Diederik van der Loo

We are all Landscapers

By Diederik van der Loo

It is not to hard to tell something about the Buitex 2011: we simply experienced so much over there. We saw a lot of things, everybody was making smart observations, and some of us even had interesting adventures in Romania. It is harder to limit yourself and select only some of those experiences and write these down in a coherent way.

All science starts with observations. And a hunch that we have about it, an idea! Before we came to the university, maybe most of our observations were casual, and we noticed the environment, or the layout of objects in space, unconsciously.

By now we are trained to see certain things more than others; our Wageningen background is guiding in what we see. We see groundwaterlevels, soils, cultural history, exotic trees, native species, social conflicts around identity, topdown government-intervention and neighbourhood participation. We can’t look at something and see it ‘just as it is’. To us, a whole world of concepts and ideas is included in our observation.

It is difficult then to think about ‘normal people’ and their everyday use. At least, I find it very hard to do so. Sometimes I can do it, when I am not too focused on the fact that I am a ‘planner’. In a more relaxed atmosphere -like the buitex- you can let your mind wander ‘out of focus’ and notice things that a professional doesn’t see anymore. Your eyeball has a knot of nerves at the back, and at exactly the opposite of that knot you have a ‘blind spot’ in your vision (only works if you look with one eye, the 2nd eye is compensating otherwise). In this way, I think the mind and observations work too: if you stare at or focus too hard on something, you miss the obvious. And as a professional, we miss the obvious sometimes too. The totally regular, the un-special, the normal, the everyday.

We think of space as something that is consciously shaped; it has intention behind it. It is made by people who know something about space. In the buitex, this is even more so.  (this doesn’t have to be a problem, I’m not making a judgement here) We are with a lot of architects and planners and sociologists and we’re going to projects, to nature parks, to developments, to architecture firms. We talk our specialist jargon and since everybody with us on the trip understands what that means, we all understand it and there is no need to question it. And although it is nice to see that people in Romania are making their first steps in citizen participation, and their first steps in nature conservation programs, we are looking at it through the dutch lens. We expect to find a plan on the city level, one on the regional level, and one on the national level. We expect to have experts be the judge of proposed developments. We expect that investments and subsidies are ‘worth it’ or ‘ethical’ or ‘meeting policy goals’. But what if they don’t?

What if it is not effective or efficient, or it was not intented to control the minds of people. What if the purpose of it is simply… to be? To be beautiful? Or what if something is made a certain way, only because people want it? They desire it so, they like it that way. Just look at the flowerbeds next to the road. It makes people happy and it makes the road look nice. The streets are sweeped everywhere. A clean street is a pleasant and safe place to be. The farmer receives some extra money for haying the old way. That’s a nice bonus, he can’t afford a tractor anyway. Most Romanians grow grapes in their courtyard in the countryside. It gives shade to your garden, and gets you some home-made fruit. Some old people in villages can tell you the history of the place. It is nice to hear their stories. A lot of people are in the mall with too expensive products not buying anything. But they clearly enjoy being there.

Normal people are shaping their environment just as the bureaucracy, the professionals and the experts are doing. You can’t say normal people think less about space than experts: only the experts would phrase it in terms of microclimate, or that the periphery of europe is dependent on the core of europe for subsidies, or that clean streets also prevent vandalism, or that the history of minorities is kept alive in an oral tradition, or that people like to use a mall as a square, as a public meeting place, or or or… So perhaps it is time to start valuing what regular people do to their public space, do in their public space, and do with their space as well. And stop calling them regular. They are just people. We are all landscapers.

But we experts here are a scientific study, and so we have to put the basic wants in the correct framework. It is not enough to just stay on the personal interest level. You have to make it a bigger problem (or observation). It is not just a some people wanting to have flowerbeds next to the road, but we can call it a spatial practice in Romania. It is not just that lots of farmers are happy to get some extra money for some crazy EU subsidy, it is also that by haying with hand more endangered species are preserved.

Science then, is not hard after making these observations. Ask the ‘why’ question and you’re doing it. Why do people want it? Why do they like this? Why? Why? Why? Homo sapiens sapiens is an animal that doesn’t adapt to circumstances, but that adapts the circumstances to itself. Why? You can make an analysis of why people wanted those flowerbeds. How the flowers serve a purpose in their minds. What the background and history of those people, of that country is, and how that influences them in the choices they make. What are the means that are available to them, in the various categories, like financial, organizational, etc. They finally have money to make streets beautiful, and don’t want to remember the gray days of communism, it is a sign of luxury and they just like it.

So since it doesn’t take an expert to like a clean street, why are we here then? What is the purpose of planners and architects and sociologists in the field of spatial planning? Because we analyze it. We theorize about it, and (via our network and the power that we have as experts) we try to make the world a little bit a better place: we share this knowledge, in the hope that others might make use of it and not make the same mistakes.

There are two valuable conclusions that can be drawn here:

1)  The wants of people are a (basic) reason that can not be ignored. A lot of people know very well what they want and why they want it. It can also be a powerful force when a) organized, b) expressed eloquently (eloquent = welsprekend) and c) the story is ‘sold’ well.

2)  Beyond the wants of people we experts analyze why and how these wants works for people. We theorize on the greater good for society. It is not necessary to make a normative judgement when formulating this, as people themselves are already doing that by expressing their wants.

Romania is not quite like the Netherlands. Some of the practices might be, but usually they are alike for different reasons than in the Netherlands. The 20th century history has been very different, leading to different preferences in the public debate. The contrast between city and countryside in Romania is as big as the contrast between the Netherlands and Romania. But the situation that experts are in, has some similarities. In both countries we need a good reason for being, a raison d’etre, to justify our profession, and our actions. And it is not enough to do it just once: we have to do this continually. We have to look at people to see what works and what doesn’t, since they too are landscapers.

If any company or agency is doubting whether to finance this kind of trip for students landscape architecture and planning after reading this, send someone with the next trip: It would not be the first time, it is a great opportunity to practice a mind in critical thought.

Think of this: how much does it costs to get 30 inquisitive minds pointed at a problem, how much does it cost to get 30 thoughts racing across encyclopedias of knowledge, how much does it cost to have 30 heads with diverse interests contributing with questions and stories and observations? Can you get that unorthodox focus that comes with a relaxed mind or do you need a buitex for it? Do you get scientific analyses of your profession or do you need a buitex for it? Do you value the vernacular works of people too or do you need a buitex for it?