Apologies for my somewhat tardy blog on this topic, however I still wanted to respond to it.
I attended the David Leatherbarrow lecture and found it to be quite thought provoking. His lecture discussed his personal philosophy on the line between what is landscape and what is architecture. He remarked that one difference between landscape and architecture was that the landscape is able to renew itself whereas buildings require repair. But what I found to be of considerable relevance was his concepts of flux and the theorization of landscape. He noted that we create and teach architecture in an environment of construction, when an environment of cultivation would be more appropriate. I thought about that for a while and there is something about his concept of growth that appeals to me. I think the idea of a city or a place that is cultivated implies a sense integration and passive determination that I think is a positive thing. Certainly he is coming from a strong “landscape” perspective, as the land is often cultivated, but also many landscape designers will never live to see the fruits of their labor, as cultivation also implies a time based growth. However I don’t see that as a deterrent by any means, we work within a “results” based vocation, however it would be more interesting if we accepted a slow catalytic approach. The lifetime of our designs should be as much about a process as the act of conceiving it.