanwhile, thekey problem could be how to maximize and preserve a great view. Figure 4-22 Round/Square Peg 15
  21. 21. 17. Optimization Essential Function Optimization identifies the key functions of the design and works through each function, solvingeach as if it were the most important function. The information gathered is used to better understand howeach function will fit into the design. In the following example, each function is separated into programelements. The program elements are then solved, and these solutions are used to develop the design tocompletion. Figure 4-23 Optimization18. Disaggregation Disaggregation divides a problem into subsets, solves for each subset and then combines the solu-tions of each subset to form a solution. In the following example, each piece of the game must be sepa-rately solved before the game is complete. In the landscape architecture context, each piece represents adesign problem, such as topography and site run off. Each problem must be solved separately and thencombined to complete the design. Figure 4-24 Disaggregation 16
  22. 22. Design Methods Applied to Simple Designs The following is the work generated by applying each method to the problem of run off from aparking lot. The design problem is kept simple and all variables except method type are kept constant. Thework is organized by: the name of the method type; a brief description of how the method is applied; andthe resulting design. The limitation of the design problem resulted in some method types not being appli-cable to the design. Where this happens, another design example is used. Many authors discuss design process, methodology, and methods but blur their distinctions. Thisthesis makes the following distinctions. First, the design process is considered the generic thought processof a designer as she or he designs. Second, methodology is the application of methods to solve a design,while methods are the structured systematic approaches to problem solving.System Modeling: The design is based on the functions of natural hydrologic system. The processing capacity ofsome part of the natural system must be increased to accommodate the change in run off from the parkinglot. Plantings on the site are changed from mowed lawn to tall grass prairie. The prairie planting offsetsthe increased run off of the parking lot by increasing holding capacity, absorption, and filtration of run off. Figure 4-25 Site Plan Mowed Figure 4-26 Site Plan Prairie Lawn 17
  23. 23. Environmental Relation Rain garden design transitions the man-made area into the large environment and minimizes theecological damage. Figure 4-27 Rain GardenAnthropometric Analogies The method is difficult to use as a sole method to solve this design problem. The method can beused to solve smaller problems within the site, such as how big should a manhold should be or how a per-son would walk from their car to the building to generate the shape and path of the sidewalks.Literal Analogies The design uses a beaver dam to control the hydrology of the site. Beavers are encouraged to settleon the site and dam the small stream. The water is held in a pond on site Figure 4-28 Beaver Dam 18
  24. 24. Learning Probes As one plays with the design form, a solution becomes apparent. In this case, raising the parkinglot and allowing vegetation to grow under the structure solves the run off problem. Figure 4-29 Site Plan Figure 4-30 SectionSubconscious Suggestion The structure of the roof is taken from a partial picture of a suspension bridge. Figure 4-32 Section Figure 4-31 Site PlanBrain Storming The brain storming method requires more than one person. Since the author is the only personinvolved in the design, the method cannot be used. If one were to use this method, one would assemblea group that included end users of both the parking lot and the stream in which the run off flows into,the designers and the developers. Then one could have a diverse brain storming session with each groupbringing a different element to the session and building on each others’ ideas. 19
  25. 25. Evaluation Criteria The criteria is set as a maximum amount over time of water leaving the site. The design is con-structed to gather the run off from the parking lot, to use the water to raise a control gate, to retain thewater and to slowly release it, meeting the stated criteria. Figure 4-33 Site Plan Figure 4-34 SectionWell Spaced Alternatives One design raises the parking lot. The other design sinks the parking lot. The solution is betweenthe two. Figure 4-36 Section Figure 4-35 Site Plan 20
  26. 26. Focus on the Means The form of the roof is generated by the exploration of form through the use of free-style sketches. Figure 4-37 Site Plan Figure 4-38 SectionIncremental Improvement Here a standard design used for controlling run off is improved by changing the design of a side-walk to capture, retain, and filter run off. Figure 4-40 Section Figure 4-39 Site Plan 21
  27. 27. Incremental Adaption A rain garden is adapted to a parking lot design. Figure 4-42 Section Figure 4-41 Site PlanTypologies Typologies are not directly applicable to this design problem. Maybe in a few years, the inclusionof a rain garden will identify the building project as being enviromentally friendly or green.Pattern Languages The pattern language may not be applicable to the run off from this site, but it is applicable to theway the cars enter and leave the site. Americans drive on the right side of the road, and as a result, thisshould be incorporated into the parking lot design.Behavior Setting Slowing run off, filtering, retaining, and dispersing water are identified as behavioral settings andare incorporated into the design. Figure 4-43 Site Plan Figure 4-44 Section 22
  28. 28. Structure of the Problem The key problem is rain running off the parking lot. A green roof is constructed over the parkinglot that mimics the pre-development hydrology. Figure 4-45 Site Plan Figure 4-46 SectionOptimizing the Essential Function The optimal parking lot in this case is to have preamble pavement with a filtration system underthe parking lot. Figure 4-48 Section Figure 4-47 Site Plan 23
  29. 29. Disaggregation: The design is broken into two problems: holding the rain where it falls; and infiltrating the rainwater. The design solves the problems by using heavy vegetation to hold rain where it falls and sand-filledholes to capture and infiltrate rain water. Figure 4-49 Site Plan Figure 4-50 Section 24
  30. 30. Three Methods Applied to a Complex Design Simple designs do not fully test the methods in a landscape architecture application. The methodswhen applied to a standard landscape design problem. Three diverse methods are selected and applied toa common landscape architecture design of normal complexity. The design problem selected is the devel-opment of the Florida Rock location in Washington, DC. The area around the site is undergoing massiveredevelopment. The city is building a baseball stadium next to the site on the west, and all the remainingland in the area is held by developers with plans to build. Currently the site is occupied by a concrete plant and has about 900 feet of river front on the tidalportion of the Anacostia River. The river is polluted and environmentally degraded. The proposed use ofthe site is as follows:Program elements: Site is 5.8 acres near the new baseball stadium in Southwest Washington, DC.• 1.1 million square foot project• 3 buildings• 600,000 square foot office• 36,000 square foot retail• 160 residential units• 235 room hotel• Two underground levels of parking with 1,087 spaces The goals of the design are to: 1) integrate the public and private space of the plaza; and 2) in-corporate the new stadium and surrounding proposed development, while making the area attractive anddesirable when baseball is not played.Figure 4-51 Site Map Figure 4-52 Site Map 25
  31. 31. Method 1 DisaggregationFigure 4-53 Design 1 BeginningSite OrganizationFigure 4-54 Design 1 MiddleConstructed Layers Figure 4-55 Design 1 End. Final Form. The design develops into an amalga- mation of parts. 26
  32. 32. Figure 4-56 Summary and Analysis 27
  33. 33. Method 2 Focus on the Means Figure 4-57 Design 2 Beginning Morphology Figure 4-58 Design 2 Middle Site DevelopmentFigure 4-59 Design 2 End. The design has external connections, but the internalconnections and internal and external structure needs to be developed. 28
  34. 34. Figure 4-60 Summary and Analysis 29
  35. 35. Method 3 Learning Probes Figure 4-61 Design 3 Beginning Start with basics Figure 4-62 Design 3 Middle Play with connection between elementsFigure 4-63 Design 3 End. The design connects internally. Completing the de-sign requires more external connections and internal and external structure. 30
  36. 36. Figure 4-64 Design 3 Sections 31
  37. 37. Figure 4-65 Summary and Analysis 32
  38. 38. Chapter 5Conclusion Reviewing the effects of methods on the simple and complex designs, the following questionsare generated. Within the design loop, only the choice of methods are outside the personal reality of thedesigner. What is the relevance of this? Some methods identified are closely related. Can they be catego-rized by function? Using different methods changes the outcome of the simple design and they are fairlycomplete. The complex designs are not complete. The use of one method distorts the design and makes itnot relevant. Therefore, a combination of methods must be used. An examination of the methods allows one to place the eighteen methods into categories. Thesecategories are defined by the methods effects on the outcome of the design. These eighteen methods canbe classified into four categories:1) Modeling systems—These methods develop external connections to the design. The design musttransition from the design to the world outside of the design. The design does not exist by itself and thesemethods help place the design in context of the larger world. 1. System Modeling 2. Environmental Relation 3. Anthropometric Analogies 4. Literal Analogies2) Interrelationships and dependencies—These methods develop internal connections which must be de-veloped in order to avoid running the risk that a design ends up as just a sum of its parts. 5. Learning Probes 6. Subconscious Suggestion 7. Brain Storming 8. Design by Evaluation Criteria 9. Well Spaced Alternatives 10. Focus on the Means3) Incorporation and adaption —These methods deal with external existing structures which can bethought of as a framework or skeleton on which designers build connections. These external structuresmust be incorporated into the design. 11. Incremental Improvement 12. Incremental Adaptation 13. Typologies 14. Pattern Languages 15. Design by Behavior Setting 33
  39. 39. 4) Structure problems—These methods develop internal structures. A design must prioritize and weight itsdesign elements and programs in order to create a framework on which to build. 16. Structure of the Problem 17. Optimizing the Essential Function 18. Disaggregation Using all four of these categories in any design is important for two basic reasons. First, if allfour categories are addressed during a design process, the design will have a greater chance of reaching acritical mass of necessary connections and redundancies to ensure a substainable design able to adapt tothe ever-changing world. If all four categories are not used in a design, the design may fail because it willlack one or more of the following:• External connections: If a design is not connected to the surrounding area, it runs the risk of become irrelevant. The external connections, such as connecting to infrastructure and community, must be ad- dressed.• Internal connections: Elements within a design must have some connections. Otherwise the design is a amalgamation of parts with no synergy.• External structure: External structure incorporates existing conventions into the design. For example, American cars drive on the right side of the road. If this well understood convention is changed, it causes problems for those in the design and those entering the design.• Internal structure: Internal structure establishes an order and weight of the design elements within the design. If the most important element is a lake, then every other element in the design is subordinate to the lake. The second reason it is important to use all four categories of methods is because it helps designersnavigate a vast, almost infinite solution space to find a solution. The methods are akin to the “tetra space”coordinate system in which four axis are needed to reference or fix a point in space. (Hasslberger, 1) Ref-erencing a solution in terms of known elements or coordinates anchors the abstract world of the designerto the concrete world. By referencing internal and external connections and structure, the design is moreeasily understood and relevant to the people using the design. Methodologies/methods are important for many reasons. • 1) Methods give structure to the path way between the current situation and the desired state by establishing a priority and weighting the design elements and programs or a design strategy. • 2) In addition to establishing structure, methods determine how design elements connect. Differ- ent methods address different types and ways of constructing connections in a design. If a broad range of methods are incorporated into the process, more connections are generated. The results should create redundancies, interconnections and interdependencies within the design system, which moves the end result closer to the goal of adaptive or sustainable design. • 3) In landscape architecture design, the process must incorporate all four categories of methods. While using all four does not guarantee the design will be adaptive and sustainable, it will greatly increase the chances of this happening. When the design incorporates methods from all four cat- egories, it will have internal and external structure and connect internally and externally. • 4) Methods also shape the output of a design. Applying different methods to the same design project will result in different designs with different connections and structures. 34
  40. 40. • 5) Methods are the way to establish a connection between the personal elements of the design pro- cess—experiences, cognitive abilities and perceptions—and the “real” world. A designer always runs the risk of getting lost in his or her own constructed reality. Methods connect a designer’s cognitive abilities, experiences, and perceptions with the real world in which the design must exist. Finally, methods connect outsiders to the designer’s abstract personal reality and to the design. Forothers to understand a design, they must be able to see or sense connections, and connect the design totheir perception of reality or the “real” world. If all four methods are used, a design is more likely to bereferenced and fixed in the concrete world. The variables in landscape architecture design are methods. The conscious choice of methodschanges the results of a design, as demonstrated by the application of the eighteen methods to a simple de-sign. Each method affects the design differently in terms of building connections and structure. If a singlemethod is exclusively used in a design that has the complexity normally found in a landscape architect de-sign, the design will most likely fail. A single method does not address all the structures and connectionsneeded to generate a relevant design. A landscape architect should be familiar with all eighteen methods. Each method or combinationof methods increases the number of design alternatives for any given design problem, allowing a land-scape architect to select from a large design solution set. The categorization of the methods allows a de-signer to check the design in terms of internal and external connections and structures. If the design lacksone or more of these categories, the design may not be complete and may need to be reworked to addressthe lacking categories. Certainly no cookbook or formula exists for design because too many variables exist within thedesign process. Limiting the process to a cookbook or formulaic approach restricts the solution set andfails to allow for a better solution based on different combinations and types of methods. However, thefour categories of methods are not limiting. Instead, the use of all four categories of methods in a designis essential to achieve the ultimate goal of landscape architecture: the creation of a design that is adaptive,sustainable, and relevant or a complex system. Together, the four categories—system modeling, interrela-tionships/dependencies, incorporation/adaption and structure problems—ensure that the necessary connec-tions and redundancies exist to create a design that adapts to the ever-changing world. Moving betweenthese four categories during a design and reinforcing one or more that was not present ensures a morecomprehensive design result. Changing methods may help a designer remove mental blocks, break out ofdesign ruts in which designs look similar and improve design results. By changing the methods employed,a designer may construct different connections and structures resulting in changed designs. Another complication in my research was due to the fact that I was limited to researchingEnglish-only studies and research. Possible other methods may have been explored and published in lan-guages other than English. Unfortunately I was unable to identify or analyze these potential sources. Future research questions generated from this work include more research into the design processmodel and the cognitive side of design. What cognitive abilities are used in landscape architecture design?Can cognitive ability be improved or taught, and if so, how should it be done? Should studio include aformal lecture component where methods are taught and cognitive abilities improved? 35
  41. 41. BibliographyAlbus, James S. “The Engineering of Mind, Intelligent Systems Division.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20895. 1 November 1998. May, 2006 < http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/documents/albus/6201.pdf.>Amidon, Jane. Radical Landscapes. New York: Thames & Hudson Inc., 2001.Barabasi, A.L. Linked: The New Science of Networks. New York: Perseus Publishing, 2002.Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. New York: Oxford, 1988.Bevlin, Marjorie Elliott. Design Through Discovery. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1990.Brown, Dick. Fly Fishing For Bonefish. Guildford, CT: Lyon Press, 2003.Cantor, Norman F. In the Wake of the Plague. Prince Frederick, MD: Recorded Books, LLC, 2002.Clark, Andy. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.Connor, Jane Marantz, Schackman, Maxine, and Serbin, Lisa A. “Sex-related Differences in Response to Practice on a Visual-Spatial Test and Generalization to a Related Test.” Child Develop ment. Vol 49, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), 24-29.Cullina, William. Native Trees, Shrubs & Vines. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002.Darke, Rick. The American Woodland Garden. Portland: Timber Press, 2002.Diamond, Jared. Collapse. New York: Penguin Books, 2005.Drori, Offer. “Implementing the OODPM Methodology in a Large Computer Company.” SHAAM – Information Systems. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem May, 2006 < http://shum.huji.ac.il/~offerd/papers/drori102001.pdf.>Eberhart, Mark. Why Things Break. New York: Three River Press, 2003.Francis, Mark. “ A Case Study Method For Landscape Architecture.” Landscape Architecture Foundation. Calpoly. September, 1999. May, 2006< http://www.calpoly.edu/~sede/pdf/LAFcasestudy. pdf.>Gero, John S. “Creativity, Emergence, and Evolution in Design”, Key Centre of Design Computing, Department of Architectural and Design Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia john@arch.su.edu.au, May, 2006 < http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/~john/publications/1996/ 96GeroCreativity.pdf>. 36
  42. 42. Gero, John S. “Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema For Design” Design Computing Unit. University of Sydney. 2006 May, 2006 < http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/~john/publica tions/ger-prototypes/ger-aimag.html>Goudarzi, Sara. “Left Unmowed, Power-line Land Might Suite Bees.” Christian Science Monitor. September 15, 2005 Edition. May, 2006 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0915/p14s01-sten. html>Haeberlin, Herman K. “The Concept of the Unconscious.” Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, Vol. 14, No. 20 (Sep. 27, 1917), 543-550.Haag, Richard. Bloedel Reserve and Gas Works Park. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998.Hasslberger, Josef. “Tetra Space Co-ordinates” May 2006 <http://www.hasslberger.com/phy/phy_6.htm>Hauser, Robert M. “Meritocracy, Cognitive Ability, and the Sources of Occupational Success”, Department of Sociology, Center for Demography and Ecology. The University of Wisconsin- Madison August 17, 2002 May, 2006 < http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~hauser/merit_01_081502_com plete.pdf>Holland, John H. Hidden Order, how adaption builds complexity. New York: Halix Books, 1996.Hooker, J.N. “Is Design Theory Possible?” Graduate School of Industrial Administration. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. October 1991. Revised November 1992 May, 2006 < http://www.gsia.cmu.edu/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/gsia/jh38/design3.ps.>Jones, John Chris. Design Methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1992.Jossassen, David H. “Thinking Technology, Toward a Constructivist Design Model.” Educational Technology. (April, 1994) 34-37.Järvinen, Aki. “Theory as Game: Designing the GamegameOffer” Veikkaus the Finnish Ational Lottery. arhunkierros 4. May, 2006 < http://www.gamesconference.org/digra2005/papers/a3cf c140882acffefb860e6ecbdoc.>Jellicoe, Geoffrey and Susan. The Landscape Of Man. London: Thames and Hudson, 1975.Johnson, Steven. Emergence. New York: Scribner, 2004.Keats, Jonathon. “John Koza has Built an Invention Machine” Popular Science. May, 2006.Kapor, Mitchell, “A Software Design Manifesto.” Bringing Design to Software, Addison Wesley, 1996. May, 2006 < http://hci.stanford.edu/bds/1-kapor.html>Kaufman, Kenn. Lives of North American Birds. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996.Kauffman, Stuart . At home in the universe, search for the laws of self organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. 37
  43. 43. Kauffman, Stuart. Investitgations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Koetting, J. Randall and Malisa, Mark. “Philosophy, Research, and Education.” aect-members.org. University of Nevada, Reno. 1996 . < http://aect-members.org/m/research_handbook/Chapters/37. pdf.>Kricher, John and Morrison, Gordon. Peterson Fields Guides, Eastern Forests. New York: Houghton Mif flin Company, 1988.Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford, 1968.Lynch, Kevin and Gary Hack. Site Planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984.Miller, RS; Nero, “RW, Hummingbird-sapsucker Associations in Northern Climates. Canadian.” Journal of Zoology/Revue Canadienne de Zoologie. [CAN. J. ZOOL.]. Vol. 61, no. 7, (1983) 1540-1546.Montero, Marta Iris. Roberto Burle Marx, The Lyrical Landscape. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.Moore, Catherine. “Overlooking the visual.” Journal of Architecture. Volume 8, (Spring, 2003.)Moore, Charles W, Mitchell, William J. and Turnbull, Jr, William. The Poetics of Gardens. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.Parkinson, S.E. “U. K. Innovative Visual-spatial Powers in Dyslexics: A New Perspective?” Art Dyslexia Trust, U.K., 3 Nov. 2005, May, 2006 <http://www.rmplc.co.uk/orgs/nellalex/adtvi suospatial.html>Pavel, Silvia and Nolet, Diane. Handbook of Terminology. Public Works and Government Services Canada,Translation Bureau. 2001. Catalogue No S53-28/2001.Petre, Marian, Sharp, Helen, and Johnson, Jeffrey. “Complexity Through Combination: An Account of Knitwear Design.” Design Studies. Volume 27, Issue 2 ( March, 2006) 183-222.Petrides, George A. and Wehr, Janet. Eastern Trees. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1988.Polk, Major Robert B. A Critique of the Boyd Theory- Is It Releveant to the Army? Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: United States Army Command and General Staff Collage, 1999.Swaffield, Simon, Ed. Theory in Landscape Architecture, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.Richards, D., B.D. McKay, and W.A. Richards. “Collective choice and mutual knowledge structures.” Advances in Complex Systems. (1998, Vol. 1) pp. 221-236. 38
  44. 44. Ried, Grant W. From Concept to Form in Landscape Design. New York: John Wiley, 1993.Roberts, Andrew. “Cognitive Styles and Student Progression in Architectural Design Education.” Design Studies. Volume 27, Issue 2 (March, 2006) 167-181.Rocha, Luis “Complex Systems Modeling: Using Metaphors From Nature in Simulation and Scientific Models” Los Alamos National Laboratory, May, 2003 <http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/ complex/>Rompelman, Otto and Haaf, Wouterten. “What is Design, A Framework for Design Methodology” Proceedings of the SEFI-CDWG Seminar Design in Engineering Education. Odense, Denmark, 22-24 October 1998, 97-101.Rowe, Peter. “A Priori Knowledge and Heuristic Reasoning in Architectural Design.” The Journal of Enterprise Architecture. 36/1 (Fall, 1982).Schmitt, Major John and Dr. Gary Klien. “Fighting in the Fog: Dealing with Battlefield Uncertainty.” Marine Core Gazette (August, 1996), 54-65.Sibley, David Allen. The Sibley Guide to Bird Life & Behavior. New York: Knopf, 2001.Sargent, Robert. “Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris).” December, 1999, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet, Number 14.Williamson, Sheri L. Hummingbirds of North America. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001.Tracey- Contemporary Drawing Research, Loughborough University, 2006. May, 2006 < http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/tracey/>Winner, Ellen. “Giftedness vs Creativity in the visual arts.” Poetics, 24, 6, (1999) 349-377.Wiskow, Margaret. “Mathetics For Dyslexics - Activities from atoms to bits.” ISEC 2000. University of Manchester. 2000, May, 2006< http://www.isec2000.org.uk/abstracts/papers_w/wiskow_1.htm>Wellman, Carl. “Wittgenstein and the Egocentric Predicament.” Mind, New Series. Vol. 68, No. 270 (Apr., 1959) 223-233.West, T.G. “The Gifts of Dyslexia: Talents Among Dyslexics and Their Families.” HK J Paediatr (new series) (2005) 10:153-158Y. Zeng, P. Gu, “A Science-based Approach to Product Design Theory, Part I: Formulation and Formalization of Design Process.” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. Volume 15, Number 4. (August, 1999) (12) 341-352. 39
  45. 45. CHRISTOPHER JAMES LIDYEDUCATION• Master of Landscape Architecture, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 2007• Certificate of Landscape Design, George Washington University, Washington, DC 2005• B.S. General Management, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, 1989EXPERIENCEOwner, Natural Designs 2002 to presentOwn and manage a residential and small commercial landscape design and installation company emphasiz-ing the use of native plants. Responsibilities include: meeting with the clients and prospects; determiningclient needs; identifying and developing budgets; developing design from site survey and construction ofbase map to client presentations; estimating costs; soliciting bids and RFPs from nursery, carpentry, ma-sonry, irrigation and lighting contractors; negotiating terms, conditions and prices with contractors; andoverseeing contractors in field.Outside Sales Representative, Washingtonpost.com 2001 to 2002Marketed advertising for online jobs board. Products sold included banners, virtual career fairs and resumedatabase searches.Business Development Associate, Staples 2000 to 2001Developed new business, generated and qualified prospects, assessed prospects’ needs and developed stra-tegic procurement programs designed to meet the specific objectives of the client.Senior Account Executive, Waste Management 1995 to 2000Developed a territory by generating new business, growing and maintaining customer base, retaining ac-counts, renewing contracts and cross selling. Identified, targeted and constructed strategies to close largecommercial accounts with multiple locations and service demands. Accounts included utilities, hospitalgroups, property management companies, manufacturing plants and regional distribution facilities.Achievements 1999: closed the top two accounts in the division and promoted to senior account executive;1998: generated new account growth of 19 percent; 1997: achieved new account growth rate of 22 percentand awarded regional sales award; 1997-1996: closed 4 of the top 10 regional accounts; 1996: generatednew account growth of 19 percent; 1995: promoted from sales representative to account executive ninemonths after joining companyProfessional Coatings Representative, Operations Manager, Sherwin-Williams 1990 to 1994Developed new sales territory by prospecting and generating new accounts. Grew territory from $0 to$250,000 in a year. Managed inside commercial sales, technical, administrative and logistical support tocustomers and sales representatives, accounts receivable and payable, and day-to-day management of thecommercial center.Infantry Officer’s Basic Course (Ft. Benning, GA) 1989 to 1990Infantry and leadership training; led groups of 2 to 40 lieutenants in simulated combat exercises. 40

×