• The new ecological paradigm as a guide for all actions: as in the call for more sustainable practices as opposed to green aestheticisation and with regard to design, not just a technical coordination
• The encroachment of art on landscaping: landscape urbanism suggests an interdisciplinary approach to the city and architecture. Repishti claims that “minimalism, land art, abstractionism, pop art and organicism have been blended into a coherent artistic groundswell in which colour, material and form are arranged to reveal and transfigure the nature and form of places”.
• The view of ‘active’ and ‘participant’ public space: creating or fostering sociality. In that sense, landscaping has become a therapeutical mending contributing to the liveability of a city. It is now oriented less on individual works of architecture as to the urban aspect.
• The proof of the inability of architecture and planning to tackle and resolve certain urban places eventually entrusted to landscaping as an agent of urban regeneration: landscape urbanism is concerned with urban surfaces and not forms but ever since the 80’s and the plan for the regeneration of Barcelona, ‘the notion of “urban project” was formulated’, says Repishti. And later adds: “the urban project is seen as an intermediate area of city planning outlined as a set of mutable and many-sided approaches, in which forays into the fields of infrastructure and the landscape have represented a necessary condition of feasibility”.

References

Repishti, F., 2012, From Practice to Theory, in Lotus International, Vol. 150

Image

PWP Landscape Architecture, Saitama-Shintoshin Station “Sky Forest” Plaza, available here