Landscape drawing is an important issue. I am not speaking only of the debate between the supporters of computer software and the defenders of drawing by hand. I am talking about the kind of drawing that results—although it does seem to me, without wanting to fight a rearguard action and reject useful technological advances, that it is difficult to entirely overlook work by hand. The drawing plays a role that is at once descriptive and analytical—it is an instrument for visibility that makes it possible to understand how a landscape is made. But at the same time, it plays a constructive role since, in revealing this role, it creates the very thing that it unveils. It is the responsibility of the landscape architect to extend his gesture toward a futuristic area that is his alone to understand but that, if it is really made visible, will be clear to everyone in the end.
City landscapes are being increasingly commodified, monitored, and constructed in ways that discourage spontaneous appropriation and unplanned transformation. In resistance to this over-determinism, a few contemporary landscape architects and urbanists are seeking to promote qualities of indeterminacy, open-endedness, and temporality in their work. Their aim is to engender and support engagement rather than objectification. These efforts are particularly applicable to large-scale public, decommissioned, and marginalized lands within or at the edge of the cities. Such spaces resist popular prescriptions of use, identity, and meaning. Is this shift from form to events, permanence to change, identity to void, a recognition for the need to recover essential territories in the city that are “neither wilderness nor home”.