Perpustakaan Digital ITB

In many ways this is a curious debate to still be having. As Matthew Heins’ (2015) paper suggests, both New and Landscape Urbanists have imagined this as a territorial battle over urban design, and one with enormous consequences. However, in reality this is not an either-or proposition; no hero from either side will emerge victorious, because both movements have effectively played themselves out. New paradigms for city-making are already supplanting them. These new directions are where the field of urban design should set its sights, but to get there some tidying up is required. Much can still be learnt from the successes and failures of the latest urbanisms so that what emerges is a paradigm that supports both human and natural systems. It is argued here that this will not be what Heins envisions—a collaboration based on commonalities. Rather, promising new paths will explore what the movements failed to address—a deeper understanding of the social ecologies that make sustainability and civic vitality possible in the first place. It may seem that death notices are premature. It is true that the Congress for New Urbanism, created in 1993 to fight ‘the spread of faceless sprawl’, still has a legion of adherents, and along with sprawl it will not disappear overnight. However, its most outspoken leader, Andre´s Duany, has admitted that the movement is in danger of becoming irrelevant if it does not evolve. For his part, his firm DPZ has embarked on a new venture, inventing what he calls ‘Lean Urbanism’ to target cumbersome government regulation, and to foster sustainable development between the scales of Tactical Urbanism and New Urbanism. It is telling that Duany has shifted attention away from Landscape Urbanism to Tactical Urbanism. The latter, he says, is “absolutely the coolest thing happening right now in planning” (Andre´s Duany 2014). This new indirect dismissal of the former follows the 2013 publication by Duany and Emily Talen of a volume called Landscape Urbanism and its Discontents, essentially a post-mortem collection of essays mocking the failures of the movement and the academy that supported it (Andre´s Duany and Talen 2013). Landscape Urbanists are unlikely to respond, waning as they are as a cohesive group and nearly disappearing from publications in the field.1 While several university programmes still retain the label, new programmes in Landscape Urbanism are not materializing.2 Even James Corner Field Operations, the firm most often associated with Landscape Urbanism, avoids the term in its marketing materials. Obliquely addressing accusations of promoting sprawl, their website asserts: “We believe in the authenticity of real In many ways this is a curious debate to still be having. As Matthew Heins’ (2015) paper suggests, both New and Landscape Urbanists have imagined this as a territorial battle over urban design, and one with enormous consequences. However, in reality this is not an either-or proposition; no hero from either side will emerge victorious, because both movements have effectively played themselves out. New paradigms for city-making are already supplanting them. These new directions are where the field of urban design should set its sights, but to get there some tidying up is required. Much can still be learnt from the successes and failures of the latest urbanisms so that what emerges is a paradigm that supports both human and natural systems. It is argued here that this will not be what Heins envisions—a collaboration based on commonalities. Rather, promising new paths will explore what the movements failed to address—a deeper understanding of the social ecologies that make sustainability and civic vitality possible in the first place. It may seem that death notices are premature. It is true that the Congress for New Urbanism, created in 1993 to fight ‘the spread of faceless sprawl’, still has a legion of adherents, and along with sprawl it will not disappear overnight. However, its most outspoken leader, Andre´s Duany, has admitted that the movement is in danger of becoming irrelevant if it does not evolve. For his part, his firm DPZ has embarked on a new venture, inventing what he calls ‘Lean Urbanism’ to target cumbersome government regulation, and to foster sustainable development between the scales of Tactical Urbanism and New Urbanism. It is telling that Duany has shifted attention away from Landscape Urbanism to Tactical Urbanism. The latter, he says, is “absolutely the coolest thing happening right now in planning” (Andre´s Duany 2014). This new indirect dismissal of the former follows the 2013 publication by Duany and Emily Talen of a volume called Landscape Urbanism and its Discontents, essentially a post-mortem collection of essays mocking the failures of the movement and the academy that supported it (Andre´s Duany and Talen 2013). Landscape Urbanists are unlikely to respond, waning as they are as a cohesive group and nearly disappearing from publications in the field.1 While several university programmes still retain the label, new programmes in Landscape Urbanism are not materializing.2 Even James Corner Field Operations, the firm most often associated with Landscape Urbanism, avoids the term in its marketing materials. Obliquely addressing accusations of promoting sprawl, their website asserts: “We believe in the authenticity of real cities, urban places and local culture . . . We love urban life” (JCFO 2014). Similarly, Stoss Landscape Urbanism is now branded simply as Stoss, although officially its name has not changed. Mohsen Mostafavi, former Landscape Urbanist and dean of Harvard’s GSD, wrote about Ecological Urbanism as a more encompassing set of practices that include ecological sensibilities along with social factors in the design of cities (Mostafavi 2010).