INTRODUCTION
QUT
is one of the early historic ‘homes’ of landscape architecture
within Australia, commencing postgraduate studies in 1967. A review
of the curriculum and course structures indicates not only that the
subjects had a significant component of planning and applied science
but that the background of the students enrolling at this time also
reflected a mix of earth sciences and architecture.
Early
studies focussed on what may be best termed ‘applied geography’,
looking at natural and human systems and their interactions. Later studies
during the 1970s and early 1980s focussed more on the evolving field
of landscape planning as a specialist ‘arm’ of landscape
architecture fuelled by the work of practitioners such as McHarg, after
his book Design with Nature was published in 1969. These studies involved
a pragmatic ‘overlay’ approach, essentially a rational and
structured approach to planning and design that made varying allowances
for ‘stakeholder input’ or ‘community interest’.
Much of this work focussed on, amongst other things, GIS applications
and visual and landscape assessment. This was further fuelled, in a
practice sense in Queensland, by emerging environmental legislation
in the 1980s and 1990s that frequently, and increasingly more stridently,
required ‘landscape and visual assessment’ in broad scale
work.
These
influences and foci have been traditionally mirrored in the study program
at QUT. With the increasing complexity of governmental decision-making
processes, enhanced recognition of community involvement and ‘ownership’,
and more sophistication in professional practice in the late 1990s,
a new curriculum response was sought. This change, or evolution in approach
at QUT, can be attributed to the coalescence of a strong awareness of
the multi-dimensional nature of the landscape (natural, cultural, social,
economic), the close link between the rational (planning) and intuitive
(design), and the growing acceptance of more random processes in nature
and the world around us.
Central
to this change is the investigation of the ‘powers of multiple
scales’ (Eames and Eames, 1977) and the establishment of a powerful
connection between practice and theory. The exploration and power of
simultaneous scales can move from the micro through to the regional
scale and beyond – a continuum of landscapes, landscape understanding
and landscape practice. This thinking is changing the fundamental processes
in the educational program in landscape planning at QUT and bringing
it much closer to the traditional ‘heartland’ of landscape
architecture.
OBJECTIVES SHIFT FROM PRODUCT TO PROCESS
The
landscape planning studio is offered to senior postgraduate landscape
architecture students during their final professional studies year before
qualifying as new practitioners. It is linked to the advanced landscape
design studio through the choice of project sites and a coordinated
curriculum. It is therefore a place to explore the nexus between planning
and design by offering an important opportunity to explore new ideas
in the realm beyond the traditional master plan.
The
studio program aims to develop a multiplicity of student understandings
of issues at multiple scales in the planning and management of sustainable
landscapes, with special reference to natural processes, cultural heritage,
social values and economic relations. The studio objectives have evolved
from completing a plan (the product) as the outcome of the landscape
planning technique to celebrating new ways of achieving planning outcomes
‘on the ground’ through community-based partnerships (the
process). The role of the landscape planner has shifted from producing
a product to valuing the process in planning future options for complex
landscapes.
PROJECTS REFLECT PRACTICE EMPHASIS
The
teaching and learning activities have focused on under-threat sites
where local economic change is driving communities and their agencies
to rethink future options for landscapes in the broad sense. In 1999,
the studio completed a three-year project with Ipswich City Council
and finalised a catchment management plan for the Bremer River, part
of the larger Brisbane River catchment. The studio was modelled on traditional
urban and regional planning curricula and was coordinated by planning
staff.
The
following year, community representatives requested a ‘futures’
planning study for Montville and the surrounding ‘picturesque’
Blackall Range, north of Brisbane. This studio was coordinated by landscape
architecture staff and provided exciting opportunities for a more creative
approach to landscape planning issues.
In
2001, the landscape planning studio was linked for the first time to
the advanced landscape design studio through the co-selection of the
Tweed Valley, N.S.W. as a fracturing rural landscape associated with
cultural tourism along the Scenic Rim. Students, as hypothetical consultants
for a range of clients, worked towards multiple ‘development plans’
to address client requests. Both studios were rich in emerging ideas
for the landscapes in transition and reflected current landscape architectural
practice.
CRITICAL
REVIEW OF TEACHING
The
1999 studio encouraged students to work individually, in groups and
as a class to complete a catchment management plan. The program that
supported this goal was six hours in duration and structured into four
components: firstly, a landscape ecology/visual assessment mapping exercise,
secondly, a research paper related to a specific landscape management
issue, thirdly, a set of guest lectures and lastly, a management plan
for the creek catchment. This approach made a significant contribution
to the evolution of the single-semester unit in landscape planning at
QUT. It inspired some students to ‘see’ the Bremer catchment
through the eyes of prominent landscape architects such as Sylvia Crowe
(Collens and Powell, 1999) and Simon Bell (Bell, 1999). This was a departure
from the traditional planning view and applied physical geography approach
(Marsh, 1983).
The
2000 studio encouraged students to work in groups in the first six weeks
and individually for the remainder of the semester. This program was
five hours in duration and restructured into three modules: a series
of guest lectures covering project related topics, workshops focused
on the students’ learning tasks and laboratory sessions aimed
at developing students’ skills in GIS. Although, interestingly,
many students chose not to engage with the rational landscape assessment
procedures (Jørgensen, 1998), this studio was a watershed in
opening up new and exciting possibilities for addressing community issues
and applying intuitive design ideas to landscape planning.
In
2001, the studio retained its three-module structure but students were
allotted to project teams. Each team was presented in the studio with
a credible, realistic and challenging scenario based on the goals of
a hypothetical consultancy practice, local government agency or community
interest group. The scenarios connected with issues of sustainable urban
development, roadside interpretation and way-finding, local economic
initiatives, indigenous cultural heritage brokering and special areas
of ecological enhancement. Points of contact in local communities were
suggested for investigating current issues. Guest lectures primarily
addressed the topic of each group and GIS mapping was aimed at illustrating
the emerging ideas of each team. This studio was both challenging and
confronting. Although appearing to be highly structured in the use of
allocated scenarios, it in fact provided substantial freedom for students
to approach given problems in response to their understanding of local
issues. These understandings varied widely within the class and are
currently the focus of further research.
PROGRESS THROUGH STUDENT INNOVATION
In
2000, a creative fusion of design ideas in landscape planning was seen
for the first time in the students’ work at QUT. A cascade of
innovative concepts in contemporary landscape architecture (Thompson
and Steiner, 1998; Corner, 1999, Steiner, 1999) gave impetus to a more
creative approach to landscape planning. Student work demonstrated a
lack of constraint to ‘precedence’ in tackling multi-valued
solutions, established a degree of comfort with varying scale and drew
upon innovative and contemporary practice, mostly in allied ‘traditional’
disciplines / areas of study. There was diversity, creativity, strong
expression and a general ‘intuitiveness’ within the work.
This cohort produced some exciting planning ideas, exploring four main
themes for the possible ‘futures’ of the Blackall Range:
| • |
layers
of the land – focused on cultural tourism, land art and recreational
heritage opportunities, |
| • |
the living
landscape – explored landscape outcomes related to wildlife
corridors and agrarian parks, |
| • |
sustainable
development – offered ideas on economic diversification and
urban development possibilities, and |
| • |
landscapes
in motion – considered interpretative trails and way finding
road experiences to broaden the visitor experience beyond Montville. |
These
innovative and creative proposals may have been projections from the
design studio but were informed by critical research into contemporary
landscape planning practice applied to the study site. The work of students
in this cohort demonstrated a conceptual shift in the landscape planning
studio from a site of planning process to an exploratory space of planning
options.
In
2001, the strength of the view of the ‘existential insider’
(Relph, 1976), had a profound influence on many of the emerging ideas
from this studio. Project teams contacted ‘experts-in-the-field’
and responded to work-related scenarios explicitly concerned with five
themes:
| • |
indigenous
community development and cultural heritage, |
| • |
places of ecological
enhancement and/or spaces of recreational value, |
| • |
local economic
initiatives and industry development, |
| • |
sustainable
emerging communities and a region of villages, and |
| • |
roadside interpretation
and scenic amenity. |
The
resulting student work defined a strong community concern and exploratory
focus in the proposed schemes, a vibrant expression of new development
‘reinventions’ for existing residents beyond traditional
landscape architecture and a degree of courage with stepping into the
‘policy domain’ of planners. This cohort took the scenarios
as starting points and argued to amend the outcomes as required, fitting
their understandings of local community needs. This inspired a new acceptance
of the random nature of innovation and ‘futurist’ thinking
in the conceptual space of the curriculum for landscape planning at
QUT.
THE NEXT STEP
In
2002, the landscape planning studio is focusing on the Nerang catchment
while the landscape design studio works downstream, connecting the cultural
landscapes of the Gold Coast to the green hinterland of the Lamington
Ranges. The teaching program retains the three-module structure using
lecture, studio and laboratory spaces. Unit objectives aim to develop
a multiplicity of student understandings of issues related to multiple
scales in planning and design in the Gold Coast hinterland through three
phases: a ‘catchment study’, a ‘futures study’
and a ‘design exploration’ study from a local area plan.
Based upon the growing community support for integrated catchment management
in this under-threat landscape, the ‘futures study’ will
work towards innovation in the ‘landscape plan’ in its various
guises and its relationship to landscape design.
This
studio builds upon the success of the previous studio, where students
(the ‘detached outsiders’) and residents (the ‘existential
insiders’) find a ‘meeting place’ in reality and virtuality
that transcends scale. The use of the Internet aims to create a borderless
learning space offering new opportunities for exploring unfamiliar territory
within ‘designed’ community web sites. Students will move
randomly through the process of landscape planning (Steiner, 1999) to
the exploratory space of planning options. As students develop their
propositions, it is hoped that they will reveal the ‘powers of
multiple scale’ operating seamlessly between landscape planning
and landscape design.
CONCLUSION
A
shift in the study program in landscape planning at QUT is being fostered
by the increasing complexity of government decision-making, demand for
greater community involvement and changes in professional practice since
the late 1990s. Broadening the educational approach beyond the pragmatic
analytical models of the 1980s to developing creative approaches to
landscape planning /design at multiple scales in the 2000s will become
imperative as social and economic changes overtake many local ‘under-threat’
communities in Queensland.
The
view of landscape planning as a specialist ‘arm’ of landscape
architecture is now being contested. Contemporary teaching approaches
in landscape planning and landscape design at QUT are moving from an
inter-disciplinary perspective, to a trans-disciplinary, overlapping
curriculum and, perhaps eventually, to an integrated, multi-disciplinary
model of theory and practice. In so doing, the ‘futurist’
practitioners and educators, concerned with the multiple understandings
of emerging landscape architecture graduates, are endeavouring to encourage
innovation and creative thinking in landscape planning alongside a rational
and pragmatic appreciation of natural processes, cultural heritage,
social values and economic relations.
Recognition
of the continuum of ideas between landscape planning and landscape design
has lead to the emergence of the ‘powers of multiple scales’
(Eames and Eames, 1977) as a concept that has potential for unifying
all land-related disciplines in landscape planning. In combination with
expanding the complexity of the conceptual space of learners, future
‘what if’ scenarios can be investigated and tested in an
educational setting. Landscape architecture students are already gaining
a greater appreciation of the close link between community values at
multiple scales, government decision-making processes and the opportunities
emerging in professional practice. The next step will be to transcend
scale by using technology to explore new creative territory in reclaiming
complex landscapes. We look forward to this challenge.
REFERENCES
Bell,
S. (1999). Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process. London:
E & FN Spon.
Collens,
G. and Powell, W. (Eds) (1999). Sylvia Crowe. UK: LDT Monographs.
Corner,
J. (Ed) (1999). Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape
Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Eames,
C. and Eames, R. (1977). The Powers of Ten: a film released
by Eames Office TM.
Jørgenson,
K. (1998). Landscape as language: “a way of worldmaking”.
In D. Mazzoleni (Ed), Nature Architecture Diversity (pp158
– 173). Italy: Electa Napoli.
Marsh,
W.M. (1983). Landscape Planning: Environmental Applications.
USA: John Wiley & Sons.
McHarg,
I. (1969). Designing with Nature. New York: Doubleday/Natural
History Press.
Relph,
E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.
Steiner,
F. (1999). The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to Landscape
Planning. New York: McGraw Hill.
Thompson,
G.F. and Steiner, F.R. (1998). Ecological Design & Planning.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.