Article 20, Site Unseen

Southampton, NY

Some of you out of morbid curiosity or intrigue have indulged me in reading these articles. However, I have yet to discuss one very important part of architecture and I let it go for far too long. So for all of you noble seekers of truth, forward thinkers and progressives this article is for you; Site Design (And other interesting things that have something vaguely to do with site design). There could be no building without a site, (or could there?) It's an obvious statement to make but oddly enough one worth making. Without a site we have no building, a site is that important right? If it's that important it deserves special consideration, treatment and respect. After all, long after we are gone and our buildings in ruins, the site remains, waiting to reclaim itself and return to what it wants to be. I'm no tree hugger, I'm an architect and I build things that require disturbing a pristine site but I do believe it needs to be done in a conscientious way, much better than how we are currently doing things. When we sink our shovels into the earth our actions need to be worthy of what we are disturbing. We should understand what nature took thousands of years to create, we in a fraction of a second undo; let's not be arrogant and ignorant to this fact, which many are. Now site design is broad, lengthy and voluminous; no single article or book can pretend to cover it all. I won't touch upon specifics either as there are so many to consider. I must render my dealings to the extreme basics, without the help of even friends like "Gazoo". *

What is a site? A collective gasp has just been let out, Oh yes, another stupendous question is being asked the reader. I understand, I am asking the obvious, but again, what is a site? You shall not enjoy the answer according to me. So let me tell you what it is: Someones personal property. Oh how outstanding an observation! Unfortunately, it's not an observation, it's a lie. Strong words but I rather say "lie" than a gross misconception (for effect). It's not your personal property. Just as you cannot own a star, a cloud, the moon or sun, you think you can own a field, mountain or a stream because a piece of paper says so and you can put a fence around it.  It's a western concept that we have adopted to maintain our society in working order. I'm not saying it's a bad philosophy (except if you're in the Middle East) it's worked for us here in the west  but there are some problems with this concept (Just ask our Native American Indians). Your property you think you own someone else claimed to own before you and someone before them and then someone before they and on and on (sounds like the Middle East again). Do you see what's happening here? Ownership is a temporary illusion, albeit sometimes a violent one and nothing more than words on a piece of paper. However a more accurate way to understand land ownership and one that would work better, in my opinion, is to say we are "stewards" of the land, not owners of it, unless you are god of course. So what's the problem and why the distinction, owner vs steward? Well when god hands out deeds to a property, owners  feel entitled to do whatever they so please with that property good or bad, destroy or create rather than respect and care for. Stewardship recognizes the rights of others and understand how they are part of the earth system as theorized by  GAIA and what they do effects not only their property but the community and beyond. This distinction is helpful because a poor steward can be dealt with or replaced but a bad property owner cannot be forced to do anything. Sacrilege! How dare you even suggest telling me what to do with my property! So in our current system we cross our fingers and "hope" that most property owners have some level of wisdom to treat the land sensibly. Sounds like a plan full of pit falls, wouldn't you say? Strip mining, clear-cutting forests for lumber, clear cutting acres of land for sub-divisions, mountain top removal, polluting the earth with toxic dump sites, are some examples of poor stewardship of the land; I wonder how Jefferson, or TR would have felt about these practices? Well in Jefferson's case I know. At a white house dinner, while he was president, he lamented to guests about the cutting of trees along the sides of Capitol  Hill and the Potomac; "How I wish I possessed the power of a despot...Yes, I wish I was a despot that I might save the noble, the beautiful trees that are daily falling sacrifices to the cupidity of their owners, or the necessity of the poor." one of the guests asked, " have you not the authority to save those on the public grounds?" "No," said Jefferson, "only an armed guard could save them. The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder, it pains me to an unspeakable degree." *  Oh but wait now, don't we have Federal environmental protection laws, municipal zoning laws, real estate values to maintain, won't these things protect us from those who want to destroy the land? No not really. On a smaller scale my neighbor who on his one acre of land clear cut all of his trees, reason; didn't want to rake leaves.

Warren's Nursery, Watermill, NY

So now that we have gotten that politically incorrect talk out of the way and my little personal dig, let's discuss what constitutes  "good site design" should someone CHOOSE to do it. There are two approaches to site design (I'm not considering all of the technical aspects which are numerous or parks etc.) The first, is for building and land to work together, as an estate. This first approach to site design is usually done after the building is designed or built on a site. Barring any dramatic site features the structure is designed with little site influence on cleared flat open parcels. A nicely designed garden is then fitted around the house or mansion followed by hedges, fences and walls defining the site. This type of planning usually requires a Landscape architect or a master gardener to designs the gardens according to the architecture rather than the site. Think English country side mansions, and palaces such as Versailles. Here in my part of the world we build large "Shingle Style" homes with the landscape architect taking over after we are done designing the home. Some of you purists may say this is preposterous, "the site is highly examined before we design any structure on it"  trust me rarely is that done. Don't believe me? Drive through any estate section in the Hamptons and look at the houses that are barely visible from the street. They are sequestered by hedges, fences, walls and gardens all serving the mansion, house, palace. The second category of site design is one in which the site directly influences the architecture and vice versa, site specific. The architecture integrates and works with the site and it's unique features. Architectural elements may be influenced by the natural terrain and incorporated as motif's into the buildings aesthetics. This second method of designing depends heavily on customizing the architecture according to views, lighting, and natural surroundings far more carefully than the first design approach. The structure and its design could only be built on that specific site which it was intended for-unlike estate architecture which can be built practically anywhere. Falling Water is an obvious example of site specific, most beach front homes, mountain retreats, etc. Now these two categories I need not discuss any further because as you can see in both cases their is professional design consideration in their planning.

Private Residence Amagansett, NY

The problem we have is with the third category or everything else that gets built. Now I'm not trying to offend the typical home owner or layman who knock themselves out trying to beautify their home and garden or the thoughtful developer who builds conscientiously. I'm referring to the bottom line corporate developer, sub-division builder, land speculator and all other irresponsible land owners. They view the site as an expendable resource, or a commodity with the sole purpose of profiting above all else. It's the wild west of design and planning and anything goes with few regulations and laws to stop them from treating their "property" as property rather than the life sustaining vessel that it is. Well don't we need "development" in all its forms to provide products, energy and housing for our growing population? Yes we do, it's a necessity that will always trump sustainability and sensibility but inevitably leads to exploitation and abuse. It's the Industrial age old problem of housing our exponential population growth. No doubt we are reaching a breaking point and a critical era is at hand (Mad Max anyone?) Before we reach our "breaking point" is it possible in a democratic society to "force" its population to do the right thing?  It seems not. We have not found a solution that reconciles individual liberty versus the greater good. The freedom to be irresponsible is as scared as the freedom to be responsible, after all, who in the hell would drive a hummer these days? (sorry hummer people) I have no radical solutions or formulas to fix the immediate problem, however what I do offer is a reminder of the past; not a nostalgic trip down memory lane or wanting to go back "to the good old days" but to a past design environment that worked. Prior to the industrial revolution few laws and regulations were needed to stop destructive development. The growth of villages and cities was interwoven naturally with its environment. Places like the Cotswold in England or an old New England village such as Newport, or charming cities such as Savanna and Charleston grew beautifully and are fine examples of successful planning. Maybe the land was able to deal with this slow growth policy and recover when it was abused. However, that was before the industrial revolution, the advent of the mega size earth movers, the chain saw and the atomic bomb which brought forth sweeping changes. So the question to ask is two fold: Do we prefer the planning of the past like the Cotswold, Savanna, Charleston or do we prefer the typical sprawl of subdivision planning of the present? If we prefer the former then why do we not build as such anymore?

The answer to that question, I believe, is, we need to wrestle control away from those that ravage the land whole sale and give it back to the individual (yes I know the thoughtless property owners and poor stewards of the land in some cases). We seem to accept, on mass, sub-division "architecture", clear cut parcels carpeted with green grass, devoid of native plants, and gardens that frankly don't impress anybody. We need to stop believing the bill of goods sold us by greedy builders that a collective style of site planning over individual creativity is acceptable. Maybe the real reason for this mess we find ourselves in is as described  in the movie, "killing Them Softly" with Brad Pitt (Playing the part of Jackie Cogan:)
Barack Obama (on TV): ...to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one...

Driver: You hear that line? Line's for you.

Jackie Cogan: Don't make me laugh. One people. It's a myth created by Thomas Jefferson.

Driver: Oh, so now you're going to have a go at Jefferson, huh?

Jackie Cogan: My friend, Thomas Jefferson is an American saint because he wrote the words 'All men are created equal', words he clearly didn't believe since he allowed his own children to live in slavery. He's a rich white snob who's sick of paying taxes to the Brits. So, yeah, he writes some lovely words and aroused the rabble and they went and died for those words while he sat back and drank his wine and fucked his slave girl. This guy wants to tell me we're living in a community? Don't make me laugh. I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business. Now f@#ing' pay me.

"America is not a country...it's a business" A pretty strong statement to make and my beloved Jefferson a rich white snob? "You sir have offended my sensibilities!" All kidding aside it's an insight worth considering. I feel I have spent your time only pointing out obvious issues that anyone could have figured out on their own and complaining and moaning at the state of our current design environment without offering any real design solutions to site design. Many will be indignant and offended because they see what the media wants them to see, that all is well with superstar architecture and those that can afford professional help. But for many the reality is white knuckling through a society built on greed rather than good design. Our proclaimed self evident "god given" property rights, is the core belief of our western society. It is liberating but also rather harsh. Freedom without restrain is not freedom at all. The destruction of our land, the acceptance of reckless design and development can be easily be defended by our so called "rights". Grid lock traffic, communities devoid of parks, nature being destroyed and developed at an alarming rate-Is the world (or the west), coming to such extremes that the thing we fought so hard for the thing that ultimately destroys us?

So how about an alternative view of point to Site Design? Lighten up the mood a little bit? We need to walk away from this article in a positive light. Here is my idea, let's ignore the site all together. Have you gone mad? How does that make any sense at all? Let me take you back 20 years ago, back to my college days, when I proposed and presented a site plan idea back in design class.The project was simple: here is  a large site, develop it with multiple housing units come up with a master plan. So I did and I did not, at the same time, my professor was not amused. I had not developed the site to my professors chagrin, not in the conventional way at least. My housing units did not sit on the earth but rose above it placed in a large concrete wall preserving the site. My professor of course did not see my "genius" and wrote it off with not such a good grade (but curiously the guest critic loved it) My idea was to elevate the structures, place them in a continuous concrete wall above the site so the only footprint on the site would be a super wall that house my units. In other words the site would be untouched by development for the most part, nature provides all the site engineering, plants, trees, drainage etc. we don't touch it, or touch it very little.  Access to the units would be via a personal monorail car that would take you to and from your unit to centers of human activity. Viola, MY PLAN IS NO PLAN! (when it comes to the site). I would let the site designers build parks, gardens, and give them free reign, otherwise leave it in it's natural state, nature is a wonderful site designer maybe the best....

Plan of Raised Housing

Elevation of Raised Housing with Mono Rail

*THE RAPIDLY DEPLETING NUMBER OF TREES   Margret Bayard Smith, First Forty Years, II.

For further reading if you you are so interested here is a forgotten philosophy: