Crafting Landscapes: How Design Controls Function

By: Chris Melton

This week our Contemporary European Architecture course discussed how architects have the power to create new landscapes using various tools and styles to generate different spaces and forms. These new types of landscapes can be very varied and often serve very different purposes. The five categories that we discussed are: Agriculture, Urban Culture, Hortus Culture, Promenade, and Natural Architecture. For this week's blog post I would like to discuss the differences between two of these categories by comparing and contrasting a few specific examples and how their design relates to, and in fact controls, their function.

The first work I would like to talk about is one from the Agriculture category, which usually has the strongest drive or goal of any of the categories of landscape architecture we discussed. From what we viewed and studied, the main concept for Agriculture works was to give the land a new purpose other than just inhabitation. This form of architecture requires that the architect must know not just the site, but the true culture of the land itself. The architect must know not only the site and city, but the area's soil, weather patterns, the seasonal changes that occur, and etc. Deemed "Urban Waterscape," designed by Altelier Dreiseitl, the system of green roofs and pools on Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, Germany is a great example of an agricultural landscape. As shown in the diagram below, the 19 green roofs in the system both use the collected rainwater for functional purposes as well as for visual purposes. About half of the collected water is used for irrigation, for the pools and canals in the area, while the rest is used to flush lavatories and by fire extinguishing systems in the buildings. This system also is equipped with cisterns that store the extra water in the event of excess rain. While this project doesn't necessarily 'give' the land back to the citizens, the idea is to use the land in a more efficient way that current. Also, one should note that the urban waterbody is certainly an attraction in itself, and one cannot deny the lasting sustainable effects this project will have for Berlin in the future.

The next project that I would like to discuss is the newly constructed Hypar Pavilion in front of the Lincoln Center in Manhattan, NY. This project would fall under the Urban Garden category, which usually have the following elements in common: some sort of programmatic component, usually one or more facades, as well as a strong 'connection' component, connecting the urban structure with its surroundings. The goal for this type of landscape architecture is to convert the land used into its own architectural element that could stand on its own without other functions and etc. Well, the Hypar Pavilion by Diller Scofidio & Renfro certainly fulfills all of these and more; in a very sleek and modern way. As shown in the picture below, the strongest component in this structure is the 7,200-square-foot green roof, which unlike the Urban Waterscape by Dreiseitl, was made to be inhabited. This became one of the strongest elements of the project, using nature as a surface, which combined the wants for a jungle, roof, and a pizza all into one. It should be mentioned that underneath this roof is a high-class dining experience, and together these components help bring both citizens and tourists into the area that otherwise might not frequent there at all. This pavilion is most certainly a true rendition of an Urban Garden. 

While both of these projects are aesthetically and functionally very different, I feel like they both serve their intended purpose beautifully. The Urban Waterscape by Dreiseitl gives the citizens something to view, whily using the already inhabited real estate of 19 buildings to give back even more to Berlin; providing a lasting sustainable model for other architects to follow. While the Hypar Pavilion literally gives visitors of the Lincoln Center a green respite from the concrete jungle that surrounds it, which would certainly be a stop on my list if I were to ever visit Manhattan. The architects for both of these projects should be very proud. For they each used their designs to meet the needs of the city, respectively, and by doing that, they controlled and impacted how the people will use these spaces for years to come, which in my opinion, will be for the better.