Sustainable Urban Habitats: A study of the threads that connect designintentions to practical implementation.

Alan Derbyshire, University of Central Lancashire, UK

Abstract: The absence of a shared definition of the variable that is sustainability is avolatile element in the multi factor equation known to us as the urban landscape. Thesustainable infrastructure of our urbanised habitats is a fundamental matter for plannersand architects et al, but this is often more of a theoretical concern than a practicalapplication of innovative design implementation. The lack of a shared understanding ofsustainable practices contributes to a reliance on conventional orthodoxies, and the ‘playit safe’ approach to the design of public spaces structurally and aesthetically.This study focuses on the methodological and creative threads that connect sustainabledesign concepts to their viable outcomes. The recent phenomenon of significantpopulation growth within UK regional city centres has emphasised the demand for user-friendly ecologically enhanced public spaces. The synthesis of native species ecology andinnovative utilisation of hard landscaping is a fundamental element in the establishmentof the concepts of ownership and place. The successful employment of these concepts aredebatable. The strands that link worthy sustainable architectural and planning designintentions to their seemingly logical conclusions are frayed, tangled and often severed.Through a selection of comparative case studies and examples of advanced initiativesthis paper examines the causes of this entanglement and paradoxically also highlights theinnovative capacity of reversing the existing ‘fixed mould of aesthetic convention’.

Keywords: Landscape, Sustainable, Design, Urban, Place

Introduction

Over the last decade within the U.K. there has been an exponential increase in city centreliving. Historically the centres of regional cities such as Manchester, Liverpool andBirmingham have been areas of commerce and industry, but the notion of city centredwelling is now perceived as desirable and aspirational, an impression activelyencouraged by developers. The rise in city centre living has occurred against a backdropof increasing awareness of ecological matters; global warming is now an establishedtopic of concern and the sustainability of the environment has become a fashionablecause. With the increase in city centre dwelling, the debate concerning sustainableurbanity is unavoidable and the reliance on ‘tried and trusted’ orthodoxies moreuncertain. Sustainability is hard to define and as a consequence this lack of a clear andagreed definition often leads to poor communication in the planning and developmentstage of urban landscaping. The inadequacies of the communication in the planning ofdevelopments are matched by the reluctance of designers to make bold choices in thechoices of ecology and hard landscaping materials.

This paper reviews the current approaches of architects’; designers’ and planners’traditional design rationale to the development of sustainable urban habitats and identifiesthe limitations of current sustainable design practice. There are three identifiable barriersto the successful implementation of sustainable landscape design highlighted within thestudy:

The failure to adequately acknowledge a sense of place. The disjunction between sustainable building design and landscape design. Conventional designs paying no more than lip service to ecological sustainability.

Concepts of place and sustainability are central to the debate. The fuzziness of thecollective understanding of these critical concepts amongst design professionals is a basicissue. The uncertainty of practitioners when implementing sustainable solutions leadseither to a rigid adherence to established formulae or token references to sustainablepractices. This disparity often results in sustainable inconsistency, visually banal andecologically inconsequential urban landscapes.The ecology of urbanity is a fundamental element in establishing bona fide sustainability.Randolph Hester asserts that “we no longer experience ecological dependence orcommunity connections in our daily lives as, say, a farmer does. Our disassociation fromthe world around us offers us enormous short term freedom, but with adverse long-termconsequences (Hester, 1995).” If we are unable to respond to the ecology of the urbanenvironment the establishment of place is compromised, as is the viable sustainability ofthe development of urban spaces.With this in mind the paper examines the creative potential of the use of ecology, naturalprocess and landscaping materials and considers the traditional application of modernisttheories to sustainable landscape developments. The reliance on modernism as abenchmark of acceptable design has led to the clinging to the comfort blanket ofconformity and as a result homogenised banality. Paul Osmond argues that “theoverwhelming impression of the Western (or Westernised) urban exterior is of islands ofcorporate ‘blandscape’ in a sea of fragmented and car dominated leftoverspace”(Osmond, 2002). The cultural complexities that influence the debate concerningmodernism and a more fortuitous approach to the designed landscape are useful subjectsfor discussion. However an urgent reappraisal of existing paradigms is necessary in orderto begin to achieve authentic sustainable urbanity.

Sustainability and Place

Notions of sustainability and place are connected by the shared complication of how toadequately define their fundamental meaning. The creative application of both conceptsis critical to the establishment of genuine sustainable design objectives. If developmentslack the potential for dwelling and a sense of ownership they are essentially un-sustainable.Emotional responses to the landscape are complex, but in order to create a broaderdialogue and connect with the public sustainable urban habitats need to connect visuallyand emotionally (Motloch, 2001). ‘Placeness’ is integral to the process of achieving

genuine sustainable communities; it is the foundation on which the components essentialfor sustainability can be set. Without an emotional connection there is no sense ofownership and as a consequence people will feel disinclined to look after property andthe parcels of land between buildings and structures (Iverson-Nassauer, 1997). It istherefore necessary that the marriage of sustainable principles and the notion of place areharmonious.To begin to make sense of the critical nature of place and the parallels with sustainabilityit is worthwhile contemplating Heidegger’s perception of place.Heidegger’s specific references to architecture, building and dwelling has long informedthe attempt to define place within the teaching of design pedagogy. Heidegger is acontroversial figure (due to his associations with National Socialism) and for some thisinvalidates his work (Sharr, 2007), but many of his insights in the seminal ‘Building,Dwelling, Thinking’ when relating to place also have an identifiable and pertinentconnection to sustainability.

“With the banks, the bridge brings to the stream the one and the other expanse of thelandscape lying behind them. It brings stream and bank and land into each other'sneighbourhood. The bridge gathers the earth as landscape around the stream”

(Heidegger, 1971)

This refers to the role of a bridge in the transformation of space into place. The place ofthe bridge’s construction is now understood differently because of its being. It is alsonecessary for the materials used in the construction of the bridge to be local as Heideggerchallenged the perception of the earth as a commodity (Sharr, 2007). To Heidegger theability to dwell is dependent on the individual’s need to build or make, this could be inthe form of a ritual as banal as setting out the dinner table. Topographic connectionsbetween the earth and materials such as clay, wood, steel and sand (materials from theearth) are intrinsic to his notions of dwelling and place. Materials are the tangiblesubstances of place. Space is rearranged into place by the activity of building. The bridgespanning Heidegger’s stream is a material construct, without materiality place within thecontext of the urban landscape does not materialise.The practice of using local materials in the construction of urban landscapes isfundamental to the establishment of place, an identifiable bond with a community. Localmaterials are also central to the development of sustainable urban landscapes. Thebenchmarks for sustainable materials (listed below) are fundamental to the establishmentof genuine sustainability, but are also philosophically associated with the localcommunity.

Whenever possible specify locally produced products Use less processed materials Produce a rough estimate of energy required to produce and transport materials. Explore re-cycled materials. Avoid petroleum-based products

(Thompson, Sorvig 2008)

The application of sustainable landscaping materials however is often limited andconstrained due in part to unenlightened attitudes and cost. The absence of authentic localsustainable products and the importation of cheaper quarried products such as Chinesegranite raise sustainability issues as well as ethical concerns regarding labour conditions.(Weyzig, Bjurling, Wong, 2008)Sustainability is an integral factor in the development and commissioning of architecturaland urban landscape developments, but the absence of a clear and agreed definition andthe ambivalence of pertinent frameworks often contribute to fuzzy interpretations of thesubject (Derbyshire, 2009).For example an architect would view the efficient utilisation of energy and resources asprimary concerns (Kunszt, 2002). Alternatively a landscape architect may definesustainability in terms of “low impact but physically and pertinently social design” or“natural aesthetics” (Selman, 2008). Incorporate the developer’s own interpretations andthere is significant scope for normal threads of design planning communication to frayand split.The need for clarity is acknowledged and analysed in the Egan Review into the skillsneeded to deliver the vision and aims of sustainable communities, facilitating a debateinto more effective ways of communication by built environment professions. (Egan,2004)In their response to the Egan Review, Inspire East, the regional centre of excellence forsustainable communities, reported “The word sustainable is used in many differentcontexts, leading to confusion and lack of thinking between various sector organisations”(Inspire East 2006).Defining sustainability has become an academic inquiry in itself (Basiago 2006, Selman2008, Toman 1992) and though this confusion into its meaning leads to uncertainty,much like creativity, defining sustainability is not a linear process (Walker, 2006). Theconnection between creativity and sustainability has not been traditionally recognised,but the creative integration of ecology and materials is central to authentic sustainableurbanity.

Manchester

The process of design planning of the urban landscape has been described as“rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic’ (Punter, Carmona 1997)It is difficult not to subscribe to this reasoning based on the evidence of many of themetropolitan regions of the UK. On the face of it there appears to be a paucity ofcreativity and joined up thinking when observing new developments within regionalcities.Manchester for example has undergone significant redevelopment over the last decade.In common with other regional cities Manchester has experienced a dramatic increase inthe population of the city centre, traditionally occupied by commercial and industrialarchitecture. The increase in population in the city has risen from approximately 1,300 in1991 to an estimated 20,000 in 2010 (Manchester gov. 2007). Manchester however isdifferent; in 1996 an IRA bomb ripped the heart of the commercial centre out with therepair and regeneration bill estimated at £1.2 billion. The redevelopment projects can be

viewed as a snapshot of current architectural and urban design thinking and planning aswell as the approach to sustainability.Spinningfields is the newest of the city centre developments and is underpinned withresidential, leisure, civic and retail spaces (Allied London, 2005).The sustainability of the project is a major trading point and the environmentalperformance of the buildings are judged to be excellent by British ResearchEstablishment Environment Assessment Method (BREEAM, 2009).

Figure 1

The architecture of Spinningfields is a combination of the banal and the radical(Derbyshire, 2009), the latter being represented by the Civic Justice Centre (Architects,Denton, Corker, Marshal. Figure 1). This is a multi award winning building named asbuilding construction of the year by the Green Construction Awards (Mott MacDonald,2009).Given the excellent sustainable credentials of the buildings it is disappointing thatconversely the parcels of land between are “particularly redundant” (Continuity inArchitecture), giving an impression of space left over after planning (sloap). Thelandscaping is humdrum and materials such as imported granite do not measure up toestablished benchmarks for sustainable practice regarding materials as referred to earlier(Thompson, Sorvig, 2008)

Figure 2

The landscape designer Marc Antrop asserts that landscape architects are primarilyconcerned with integrating new infrastructures and reshaping urban centres (Antrop2000). The public spaces within the Spinningfields confirm this. Ecological principles area secondary consideration and the hard landscaping is used as a method of neutralisingthe public areas.The Spinningfields development reflects the disparity between architecture and thelandscape, appearing to “ignore the landscape except as a backdrop to the grandarchitectural statement” (Osmond, 2006).

Design and Ecology

Much of the current debate surrounding the aesthetics of ecological designimplementation centres on the need to compromise the beauty of a given design in favourof projects that are ‘environmentally responsible but a little ugly’ (Griswold 1994). Giventhe subjectivity of the concepts of ‘ugly’ and ‘beauty’ this dialogue raises pertinent issuesregarding the relationship between natural process and design practice; does one precludethe other.The Spinningfields case study is an example of traditional modernist design rationale.The sustainability of the architecture contrasts sharply to the standard design solutions ofthe spaces between. Trees are planted in regimented rows and the grassed/ foliage (in abox) areas are uninspiring and uninviting, in other words business (modernism) as usual(Figure 2). The beauty of the development is open to interpretation, but the sustainableand ecological aspirations are not. The time-honoured design methods represented herefail to establish ownership, place or connection with the local community in anymeaningful manner with seemingly no encouragement to engender ‘placeness’ throughshared ownership of the spaces. However there are alternative design solutions toconsider.The landscape designer Michael Hough has long argued against “the fixed mould ofaesthetic convention’ (Hough 1995). Hough asserts that the designed pedigreedlandscapes of mown turf, flowerbeds and fountains etc. are dependent on “high energyinputs and horticultural technology”. His reasoning for a more ecologically diverse“fortuitous landscape” such as urban weeds is compelling; the task of linking nature withurbanism, the synthesis of ecology and materials is elemental to sustainable viability.Ecological diversity is an integral part of the “health and quality” of urban life. Theassociated negative perception of the aesthetics of ecological design has maintained a‘play it safe’ approach to the sustainable development of metropolitan centresmaintaining the status quo.

“Ecological design needs to teach and convey with greater emphasis the possibility:indeed historically the fact, that the dynamic interaction between humans and theecological world can be positive and mutually beneficial”

(Mozingo, 1997)

Examples of the pedigreed and fortuitous approach to urban ecology can be observed inthe green roofs of the Scottish Parliament Building in Edinburgh and the Barclaysbuilding in Canary Wharf London. Green roofs are a genuine addition to the ecologicallandscape, the demarcation between ground and roof surface become more ambiguous aswe begin to view the landscape through tools such as Google Earth (Thompson, Sorvig,2008)

Figure 3

The roof of the Barclays building is protected by a bio-diverse ‘grass’ roof designed tosupport plant and wildlife by creating a natural environment (Figure 3). The naturalecology and locally sourced materials such as local re-cycled bricks combine to act as dryareas attracting insects and birds (livingroofs.org, 2005) and suggest a relationship withthe local.The contrast with the Scottish Parliament building is manifest. This roof trades onconventional aesthetics, requires irrigation and maintenance and reflects the pedigreednotion of landscape design (Figure 4). Grass roofs are not new technology, the increase intheir use being a radical leap forward in achieving genuine sustainable urban spaces, butthe ‘play safe’ approach is also evident in this relatively radical creation, a recurrentreminder of ‘fixed mould’ design orthodoxies.

Figure 4

Conclusion

The task of creating ecologically diverse urbanity and creative sustainable metropolitancentres is an intricate undertaking, made more complicated by the resistance to adoptsustainable and ecological principles by design professionals. This resistance has more todo with unfamiliarity or misunderstanding of concepts of place and sustainability thatinevitably stem from inconsistent design pedagogy and training. Concepts of place aredifficult to define and interpret and sustainable design has been slow to embed intodesign course curricula (Jones, Selby, Sterling, 2008) leading to an inconsistent approachto sustainable design practice. The pattern of inconsistency can be observed in thelandscape; the sense of place appears to be an arbitrary concept in contemporary urbandevelopments as represented by Manchester. Materials are imported and the choice ofecology conforms to traditional design rationale. Ostensibly architects appear to have aclear and structured set of sustainable principles and guidelines to refer to (RIBA 2003),contrasting with the designed spaces between which rely on traditional modernist theoryas the primary source of inspiration. The overall result is a landscape that gives theimpression of relying on ‘safe’ design implementation and no more than a superficialreference to sustainable practice.

International modernism still has a secure part to play in the development of thelandscape. Given the cultural complexities of the urban landscape people will alwaysidentify with other places. Modernism represents a connection to the familiar, but thedesigners’ lethargic reliance on stock solutions runs counter to achieving genuinesustainable urbanity. Ecological design has suffered from the tag of ethic rather than afully conceived aesthetic (Mozingo, 1997). This notion is a barrier to producing openminded and creative landscape designers. It speaks more of failure of imagination and isindicative of university design departments’ slow progress when addressing sustainabilityissues creatively.The landscape can be observed as a complex equation. Creativity can be seen as one ofthe variables providing the solutions, but there are more fundamental concerns that needto be addressed, for example:

Viewing place and sustainability as two sides of the same coin. Regarding ecological design as positive addition to design rationale. View sustainable design as a fundamental to the design process on a par with the

development of form and space.

It can be argued that as designers we are trained, encouraged, demanded and innatelyexpected to create, be imaginative, expressive, radical, original and a host of otherassumed features of vision and enterprise. The vagaries of the concepts of sustainabilityand place have in part contributed to a piecemeal adoption of genuine sustainablepractices, but it is this ambiguity that invites an imaginative response to the sustainabledesign of the urban landscape. Theories of place are fundamental to design pedagogy.The connection with sustainability is organic. Without dwelling, ownership andemotional responses sustainability does not exist.The Manchester case study is a reminder of the distance still needed to travel in order tobegin to realise genuine sustainable urbanity. It acts as a prompt of the need to changedirection, a transparent perspective of conventional thinking. As designers we are dutybound to respond to new paradigms and alternative concepts with gusto and vision. Thereis no more important project brief than the future viability of the world we live in.

References

Allied London, 2005, Spinningfields, [online], Available athttp://www.spinningfieldsonline.com, [Accessed on 7th January 2009].

Antrop, M., 2000 From Holistic Landscape Synthesis to Trans-disciplinary LandscapeManagement, (s.i.): Landscape and Urban Planning Pages 43-58

Basiago, A., 2006 Methods of Defining ‘Sustainability’, (s.i.) Sustainable Development,V.3 Issue 3, Pages 109 - 119

BREEAM, 2009, The code for sustainable homes, [online], Available athttp://www.breeam.org/ [Accessed on 6th January 2009].

Continuity in Architecture, 2009, By John Rylands Library I sat down and wept…,[online], Available at http://www.msa.mmu.ac.uk/continuity/index.php/2009/01/15/by-john-rylands-library-i-sat-down-and-wept…/. [Accessed on 2nd February 2009].

Derbyshire, A., 2009, Modular Sustainability Within the Landscape, Design Principlesand Practice an International Journal, Vol. 3 (2) 227-247

Designbuild-network, 2005, Scottish Parliament Building, Edinburgh, Scotland, UnitedKingdom, [online], Available at http://www.designbuild-network.com, [Accessed 3rdJanuary 2009].

Egan, J., 2004, The Egan Review, Skills for Sustainable Communities, London: Theoffice of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Egan, J., 2004, The Egan Review Responses, [online], Available athttp://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/communities/eganreview[Accessed 2nd January 2009].

Griswold, M., 1994, “The Year of Living Responsibly”, Landscape Architecture, 84,(11): 52-55

Heidegger, M., 1972, Building Dwelling Thinking, New York: Harper Colophon Books

Hester, R.T., 1995, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Sustainable Happiness, Places: Vol. 9:No. 3, Article

Hough, M., 1995, Cities and Natural Process: A Basis For Sustainability, New York:Taylor & Francis

Jones, J., Selby, D. & Sterling, S., 2008, Green Infusions: Embedding Sustainabilityacross the Higher Education Curriculum, Plymouth: Plymouth University.

Inspire East, 2006, Summary of the Skills for Sustainable Communities Report: Aninvestigation of skills gaps among those tasked with delivering sustainable communitiesin the east region. (n.i.) TBSP Ltd.

Iverson-Nassauer, J., 1997, Placing Nature, Culture and Landscape Ecology, WashingtonD.C.: Island Press.

Kunszt, G., 2002, Sustainable Architecture, (n.i.): Periodica Polytechnica Ser. Civ. Eng.Volume 47.

Livingroofs.org, 2005, Case Study - 1 Churchill Place, London. Barclays HQ, [online],Available http://livingroofs.org/index.html, [Accessed 3rd March 2009].

Manchester.gov, 2007, Manchester City Centre Population Estimate Planning Area,[online] Available athttp://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/A15_CityCentrePopEst_Oct07_1_.pdf,[Accessed on 4th January 2009].

Motloch, J., 2001, Introduction to Landscape Design, (n.i.): John Wiley and Sons.Mott MacDonald, 2009, Manchester Civil Justice Centre, [online] Available athttp://www.mottmac.com/projects/?id=30075#top, [Accessed on 6th January 2009].

Mozingo, L. 1997, The Aesthetics of Ecological Design: Seeing Science as Culture,Landscape Journal, 16 (1), 46-59

Osmond, P., 2002, Design for Sustainability, London: Earhtscan.

Punter, J. & Carmona, M., 1997, The Design Dimension of Planning: Theory, Content,and Best Practice for Design Policies, (n.I.) Taylor & Francis.

Royal Institute of British Architecture, 2003, Sustainable Communities: RIBA Responseto the Egan Review of Skills in the Built Environment Professions, London: RIBA.

Selman, P., 2008, What do we mean by sustainable landscape?, [online], Sustainability:Science, Practice and Policy

Sharr, A., 2007, Heidegger for Architects, London: Routledge

Thompson, J.W., Sorvig, K., 2008, Sustainbale Landscape Construction: A Guide toGreen Building Outdoors, 2 ed. London: Island Press.

Toman, M.A. (1992), "The difficulty in defining sustainability", Resources for theFuture, No.Winter, pp.106.

Walker, S., 2006, Sustainable by Design, London: Earthscan

Weyzig, F., Bjurling, K, & Wong, S., 2008 Improving Working Conditions at ChineseNatural Stone Companies, SOMO, Centre for Research on Multi National Corporations

About the Author

Alan Derbyshire is a designer and an academic. He graduated from Stourebridge Collegeof Art with a B.A. (Hons) in 3D Design, and from the University of Illinois with anM.F.A in Sculpture. He is a landscape designer with a practice in Manchester U.K. andalso teaches at the University of Central Lancashire delivering a series of theoretical and

practical courses including Sustainable Design and Creative Thinking.