Why bother to reveal anything about landscape processes that have been (or are being) degraded by human development if you don't plan to remediate any of it?
eek! Well, that's a good question. The reasoning goes back to an earlier post on Site Selection. In this post I stated, "If my intent is to reveal something about ecology, it would complicate the project if ecological remediation was required first. What I needed to find was a site with a dedicated user group and an already rich ecology."
In this early thinking, and in choosing SIWR as my site, I made a conscious decision to forgo direct ecological regeneration as an end to my eco-revelatory design elements. SIWR is currently undergoing ecological restoration; transitioning from an old farmstead to a wildlife refuge managed for habitat. Instead of remediating a degraded ecology, I hope my design proposal can help restore a holistic view of people's relationship within broader environmental systems. There are many places that desperately need ecological restoration, but there are many more that have yet to be spoiled. My tactic is to (very hopefully) create an experience that is affecting of people's future decisions regarding our environment. My wish is to attenuate park users to expanded ideas of time, place, and process while creating intimate spaces where they feel connected to the landscape. In these spaces, and along the paths between them, I hope people will begin to feel less alienated from the world of natural phenomena. I hope it will make them care more. It's my proactive approach to saving the planet.
A piece of Rome Formation (a mixture of shale, siltstone, and sandstone) from the Cambrian Period (~500 million years ago) sitting on a piece of overturned pine bark. The stone was found about 20' from this segment of fallen bark along the ridge transect. |
No comments:
Post a Comment