we witness a return to the prominence of geomorphological representations in landscape architecture. Hunt warns that we should be careful not to mask the “fictions” of our creations because “it is precisely in that modern, ecological instance that we confront once again what may be called the Brownian fallacy. By insisting on naturalistic design, landscape architects run the risk of effacing themselves and their art.”33 Likewise, even though Hargreaves Associates’ work utilizes earth, water, and vegetation as the primary structuring elements (in conjunction with all the unseen physical supports that make these landscapes possible, such as retaining and utilities), the firm’s approach to molding the ground reflects an effort to resist naturalization.
This tendency is supported by a working method: the firm relies heavily on physical models made from clay. Working with such material enables the designer to bypass the limits of drawing and develop a facility for working the ground in complex ways. Clay models are not images in the way that drawings or diagrams are. The clay is not notational or pictorial; rather, it is a transformable, malleable, and homogenous substance. Rather than representing movement through notational drawings, or representing temporality through indexing past traces, the clay enables the designer to focus on the form of the ground and the importance of sectional change for guiding movement—of people and water—and creating spaces. Though Hargreaves Associates designs are now also developed through computer modeling, the firm continues to use clay, especially early in a project’s formation. When Hargreaves was chair of the landscape architecture department at Harvard, the clay landform workshop was a mandatory part of the curriculum, and involved molding the ground into precise, measured forms. Students were asked to utilize multiple forms in configurations where they would abut, intersect, and overlap so as to compel the student to understand the complex intersections of different slopes and shapes. As noted by Kirt Rieder, an associate at Hargreaves Associates who ran the workshop for eight years, “the emphasis on distinct forms and pronounced intersections between these surfaces runs counter to the prevailing attitude in landscape architecture to ‘soften’ or blend grading into the existing conditions to make new interventions appear seamless or solely as background scenery.”34 This working method resists an imitative naturalism by creating unique and prominent topography. Though this aspect of the work has been described as “mimetic” because some of the earthwork resembles forms produced by natural processes, or “decorative” because it represents such processes without always engaging them directly, neither adequately explains the effect of the topography in terms of the relationships set up by the ground’s organization, a topic further explored in the third chapter (“Effects”).35
FIGURE 6. Various study models made of malleable materials. Candlestick Point Park was designed collaboratively with the architect and artist using a sandbox model (opposite, top). Parque do Tejo eTrancao in Lisbon, Portugal (opposite, bottom), and saint-Michel Environmental Complex in Montreal, Quebec (above), are clay models.
MATERIAL: REGISTRATION AND RESISTANCE
GIVEN THE CHARACTERIZATION of Hargreaves Associates’ early work, and Hargreaves’s own statements about process, what role does this notion play in the firm’s work in terms of its detailing and construction? The ability to see processes registered on site has as much to do with fixed form as it does with the changing aspects of a landscape; therefore, it is as much concerned with ends as with means. “Resistance” involves the material, construction, and maintenance procedures that uphold the landscape’s structure and appearance over time, whereas “registration” refers to the ability to see change within or against this structure. Both are necessary and they function together. The recognizable figures and compositions in Hargreaves Associates’ work are designed and built to resist the erosive power of water or large crowds, their edges constructed with gabions (rock-filled cages) or concrete or reinforced with geotextiles (subsurface fabrics) or ground-cover planting. In terms of natural processes, Hargreaves Associates’ approach favors addressing a cyclical time frame of daily tides, seasonal color, or seasonal flooding, for example, rather than a linear time frame of succession and growth. These are obviously not exclusive of each other (cyclical events gradually transform the landscape); however, they offer distinct approaches when used as the basis for design. For example, Hargreaves believes that in garnering support from clients and public, complete construction of distinct portions of a project is more effective than treating an entire site evenly or proposing successional landscapes that are presumed to grow in. He acknowledges that some areas have to be “let go,” but only so that the limited financial resources can be focused on other aspects of a project.36 Thus, in most of the work, phasing and zoning assure that a uniformly distributed character does not evolve across the site. There are areas where material processes are highlighted, for example, the break in the river wall in Louisville Waterfront Park, where the registration of water flow is visible because of the debris that collects in the inlets and the gradient of vegetation that results. But it also remains visible because one side of the cut is reinforced to maintain a distinct edge. Even in areas that are not subject to flooding or large volumes of water, many of the earthworks in Hargreaves Associates’ projects are reinforced with geotextiles in order to maintain their distinct forms and resist gradual processes of erosion.
There are early projects that invoke succession, and it is worth looking at these to see how they have fared in comparison to the later projects that utilize more distinct zones and with higher maintenance budgets. The power of projects such as Candlestick Point Park and Byxbee Park, both of which involved collaborations with artists, derives from the subtle differences between the constructed site and the surrounding landscape of sky and sea, arising from the use of simple incisions that register water levels, or markers that orient the view outward. These parks were restrained by design, but they were also constrained by budget and maintenance, installed for between one and two dollars per square foot. Their locations are peripheral to their city centers (San Francisco and Palo Alto, Calif., respectively) in areas with previous industrial or landfill uses. The site conditions are similar to those that have formed the basis of more recent and well-publicized projects. The questions frequently asked in recent publications are: How much design is enough? How can a master plan be avoided? How do maintenance concerns bear on design? Do investing less up front and being less specific about design result in greater flexibility for future use? It has been over twenty years since Candlestick Point and Byxbee Parks were constructed; therefore, Hargreaves Associates’ work offers interesting case studies to consider these questions.
Candlestick Point Park is 18 acres of land within the 170-acre Candlestick Point State Recreational Area. Hargreaves Associates’ original intent was a heightened contrast between the irrigated grasses that form the central lawn and the adjacent meadow left to its own cycles of growth and a lack of irrigation.37 The distinction between the two zones is less visible now, as nature has been allowed to take its course because of infrequent maintenance. Though still occasionally mown, the formerly pristine central lawn is dotted with shrubs. The maintenance crews who mow this area maneuver around the shrubs, allowing additional species to colonize the untouched pockets, further eroding the distinction between the lawn and the adjacent ground. Activities originally envisioned for the site have not taken place because the associated building was never funded. The site is sparsely populated, and there are graffiti on the concrete outcroppings by the water’s edge. Part of its appeal, at least to a one-time visitor, is its rough appearance and deserted feeling, which makes the presence of the bay that much more commanding. Located a half-mile walk from the nearest neighborhood, it is surrounded by a sea of asphalt that is the 49ers’ stadium parking lot.
FIGURE 9. Candlestick Point Park, showing one of the tidal inlets in the foreground soon after construction. The stepped gabion walls
