The Design Process as a Framework for Collaboration ... - Springer Link

Chapter 22

The Design Process as a Framework for Collaboration Between Ecologists and Designers Alexander J. Felson

Introduction Ecologists and urban practitioners involved in understanding and reshaping urban environments are at an opportune stage of practical and disciplinary convergence. Rising populations and increased pressures on urban environments have spurred a growing interest in sustainable design, green building, and green infrastructure. Ecologists and urban practitioners are hard pressed to integrate ecological understanding of cities into innovative solutions for urban design and city planning (Batty 2008; Cadenasso and Pickett 2008; Nilsson and Florgård 2009). However, our ecological understanding of cities is limited (Grimm and Redman 2004; Alberti et al. 2009). As a result, urban practitioners, including designers, environmental consultants, industrial ecologists, and ecological engineers, rely mostly on technical reports, assumptions, and non-urban ecological knowledge to inform their work (Forman 2002). Urban ecologists are beginning to address this knowledge deficit (Pickett et al. 2008; McDonnell et al. 2009; Gaston 2010; Niemela et al. 2011) and at the same time, have begun to revisit their role in the context of urban research and design (Palmer et al. 2004; Felson and Pickett 2005). Unlike designers who shape urban areas through land development, architecture and other urban interventions or even through attempts to design new ecological systems (Czerniak 2001; Shane 2005; Musacchio 2009), ecologists concentrate on understanding urban systems, including the ecological consequences of urban development and the remnant ecological dynamics in cities. Ecologists are increasingly interested in studying feedbacks between the biophysical and the social domains that act on multiple spatial extents and time scales (Redman et al. 2004;

A.J. Felson (*) School of Architecture and School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected] S.T.A. Pickett et al. (eds.), Resilience in Ecology and Urban Design: Linking Theory and Practice for Sustainable Cities, Future City 3, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-5341-9_22, © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

365

366

A.J. Felson

Cadenasso et al. 2006; Roach et al. 2008; Collins et al. 2011). To this end, some ecologists are seeking substantive engagement with local populations, institution and agencies (Pace et al. 2010) as well as further developing research and theory on ecosystem services (Carpenter et al. 2009; Pataki et al. 2011) and novel ecosystems (Rosenzweig 2003; Millar et al. 2007; Lundholm and Richardson 2010). The knowledge to be gained from this dialogue and research would enhance the ecological understanding of and ability to shape cities, thus benefitting ecologists and practitioners (Pickett and Cadenasso 2008; Felson and Pollak 2010). The question that arises is – how do we apply this knowledge? A four person interdisciplinary team from AECOM (formerly EDAW) consisting of two landscape architects, one of whom was also an ecologist, a restoration ecologist and a wildlife biologist, embarked on a pilot project to explore how ecological understanding can be integrated into the design process. The objectives were twofold. Conceptually, the project was intended to explore the design process as a framework for the integration of ecology and design. Practically, the project was intended to guide interdisciplinary collaboration within the firm as a means of achieving truly innovative urban design solutions that fulfill client demands. The collaborative effort was organized around the development of a design proposal for the Fort Scott Creek and Historic Gardens of the Presidio of San Francisco. The Park itself is a highly contested landscape with multiple stakeholder interests at play in land management and land use. Within this context, the team attempted to manage the collaboration between ecologists and designers in all stages of the design process and documented the results of these efforts. This chapter looks at these stages and highlights the challenges to collaboration. While the Presidio Project does not conclusively define a model for integration, it offers practical insight for creating an enabling environment for collaboration through the design process: (1) establishing an open and inclusive platform for input; (2) ensuring shared ownership; and (3) managing the dialogue towards integration.

The Presidio The Presidio is a 1,490 acre park located adjacent to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California, at the center of the 75,500 acre Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). Prior to its designation as a part of the GGNRA in 1972, it served as a military post starting from 1776 and was designated a National Historic Landmark District in 1962 (Benton-Short 1998). The military base was slated for closure in 1989 and the Army formally transferred the Presidio to the National Park Service in 1994. Today, the Presidio is a national park which has its own residential community of more than 3,000. The 6 million square feet of former military structures are also home to more than 225 organizations supporting more than 3,000 workers who come to the park each day. On average 4 million visitors come to the Presidio each year. Nestled within the densely populated Bay area, it is the largest urban national park in the country.

22

The Design Process as a Framework for Collaboration…

367

Over its more than 200 years of history and through its transformation from military base to national park with historic landmark status, stakeholders’ interests have multiplied as have its functions for recreation, education and historical preservation (Box 22.1). Because these interests are not always aligned, management of the park is especially challenging. It is for this reason that the Presidio is best described as a highly contested landscape.

Box 22.1 Excerpt from a Letter of Appreciation from Michael Boland, Director of Planning and Parks Projects, Presidio Trust, 2006 As managers of an incredibly complex landscape, we are continually challenged to strike a balance between competing demands – from ensuring that the park’s environmental and historic treasures endure to provide memorable opportunities for the public experience [of] the Presidio.

In 1996, the Presidio Trust was established to preserve and enhance the Presidio as an “enduring resource for the American public” and to make it financially self-sustaining by 2013. The Trust is required to use the income earned from rehabilitating and reusing the park’s buildings to fund the operations, maintenance, and upgrades of the property (Presidio Trust 2009). “Natural areas, wildlife, and native habitat” were identified as key resources alongside “historic structures” and “designed landscapes.” In the pursuit of its mandate, the Presidio Trust’s planning and design practice strives to balance the competing interests of public use and access, natural area restoration needs, and historical preservation. The Trust’s interest in balancing these goals presented the team with a suitable context to explore the integration of ecology and design in an actual design project.

Design Process: Site Visit to Conceptual Design The Trust designated the Fort Scott Creek and Historic Gardens area of the Park for the design project. This district is the focus of a redevelopment effort intended to transform the former officers’ quarters and surrounding historic buildings into a center of engagement focused national service and leadership. At the edge of the district is the Presidio Native Plant Nursery where all native plants used in restoration projects across the Presidio are propagated. The Nursery was developed organically over time by reusing historic buildings. Today, the Nursery is run as a joint endeavour by the Trust, Parks Conservancy (its non-profit partner) and the National Park Service, with significant community volunteer support. The environs surrounding the Nursery include a portion of the Historic Forest of the Presidio as well as many historic structures, a historic bridge and botanical gardens that have fallen into disrepair. A small spring-fed creek runs through the site. The riparian habitat along the creek is largely degraded, although some zones have been restored.

368

A.J. Felson

The Trust requested the team to develop a conceptual design that could address diverse stakeholders’ interests and enhance, interpret, and integrate the unique features of the project site. After 8 months of internal discussion and extensive planning with the client, the team conducted the actual design process over a 1 week period, including site visit, site analysis, stakeholder dialogue, design charette, and conceptual design.

Site Visit The first step of the design process was the site visit to examine land-use history, site conditions and land use patterns at the Presidio and Fort Scott Creek and Historic Gardens. The representatives of the Presidio Trust also demonstrated how the Trust was implementing its mission of land stewardship. They elucidated the larger vision of the Presidio and provided examples of projects that worked as solutions for addressing competing stakeholder interests. The site visit served as the initial platform of interaction. It was an open and inclusive process, with team members participating and interacting on equal footing with the Client as well as with each other. Through dialogue and shared observations, they established a set of core issues and challenges for the site to be tackled through the design process. In this way, the site visit also served to establish the parameters of the project – what stakeholders interests were involved, the Trust’s experience in navigating similar competing interests, and how it was able to reconcile those interests with its own goals for land management (Box 22.1). The designation of the Presidio as a national historic landmark in 1962 and the inclusion of the Historic Forest as a contributing feature to that listing could arguably give priority to historical preservation over other competing interests (Benton-Short 1998). In the case of the Historic Forest, landmark designation marked its cultural iconic status. Recreationists and historians prize the high canopy of eucalyptus, Monterey cypress and Monterey pine as key features of the Presidio. However this landscape is a highly constructed plant community. Until the 1800s, the Presidio featured extensive native sand dunes and coastal scrub extending across the bluffs (Fig. 22.1). These landscapes experienced soil erosion and increased sand storms due to animal grazing and military use. Major William A. Jones’ “Plan for the Cultivation of Trees upon the Presidio Reservation” was developed as a response in 1883. From 1890 to 1906 and sporadically into the 1940s, thousands of eucalyptus trees, Monterey cypress and Monterey pine were planted in mostly single species rows representative of military order. Failure to complete the plan and thin the stands over time to encourage diversity and re-growth resulted in dense monoculture stands with little sunlight or space for understory vegetation (Holloran 1998). Today this planting effort has become known as the Historic Forest and has become part of the identity of the Presidio and is emphasized in the 2002 Presidio Trust Management Plan (Fig. 22.2). Some environmentalists and scientists question the ecological value of this Forest and have even called for replacing portions of the

Fig. 22.1 Historic ecological communities across the Presidio. Redrawn by AECOM. Original is from the “Vegetation Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, 2002” accessed in 2007 at www.presidio.gov/trust/documents/environmentalplans/#10

Fig. 22.2 The presidio trust vegetation management zoning map. Redrawn by AECOM. Original is from the “Vegetation Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, 2002” accessed in 2007 at www.presidio.gov/trust/documents/environmentalplans/#10

370

A.J. Felson

Fig. 22.3 Ecological restoration projects across the Presidio as of 2007. Drawn by AECOM (Based on documents provided by the Presdio trust and the site visit)

forest with restored sand dunes, coastal scrub, and riparian habitats. The Trust has attempted to reconcile these competing interests in the Historic Forest through community-driven ecological restoration efforts (Fig. 22.3). An example is Inspiration Point. Inspiration Point typifies the landscape of the Historic Forest. Following the regimented planting of the 1880s, non-native Monterey pines replaced historically dominant serpentine grasslands, thereby obstructing the expansive view that Inspiration Point would otherwise have offered of the San Francisco Bay. Still, there was substantial pressure not to remove the trees. Using a community-based approach to facilitate the restoration of the serpentine grasslands and employing the labor of the Native Plant Nursery volunteers, the trees were removed and rare serpentine grasslands were restored. Inspiration Point is presently a major destination and

22


371

Fig. 22.4 Photograph of historic pleasure gardens at Fort Scott Creek, ca. 1934, NPS

vantage point for the Park. The community-based approach was the critical component for legitimizing and facilitating the ecological restoration goals. The Trust’s experience with Inspiration Point was an important reference for the project team. It usefully illustrated the immediate stakeholder interests that could be anticipated in the Fort Scott Creek and Historic Gardens site – namely that of the historical preservationists and that of the environmentalists. Of marked relevance was how the designation of the Park as a natural historic landmark could, ab initio, give priority to the site’s history in guiding decision-making. The gardens, bridge and buildings on the project site are artifacts of the Presidio’s military history (Fig. 22.4). Taking into consideration the value typically attached to these features, the team recognized that the history of the site would have to be treated with paramount importance, along with the ecology and design of the site. The Trust’s experience with Inspiration Point also demonstrated how a community-based approach could be used to navigate competing interests. The site visit highlighted additional interests of the Fort Scott Creek and Historic Gardens that would have to be taken into consideration in staging the collaboration. These included the Trust’s plan for redeveloping the the larger district into a National Center for Leadership and Service; the Native Plant Nursery’s ongoing ecological restoration agenda; the riparian habitat and its potential ecological value; and community interests of current residents in the vicinity of the site and the public.

372

A.J. Felson

Site Analysis Following the site visit, the team conducted the site analysis. Initially they had agreed to pair a scientist with a designer in an effort to integrate methods of analysis of ecologists with those of designers. The team anticipated that, by working jointly, they could achieve more and move forward on common ground. Due to time constraints and the team’s commitment to meet the Client’s demands, however, team members voted to work independently and therefore more efficiently to conduct the site analysis utilizing conventional methods of analysis common to their respective fields. Team members seldom coordinated or overlapped. As a result, interpretations varied. One interpretation focused on the site’s picturesque nature, another on the degraded state of the post-disturbance vegetation, a planted forest monoculture, and a recovering riparian system. Rather than achieving synergy through collaboration during this stage, this individual approach resulted in layers of partiality. Individuals had to advocate for their own perspectives to take precedence during the design charette and conceptual design phase. This, in turn, increased the potential for an adversarial environment, whereas a joint analysis as originally intended could have given more opportunities for integrative discussions and shared ownership of the site analysis process.

Stakeholder Dialogue Following the site analysis, the team met with stakeholder groups including community volunteers, historic preservationists, restoration ecologists, employees from maintenance and operations, and the architects involved in designing the first reuse plans for the larger Fort Scott District. The team had agreed to engage these stakeholders on four main issues: identifying the target users, marking the site’s boundaries, studying and evaluating proposals for the site, and finally linking the site to the Presidio Trust’s mission for the Park (Box 22.2).

Box 22.2 Presidio Mission Statement The Presidio Trust’s mission is to preserve and enhance the natural, cultural, scenic, and recreational resources of the Presidio for public use in perpetuity, and to achieve long-term financial sustainability (Presidio Trust 2009). Each stakeholder had a distinct perspective of the site. The military and historic preservationists saw the landscape as a cultural site versus an ecological one. They prioritized the cultural artifacts and historical land uses, emphasizing reconstruction of degraded buildings and landscapes and preservation of existing land uses and vegetation, particularly the Historic Forest. Although the restoration ecologists recognized the importance of historical preservation, they were more interested in improving ecosystems function. They saw the site as a refuge and emphasized the

22


373

importance of limiting human access in order to foster wildlife. The volunteers and public stewards of the land discussed public access and programming activities focused on education and demonstration projects. The maintenance and operations group emphasized keeping the design simple and allowing maintenance by providing vehicular access while also reducing maintenance requirements. Major players from each stakeholder group were invited to participate in a wrapup session to develop concise directives and negotiate controversies and disagreements. During this wrap-up session each group shared insights and concerns raised during the earlier stakeholder dialogues. By the close of the session, we had successfully clarified a working set of goals and objectives that built on the Presidio Trust’s mission: to balance historic preservation with sustained ecological systems while fostering public engagement. The goals identified were to: • Ensure compatibility of stakeholders’ visions for Fort Scott with that of the Presidio Trust to foster a Center of Engagement founded on principles of land stewardship and sustainable management • Promote the integration of design and ecology • Rehabilitate the historic landscape to revitalize the historic character of Fort Scott and its surroundings • Enhance the ecological functions and values of the riparian corridor • Create a meaningful and accessible park experience • Create a maintainable and durable site The focused discussion and the interdisciplinary structure of the team provided a framework for transparency and comparability of information across stakeholders’ discussions. This proved to be advantageous for stakeholders and team members (Box 22.3). Having a team member in a practice area that reflected the different interests at play provided stakeholders with someone they could immediately relate to and in turn greatly facilitated a free flow of exchanges between the team and the stakeholders. This exchange provided greater clarity for all the participants of the issues relating to the site and built a common understanding of how stakeholders’ interests could be applied to planning for the Presidio. The focused, solution oriented approach created an environment conducive to collaboration. In the end, the participants established a series of goals that would later be used as a reference to reduce conflict.

Box 22.3 Excerpt from Comments Made by the Deputy Director of Planning and Parks Projects, Presidio Trust, Allison Stone in an Exit Interview at the End of the Event Just planning the meeting sessions that we had and thinking about all of the different groups here, and inviting people that I normally don’t get to meet with on a day-to-day basis, but that I worked with at the same agency, and have us together. And then to have…EDAW facilitate and push it a little bit and ask questions…it was great, because it really helped us kind of crystallize some thinking here and appreciate what everyone else does.

374

A.J. Felson

Design Charette The team along with the stakeholders from the previous day and local community representatives convened for a design charette. Participants shared views on competing interests, which included: providing public access to the Fort Scott Creek; balancing public access with enhancement of the riparian corridor for ecological function and wildlife value; respecting the importance of the history of the site as a pleasure garden for military officers versus its value for wildlife; and retaining the historic significance of the garden layout versus introducing a more contemporary and functional circulation and public amenity layout linked to the goals of the Center for Engagement. As with the site analysis, the team members jointly agreed to circulate from group to group in order to promote integrative discussion and review of the projects. However, concerned about the time commitment and meeting Client’s expectations, the team chose to form break-out groups. One team member was assigned to each group, which included the Chief of Planning for the Presidio Trust. The break-out groups had to reconcile the various issues and to produce conceptual designs that incorporated historic preservation, design for public access, recreation, education, and restoration ecology. The first proposal, “Water as Organizer,” advocated for a comprehensive storm water infrastructure as a series of public spaces and ecological communities. The second proposal, “Walk through Time,” relied on circulation to frame and celebrate historic features. The final proposal, “Multi-Faceted Gradations,” used topography to create distinct levels of public space and ecological systems. A post-workshop analysis revealed that while the proposals did address one or two of the Client’s goals, none addressed all three. This was a step backwards from integration and may have resulted from the make-up of the groups. For one, team members did not interface during the exercise, thus precluding sharing of ideas and discovery of complimentary factors. Furthermore, the Director from the Presidio Trust carried more weight than the other stakeholders, as the alternative design scenarios and eventually the final conceptual design for the site show.

Conceptual Design Phase At the conceptual design phase, the team worked to synthesize the site visit, stakeholder dialogue and design charette into a cohesive conceptual vision for the site (Fig. 22.5). The team revisited the goals identified during the earlier sessions, and, with input from the Client, established the priorities for the design. The Client underscored that the regulations governing the Presidio did not prioritize habitat restoration over public access and gave equal weight also to historic preservation, thus reinforcing the principle that the three components (ecology, history and public space) under consideration should be similarly weighted. In developing the design for Fort Scott Creek and the Historic Gardens, the team had to examine several gradients: (1) balancing site access and circulation with an

22


375

Fig. 22.5 Early conceptual plan for Fort Scott Creek and historic gardens showing the overlap of the National Center for Leadership and Service the cultural stewardship center and the community gardens (Drawn by AECOM)

alternative goal of ecological restoration to foster wildlife; (2) treating the site and riparian corridor as a productive landscape focusing on the native plant nursery with community involvement and ecological restoration and wildlife refuge or sanctuary; and, (3) focusing on historic preservation and public park enhancement versus habitat and wildlife. (1) Site Access versus Wildlife Refuge. The team examined three design scenarios (Fig. 22.6). One scenario would eliminate public access and provide limited access for maintenance purposes. This “no path” option would maintain the largest contiguous wildlife habitat and, according to the ecologists, would be expected to lead to an increase in the abundance and diversity of resident and migratory wildlife species. The ecologists emphasized that Fort Scott Creek’s perennial water flow provided ecological value. In their view, then, reduced public access, enhanced hydrological regimes, and eradication of non-native species could maximize

Fig. 22.6 Alternative scenarios illustrating compromises with shifting proportions of wildlife habitat and public use and access (Drawn by AECOM)

376 A.J. Felson

22


377

ecological values for wildlife, particularly native songbirds. The ecologists also noted that the functionality of Fort Scott Creek as a wildlife refuge had apparent constraints due to its small size and fragmented condition, which reduced connectivity and increased edge effects; these limitations weakened the argument to convert the site into a wildlife refuge and reduce public access. In the design, storm-water runoff would be captured and treated in small wetlands for water quality enhancement. In addition, flat areas such as the parking area could be transformed into a large treatment wetland. Creek flows would also course through a carbon filter with riffles and pools to facilitate denitrification. Furthermore, without any paths, the resultant enhanced habitat would largely be inaccessible to the public. As a second scenario, the “one path and bridge” option, offered protection for much of the area designated as wildlife habitat and also afforded visitors the opportunity to observe birds and other wildlife. Access to the lower reaches of Fort Scott Creek would occur exclusively by way of a bridge. This would allow the creek to be restored with riparian wetlands and would minimize adverse impacts along the creek. It would also provide outstanding birding opportunities at eye-level. Although the patch of wildlife habitat would be more fragmented than under the “no path alternative,” the limited fragmentation would be more likely to facilitate animal movement to nesting, foraging and refuge sites. As a result, wildlife diversity and abundance would be considered alongside public access. The third scenario would establish multiple paths and bridges. Building on the Presidio Trust’s interest to develop the site as an integral part of the future Center of Engagement, the “multiple paths and bridges” scenario would increase visitor opportunities to interface with the site. This approach would tip the balance in favor of public access over habitat restoration. It would also produce fragmented habitats and therefore have the potential to reduce wildlife diversity. In addition, these conditions would impact wildlife viewing opportunities for visitors. (2) Native Plant Nursery - a Productive Landscape. Transforming the site into a productive nursery through increased operations of the Native Plant Nursery was considered as an alternative design scenario. Given the disturbed nature of the site and longstanding use as a pleasure garden, the team recognized that the native plant nursery could function as a publicly accessible productive landscape. Within this layout, enlarged aquatic zones could be designed as restored landscapes that produce seeds and provide plants for restoration elsewhere and for education. Narrow seasonal trails running through the site for planting and maintenance could provide controlled access to the site and function for tours and education. This would limit wildlife disturbance and minimize site grading. At specific times, guided tours could occur along the seasonal trails. However, these periodic disturbances together with public use could diminish habitat quality. (3) Historic Preservation. The team agreed that any design should incorporate historic preservation. To that end, the “multiple paths and bridges” option, would restore the park’s existing structures, trails and landscapes as a pleasure garden, as it was in the past for officers. Although restoring the site as a historic preserve fits in with the military identity of the Presidio, it neglects its potential ecological value.

378

A.J. Felson

Final Conceptual Design Proposal: Controlled Public Access and Wildlife Viewing. The final conceptual design represents the team’s best attempt to find a middle ground along the gradients of habitat enhancement and controlled public access. The project’s small size and the surrounding housing development raised concerns amongst the ecologists because of the site’s limited potential as a contiguous wildlife habitat. In contrast, the designers saw great value in developing the site as a small urban park with public amenities and connecting pathways. In the end, the team settled on a more active and culturally defined upper area with restored habitat in the lower area. One innovation, a pedestrian bridge with viewing platforms, would provide public access and at the same time circumscribe access into the riparian corridor and thereby protect much of the lower area proposed as wildlife habitat. The bridge would connect the community garden with an active cultural edge along the ridgeline overlooking Fort Scott Creek. A trail system linked to a larger loop through the adjacent Historic Forest would serve recreational purposes but avoid the high value riparian areas. Although the design would fragment some potential habitats, the team considered it as the optimal solution for facilitating a wildlife refuge while allowing controlled public access. Team members were not all in agreement during this phase. Debates occurred around the size, purpose, and representation of the proposed pedestrian bridge over Fort Scott Creek. This feature could have accommodated the perspectives of both ecologists and designers. Instead, the bridge idea was quickly endorsed by the designers but only minimally informed by the ecologists, who had strong opinions about minimizing the structure’s size to reduce environmental impact and to minimize the impact of the bridge on the riparian habitat. However, the ecologists did not have a venue to convey these concerns. Unfortunately, there was limited open dialogue among designers and ecologists about the form and scale of the bridge. The team members discovered during the post workshop analysis and design that the bridge could perform a central function in configuring the balance between wildlife habitat and public access (Fig. 22.6). With a partial bridge extended from one side of the ridge as a large platform, the public would gain partial access to the site while minimally impacting the potential wildlife habitat. With the bridge extended across the riparian corridor, the public would have greater access and circulation would be more fluid. The public could experience aspects of the habitat from above, such as bird watching, without repeatedly disturbing the existing terrestrial level. The third option would eliminate the bridge while allowing public access across the site. This would provide public accessibility to “touch the water” and to explore all elements of the riparian zone. The habitats would be compromised due to repeated disturbances.

Conclusion: Facilitating Collaboration Between Designers and Ecologists In many ways, the Presidio Project presented an ideal setting for exploring the potential integration of ecology and design. The fact that the team members as well as the Client recognized the need for the integration and were all committed to this

22


379

goal provided a unique and highly collaborative basis on which to approach the project. Further, that the ecology, history and public access of the site had to all be considered and addressed without prioritization, meant that, from the outset, interest in each area would likewise have to be evenly coordinated. This created an opportunity for each member to participate and for their perspectives to count as evidenced in the site visit, and stakeholder outreach period, when team members collectively established the parameters and issues for the design project to address. Where the balance was upset, as in the site analyses and the design charette, team members resorted to their disciplinary comfort zone, thereby limiting collaboration. Even under these optimal circumstances, the Presidio Project revealed the challenges of achieving collaboration among the specialists. The team itself at each stage agreed that a representative of each discipline would work with a representative of the other in conducting various aspects of the design process. However, at times, the prevailing constraint of time and the strong will to meet Client demands prevailed over collaboration and led to individualistic approaches. In the site analyses, team members worked independently, compromising the opportunity to elicit interpretations that could have fostered integration of perspectives. During the design charette, team members did not follow through on working collaboratively to review developing concepts, which resulted in another missed opportunity for integration. Even at the final stage of conceptual design, the designers decided upon the representation of the pedestrian bridge with minimal input from the ecologists. As later revealed, this feature alone could have integrated ecology and design at the site. The Presidio Project involved more than simply establishing a role for ecologists in the design process; it was about giving them shared ownership in it. As one ecologist commented: “While I appreciated the work ethic and commitment to developing deliverables, this [design process] was not planned out and left the other members of the team surprised by the results with no time to regroup…In regard to the presentation, I felt that I didn’t strongly express my opinion and as a result was unhappy with the result. I felt too much time was spent on putting too much stuff together and not developing a clean, concise deliverable.” The second ecologist on the team noted that, “This project has a major design component so it’s really not applicable since I couldn’t have done it myself.” He further commented that: “I was disappointed how few times the ecologists and designers worked together to come up with a specific element of the conceptual design that was superior to the idea expressed by one individual…I would have sought consensus (not necessarily compromise) on all major aspects of the conceptual design.” These comments can be contrasted with the team’s experience in the stakeholder dialogue, a highlight of collaboration. In that case, the team worked together in identifying a common set of questions to facilitate a result-oriented dialogue with stakeholders. That dialogue produced agreed goals for the project that served as a reference for the design and a tool to reconcile competing interests at later stages of the process. The representative and open nature of the dialogue, as well as its focused, result-oriented approach proved to be essential elements in its success. The buy-in to the process is the dialogue. As the Presidio Project revealed, even under ideal conditions where ecologists and designers have agreed to partner in the

380

A.J. Felson

design process, achieving meaningful integration necessitates interdisciplinary dialogue. That dialogue needs to be fostered through orchestrated activities that improve the understanding and appreciation of the respective disciplinary perspectives. The dialogue needs to be ongoing, so that input from all partners can take place in a timely manner.

Next Steps in Fostering Collaboration Between Ecologists and Designers Through the Design Process The experience of the Presidio Project raises several important factors for both ecologists and urban practitioners to consider as they progress in their trajectory of developing ecological understanding of cities and incorporating that knowledge into urban design and city planning. For one, ecologists and practitioners are not on a level playing field in the current practice of urban design. This is in contrast with the circumstances of the Presidio Project, where there was no need to negotiate a role for the ecologist throughout the design process. The tendency amongst designers is to invite inputs in the early stages of the design process but rarely in the creative and conceptual design phase. Designers often disregard the frequent indeterminacy in science and the scientific method. They seek instead to find conclusive information from scientists to incorporate into design (Forman 2002). Yet these issues of uncertainty and general lack of data are critical aspects of ecological understanding (Johnson et al. 2002). The experience on the Presidio Project suggests a need to re-orient the design process so as to allow input from ecologists at critical moments. The design process itself favors the working methods of design. Still, it is flexible enough to incorporate ecological input at different stages. The success of this marriage will depend on how dialogue is facilitated through the process and more broadly on how the ecologist’s role is re-defined in the context of urban systems. In the present practice, facilitating the dialogue requires a commitment on the part of the designer to provide multiple opportunities for ecological input in the process. This begs the question of the role of the ecologist. Should the ecologist continue to function as a sub-consultant and an expert or should s/he have a role akin to a partner or a client? The answer to this question may depend in part on how ideas of sustainability develop. Urban design is largely responsive to contemporary concerns. As urban design attends to pressing environmental concerns, practitioners are seeking to make their projects ecologically viable. This in turn suggests an expanding role for ecologists who are able to translate their scientific knowledge into design applications. Acknowledgements I would like to express appreciation to EDAW AECOM for providing generous funding and support for the project. Thanks especially to Joe Brown, Tim Delorm, Curtis Alling, David Blau, Fran Hegeler and Amanda Walter. I am also grateful to the Presidio Trust for the opportunity to work together to explore the integration of ecology and design. I am especially grateful to Michael Boland and Allison Stone and all workshop participants. Preparation and implementation of the workshop held at the Presidio occurred through a multi-office collaboration

22


381

with the Ecology and Design team. Thanks to the EDAW team members, including Alma Du Solier, Leo Edson, Debra Bishop and Dawn Cunningham, and to the other participants including Paul Tuttle, Aki Omi, Michelle Dubin, Curtis Alling, David Blau, Steven Hanson, Chris Fitzer, David Lloyd, and Dixi Carillo. An interdisciplinary team in the EDAW New York office completed the post-workshop analysis and book production: Brian Goldberg, Anthony Blanco, Renee Kaufman, Hye Young Choi, Sean Cheng, Tim Terway, Jaman Pablo, Caitrin Higgins, Shaun O’Rourke and Aaron Menkin.

References Alberti M, Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Bradley G, Ryan C, Zumbrunnen C (2009) Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. BioScience 53:1169–1179 Batty M (2008) The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science 319:769–771 Benton-Short L (1998) The Presidio: from army post to national park. Northeastern University Press, Boston Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2008) Urban principles for ecological landscape design and management: scientific fundamentals. Cities Environ 1(2):article 4, 16p Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Grove JM (2006) Integrative approaches to investigating humannatural systems: the Baltimore ecosystem study. Nat Sci Sociétés 14:1–14 Carpenter SR, Armbrust EV, Arzberger PW, Chapin FS, Elser JJ, Hackett EJ, Ives AR, Kareiva PM, Leibold MA, Lundberg P, Mangel M, Merchant N, Murdoch WW, Palmer MA, Peters DPC, Pickett STA, Smith KK, Wall DH, Zimmerman AS (2009) Accelerate synthesis in ecology and environmental sciences. BioScience 59(8):699–701 Collins SL, Carpenter SR, Swinton SM, Orenstein DE, Childers DL, Gragson TL, Grimm NB, Grove JM, Harlan SL, Kaye JP, Knapp AK, Kofina GP, Magnuson JJ, McDowell WH, Melack JM, Ogden LA, Robertson GP, Smith MD, Whitmer AC (2011) An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social–ecological research. Front Ecol Environ 9:351–357 Czerniak J (2001) Case: Downsview Park Toronto. Prestel Verlag, Munich Felson A, Pickett STA (2005) Designed experiments: new approaches to studying urban ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3:549–556 Felson A, Pollak L (2010) Defining ecology in ecological urbanism. In: Mostafavi M, Doherty G (eds) Ecological urbanism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Forman RTT (2002) The missing catalyst: design and planning with ecology roots. In: Johnson BR, Hill K (eds) Ecology and design: frameworks for learning. Island Press, Washington, DC Gaston KJ (2010) Urban ecology, Ecological reviews series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Grimm NB, Redman CL (2004) Approaches to the study of urban ecosystems: the case of Central Arizona–Phoenix. Urban Ecosyst 7:199–213 Holloran P (1998) Seeing the trees through the forest: oaks and history in the Presidio. In: Brook J, Carlsson C, Peters NJ (eds) Reclaiming San Francisco: history, politics, culture. City Lights Books, San Francisco Johnson BR, Silbernagel J, Hostetler M, Mills A, Ndubisi F, Fife E, Rossiter-Hunter M (2002) The nature of dialogue and the dialogue of nature: designers and ecologists in collaboration. In: Johnson BR, Hill K (eds) Ecology and design: frameworks for learning. Island Press, Washington, DC Lundholm JT, Richardson PJ (2010) Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments. J Appl Ecol 47:966–975 McDonnell MJ, Breuste JH, Hahs AK (2009) Introduction: scope of the book and need for developing a comparative approach to the ecological study of cities. In: McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK, Breuste JH (eds) Ecology of cities and towns. Cambridge University Press, New York

382

A.J. Felson

Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol Appl 17:2145–2151 Musacchio LR (2009) The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: a conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landsc Ecol 24:993–1013 Niemela J, Brueste JJ, Elmqvist T, Guntenspergen GR, James P, McIntyre NE (eds) (2011) Urban ecology: patterns, processes, and applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford Nilsson KL, Florgård C (2009) Ecological scientific knowledge in urban and land-use planning. In: McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK, Breuste JH (eds) Ecology of cities and towns. Cambridge University Press, New York Pace ML, Hampton SE, Limburg KE, Bennett EM, Cook EM, Davis AE, Grove JM, Kaneshiro KY, LaDeau SL, Likens GE, McKnight DM, Richardson DC, Strayer DL (2010) Communicating with the public: opportunities and rewards for individual ecologists. Front Ecol Environ 8:292–298 Palmer MA, Bernhardt E, Chornesky E (2004) Ecology for a crowded planet. Science 304:1251–1252 Pataki DE, Carreiro MM, Cherrier J, Grulke NE, Jennings V, Pincetl S, Pouyat RV, Whitlow TH, Zipperer WC (2011) Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front Ecol Environ 9:27–36 Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (2008) Linking ecological and built components of urban mosaics: an open cycle of ecological design. J Ecol 96:8–12 Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Groffman PM, Band LE, Boone CG, Burch WR, Grimmond CSB, Hom J, Jenkins JC, Law NL, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Szlavecz K, Warren PS, Wilson MA (2008) Beyond urban legends: an emerging framework of urban ecology, as illustrated by the Baltimore ecosystem study. BioScience 58:139–150 Presidio T (2009) The Presidio Trust strategic plan: fiscal year 2005–2009. Presidio Trust, San Francisco Redman CL, Grove JM, Kuby LH (2004) Integrating social science into the long-term ecological research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems 7:161–171 Roach WJ, Heffernan JB, Grimm NB, Arrowsmith JR, Eisinger C, Rychener T (2008) Unintended consequences of urbanization for aquatic ecosystems: a case study from the Arizona desert. BioScience 58:715–727 Rosenzweig ML (2003) Win-win ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford Shane DG (2005) Recombinant urbanism: conceptual modeling in architecture, urban design, and city theory. Wiley, West Sussex