I wrote this op-ed as I had started to see many new projects that are largely “activation” within cities rather than addressing the environmental issues. More and more public spaces are starting to look similar to commercial and branded spaces, focusing on hardscape design, an art piece, a complex architectural structure or a playground. These elements are expensive and eat into the project budget, but often fall short of the mark. Do we need custom seating walls and paving to be highly complex or painted bright colours? Do we need architectural toilet blocks and pavilions in public spaces? Do we need overly complex retaining walls in the landscape when grading and planting will suffice?
Below (in italics) is the full op-ed published on World Landscape Architecture
In an ever-changing world, designers, governments, and communities have an increasing choice. When addressing problems in urban and rural settings, they can select various approaches, design solutions, and technologies. However, this doesn’t mean they should choose the latest trend or technology instantly.
In the post-COVID period, there has been a focus on maximising (commercial) “value” in public space design, aiming to activate or upgrade these areas. This has made “activation” the primary approach, involving adding outdoor cafes, bright colours with elaborate paving patterns, custom hardscape elements, or temporary event pavilions. Partly, this trend results from governments needing to meet data-driven KPI goals, such as visitor numbers, annual project completions, or revenue targets as a separate income over and above tax or grants income for councils, government bodies, or nonprofits. Additionally, social media has exacerbated this trend, with commercial design trends filtering into public space due to the increased pressure to generate social media-worthy moments (whether genuine or staged) to grow notoriety and followers.
The activation trend has led to many public spaces being oversaturated with activation to address short-term problems, without creating solutions for long-term environmental issues. Activation also often leads to allocating budgets for short-term solutions or commercialising public space to cover budget shortfalls. It also typically benefits only specific community interest groups or demographics (such as children, young families, or teens) rather than promoting equitable solutions for all users.
All public spaces should be considered an opportunity to create a landscape that alleviates communities’ significant issues and is open to all. As a key objective, public spaces (parks and plazas) should be predominantly green areas, with trees, planting, water, permeable surfaces and water detention (retention) systems.
All community members can use open green spaces, which provide numerous benefits, including better mental health, carbon sequestration, improved air and soil quality, reduced heat island effect, lower energy costs, greater water absorption, habitat creation, and many more. This does not mean I am advocating for a return to the 18th-century picturesque movement, an end to plazas, festivals, or temporary events. I am advocating for more consideration when creating design solutions that provide for the increasing need for greener public spaces that offer (third) spaces without feeling the need to “be active”, or spend money, or participate to be part of the space.
There needs to be a shift in focus from designing and budgeting for creating activation and a move to designing predominantly green spaces that offer greater passive space for people and increase biodiversity of flora and fauna.
Landscape architects should advocate for a greater strategic role in developing design solutions for cities, rather than responding to briefs, to shift the conversation from activation to passive recreation as a solution to an increasingly hectic digital transformation era. They should also be responding to briefs for activation with a different methodology and response that seeks to allocate the project budget to green solutions rather than weak attempts at activation or placemaking. The short- and long-term investments in greener spaces can have a cumulative impact that will outpace the short-term investment in activation. We also need to understand that designs focused on activation will require a reimagining in 10-15 years, which is short-term thinking in the life of cities that can span centuries.
Cities need to realise that just because you can activate a space does not mean that it should be the immediate go-to. Designers need to provide better long-term strategic solutions (including greater green spaces) that address broader issues rather than creating short-term activations.