See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297730401 Digital Presentation Plans: Still the foundation of landscape design representation? Chapter · March 2015 CITATIONS READS 0 43 1 author: Joshua Zeunert UNSW Sydney 27 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: The Routledge Handbook of Landscape and Food View project All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua Zeunert on 04 April 2016. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
- ~ "~ ~ ~ ~-'~ -~ ~ ~ A~OROSO - ~ 8. : , I ~ ~ -~ ~ F E "' R O EP L TING LANDSCAPES: DIGITAL ---- -
Contents Notes on Contributors vii Foreword by James Corner x Acknowledgments xu Introduction 1 1 Representations of the Landscapes via the Digital: Drawing types 3 Nadia Amoroso Diagrams and Mapping Drawings 27 2 Datasca pes: Maps and diagrams as landscape agents 29 Andrea Hansen 3 Photographing the Hyper-lndex 38 Eva Castro and Federico Ruberto 4 Mapping and Refining the Site 47 ]am es Melsom 5 Digital Diagramming 58 Kofi Boone Presentation Plans 69 6 Digital Presentation Plans: Still the foundation of landscape design representation? 71 Joshua Zeunert 7 Aerial Visions/Ground Control: The art of illustrative plans and bird's-eye views 83 Karl Kullmann 8 The Site Plan is Dead: Long live the site plan 98 Roberto Rovira Axonometric Drawings 107 1 9 Chunking Landscapes 09 Christopher Marcinkoski 10 Landscapes that Fit Together 117 Maria Debije Counts Section-Elevations 127 11 Vertical Plane Typologies: Examining sections and elevations 129 Daniel H. Ortega and ]onathon R. Anderson 12 Landschaftslinien: The obvious, the hidden and a method for their decryption 136 Dietmar Straub
vi Contents 13 Alternative Revelations of Sections: Origins of the subjective section 144 Andrew Hartness Perspectives 155 14 Sensing Landscapes through Perspectives 157 Maria Debije Counts 15 Reinforcement through Opposition: Metrics and emotion in project visualization 166 Andrew Hartness 16 Hover Craft 180 David F!etcher 191 Digital Modeling and Fabrication 17 Land Formations, Tectonic Grounds 193 Jose Alfredo Ramirez and C!ara Oloriz Sanjudn 18 Terra Automata: Beyond representation of landscapes and ecologies 203 Bradley Cantrell 19 Digital Media and Material Practice 214 DavidMah 225 All Drawing Types: Case Studies 20 Recasting Jakarta: Processing the "Plastic River" 227 Christophe Girot and ]ames Melsom 21 Repairing Greyfield Sites: Visual narrative in describing emerging urban landscapes 239 Koji Boone 22 The Case for an Alternative Creek, Arroyo, Puerto Rico 255 Roberto Rovira Afterward: Closing remarks 271 Roberto Rovira Bibliography 273 Index 275
6 Digital Presentation Plans Still the foundation of landscape design representation? Joshua Zeunert The parameters of the orthographic plan drawing largely compel the observer to view the plan image from a single vantage point and in a single instant. The plan drawing places the viewer at a fixed dis- tance-looking from above-at an abstract flattening of a curved surface area of the earth. Landscape architects, who often deal with expansive scales, appreciate how the view from above enables survey and understanding of space of large (or small) tracts of the landscape. The view enabled by the plan, in this case, of a landscape design, allows inscribing and printing on to 20 flat surfaces (computer screens and paper). This process facilitates the sizing and scaling of elements. Plans allow for measure- ment without distortion of scale afforded by cartographic and drawing techniques that skew space and perspective. Thus the strength of the plan drawing is enabling construction. Its merit as an imagina- tive, exploratory medium, however, is less convincing. 1 Plan drawings are the cornerstone of landscape representation and presentation plans (PPs) are usually the most engaging plan drawing. PPs are usually richly rendered and colored. They are a scaled drawing intended to persuade and seduce clients, the general public and other designers. The PP usually accompanies the initial stages in the landscape design process before its translation into a black-and-white line, hatch and symbol drawing for tender and construction. PPs can sometimes defY the limitations of the plan drawing and effective PPs are capable of creating a sense of depth, texture, time and immersion. Currently, PPs do not receive the prominence of past times as they have been supplanted by digital perspective images. Unlike many 30 computer-generated images produced by student land- scape architects, a scaled orthographic PP cannot so easily "fudge" or hide poor design and the lack of resolution at scale. A landscape design proposition without a scaled PP is incomplete, unresolved, a preliminaty idea, or academic exercise. Plans facilitate the core design process; sketch testing of mul- tiple scenarios and options, design resolution and representation at scale, and communication of the spatial layout proposed. PPs require some design literacy to be interpreted, which also helps to explain their decreased prominence in the assemblage of design drawings in recent times. Clients can readily understand 30 images whereas PPs are less spatially effective at communicating design intent to non-designers. PPs form a key component in a suite of drawings (sections, 30 images, axonometric/isometric, 20/30 diagrams) and the PP should ideally be accompanied by a plan schematic-a simplified diagram that distils the PP into its most basic form, gestures, spaces, elements, flows and programs. Such a drawing makes the design intent clear, more accessible and readily interpreted by viewers. The suite of design drawings should be conceived and produced as an ensemble. Many times, plans are produced in isola- tion, resulting in flat, poorly resolved spaces that resemble the 20 screens that they were produced on.
Recommend
More recommend
