Skip to Content

landscape architecture

Finding inspiration in the trenches

Architects have embraced experimental fabrication and construction techniques, such as using computer numerically controlled machines, to dramatically expand the creative expression and functional performance of standard materials. But the same can’t be said for landscape architects, according to Karen M’Closkey and Keith VanDerSys of PEG office of landscape+architecture in Philadelphia.

The two practitioners hope to see that soon change, with a little help from a $10,000 BSA Research in Architecture grant.

M’Closkey and VanDerSys are using the BSA funding to explore how digital-manufacturing technologies can be coupled with ubiquitous landscape materials—in particular, the polymer products used for engineered ground stabilization, separation and structuring—to artfully manage stormwater runoff on small urban sites.

“We’re not making new materials but rather using common materials in new ways,” says M’Closkey, who (like VanDerSys) teaches in the departments of architecture and landscape architecture at the University of Pennsylvania. “Geosynthetics are readily available and very pervasive in landscape applications, from increasing water infiltration to retaining soil for site stabilization. We want to see how we can change their composition so that the materials, which are normally below grade, can be not only visible but expressed on the ground’s surface. It’s time we learn how to tap into these very functional materials as design opportunities.”

Available in sheet or cellular form, geosynthetics are currently limited, design-wise, by their uniform geometry. M’Closkey and VanDerSys plan to vary the materials’ cellular shape, density and profile using digital manufacturing equipment and then test the customized materials’ effectiveness through the installation of a temporary prototype on a vacant lot in Philadelphia.

Working with the Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, Philadelphia’s Office of Watersheds and APM (a local community development corporation), the designers will install observation well pipes at precise points to measure and document how much stormwater is collected and absorbed. These figures will be compared with conventional infiltration trenches to ascertain the installation’s performance.

When they complete their research this fall, M’Closkey and VanDerSys plan to spread the word about their methodology and results through professional organizations for architects, landscape architects, civil engineers and public agencies, as well as through trade publications and design journals.

If the project ultimately proves successful, the designers’ new techniques may find a permanent home on another lot in north Philadelphia, as part of the city’s Green Infrastructure Initiative.

“The city is looking for innovative ways to alleviate some of the burdens on the hard stormwater infrastructure by turning vacant lots and residual spaces into active, functional infrastructure,” says VanDerSys. Given this—and with funds increasingly being directed toward infrastructure rather than toward recreational or public space—he notes that it’s more important than ever for designers to explore creative ways to use infrastructural improvements as open-space amenities. 


Genevieve Rajewski is a Boston-based freelance writer who covers science, nature, animal issues, travel, food and passionate people for acclaimed publications such as Smithsonian, Washington Post Magazine, Wired.com and the Boston Globe. Her website is genevieverajewski.com.

Top image: Karen M’Closkey and Keith VanDerSys configured geosynthetic material to manage stormwater runoff in urban areas using digital-manufacturing technologies. Photograph by Keith VanDerSys.

High-performance urban forestry for green infrastructure

The urban forest is perhaps the most conspicuous example of contemporary urbanism’s heartthrob, green infrastructure; witness the preponderance of “Million Tree” campaigns such as MillionTreesNYC, Million Trees LA, the Chicago Trees Initiative and Grow Boston Greener. After all, trees are good, especially a million trees, right? It depends. The planting techniques for most urban trees lag far behind what is necessary to steward them to old age and impressive size. 

The urban forest as green infrastructure, a primer
A robust urban forest produces myriad environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits, all while bolstering urban identity in ways no other infrastructure type can. As a biogenic public utility, it is unique in that it gains value over time rather than depreciating like most infrastructural assets.

The benefits of urban trees are well documented. Methods for assigning value to these benefits range from simple calculations, such as money saved on heating and cooling costs or increased property values to deeply contested and complex analyses. How does society determine the precise value, for instance, of the cleaner air and water or the increased biodiversity urban trees provide? The fields of environmental and ecological economics are hard at work creating metrics for such quandaries. At a minimum, it is widely accepted that the most important benefits the urban forest provides include a reduction of the heat island effect, improved stormwater management (which means higher water quality and reduced flooding), reduced air pollution, reduced energy use, increased property values, increased wildlife-habitat potential and a range of heightened aesthetic and spatial qualities.

Trees are remarkable biological machines that perform astounding feats of structural assembly and adjustment, self-defense and maintenance, organic chemistry, water pumping, atmospheric manipulation and power generation. The productive capacity of a tree increases in magnitude as it gets larger, and this is the key to understanding another maxim of urban trees: In terms of environmental and economic performance, bigger is better, by a long shot. 

The Center for Urban Forest Research calculates that large-canopy trees (greater than 50 feet in height and canopy spread) outperform small trees (less than 25 feet) by a factor of 15, and they do not start adding significant environmental performance until they reach 30 feet. Trees that do not reach this minimum will never be more than an aesthetic amenity. In the quest to make the urban forest into a high-performance green infrastructure, lots of big trees are required, especially in the most environmentally compromised zones: streets, plazas, parking lots, and commercial strips. These places have two things in common that make them hostile to trees: more than 90% impervious surface cover—what I like to call “extreme pavement”—and highly compacted soils.

An underground movement: soil resources
To grow large trees in the harshest urban conditions, a literal underground movement is necessary, and it’s all about the soil. Tree roots cannot penetrate the compacted soils of the urban environment; they need soil with lots of pore space and, ideally, organic matter. When a tree’s roots run out of space prematurely, one or more of the following happens: 1) The tree stops growing, 2) space-starved roots shove pavement and curbs aside in desperation and 3) the tree dies or is removed. Tree roots can and will break pavement, yet they cannot penetrate compacted soil. Because typical tree-root growth is relatively shallow and spreads laterally, roots need room to spread out. The eventual size and longevity of a tree depends on its ability to do that. 

A graph developed by landscape architect James Urban plots tree size, measured in crown spread and trunk diameter at breast height (DBH), as a function of available soil volume, measured in cubic feet. To grow a tree that achieves the minimum size for significant environmental performance, 800 cf of soil is required. A typical planting detail specifies a 4 feet by 10 feet tree pit (that is only 120 cf of soil!) carved out of highly compacted soil and surrounded by pavement. Trees planted in these conditions will be lucky to reach 15 feet in height, and the stormwater processing capabilities of that soil are negligible. High-compaction soil and extreme pavement are the dual enemies of urban tree growth and on-site stormwater management. Retooling underground infrastructure to accommodate high-quality, uncompacted soil enables the growth of large-canopy trees and the absorption of large volumes of stormwater.

Techniques to maximize soil
In pursuit of soil volumes required to grow environmentally productive urban trees (various experts recommend between 700 - and 1,000 cf), several techniques can be used that rely on the inventive use of space and augmented construction methods. Space permitting, the easiest way to achieve target volumes is an open planting area (1,000 cf = 10 feet by 34 feet by 3 feet tree pit, for example.) Since this is usually not possible in heavily paved areas, augmented techniques using covered soil in combination with open soil can be used. These include the use of root paths (narrow trenches of uncompacted soil under pavement to connect the planting area to nearby volumes of soil), structural soils and suspended-pavement systems. 

CU-Structural Soil™, developed by Professor Nina Bassuk and colleagues at Cornell University, solves the compaction problem by mixing angular one-inch crushed stone with planting soil, at a stone-to-soil ratio of 4:1. The stone pieces form a load-bearing “rigid lattice” that leaves space for uncompacted soil. CU-Structural Soil outperforms compacted soil, but the large proportion of stone in the mix means that 80% of the space is unavailable for root growth and water storage. Claiming a higher percentage of that space would boost performance.

Suspended-pavement systems offer the best combination of structural strength and large volumes of quality soil. A suspended-pavement system consists of an underground post-and-beam structure and a deck with pavement on top. The structure supports the weight of the pavement and additional loading by pedestrians and vehicles, leaving the space for large volumes of uncompacted soil for root growth and storm-water treatment. This approach also protects pavement and curbs from the rogue roots of cornered trees; they will always prefer expanding into tasty soil over pavement demolition. Storm water can be allowed to infiltrate the soil in several ways, such as via permeable pavements, drainage slots, curb-cut inlets and sheet flow to open planting areas. 

Providing that much high-quality soil opens the door to a much larger selection of species beyond the 10 or so that can survive in hostile urban soils. A greater mix of species helps fight pests and disease, and increases urban-habitat potential. This expanded planting palette may be one of the most significant ways to ensure the viability of the future urban forest.

San Francisco–based Deep Root Partners introduced its suspended-pavement system Silva Cell in 2007, and there are already hundreds of installations internationally, but performance data for mature trees is at least a decade away. Improvements in stormwater treatment can be measured immediately, however, and the benefits are clear. An installation in downtown Minneapolis intercepts stormwater for 6.6 acres with 179 trees planted in Silva Cells. Suspended-pavement systems are not new, and one of the best case studies is in Charlotte, North Carolina, where, in 1985, 170 trees were planted using custom suspended pavement along a 10-block stretch in the downtown business district. Each tree received 700 cf of soil, and the results have proved stunning. A 2009 survey found that the trees (167 of the 170 survived) have thrived, reaching an average height of 44 feet and 16 inches DBH.

The Achilles heel of suspended pavement is its high initial cost, adding as much as $10,000 per tree to install compared with conventional methods, a figure that will give pause to many! A life-cycle cost calculation goes a long way toward justifying this investment, and, in some cases, savings in up-front costs for traditional infrastructure can pay for it many times over. For instance, the City of Minneapolis chose a $1.5 million Silva Cell installation over a $7.5 million storm-sewer upgrade to meet the city’s storm-water goals. Still, the cost threatens to put suspended pavement out of reach for many smaller projects and out of the question for some private developers. 

Although many cities are writing minimum soil-volume standards into their zoning codes, cost is still a barrier. In Brookline, Massachusetts, the urban forestry budget is now part of the Capital Improvements Program, typically the domain of infrastructure construction and maintenance. By elevating the urban forest to public-infrastructure status, new funding possibilities emerge to offset the costs for suspended-pavement and other soil-intensive planting techniques. As a hypothetical, a city’s Department of Public Works could purchase materials and supplies such as Silva Cell in bulk and provide them at little or no cost to new projects that achieve stated environmental goals. As in the Minneapolis experience, the cost savings to the city could easily pay for such a program.

What about those million trees? Although a million is a great public-relations sound bite, the absolute number is not nearly as important as the quality of the plantings. Many trees will undoubtedly be planted in parks and open spaces where soil conditions are favorable, but thousands of trees are bound for those tough streets and parking lots. In that case, 100,000 healthy, large trees trumps 500,000 struggling or dead trees in every way. I, for one, hope that the program managers direct their resources to make this happen.

Case studies
Waterfront Toronto 
Waterfront Toronto is investing in a suspended-pavement system at an infrastructural scale, specifying SilvaCell for hundreds of its 2,000-acre waterfront revitalization project. (video)
Queens Quay (Toronto ON, Canada)
Waters Edge Promenade and Boardwalk  (Toronto ON, Canada)
Portland Slip
Bloor Street
DeepRoot case studies


Matthew Gordy is principal of On Land, a landscape and urban design practice based in Boston and in Memphis, Tennessee. He has been a design critic for studios at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and led graduate seminars at Northeastern University’s School of Architecture. He received the MLA from Harvard in 2005. Gordy previously practiced with Landworks Studio in Boston and Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

A new cycle of street life in Boston

Shauna Gillies-Smith ASLA, LEED AP, principal of Ground Inc., and Mark Pasnik RA, LEED AP, principal of over,under, gave a recent talk co-hosted by the BSA and LivableStreets Alliance. We caught up with them afterwards.

What role should design play in creating livable streets and communities?

Shauna: A major premise of our talk was that design matters. We fundamentally believe that every part of our experience is affected by design decisions, and some of them are strong, conscious design decisions and some are weak, de facto, that’s-the-way-it-has-to-be kind of design decisions. Our roads, sidewalks: they are all designed by design professionals. Bringing the pleasure of design to the table is fundamental and can really enhance the quality of life in our cities. We tend to think of nice cities as being old, historic cities that were designed on a different scale for a different set of constraints. In a contemporary city, we can still be designing that level of visual experience and pleasure in, but we have to do it with a different set of parameters and goals.

Mark: The idea of design is to make smart decisions about a place and the qualities of a place. Design is not just window-dressing, but it involves addressing issues as they relate to transportation, community building, public space—all which are crucial to the success of a street. Design thinking is an essential component of making good streets and good places. To follow up on Shauna’s point, contemporary society has an entirely different set of issues than the 19th century did—in terms of everything from transit to ways of thinking—so the image of the city should evolve with those changing parameters.

Shauna: During the Build Boston panel on landscape urbanism, Tim Love AIA brought up the discussion between the ecological street and the urban street. When you add on the concept of a livable street, it becomes an exciting possibility where the street can be designed for use by a full range of transportation modes and be designed for enjoyable experience while working in an ecological way, like treating the stormwater and looking at shade issues. The discussion made me interested in finding a prototypical street to work on, combining all these ideas.

What can designers do to carry forward the momentum from Boston’s anticipated bike-share program?

Mark: During the second half of our BSA/LivableStreets talk, I spoke about how designers and educators might advocate for the bike-share. At Wentworth Institute of Technology, my colleagues and I are getting our students involved by having them think about alternative transportation. We’re trying to prod our young designers to consider alternative transportation and livable streets as a part of their mindset. That’s a long-term investment, which may not pay off for some time with actual results. In the meantime, the students’ work could lead other people to think about transportation and how design can embrace and improve it.

Shauna: We were impressed by the crowd at the BSA/LivableStreets talk: it was a room full of people who weren’t designers but were extremely interested in design issues. It was exciting to find a group of young people interested and committed to changing the way we use the city and open to the way design can enhance that.

Mark: The crowd at the BSA/LivableStreets event showed remarkable enthusiasm and motivation. For me, it was great to discover an army of people who are interested in design and improving the city even though they are not designers themselves—actually, because they’re not designers. That’s an even better scenario: someone who is willing to engage in design and promote it, but isn’t necessarily a designer.

Shauna: To return back to the bike-share question: the logical place to start with design in the bike-share program is the design of the bike-share stations. Designing the entire street or bikeway is a much larger undertaking, but the stations’ design would be a great way to start. To design these bike stations with the same sort of interest and enthusiasm will catalyze even more energy about the program.

Mark: From what I understand, an approved vendor does most of the work—providing the bikes and the setting, so I hope the city might increase enthusiasm for the bike-share by running a design competition for the stations, the signage or other component of the program’s implementation. The design community could be involved in thinking about fresh ways to initiate a bike-share program in Boston, rather than just rolling it out the way it was done in Paris or Barcelona. What would be a unique way to implement this program in Boston, a city that frankly doesn’t have the kind of infrastructure these others already had in place? Boston is starting to get there with new bike routes and signs, but we’ve still got a long way to go in making a bike-friendly city.

Shauna: Visibility and identity are important. It wouldn’t be a good idea to have a bunch of bike-sharing elements designed by different characters. Having some type of recognizable theme or identity would start to make people who weren’t cyclists more aware of the program and that it is a part of our everyday city. You wouldn’t have drivers leaning out their windows saying, “Get on the bike path!”

Mark: My partner and I went to Paris last year. The Velib bike-sharing system changed the way we saw moving through the city. You get your bike, you ride it, you leave it behind and then you walk somewhere else and get another bike. It changes the whole impression of how alternative transportation is used in the city. In Boston, we’re so used to locking up our bikes, being concerned about them and having to come back to the same place. Under the bike-share model, the experience is fluid between biking, walking and public transportation, all without ever having to return back to something you own.

Shauna: When my family and I went to Paris several years ago, it was a very nodal experience. We’d absorb the place we were in, then get on the subway and go underground to the next node. The Boston metropolitan area has similarly developed around its T stops. For me, it is exciting to have another means of shared transportation that is about a continual experience of the city.

How can architects and landscape architects work together better?

Mark: There’s a distance between architects and landscape architects that could be overcome in some cases, but I think most good architecture and landscape architecture practices set up a smart collaboration. They recognize landscape is a component of the total design of a place, not a separate package that gets farmed out to someone late in the process. A more integrated model is the ideal scenario.

Shauna: The most successful projects that I’ve worked on have been ones where the relationship between inside and outside space was developed together from the outset. Sometimes we’re brought on so late that it’s just us working around a project. Often the landscape architect is a sub-consultant to the architect, which has certain positive qualities. But often we’re put in a place where we have two clients: the architect client and the client client. The goals of the two clients aren’t always the same. It’s helpful when both designers are contracted to the end client and when landscape architects are brought in early on in the project. We want to clearly convey the goals and possibilities of the landscape and the architecture’s relationship to it early on.

Mark: The project needs to be understood from a complete design perspective. This is particularly important when designing public space.

Is there anything you would change about the design process?

Shauna: The answer is yes [laughs].

Mark: How many things can we list in this short article [laughs]? At over,under, we’re attempting to design at a variety of scales, from the scale of a book to the scale of a city. We’ve managed to work at this broad range of scales in various projects, but integrating those scales within a single project is something we’d love to be able to do more in the future. If we’re designing a component of the city, we’d also like to envision its marketing strategy, visualization and identity work. It doesn’t happen as much as we’d like it to. Clients still think specialization. It would be wonderful to holistically think about urban, architectural and identity issues in one project—they should be interrelated, after all.

Shauna: Most important for me with respect to the design process is design literacy and awareness. People need to understand the possibilities that design can hold. Things don’t have to look the way they always have been. You can combine function and interest together. As I mentioned during the BSA/LivableStreets talk, I designed a big rock as a traffic-calming measure. The opportunity to talk at the BSA/LivableStreets event allowed me to view my work through a transportation lens and a number of people who weren’t designers started to get excited about design. The more that can happen, the more chance we have to do interesting design in Boston. As Mark mentioned at our talk, it doesn’t cost that much more to make a wonderful design experience. You don’t have to go to the other side of the world to historic or contemporary European cities to have great architectural experiences. They can be built into our own cities as we’re going along. To do so, we must build awareness and excitement so we can all do great work.

Mark: When it comes to good design, Boston has been a sleepy place for some time. I think that’s starting to change, especially in the past decade. I hope the trend continues and the broader public maintains an interest in contemporary design—where they remain open to things that don’t have to look like they were built in the 19th century. Part of what makes cities great is that they continue to evolve. A good city shouldn’t shy away from representing the layers of different periods of time, including our own.

Shauna: To add to that, landscape doesn’t have to look like a naturalistic park or an Olmsted lawn and picturesque trees in order to be good. I think Boston has been working at developing its architectural openness a little faster than its landscape openness. A city like Toronto is becoming a landscape destination city. The waterfront district sponsored a number of competitions and high-profile projects and brought in a number of well-known contemporary landscape architects. This started to engender a citywide interest in good contemporary landscapes. …The actual waterfront was a part of the city of Toronto, but then the city started becoming more interested, sponsoring some competitions and developers became more interested. It’s like anything new: you have to taste it before you can know what it really is.

What is your favorite part of the design process?

Mark: My role in teaching and at over,under is often as a design critic. I especially enjoy working with my co-conspirators once a direction is set and questions need to be asked about how to refine it, edit it, work it through. I have extremely creative collaborators, so we always have interesting discussions surrounding the advancement of a project.

Shauna: I like a lot of the design process. People look at the same place from so many different directions and eyes and perspectives: the perspective of someone moving through it, the perspective of someone being static, how it might be appropriated in completely different ways, the detailing, all of the possibilities, the different ways it could be designed. Ground Inc. tends to overproduce options. We do a lot of different alternatives at the outset—we freely let the ideas out on paper or in models and then we step back and review them. For us, the generation and the editing are somewhat separate steps. We deliberately try to separate them so we’re not inhabiting the ideas as they’re coming out. I love coming up with different ideas on the way things could be and details, but I also appreciate when people have interesting ideas that have never crossed my mind. We don’t have just one person developing ideas for a project in our office.

Mark: The thing that attracts us to the design world is creativity. It’s part of every step of the process, whether it’s creating or editing or making something. All of these phases involve an enormous amount of imagination. Being surrounded by people with that kind of focus and passion makes it great to be part of the design profession.

You both teach. How has the evolving design profession affected the way you teach versus the way you were taught?

Mark: Something that has changed in the way I teach compared to when I studied is the idea of engagement. In my education, I might have engaged in research or real urban issues of a site, but never met a client or community group. At Wentworth, we make a point to do just that. For instance, my colleagues Lora Kim, Beth Gibb and I took students to New Orleans to design and construct a series of small projects for an environmental center. In my current third-year studio, our students met with specific clients and got to see where and how they work. My group visited the Seven Cycles factory and met with the company’s president, Rob Vandermark. Students then developed their proposals for a cycling center and presented the results back to the Rob. That kind of engagement with the non-architecture community didn’t exist in my education.

Shauna: You learn a lot from your students. They keep you on your toes. Students are current with contemporary thinking. They’re learning, but they’re also trying to push excellence at every step. Their datum is to try to do the best that they can, which isn’t always the same in the professional world, where a lot of the times it’s just doing the job you know how to do. I teach part-time and immersing myself in that world keeps me interested, engaged and exposed to good students that might want to work in the office. And it literally makes me keep up with my game.

Mark: Students are constantly giving me information that they’ve discovered. It’s very rewarding to watch students develop a design or discover something that I’ve never seen before. But beyond that, there’s the simple inspiration of watching these young people figure something out and acquire a passion. Suddenly they discover architecture and it’s the thing that lights them up. One of the joys of teaching undergraduates is that architecture is such a different knowledge set from high school English or history or science. Some students excel beyond what they ever expected they could do.

Shauna: Mark mentioned earlier that critiquing is a creative job—helping to develop design minds is also a challenging and creative job. Trying to figure out the best way to raise a problem and develop somebody’s project and their interest is fulfilling.

What are you currently working on?

Shauna: The most interesting project that Ground Inc. is working on is the landscape for a new residence hall for Mass College of Art in association with ADD Inc. There isn’t yet a major topographical space associated with the college. Our space will come onto Huntington Avenue, so we’re providing more of an identity and an outdoor living room for the students. Also, because it’s an art school and a particular type of art school, the students really want the building and public space to speak of their identity. They’re a great client—when we go to our client meetings, Kay Sloan, the university president is there, as well as many other high-level executives within the institution, and then there are typically four students there. And the students are generally the ones who spend most of the time critiquing the design—with the full support of the administration and the faculty! For the most part, their comments have been bang-on. It’s an interesting change in the way one thinks of a hierarchal committee. The students are given a major voice at the table. It’s fun.

Mark: Right now over,under is working with the DeCordova Sculpture Park and Museum to rebrand the institution and doing design work for an urban district in a Middle Eastern city. The exciting thing about our practice is that we’re set up to do such broad-reaching types of design with vastly different scales, design focuses, and localities—from a 20-minute drive away to a 14-hour plane trip. One’s rural, one’s urban. One is for an art institution, the other a developer. We love those kinds of contrasts.

If you could redesign a public space in Boston for fun, what space would you choose?

Shauna: Well, I want to avoid the obvious one [laughter].

Mark: One of my favorite contemporary spaces in the world is the Christian Science Center. I would love to be involved in a public space like that. Not that it needs much. It’s already a fascinating, great space.

Why is it a great space?

Mark: It is one of the most successful modern spaces I know. It has an incredible scale. The plaza both connects well to the life of the city and has a real sense of repose. It is well used—not in an intense sense, but in a calm and grand way. It feels like a special place in the city. Kids run through the fountain, people stroll to the symphony. It handles these disparate activities deftly.

Shauna: There are two spaces I’d be especially interested in. One is actually sparked by the BSA/LivableStreets talk and also by the Build Boston panel on landscape urbanism: I’d love to work on a multi-disciplinary project for a prototypical complete street where, in an experimental, conscious and progressive way, we combine stormwater management, attitudes toward urbanism and different modes of transportation like cycling and walking. That’s my biggest interest at the moment. The other, much bigger project that I’d be interested in is the waterfront. Boston still has a pretty uninteresting, periodic relationship to its waterfront. I went to architecture school in Vancouver, and there the waterfront is part of your everyday experience of the city. In Boston, there are still very few places that you can go to understand that we actually are on the water.

Mark: Thinking back on the show we did at pinkcomma on “heroic” modernism, I thought of another urban space that I would love to work on: the back face of Paul Rudolph’s Health and Human Services building. There is a remarkable stair that slips through the building and down to meet Merrimac Street. The stair is one of the most beautiful constructs in the city of Boston, but it lands in what is now a parking lot with an ambulance drop-off surrounded by chain-link fencing. This space could be a wonderful public environment: it is located in a district that’s evolving and on the border of a number of neighborhoods. Donlyn Lyndon has a great quote about that stair, saying it is suited to a Fred Astaire extravaganza. Descending the stair, he says, you can’t help but think of dancing: “you’ll almost certainly swing out at the bottom in a gliding step with your fingers snapping.” The stair is just so dramatic, almost baroque. But like many of the buildings and environments of its era, this space is in desperate need of attention. I think it would be fascinating to rethink it, while respecting its modern nature, which adds an important layer to our city’s history.


Top image: a design for a LEED facility for bicycle storage, changing rooms and showers by Wentworth student James Jarzyniecki.

Syndicate content