Q and A with Liat Margolis,co-author of Living Systems

Danielle Choi | Apr 10, 10:52 PM | digg del.icio.us

Published in 2007 as a compendium of green design techniques and resources Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture has become part of the new intellectual capital that is emerging from the landscape architecture/landscape urbanism field.

In 2008, Danielle Choi, one of our regular contributors was able to sit down with author, Liat Margolis and speak with her about the origins of this book, these new inroads for the discipline of landscape architecture and landscape urbanism as well as upcoming future projects for Liat.

 - Kaarin Patterson, Editor

Liat Margolis:
They did change. It was an interesting process. When we met the publisher in the Materials Collection, it occurred to us that there was a necessity to describe landscape materiality as a process in flux, as a dynamic medium. As opposed to my previous work cataloging material and technologies, listing materials as individual components, we wanted to talk about how landscape is defined by interdependent and responsive systems.
So Alex and I got together and thought about these categorizations as if it was a life cycle of a landscape. We started thinking - how does one grow a landscape? And what kinds of structures are affiliated with growth? Then we thought about skeletal structure vs. skin? An epidermis is not only an external layer, but it also allows for different exchanges, growth of hair, it heals, it perspires, it regulates temperature, etc.
We started thinking about all of these analogies to biology, to the human body, to the life cycle of a landscape, issues of maintenance. The topics ranged from how to assist plant growth to regulating flow or water harnessing energy?
Our categories were always based in that kind of realm. With these topics we started categorizing. I think it would be interesting to send you the original list versus the final list. The transformation from that original list to what’s in the book is not totally different, but it did change.
With this kind of organization we were able to solicit work. We sent it to almost 100 firms worldwide – design firms, engineering firms; small, large, faculty – all sorts. Everyone we could think of. Out of the 100, we probably got about 60 submissions.

TP:
That’s a huge response rate!

LM:
It was! We already had a publisher, and the Birkhäuser name helped a lot. We had a really good thesis that people were interested in. We presented our outline and asked for submissions that corresponded to it, or could even take it further? We welcomed modification of the outline and of the terminology. We began with a terminology that we thought was relevant and fascinating, but we modified it based on the projects we received.
We went through a lot of transformation of terminology. Specifically, we divided “Translate” and “Volatile” into two – they were originally both together under “Sensory,” but we decided that, much like the body, we have all different sensorial functions, and that these were somewhat intangible, they did not have a material, per se, like monitoring systems. We split “sensory” into two categories translate and volatile, which addressed phenomenological atmospheric materiality.

TP:
These are just so much more evocative than “Sensory,” I think.

LM:
I love “Volatile” – it’s one of my favorite topics.

TP:
Yeah, it’s scientific, but also phenomenological, emotional

LM:
We mention that in the intro that a lot of these projects could actually be in several chapters or categories. Especially in “Translate,” I think there’s a lot of overlap – how do you convert a force that is invisible into a visual or kinesthetic experience?

TP:
I was wondering about that when looking through the “Translate” section. With so many new materials being used, or with traditional materials being used in new or innovative ways, is there a greater responsibility to have, if not a didactic landscape, to show how the landscape is working in a way that may not have been as popular in the past 150 years of landscape architecture?

LM:
That’s definitely something that’s on the rise. There’s an interest in the technology of landscape with environmental issues, but also with a rise in innovative construction methods. What Niall Kirkwood talks about – the history of post-industrial sites – there’s this interest in showing all of those layers of past use, how the landscape has not only been transformed, but is transform-ing.

A good example of that is this landscape, in Sydney, where there are some actions that we talk about as digestive actions that were done on a more macro scale – like remediation of soil, moving things off site, etc. But then there’s the continual, the constant cleaning of the water, and that’s going on, on a continual basis. So there are two scales of showing that kind of remediation – the remnants of what happened before, but then the constant cleaning.

So, I think you’re right, there’s definitely a rising interest. In fact, the only project we criticized is this project, Cultuurpark Westergasfabriek by Gustafson Porter – the work is SO meticulously done, that in a way, there isn’t anything left over that shows the traces of the former toxic site.

TP:
It’s so crisp!

LM:
They’ve almost done it too well! This is what we say: The success is the seamlessness of the park’s surfaces may be a lost opportunity to register this layering that could continue to educate people about the site’s industrial legacy, one that does not only remain in the historic buildings, but also within the site’s horizons.

I think there is this kind of educational/didactic aspect of things defines what people are looking for today as experience, whereas in the past, it was more like interpretive signage. I think designers today are aspiring to take that written paragraph and turn it into a spatial experience, or an ongoing performative aspect of the site.

TP:
You mentioned a couple of times in the introduction the relationship of your work to pedagogy, and maybe creating a new set of terminology that could be used in teaching. I think, certainly speaking from my own experience as a student, landscape architecture pedagogy particularly in core seems to be interested in specific concepts in the abstract and there’s a difficult in letting an interesting material or process drive design. Do you have any thoughts on how your work might change design pedagogy or studio culture?

LM:

I think that I’m using the Materials Collection to start exercising my own pedagogical ideas without using existing curricula.  One of the ways that we’re doing it is through independent studies. Two of the four researchers are doing independent studies. An architecture student, Sophia, is doing an acoustics independent study, and Sara, a landscape architecture student is focusing on the weathering of wood. And both are sort of similar in that they’re trying to engage both research and experimentation. Both Sophia and Sara intend to make some sort of installation. The acoustical one lends itself more to an experience, and the weathering one may be more about an installation outdoors on the terraces and looking at how materials weather over the years, and documenting that.
So, the point is that I think engaging material studies at the GSD through actual projects is a lot more engaging than just learning about it separately in a theoretical way and never having this link between the theoretical studies and studios. Rarely are there studios that are focused specifically on materiality.

TP:
There’s an architecture options studio this semester – Sheila Kennedy’s –

LM:
There are TONS in architecture – there’s an acoustics one, Toshiko [Mori] always does these seminars with textiles, Farshid deals with the function of ornamentation. So architecture is more engaged. Sheila, for example, is focusing exclusively on tensile structures and photovoltaics. And yet it hasn’t made that leap into landscape. I think there are a lot of possibilities to have a rigorous investigation of landscape technologies and to even leverage some of the university’s resources in engineering and biology, public health, etc.

I just read an article in Harper’s about REACH, which are the new environmental regulations in Europe. They’re going to affect the whole world because the EU economy is forcing a lot of companies in the U.S. to rethink and redesign chemicals and not use all sorts of chemicals, which is a chain reaction that ends up in all of the products that we end up using.

TP:
Because non EU companies either have to make two products — one for domestic use and another for export that meets EU standards.

LM:
And we have no awareness of that as designers we have no way to intervene in that process of creating materials. So I think there’s a tremendous potential for the department at large to become a lot more educated and informed and literally bring in these people who are developing technologies into the mix. Sponsoring studios, allowing for people to develop actual prototypes, any of that. It would be more like a Media Lab type of model.

TP:
So you and Alexander have been on this crazy lecture and book tour?

LM:
Our tour bus is outside!

TP:
How has your work been received differently by graduate students, undergrads, practitioners, educators, etc.?

LM:
I have to say, we’ve been so lucky. It’s been received incredibly well worldwide, partly because the publisher is great so the circulation is tremendous. We've found the book at the Pompidou Centre, MoMA, you name it.  It’s all over! We’re almost sold out of the first edition. I think it was a very timely book because there are hardly any books like this on the market that are addressing these issues of technology and materiality in landscape architecture. There are lots of monographs out there of all sorts of firms that are amazing – there’s a new West 8 one, Peter Latz, Gustafson came out a couple of years ago. And there are books that are contemporary surveys of work, but they don’t have a critical topic associated with them.

TP:
It’s almost as if those books, even though they’re about landscape architects are not geared toward designers. I really appreciated how much this book is so much more meaningful to designers – you really get so much more out of the projects.

LM:
Thanks!

TP:
I tried to get a copy from the GSD library and all 4 copies were gone and people are flipping through saying, “Oh I had never seen this project” or even if they had, they had no idea how it worked. Most publications are very much a surface treatment of projects.

LM:
We definitely wanted to do all of the projects as a kind of slice through – a cross section looking at the underneath layers. I think students are finding it really helpful, faculty as well. It’s been on a number of required reading lists at various schools.

TP:
For what kinds of classes?

LM:
Both studio and technology classes. We went to UPenn and had an incredible reception there. Our introduction was by Anita Berrizbeitia, whom work we admire a lot. Their books (Inside Outside and Mississippi Floods (Anuradha Mathur)) were both reference guides for our book. Inside Outside offers unprecedented categories and a new language. And Mississippi Floods visualized a landscape in flux. And that was one of the ideas behind the book – to start collecting how people are beginning to illustrate the topics that they’re actually trying to address, whether it’s through diagramming or an animation over time. We thought at one point to attach a CD with animations, but not a lot of people are doing it yet. But that was one of the thoughts –how do you start discussing some of the concepts through representation. So UPenn was a really great reception. We’re going to OSU, and we’ve been invited to UVA, UT Austin, Toronto, Israel, etc. So yeah, I can’t complain – it’s been so great!

TP:
So do you have any other research projects coming down the line?

LM:
There are a few projects right now, but they’re not fully cooked. I’m trying to look at technologies in Israel, of which there are plenty – it’s like innovation central over there – for green technology, whether it’s water/solar/etc. Both mechanical and passive. And there are a number of institutes there and they have a lot of innovation there and a lot of technology, but none of it ever gets translated into design, or good design.

Israel is a desert climate with a huge demand on resources, specifically water, and I wanted to look at landscape to collect water, even just runoff, to sustain irrigation and if there’s a way to reuse that water. The other aspect was looking at zones in-between Israeli and Arab villages as a way to bridge social-political problems, so this was the idealistic aspect of it. Perhaps I could somehow develop a studio/research project where I could take technologies and sort of an entrepreneurial aspect and a zone along a border engaging maybe even local community, and students within landscape and/or architecture departments to engage in coming up with solutions.

TP:
The functional use of those borders is so much more interesting than parks that don’t really do anything, that just stand for something.

LM:
I think there’s a lot of potential – Beardsley and Christian Werthmann are starting to get into it with their research of the favelas. There’s a HUGE potential to use landscape as opposed to merely mechanical systems for erosion control due to floods, or for water cleaning. I don’t think people are so aware of that. I don’t think a lot of people understand the idea of landscape as anything other than creating shade or making public spaces. Along those lines, I think there’s room to cultivate that kind of investigation.
Abby Feldman, Alex, and I talked about the idea of developing the fiber-optic marsh as a real product. That’s kind of an ongoing topic of discussion. And the sponge – two and a half years ago, we did a project through the GSD for the Rotterdam Biennale that was curated by Adrian Geuze and the topic was “THE FLOOD.” The charge was to address the rise of sea levels, the imminent flood, and the consequences on urbanity and landscape. What does a country like Holland, which is entirely under sea level and is right now relying on a system of dykes, what do you do when there’s another foot and the dykes can’t continue to be built up. How do you live in water, with water, so on?
We came up with sort of a fantastic solution, but maybe has a sliver of practicality in it. We wanted to use super-absorbent polymers to absorb huge volumes of water instantaneously.

TP:
That’s the stuff that gets used in meat packaging, right?

LM:
Exactly, or like hygienic pads; it’s also now being used for toxic spills and in surgery for absorbing blood. What it does is absorb in a very rapid way 400 times its own weight in liquids. We designed these fantastic structures that were pink sponges everywhere. We were giving Holland a topography that they don’t have. They LOVED it, LOVED it – it made it into the newspaper in Holland. I actually think there’s a huge potential for it, to develop it, because that is a huge issue that we will have to deal with all over the world.

TP:
I’m all excited now to go back to studio!

LM:
It’s so awesome, I know! I love it! I miss school! I’m really glad to still have the affiliation there – the most intellectually stimulating day of my week is when I’m at the GSD.

TP:
Is there anything else you’d want to be posted on a landscape architecture blog with a moderate amount of online traffic?

LM:
I think that about covers it – thanks so much.

TP:
Thank you!

Interview revised 5/09 (Eds.)

images: Atelier Dreitsel and Margolis/Robinson