As a school of thought, landscape urbanism compresses the polarisation between design and planning in an effort to combine the strengths of each. It shifts the landscape architectural project from an art (or craft) of making beautiful landscapes to one of interdisciplinary negotiation and the seeding of strategic, development processes. Just as it has been inspirational, the landscape urbanist polemic has also been grandiloquent. Accordingly, I have tried to condense the rhetoric into a set of basic principles without falling prey to reductionism. In short, as I interpret it, landscape urbanism claims to do the following:
• include within the purview of design all that is in the landscape—infrastructure and buildings, etc., and shuffle across scales so as to bridge the divides between landscape design, landscape ecology, and landscape planning.
• bring greater creativity to planning operations and greater rationality to design operations.
• conceptualize and then directly engage the city and its landscape as a hybridized, natural, chaotic ecology.
• emphasize the creative and temporal agency of ecology in the formation of urban life as opposed to envisaging an ideal equilibrium between two entities formerly known as culture and nature.
• understand and manipulate the forces at work behind things and less with the resultant aesthetic qualities of things.
• interpret and then represent landscape systems so that these systems can in turn influence urban forms, processes, and patterns.
• prefer open-ended (indeterminate and catalytic) design strategies as opposed to formal compositions and master plans.