Habitus #01, 2008
Interviewed by Chu Lik Ren
-
The Garden of Eden was there before architecture...
They also say that the mother of all arts this century is landscape architecture! It use to
be architecture. something has changed. I like that shift. Like everything else, things are
trying to get back to basics. Music is unplugged, architecture is moving back into the
garden. God has a lot more input in the garden, I think. It is alive and growing.
Architecture is man trying to be god. Not too long ago architecture was build for the
gods, nowadays it is build for the rich Dubai Arabs. This is when some of us realised we
have to return to basics. Groovy reflective architecture, gravity defying buildings, man
made palm island, is only entertaining for a while. In Eden, Adam tried to be god for a
while by eating the apple; his genes have been passed down to some of us. We will
entertain ourselves for a while building things but in the long run we will yearn to return
to that original garden.
Ever since Le Corbusier detached the building from the land with Villa Savoye, and
in fact detaching the landscape from the attention of the architect, architecture has
floundered and landscape architecture flourished. You think?
I've only seen pictures of Villa Savoye. Visited his Ronchamp a couple of years ago.
Absolutely beautiful architecture but the relationship to the land and the wider landscape
is not so hot. Fast forward to today, we have a lot of architects who see architecture as
detached from the landscape. The thinking is compartmentalized. Buildings are designed
as ubiquitous sculptures that can be placed anywhere on earth. This can be very
problematic. The works of Frank Lloyd Wright, Luis Barragan and Geoffrey Bawa take
on a more wholistic approach. The gardens and the wider landscape are totally locked
into their buildings. It is not really about the competition between architecture and
landscape architecture, it is more about the two coming together to form something that is
greater than the two. These masters are magical.
You try to visit Bali as often as you can. I guess that's as close an ideal for living
with nature we have. But the model of everyone owning and cultivating his/her plot of
land is surely not sustainable- especially with rampant urbanisation. We stack homes
upwards so we can free more land for greenery in between them. But how do you "lock"
the landscape between these high-rise so that they are not left over spaces to be
beautified by landscape architects? Are you happy with the level of inter-disciplinary
approach you advocate in your work?
It is a common complain that landscape architects are not brought in early enough and
are left with left-over spaces between the buildings but sometimes it is just a good excuse
for doing a lousy job. I am not a big advocate of coming in early. Some of our best works
are done when we came in late. The reason being the gestation time is a lot shorter and
the design ideas are a lot fresher. In our industry the lapse between ideas and
implementation is between 3-5 years. That is a long time. Whilst I believe that design
ideas are not meant to be fashionable but in a period of 5 years I find myself doing and
appreciating things differently, most of the time making things a lot simpler.
I have no problem with left-over space especially when it is a precondition for that
negotiation to have total freedom to do what I like. I usually have more problems with
interference by third parties; get in early where options are too many, designs are then
done by committee. We have a term for that in Malaysia, the 'rojak' (mixed salad)
scheme, where everyone's opinions are considered, and ending up with the lowest
common denominator.
Lately my preference is to work with a set of preferred clients and architects. We have
got to a level where there is a lot of trust; we can second guess each other. That level of
inter-disciplinary approach you described has become almost second nature, negotiations
are less, pretty and meaningless drawings are less, and we can concentrate on what's
important.
I mean, don't you wish to come on early enough in a project's design phase where
you can address the ecological and land use issues instead of this aesthetics of left-over
land parcels?
What gives you the impression that I am so ecological?? I have some major
confessions to make on this!
But seriously, I believe that ecological and sustainable issues are not in the sole domain
of landscape architects. An enlightened client and architect is almost a prerequisite. We
can come in early and articulate such issues, but such enlightenment of the team usually
happens long before, usually the project before the last. The question is not how early we
come in, it is about that consistent effort that will lay the groundwork for that next
project. For developers it is very much about the realisation of the hidden value on
ecological issues, otherwise there is no action. Enlightened developers are emerging, not
necessarily educated by us, but more likely by Al Gore and his inconvenient truth on
global warming. But it is true that we are getting involved in projects a lot earlier
nowadays.
Recently we looked at a 2000-acre site in Malaysia. The planners and architects did not
think it necessary to investigate the site. "It is a flat site." "There is only 2m difference
from one end of the site to the other." Eventually when we did visit the site, there were
ponds and lakes with cyan blue water and a beautiful orang asli village in an oil palm
estate in the middle of the site. The standard modus operandi in this part of the world is to
shift any orang asli settlement to the fringe of the site in order for "value" development to
happen in the centre, likely to a swamp near a cemetery or a sewerage treatment plant.
Our early involvement in this case helps in preserving the existing location of the orang
asli village and giving a rationale to locate the new town central park around it and the
cyan blue lakes.
Your "Sekeping Serendah", inspired by Peter Stutchbury, is a primer in "touching the
earth lightly." But can a high-rise building also "touch the earth lightly"?
It is a matter of defining "touching the land lightly" differently in the case of high rise
high density buildings. There can still be a lot of respect for the land. Sometimes we
advocate less blocks and compensate with much higher blocks and leave some land
untouched. We have also advocated building high rises with a large area of do-nothing
land instead of spreading out all over the site with row houses and retaining walls. We
have just completed a high rise development where the rock outcrops are kept intact. We
have to fight on multiple fronts as there are a lot of interests to have the rocks blasted
away for some lame safety considerations. The neighboring site did just that and they
spend months blasting and hacking away at the rock. I don't think the genus loci was
very happy. I guess every piece of land calls for its own solutions.
Touching the land lightly is about listening very carefully what the land is telling us. It
takes a bit of effort. I have on numerous occasions encountered planners and architects
who do not think it necessary to visit the site. Plans are drawn without even a contour
plan. I guess the assumption is that the land can be flattened anyway. We have all these
heavy machineries at our disposal. You can almost imagine the result in most of these
cases.
Geoffrey Bawa builds a series of 4 to 5-storeys building for the Kandalama hotel in Sri
Lanka. It is painted black and native plants are crawling out from every nook and cranny.
It is totally integrated into the land. I bet it could go 20-storeys and it still works. He was
touching the land very lightly.
Touching the land lightly is also more than just the physical manifestation. The process
of healing the land is an extension of that same philosophy. In Kandalama's case, every
guest that checks into the hotel take away an equivalent of their own waste in the form of
plant compost when they check out, elegantly packed. That is a very gentle thought.
Also in the same philosophy is getting the land to reclaimed the buildings, having the
land touch the building gently. The jardin vertical and vegetated walls of Patrick Blanc
are leading in this area. He has open up some tremendous possibilities for cities,
a paradigm shift in which we view the land and the garden. When we have stacked up
homes to cater for urbanization, horizontal surfaces might be scarce, but there are a lot of
vertical surfaces. Like the limestone cliffs and waterfall cliffs, they could be graciously
cladded with vegetation. I am sure Patrick Blanc's vegetated wall was inspired by these.
There could be tremendous amount of greenery in future cities. It does not need to look
like Batman's Gotham city.