54
GERALD L. YOUNU
the sine qua non for all landscape architecture” but not that landscape
architecture is the sine qua non for all ecological planning.
Of more direct application in an ecological approach to landscape
architecture (as separated from regional planning) is the work of
Hackett (1956, 1963), Kiley (1963), Eckbo (1969) and others (Linn,
1960). For yet others, who have made no public attempt a t synthesis,
their ecological definition is in their work. Most landscape architects do
seem, however, to reflect McHarg’s views, the feeling as expressed by
Parterfield in an interesting debate in letters (Landscape Architecture,
April 1970) between him and Eckbo: “If ecological realities had been
known and understood 75 or 100 years ago, we landscape architects
might still be privileged today to limit our concern to backyard design,
gardens, shopping malls, etc. This is not the case, however’’ (Eckbo and
Porterfield, 1970).
4. Planning as applied human ecology
The process of planning is ditlicult to conceptualize, ecologically or
otherwise, at least as apart from the rest of the design fields considered
here. The reason is that planning is applied human ecology and it
incorporates and transcends the others, being some architecture, a part
engineering, a portion of landscape architecture. In addition, a lot of
design specialists define their fields to incorporate the planning function.
One thing becomes clear: when an architect or landscape architect or
engineer transcends his own field to design something larger than a
bridge, a building, or a garden, then he has assumed the role of planner
(see Glikson, 1956; Romel, 1958; Hills, 1961).
In assumption of this transcendent mantle, planning embodies the
principles of ecology (Van Loon, 1965). I n reality, of course, most
planning has been done without realization of these principles. But real
urban or regional planners (deserving of the name) must consider the
area being planned as a system, most understand its connectedness, its
interrelatedness with its own parts and those exterior to it, must understand the flow of people, energy, and materials into and out of it, must
understand the design essentials based on environmental characteristics
and human needs. But they do not.
To qualify that statement: too often they do not. Sometimes they do.
McHarg (1962, 1963, 1967) does, and is passing it on to his students,
such as Porterfield. McHarg’s (1967) ecological method for landscape
architecture is really a method for urban or regional planners and is a
good place to begin. His concern is for a method which has the power to
reveal nature as process, “containing intrinsic form”. His search reveals
some basic principles, among them “that the place, the plants, animals
and men upon it are only comprehensible in terms of physical and
GERALD L. YOUNU
the sine qua non for all landscape architecture” but not that landscape
architecture is the sine qua non for all ecological planning.
Of more direct application in an ecological approach to landscape
architecture (as separated from regional planning) is the work of
Hackett (1956, 1963), Kiley (1963), Eckbo (1969) and others (Linn,
1960). For yet others, who have made no public attempt a t synthesis,
their ecological definition is in their work. Most landscape architects do
seem, however, to reflect McHarg’s views, the feeling as expressed by
Parterfield in an interesting debate in letters (Landscape Architecture,
April 1970) between him and Eckbo: “If ecological realities had been
known and understood 75 or 100 years ago, we landscape architects
might still be privileged today to limit our concern to backyard design,
gardens, shopping malls, etc. This is not the case, however’’ (Eckbo and
Porterfield, 1970).
4. Planning as applied human ecology
The process of planning is ditlicult to conceptualize, ecologically or
otherwise, at least as apart from the rest of the design fields considered
here. The reason is that planning is applied human ecology and it
incorporates and transcends the others, being some architecture, a part
engineering, a portion of landscape architecture. In addition, a lot of
design specialists define their fields to incorporate the planning function.
One thing becomes clear: when an architect or landscape architect or
engineer transcends his own field to design something larger than a
bridge, a building, or a garden, then he has assumed the role of planner
(see Glikson, 1956; Romel, 1958; Hills, 1961).
In assumption of this transcendent mantle, planning embodies the
principles of ecology (Van Loon, 1965). I n reality, of course, most
planning has been done without realization of these principles. But real
urban or regional planners (deserving of the name) must consider the
area being planned as a system, most understand its connectedness, its
interrelatedness with its own parts and those exterior to it, must understand the flow of people, energy, and materials into and out of it, must
understand the design essentials based on environmental characteristics
and human needs. But they do not.
To qualify that statement: too often they do not. Sometimes they do.
McHarg (1962, 1963, 1967) does, and is passing it on to his students,
such as Porterfield. McHarg’s (1967) ecological method for landscape
architecture is really a method for urban or regional planners and is a
good place to begin. His concern is for a method which has the power to
reveal nature as process, “containing intrinsic form”. His search reveals
some basic principles, among them “that the place, the plants, animals
and men upon it are only comprehensible in terms of physical and