“They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.” – The Philosophy of Andy Warhol A new generation of young adults would agree, according to the NPR’s series on the changing American Dream. A recent piece by Sam Sanders called “Globals’ Generation Focuses on Experience” suggesting that the American Dream… Read more »

“They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.” – The Philosophy of Andy Warhol

A new generation of young adults would agree, according to the NPR’s series on the changing American Dream. A recent piece by Sam Sanders called “Globals’ Generation Focuses on Experience” suggesting that the American Dream of many people in their twenties is not about accumulating things: houses, families, cars, etc.; but rather about gathering experiences. The piece further suggests that these ‘globals’ recognize themselves as world citizens and interested in being agents of change. “They understand this idea of a shared fate, or a linked fate. That somehow, what happens to someone in Mumbai may have an effect on me West Los Angeles,” says Franklin Gilliam, Dean of UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs.

When Tulane University was looking to increase enrollment after Hurricane Katrina they decided, among other things, to add community service as a requirement for graduation. Applications in 2010 were double what they were in 2004, and attracted ‘a cadre of superbly responsive students”. According to Tulane’s president, Scott Cowen, “Today’s student wants an education that makes a difference.”

If landscape architecture wants to remain relevant and to attract the best and brightest, this trend begs the question: what extent can those of us in the practice of landscape architecture facilitate change things ourselves, for the public good? In addition, as discussed in a previous blog, the social impact design model is often different from standard operating practice in most established landscape architectural firms. Identifying a potential project and developing that into a paying project is an entrepreneurial challenge. Understanding how to create societal change may start with learning how to create change within an organization, one’s own firm. Building on the existing company culture, evolving an established business model requires seeing, and learning to communicate, how the design process can be applied to a variety of problems.

When talking about change one can quickly become overwhelmed. The established order has so much inertia. The complexity of our world is daunting. Where does one start to unravel the mess? What will really make a difference? If we look at the question more generally by focusing on goals: “what changes are needed to move us to a more just, equitable, sustainable, peaceful world?” it becomes more manageable in a right brain kind of way. It is more manageable in that one can start anywhere. I would argue that a healthier and happier society, is made up of a more resilient, less frightened populace. A more resilient less frightened populace is one more ready to make intelligent choices and embrace beneficial change.

For the landscape architecture profession the question then is: what goals and what changes can the landscape reasonably expect to facilitate? And what tools do we have that can be applied to task of achieving those societal goals?

Creating opportunities for health and happiness are naturally the realm of landscape and the garden, but we can do much more by making these conscious goals, and by applying the lessons of biophilia, attention restoration theory, many public health professionals, nature deficit disorder theory, to name a few, to our designs and master plans.

The sustainability tent is getting bigger and the discussion is broadening beyond issues of resource conservation to include goals of equity, inclusivity, and habitat creation, as well as health and happiness. Landscape architects can welcome this evolution of the field by increasing our understanding of issues usually outside of pure landscape architecture. This is not the time to keep tilling the well-tilled furrow that is our comfort zone. We need to be curious and look well beyond our field, extending the inclusivity of our design vocabulary.

As landscape architects we can facilitate a greater sense of rootedness and resilience in the communities we work through preservation and/or imaginative reuse of existing conditions. This is more obvious if there is some evident historical significance to interpret, but is equally if not more important if the existing elements simply suggest a historic pattern of use in a particular landscape. Rather than wipe the slate clean, what happens if we acknowledge and give a nod to the use patterns, wisdom, and embedded creativity of what came before.

Jonah Lehrer in his book ‘Imagine’ argues that we all have the potential to be creative. (The recent revelations that he was a bit too creative with supposed Bob Dylan quotes do not diminish the relevance of the book.) I would argue that manifesting creativity is a deeply satisfying human experience, and one that is catching. Any of us that can put design ingenuity to work in the public realm not only improves the quality of public space, but beyond that shows that more is possible, anywhere and everywhere.

Finally and most importantly, by being the change we want to see in the world we can lead the way. By being curious, by designing revelatory, resilient and evolutionary landscapes our clients and the end users will benefit.

Below is my list of goals and tools found in the landscape architect’s repertoire:

GOALS :: TOOLS

Greater rootedness/resilience –– Preservation, imaginative reuse;
Creativity/inspiration –– Design ingenuity;
Health –– biking, greenery, liveliness, rejuvenation;
Happiness –– biophilia, connections to nature, etc.;
Inclusion/diversity –– inclusive design vocabulary;
Sustainability –– habitat preservation and creation, sustainable materials, responsible energy and water use, energy generation, reductions in chemical reliance;
Comfort with change and risk –– Preservation, imaginative reuse, adaptation.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” — Charles Darwin

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” –Margaret Mead.

So tell me: How can the profession of landscape architecture be more responsive to the challenge raised by the ‘global generation’? What change do you want to see? How can you do more? What have I goals or tools have I missed?

Collapse post

One Response to “Being the Change”

Jeremy Wolf

Cinda:

Terrific essay/blog post. I believe the social impact element you describe is all in the eye of the beholder. Earth’s citizens need to become earth’s fiduciaries. The habitat, humanity, health and happiness (H^4) plus inclusive facets are part of what makes each of us unique but integral. We should all strive to do more for our community and our planet in our own ways. I hope our investments can deliver in this way.

Keep writing!
Jeremy
April 25th, 2014 Reply

Cancel

Posted by Cinda Gilliland
in Arts and Culture, Social Impact
on 29 August, 2012

1 comment

Share this post
Facebook
Twitter

My first exposure to the community of social impact design was the Public Architecture sponsored Design Access Summit. The summit gathered a group of articulate people with depth in the diverse range of assets required for success in this work. A range of the topics was explored both in short presentations and in very active… Read more »

My first take away was that social impact design calls for a much more entrepreneurial skill set than the usual architectural firm ‘waiting for client to come up with a project’ model. Working actively in this realm often requires, or provides, an opportunity, for a designer to identify an problem or issue and then go out and identify stakeholders, partners and funding sources. Or a potential client has identified a need but needs the project to be defined and articulated in order to pursue funding, whether grants or donations. As in regular practice having a good team of collaborators is an asset, but for social impact design projects a more diverse group of resources is required. A successful project is predicated on a rich social asset resource base.

A few highlights of the two days:

Perhaps due to the lack of specificity there was a lot of talk about the need for specificity. Roman Mars, creator of the 99% Invisible radio show, addressed the subject of the story suggesting the motto ‘Specificity is the soul of the narrative’ and demonstrating the same brilliantly in a piece about the Plimsoll line in the style of NPR’s ‘This American Life’ or ‘Radiolab’. In a breakout session Roman also said that in order to motivate one’s social assets you need to have a good story, specific ‘asks’, and a common (specific) language or clear goal. Stated another way Lakshmi Ramarajan from the Organizational Behavior Unit at the Harvard Business school outlined, in a session called Rethinking Service Delivery, the steps for changing external structures as 1)Framing the issue, 2)Mobilizing others, and 3)Engaging the rule makers.

The idea of pro bono itself was batted about. Brian Healy, a design principal at Perkins + Will’s Boston office, wondered, in another breakout session, if we didn’t devalue our skills by giving them away, a problem acknowledged even by John Peterson of Public Architecture regarding the internal debate at Public over the name of their new book ‘The Power of Pro Bono’. (Then the graphics designer pointed out all the ‘0’s in the title.) Ideally people want to do work that matters, is good and pays. Ideally we want to put our talents and skills to work for clients who share our values.

The question of metrics kept popping up: Would we be more successful in securing work in line with our ideals if we could better articulate/measure the difference design can make? Or maybe more clearly stated: Are metrics a valuable tool for better articulating the design’s value? Can the therapeutic value of design be better demonstrated? Measurement was seen by some as a tool for justifying an approach and facilitating collaboration. I continue to be surprised by the way the discussion of metrics with regard to design generates a response that is, by all appearances, is defensive. I still don’t understand the dichotomy between inspiration and metrics, especially in a field as practical and concrete at architecture.

Julie Eizenberg, of Koning Eizenberg Architects, in her talk in the session entitled “Overcoming Barriers: Successes and Failures”, made an elegant and inspiring case for having every project add joy and knowledge about the world to our community fund of good. She said that “philanthropists like projects that inspire”. I would extend that: philanthropists are not the only ones. The public in general doesn’t know what the design process can offer. While designers are taught to cast a wide net around a problem, as Julie pointed out, the public isn’t even expecting inspiration, thinking that smaller is better.

If we subscribe to the ethical and political activism of adding ‘joy and knowledge of the world’ to our public dialogue through design we can no longer limit our practice to benefitting only those with adequate means. The best summation, at present, of my ongoing trip through the public good or purposeful design community, is that we as designers have a valuable skill that could serve the greater good in broad, far-reaching ways, ways that most of us, practicing traditional design in the traditional delivery method, are only just beginning to grasp.

Collapse post

Cancel

Posted by Cinda Gilliland
in Social Impact
on 6 July, 2012

Be the first to comment