Evolution of Gardens

By Abbie Gentry

What is a garden? Some would answer a plot of land with vegetation. Others would visualize an earthy node for gatherings. Some might even argue that the word could even refer to something the size of a box, like a window box planter (“Garden”). This seemingly all-inclusive, vague term has a past to match its ambiguous meaning. Historically speaking, a garden was purely functional. The purpose of a garden was to harvest food or medicine. Gardens existed solely to grow food or to serve as a place to explore the medicinal qualities of plants. Later, gardens developed into more leisurely spaces to be enjoyed as a promenade or as a retreat from the strain of the everyday life. Today, most public gardens have evolved into a combination of both aesthetics and function. Gardens serve the public as a place of respite; a place to congregate for recreational activities; a place to educate about and celebrate botany; a place of scientific experiment; and the list goes on.

Today, urban gardens can be used to not only provide a haven but also to function as a city’s water filtration system. Kathryn Gustafson’s Kulturpark Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam is a prime example of this. Rather than choosing plants simply from an aesthetics view, she designed the area using certain plants that have the ability to purify water. This was a wise move economically for the city because this natural filtration system is efficient and multi-functional as well as negating the need for an eyesore of an industrial purification plant.

Although the image of a garden that typically comes to mind is that of a vegetated space, it does not even need to possess actual plants to earn the title “garden.” The landscaping of Ken Smith is proof for that. Rather than using live vegetation that would require upkeep, and thus time and money, he designed a landscape entirely out of artificial materials on the rooftop of the Museum of Modern Art building in New York. From afar, the space seems alive and thriving. Up close, however, one realizes that the boulders are all built from the same plastic mold and the “grass” is actually crushed glass and other recycled materials (Raver).

Another thing that has changed over the years is the emotive qualities of gardens. Traditionally gardens were to serve as a retreat from the city; a quiet place of solitude and relaxation. Today, it symbolizes community. It has become the meeting place of urban locals to congregate. People are encouraged to be active in these spaces rather than lackadaisical. These large urban gardens more often than not include bike paths, running paths, playgrounds for children, and large areas for recreational activities.

I believe that gardens will continue to evolve and adapt to the needs of people. They will persist in educating the public, providing a place of physical and mental restoration and serving as a common ground between the city and the country.

Sources Cited

“Garden.” An Encyclopedia Britannica Company. Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garden

Raver, Anne. “A Rooftop Garden with Synthetic Green.” The New York Times. 11 November 2004. Web. 5 September 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/11/garden/11NATU.html>

When a Garden Loses its Function

For centuries, gardens have been used to relax the body, and the mind, and allow people to connect back to nature whether that be in a suburban neighborhood or in an urban area.  With the expansion of cities and urban centers, people have sought this connection back to nature with the creation of urban gardens and roof top gardens in urban centers.   However, when does the design of these gardens start to hinder their purpose and functionality?  At what point does the garden become more of a design experiment and less of a functional space.

A good example of this is the rooftop gardens on the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York.  The MOMA contracted famous landscape architect Ken Smith to design a rooftop garden to spice up the roof.  The new garden was scheduled to open at the same time as the Groundswell exhibit.  Many were expecting great things from Smith and many were disappointed by what the final product was.  The product was a 17,000 sq. ft. artificial garden consisting of 85 plastic rocks. 560 artificial boxwoods. 300 pounds of clear crushed glass. 4 tons of recycled rubber mulch.  The garden is not open to public use or circulation of any sort and may only be seen from the adjacent buildings.  While this garden requires little to no maintenance or upkeep, at what expense is this achieved? The essence of the garden here, in my opinion, is completely lost.  The intimacy, the exploration, the tranquility, and the connection to nature are lost because the garden is not occupiable. That is why I believe this piece became a test of how far someone could push the meaning of a garden.  In this case, it was pushed too far.  I believe that, if anything, this has become more of a piece of contemporary art, something just to look at, than a garden.  Are garden is meant to be enjoyed and experienced, not looked at from far away.

This begs the question of the viability of an artificial garden to be used as a garden.   Is it possible to have such a garden that can create the same feeling as a true rooftop garden?  In this case, I believe that there was a disconnect between this installation and the true purpose of a garden.  A much more successful green urban installation, in my opinion, was the Lincoln Center’s green roof in the Hypar Pavilion. This piece of green work can be explored and used by the public every day during the warmer months of the year.  It allows the public to sit and enjoy a lawn much like the one they might find in a less urbanized area.  In this sense It is much more successful than the artificial garden on the roof of the MOMA.  This is a green installation that you can feel, touch, and enjoy.  Architecturally this piece of work is still very interesting as it is a twisted parabolic plane that is suspended by what only seems like glass.  While this green installation does not boast the impressive size of the MOMA garden, it can be used and enjoyed by the public.  It is not held up on a podium for the public to look at but not touch.

http://agreenliving.org/tag/lincoln-center/

http://laud8.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/the-museum-of-modern-art-roof-garden-new-york/

http://serenityinthegarden.blogspot.it/2010/07/ken-smith-landscape-architect.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/23/entertainment/et-moma23

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/11/garden/11NATU.html

http://www.greenroofs.com/projects/pview.php?id=423

A Change in the Landscape

By Caroline Smith

The many playgrounds, designed by Aldo Van Eyck between 1947 and 1978 are combinations of the most simple, basic elements. At the time, playgrounds were a privilege only the wealthiest children were able to enjoy. Eyck discovered that a child’s mind could be occupied by almost anything by experimenting with his first playground, which consisted of a sand pit, benches, and a simple set of bars. He proved that a child would be inclined to go wherever something interesting might exist. A change in the landscape is enough to provide a stimulating place for a child to grow up in. Relating back to my previous post about Peter Eisenman’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews, Aldo Van Eyck used a process similar to Eisenman’s Deconstructivism to break a basic object into its most simple form. This process however, was more direct, because the result was exactly a playground broken down. Over 700 playgrounds of simple components were placed in neighborhoods all over the Netherlands in order to give children the same joy as those who were members of private playgrounds. The meaning of the architecture became much more efficient after the process of deconstructivism.

However, this distraction is not limited to children’s minds; a change in landscape also captures the attention of adults. This change can be used for a cause, or an awareness that could really make a difference. Agnes Denes’s Wheatfield in Manhattan proves this point, serving as an art piece, the natural landscape in the urban setting of Manhattan was to “call people’s attention to having to rethink their priorities.” Denes broke her cause down to its most simple form, the wheat field itself. She then used architecture as a backdrop in order to change the landscape, gaining attention from all of Manhattan, producing the same effect of a child’s attention to a playground. Because of this small change, people’s lives and values were changed.

Finally, a change in landscape does not always have to be true in order to serve a purpose. The MOMA gardens, designed by Ken Smith demonstrate the power of landscaping to affect people’s emotions and productivity. The gardens are designed for the view of neighboring high rises to look down upon. The water and plants are not real, but an artificial creation of synthetic and recycled materials. This park serves no purpose other than a change in the landscape for those looking down from above. Even nature is deconstructed into simple elements. Cost efficient fiberglass, foam and rubber create the effect of a zin garden, captivating the attention of corporate workers and residents all around. Some refer to the garden as a rooftop treasure, even though it is only an imitation. In this case, aim of the project is only to change the landscape and the most efficient solution was to break down the componets of nature into more simple elements, which are much more cost efficient and maintainable.

These concepts can be well related to our current studio work in redesigning organizational aspects of the city: the public realm and the vertical arrangement. After trying too hard to come up with modern, conceptual design, the best solution is to simplify. A change in the landscape is the most efficient and productive way once again, so by using deconstructivism, the simplest elements for the project will reveal themselves.  Sometimes the more elementary architecture can be, the more powerful and lasting effect it may have.

http://www.classic.archined.nl/news/0207/AldovanEyck_playgrounds_eng.html

http://greenmuseum.org/c/aen/Issues/denes.php

 http://www.architypesource.com/projects/649-the-museum-of-modern-art-roof-garden/description