CW Landscape Architecture – 01

An Archive of Landscape Architecture Studio






Today was the first of the initial 2-day workshop. We discussed color management, application, and a large number of the graphic tips and principles that Mike teaches– we worked mostly in pencil and color pencil.

The ‘big take away’ from the first day has been the speed with which our class as a whole has improved. Today has flown by, and the improvement has been amazing– I think that the following photos can attest to that.


So tomorrow we dive into the first of nine days for the Be Loose Graphics Workshop, here in Manhattan… Kansas. For the past eight days, I have had the opportunity to both work for and with the workshop instructor, Mike Lin, organizing and preparing for the event.

We will be covering both basic and advanced architectural rendering techniques, using a range of representational media that include: pencil, ink, color pencil, pastel, art stix, watercolor, watercolor pencils, and graphic marker. We will also be discussing and learning a number of hybrid graphic techniques that mesh hand rendering with digital presentation– highly anticipated!

As we progress, I am planning to document the process through photos and brief writing as a means for future reference as well as an open resource for anyone who may be interested.

I am extremely excited to be afforded this opportunity, and cannot be looking forward to this any more than I already am.

Final Project_04

As designers using a dynamic media, how our end product (which is never really finished) performs through time has to be continually taken into account.

Project_04 served as a study in how landscapes transform through time. We had approximately 3-4 days to develop our concepts and create an installation for the University of Tennessee Gardens that amplified some natural phenomena that might otherwise be overlooked.
Our studio was broken into four groups of two, each group assigned one of four natural forces– earth, wind, fire, or water. My partner and I chose EARTH.

We began by asking ourselves a series of questions:
What is earth?
What does earth do?
How do we engage earth?

Truthfully, these are not questions that I often ask myself and felt a bit silly doing so. But why not?

So what is earth– soil, plants, humans, life.
What does earth do– it holds, contains, supports, sustains.
How do we engage it– we walk on it, dig in it, rely on it.

Our initial ideas for the installation were to the effect of a bowl or container that would represent the earth’s capacity to support, posing the question of ‘What happens when it is full?’, but time was a limiting factor (no pun intended).

So we began collecting ideas of being ‘grounded’ or reliant on the earth and how that degree of reliance could be illustrated.

What we developed was:


The installation involved a row of sticks and branches arranged along a NNE -SSW axis, perpendicular to our regions prevailing winds. The sticks were placed in the ground at varying depths and marked to indicate their depth. Over the course of two weeks, the sticks that were not as reliant on the earth for support were knocked over by the winds, while the more grounded members stood fast. Our question to those who viewed the installation was “To what are you grounded?” To family? To faith? To your region? To the land?

Everyone’s response was different, but each held an equal importance.

Final Project_03

Below are my final presentation boards for Project_03. As noted in previous posts, my primary design goal was to achieve a degree of transparency that could communicate on several levels–in a very physical manner through the directing and prohibiting of very specific views throughout the site (main axes, gathering nodes, private reflection spaces, etc.) and in a more abstract interpretation through the programming of space specific to the site’s adjacent disciplines, making transparent both the site’s potential use and its greater campus context.

In an effort to emphasize this guiding theme of transparency, my boards were designed to stack one on top the other, printed on vellum so that as one flips through the boards the process from previous ideas can be faintly recognized.

As a note for the future, mylar would have made for better presentation as vellum is really not THAT transparent. As well, our presentations were conducted round-robbin style in each student was continually presenting his work as reviewers circulated throughout the room. Our studio was pretty evenly divided on preference of this versus individual presentations. I, however, found myself fairly indifferent to the method of presentation. The round-robbin style offers the potential for mid-critique Improvements as one receives continual feedback. For someone who really has his presentation polished, however, the individual presentation would serve as a more gratifying means of sharing his ideas and receiving feedback… and to impress.