Research Paper 1: Site Planning

Introduction to Site Planning

Site Planning, as defined by Kevin Lynch, is the art and science of arranging the structures of
the land and shaping the spaces between.

Linked to Architecture, Engineering, Landscape Architecture, and Civil Planning. Site plans
locate objects and activities in space and time. These plans may concern a small cluster of houses, a
single building and its grounds, or something as extensive as a single community built in a single
operation.

The scope of work of the site planners are:

 Selecting and analyzing sites.

 Forming land use plans
 Organizing vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
 Designing visual form
 Readjusting the existing landforms
 Providing drainage
 Developing construction details.

In that, the site planners, investigate and analyze

selected sites, either by them or the client, and propose
a building according to the conditions dictated by the
site eventually forming land use plans. Knowing the
type of building or a community that will be erected in
the site, they will organize vehicular and pedestrian circulation and will be readjusting existing
landforms depending on the circulation and taste of designers. Then providing drainage and
developing the construction details.

Due to site planning being the arrangement of spaces, professions that are involved in site planning
are: the Architects, focuses on the building erected and its relationship on the environment, Civil
Engineers, who focuses on the development of roads and bridges and anything related to horizontal
application of physics, Urban Planners, those who focuses on the relation of buildings and spaces to
one another, and Landscape Architects, those who focus on the aesthetics of the environment and
designing of [Link] the Landscape Architects are the ones that professionally exercise site
planning. They can also cooperate with a team of urban planners, architects and civil engineers and
scientist advisors.

Brief History

Site planning is already used throughout history, ever since pre-historic times in the
settlements of ancestors. In that they developed plans and strategies in the development of
communities starting from their expanding tribes.
There are four basic models in site planning

1. Fixing the space.

2. Defining the enclosure.
3. Sense of order.
4. Form of axial.
1. Fixing the space.

In this model of site planning, the image and the form of the object building are
capable of fixing the space. In which the space will be used as a focus in developing
the community. It can be used as a central figure in the site, an ex. A church being
a landmark. Or an important space, in which human activity is more prominent.

2. Defining the Enclosure

Is defined by a collection of independent structures, which though unattached,

create a coherent image of a [Link] model, focuses more on defining an
enclosure. By creating an enclosure, it imposes on bringing privacy, a change in
level, or importance of a place by defining its boundaries. A perfect example of
this is the Acropolis. The Acropolis is a city,
elevated in area of Athens, in which the place is a
group of temples dedicated to the gods.

3. Sense of Order

This type of model plans spaces depending on the functions of the

spaces, bringing in order in the ambience of the place. This can be done
in placing the appropriate spaces in sites by their
uses or leveling the functions of spaces in hierarchy. The form of the site can also
be fixed by the enclosure of the façade of buildings in the places.

4. Form of Axial

In this model, the placement of the objects in the sites, when seen as a whole
creates a form or an image. In achieving this, the placement of objects can be
inspired by an image, or can be dictated by the paths or the site itself.

Site Planning Process

The process of site planning involves investigative processes, mainly due to

deciding in what program should be used in the land, and the problems the area
imposes such as geological placement, soil workability, climate, etc. that can be a
threat to the inhabitants. Site planning process must be done carefully. Because of this many models
of site planning have been proposed in order to deepen the understanding of processes.

According to kevin lynch’s observations, there are several steps in the process of site planning.
 These are:

1. Defining the problem

2. Programming and the analysis
of site and user
3. Schematic design and the
preliminary cost estimate
4. Developed design and detailed
costing
5. Contract documents
6. Bidding and contracting
7. Construction
8. Occupation and management

The image depicts the linear process of site

planning. This model shows the eight step-by-
step process of site planning by lynch. It can be
concluded that site planning will have many
revisions along going through the process, as
said by Lynch, “Knowledge of a later phase
influences conduct of an earlier one, and early
decisions are later reworked”

Another model of site planning is

proposed by Simonds pertaining the relation of
the work processes of architecture, landscape
architecture and engineering.

Nevertheless, both models, though a bit

different from one another, share similar steps in site planning. It can be concluded that these steps
can be group to three basic steps in the process of site planning. The Research (Program
Development and Site Inventory) the investigatory process of researching upon the site and
developing the necessary programs that is dictated by the site, Analysis (Site Analysis) pertaining to
the characteristics of the site, such as topography, ecology, climate and microclimate, etc., and
Synthesis (Conceptual Design, Preliminary Design, and Site Plan/Master Plan) the process of
implementing the knowledge and understanding of the site into the design that takes on and solves
the problems found on the site. When these processes are finished then legal documents will be
signed and construction for the project takes place, lastly maintenance of the building/community of
the owner.
History of planning in the Philippines

Pre-colonial Age

Some scholars believe that the pre-colonial inhabitants of the Philippines exhibited some degree of
settlement planning [Reed and Arguilla in Ocampo, 1992].

According to history there existed a kingdom of Moros located along the banks of the Pasig 200 years
prior to the coming of the Spaniards. This group of people which was later headed by Sulayman
established the city of Manila and protected it with fortifications against the foreign invaders. When
the Spanish armada came, the Moros resisted but were overwhelmed by the power of the former's
forces.

When rebuilding the city after the ravages of war, the Spanish colonists employed local materials,
technology, and craftsmen. Some of the known geniuses in their craft were Panday-Pira and "El
Admirante." The former was a cannon-maker while the latter [a relative of Sulayman] was a master
builder. El Admirante was commissioned to undertake the construction of the walled city of
Intramuros [Shepherd in Ocampo, 1992].

Other groups of people around the archipelago displayed their own distinctive patterns of planning
their settlements. Mountain dwellers in Cordillera believe that territory should be institutionalized by
the atu or ward. There were also native folks who resided along bodies of water. The Tagalogs were
taga-ilog [river dwellers] while the Maranaws were lake dwellers. These groups were perhaps the
descendants of the earliest sea coast communities known as the barangay [also balanghay].

Spanish Regime

King Philip II promulgated a code that served as guide to all colonized territories of Spain. This code,
which was applied successfully to the Spanish colonies in the Americas, was known as the Laws of the
Indies.

The law provided guidelines for:

 site selection;
 layout and dimension of squares, streets and other land uses; and
 The main phases of planning and construction.

Details were also written pertaining to the location of the principal buildings, recreation spaces,
cultivation and pasture lands, and sites for garbage-producing uses. Also prescribed within the code is
the relationship protocol between the Spanish and the natives [Ocampo, 1992].

The royal ordinances dictated that each town should be:

 located on vacant and high ground,

 Properly oriented to sun, wind, and water areas.
 on or near fertile land and
 Accessible to sources of fuel, timber, and water.
Because the law is based on the Greco-Roman Renaissance design principles, it favored the use of the
gridiron pattern in the establishment of roads and blocks.

The plaza was the starting point of the construction, around which were the important buildings like
the church, casa real, town hall, bandstand for zarzuelas and other edifices for health and defense.
Other lots surrounding the area were reserved for merchant shops and prominent family [or
principalia] dwellings. The code also specified that there were to be as many farm lots as town lots.
The law likewise states that each house should have stockyards and courtyards. This could have been
the Philippines' earliest land use and zoning law and building code.

The instruction of the Laws of the Indies further aims at providing health, safety, order, and beauty.
The design and execution of the plans should be implemented by architects or other "executors" so
ordered by the colonial governor. The final product—i.e. the town—served as the instrument of
colonization and the staging ground for exploiting mineral and land resources [Ocampo, 1992].

In the late 16th century the Jesuits established the reducciones policy, which was aimed to gather
dispersed communities "under the bells." The policy created the "plaza complex" with its town
residents [taga-bayan]. Within the town [or pueblo], people lived around the plaza with the ilustrados
located closest to the center and the lower classes living at the periphery but still "within the sound of
the bells." The taga-bukid constituted a small minority who had to be in the fields or rural areas
attending the agricultural activities.

This Philippian principle of planning is perhaps best exemplified by the city of Manila. After all, "all
roads lead to Manila and Madrid." The city of Manila became the colonial Capital during the time of
Legaspi. Although Spanish architects and engineers envisioned Manila as a city of stone, she rather
was developed into a city of fortification. The Manila Bay was palisaded to protect the city from
Chinese pirates [led by Limahong] and other foreign invaders as well as the Muslim and Japanese
inhabitants. This was the precedent of the construction of Intramuros, which was a self-contained city
"within walls."

Despite the shortcomings of this primate city, Manila expanded partly due to the success of the
galleon trade. The city’s population was racially and culturally diverse. The Tagalogs were the
majority. A small [more than 800] but powerful group was the Spanish. The Spanish friars who were
considered the "masters of the city" owned all but five or six of the city dwellings [Gentil in Ocampo
1992]. Indian and Chinese residents who are merchants and traders lived in the areas of Binondo and
Sta. Cruz [Ocampo, 1992].

Thriving industries during the mid-19th century were in the production of cotton, silk, dairy and cigar.
This was the same time that the Philippines became a player in the world trade. Some industries like
the cigar-manufacturing in Binondo were so huge that it employed 9000 workers [Ocampo, 1992].

The population of Manila hit the 300,000 mark at the turn of the 20th century. Almost five percent of
the population were living in Intramuros while others were living in the suburbs. Technological
advancements in utilities were introduced at the time which include waterworks and telephone
systems. Transportation systems like railroads and streetcar railways were likewise introduced.

Urban design by the Spaniards left a lasting physical mark in the landscape of Philippine cities [as
there was an emphasis on the use of stones for building]. However, efforts to address the economic
and social issues for the natives was lacking. This was further aggravated by the encomienda [300 in
all] system imposed in the time of Legazpi, which was nothing more than a revival of the medieval
serfdom. Although King Philip II had better intentions in his edict, Spanish town planning was
principally done "first for the purpose of defense and second for grandeur…. Housing was not
considered at all, as a public responsibility… The badly-housed were not the concern of the
municipality" [Arguilla in Ocampo, 1992]. Regional planning was nonexistent. What only has been
done was the establishment of hierarchy of the political territories: the country is divided into
provinces [or alcaldias]; the province is divided into pueblos; and the pueblo is further divided into
barangays. The Maura Law of 1893 extended autonomy to the provinces. It established a municipal
tribunal or council for each town with at least a thousand taxpayers.

American Era

Unlike the Spaniards, the Americans gave greater emphasis on other social values like sanitation,
housing, and other aesthetic improvements. Some of these values, however, were not American in
origin. The ideas of urban development through sanitation practices and mass housing were born as a
reaction to the ills of industrialization in Europe [Benevolo in Ocampo, 1992].

Planning under the influence of the Americans is typified by the Daniel H. Burnham's plan of Manila.
In December 1904, Burnham was commissioned to prepare the physical development plan for the
cities of Manila and Baguio. Trained as an architect and guided by the principles of the City Beautiful
Movement, he envisioned the city manifesting aesthetic elements such as wide boulevards, public
edifices and landscaped parks. In the United States, Burnham draw plans for cities like Chicago,
Washington, Cleveland, and San Francisco.

Burnham was not only a man of artistic talents. His successor in the Philippines named William E.
Parsons described him as a man of "sound business judgment and experience," a man who can
convince practical of business to "make no little plans." Burnham’s objective was to make cities
"convenient for commerce and attractive and healthful as a place of residence [Parsons, 1915]." His
plan for Manila provided for the rapid increase of the population and the explosion of the city’s
industries.

Burnham prescribed the grid pattern for the city of Manila. However, the gridiron was interspersed
with the circumferential and diagonal arteries, which was reminiscent of his designs for San Francisco,
Chicago, and Washington. He proposed that the Bay areas would be extended through reclamation
and a new port would be constructed. True to his City Beautiful principles, he further proposed the
development of nine parks, two new playfields, and fountains throughout the city for public leisure.

In Burnham's plan, there were sites allotted for national and municipal buildings near Intramuros,
hospitals, and colleges. Spaces were also set for a world-class hotel, city and country clubs, a casino,
boat clubs, public baths, and the new residence for the Governor General. Resorts were also to be
developed near Manila but the ultimate escape during the summer season would be the city of
Baguio.

Burnham's plan also called for the development of Binondo as the center of business and
merchandising. Improvements were to be made in the area’s wharf, warehouse, and other port
facilities. In addition to extension of the port along the Pasig, it would also be linked to railroads
extending to north and south provinces. The plan served as a proposal to the private sector. Burnham
hoped that through private action the expansion and developments in ports and roads would be
expedited.

Post-War Period

In 1936, the Interior Department created local and planning commissions composed of the Provincial
Governor, district engineer, and other local officials. The work of the new body included the survey of
local conditions and the preparation of plans to be proposed to the Director of Public Works.
Although town planning was given a boost during this period, the practice was yet to be established
as a discipline. The problem during this pre-war period was that there was a limited pool of trained
city planners both in the local planning commissions and the Bureau of Public Works.

The Office of the President created in 1950 the National Planning Commission [NPC]. The NPC
prepared and helped administer plans and regulations for the local government. After 1959, however,
some powers of the NPC like zoning, subdivision, and building regulation were devolved to the city
and municipal governments.

Philippine Planning Environment

Global Context

The Philippines is emerging as a "resident" of the "Global Village." The country, as all other developing
nations, is affected by technological advancements in communications and transportation. The state
is also affected by social phenomena such as world trade, capitalism, and international laws. The
Philippines, as an arm of this "supraterritory," has been an extension of the American Hollywood and
a patron of the World Bank. Filipinos eat in McDonald's and pay with their hard-earned Dollar or Euro.
Needless to say, the implications of globalization to the country are virtually infinite.

The Filipinos use the modern "Shared Technology." The fact is that these technologies are not shared
but bought. Advancements in telecommunications and information like the Internet are in fact very
useful, but they come with a price tag. One could predict that the country would be crippled without
such technologies. Ten years ago, the use of computers and cellular phones were reserved to
corporations. Now, almost every Filipino urbanite uses these electronic devices. In addition,
developments in aerial transportation have made the countries virtually borderless [Scholte, 2005].

The Philippine economics is also affected by international covenants. International trade influences
the political machinations of the country. Take for example the trading of oil in the world market.
Every time the price of oil increases, the Philippines experiences turmoil: the private transportation
sector reacts and the whole country gets disturbed.

The observations stated above affect planning in general and the people’s perception and use of
space in particular. Globalization does not only affect a developing country economically but spatially
as well. National and local planners and leaders must appreciate this fact.
National and Local Framework

Because planning is considered a regular government function, its existence is asserted in both the
national and local bureaucracies. In the years immediately after the war, the government formed the
National Urban Planning Commission [NUPC]. Thereafter, another body was created: National
Planning Commission. This new organization combined the functions of the NUPC and the Capital City
Planning Commission. Within ten years, some powers of NPC were devolved to the local government.
Successive reorganization led to the formation of the following planning bodies: Ministry of
Settlements, Task Force on Human Settlements, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating
Council, and Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Even before the provisions of the Local Autonomy Law were passed, the local government enjoyed
planning autonomy as early as 1959. Powers like zoning, subdivision, and building regulation were
devolved to the cities and municipalities from the NPC. Later, legislations like the Local Government
Code [RA 7160] and the Housing and Urban Development Act [RA 7279] further developed the
capabilities of the local government units [LGUs]. Although the transition was not smooth, the LGUs
exercised their powers as exemplified by the cases of University of the East versus the City of Manila
and of Far East Bank versus Ortigas.
Of Land and Laws

There are other covenants affecting the planning process in the Philippines in general. The Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board has a manual that complements the Local Government Code [LGC] of
1991. Others like Executive Order 71 [1993] seeks to ensure the efficient devolution of powers to the
local government units and provide for an orderly and smooth transition as well as definition of future
relationships between the national and local governments. Passed almost simultaneously with EO 71,
Executive Order 72 provides for the preparation and implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use
Plans [CLUP] for the Local Government Units. These two executive orders aim at complementing the
Local Government Code of 1991 and other pertinent laws. In addition, the local government can also
reclassify agricultural lands to other uses by virtue of Memorandum Circular 54 of 1993.

The Philippine Constitution of 1987 is also a source of planning ideals regarding urban land reform
and housing. In Section 9, it declares that "the State shall, by law, and for the common good,
undertake, in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and
housing which will make available at affordable cost, decent housing and basic services to under-
privileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote
adequate employment opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the
State shall respect the rights of small property owners." In Section 10 it continues that "urban or rural
poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling demolished, except in accordance with law and
in a just and humane manner. No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without
adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated."

The Urban Land Reform Law [PD 1517] was passed during the administration of Marcos. With its
impressive rhetoric, it states that "it is the policy of the State to liberate human communities from
blight, promote their development and modernization, and bring about the optimum use of the land
as a national resource for public welfare." Although not clear if it repeals PD 1517, the Urban
Development and Housing Act, otherwise known as Republic Act 7279, was passed in 1992 before the
term of President Corazon Aquino ended. However, the spirit of this law is too philanthropic as it
basically promises provision of housing for the homeless citizens.

One of the basic urban planning problems is housing. For the past decades, legislators formulated and
accumulated laws regarding the provision of one of the basic human needs that is housing. For one,
there is the Presidential Decree 957 of 1976, which mandates the protection of subdivision and
condominium buyers. Two years later, another law [PD 1344] was enacted empowering the National
Housing Authority[NHA] to regulated and police the real estate trade and business. In 1982, Batas
Pambansa 220 authorized the Ministry of Settlements to urge the private sector to provide "economic
and socialized housing" for the middle and lower income earners.

Land use is one of the concerns of urban and regional planners. Issues pertaining to land use include
the land reclassification and conversion to other use. Executive Order 124 of 1993 serves as a guide to
the procedure of land evaluation for conversion. Aside from reacting to the issues of land of land use,
the Congress was also quick to answer the problems posed by the real estate developers. The
response was the Executive Order 184, which is a directive to create socialized housing center one-
stop processing centers to facilitate the processing and issuance of permits, clearances, certifications,
and licenses appropriate and necessary for the implementation of socialized housing projects. The
same law also orders all government agencies concerned to support the operations of the said
centers.

The problem of squatting or the unlawful occupation of land duly owned by another person or
organization is another problem faced by city planners. This problem has been in existence in the
cities of the country since after the War [Tiglao, 2002]. In 1997, Republic Act 8368 repealed Republic
Act 772, which is entitled "Penalizing Squatting and Other Similar Acts." The new law, which was
passed during the Ramos administration, decriminalizes squatting in all its forms.

A strategy for building up capability for regional planning and development is the establishment of an
authority that will administer the development of a special region [e.g. a component city]. This idea is
exemplified by Republic Act 7924, which is "an act creating the Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority [MMDA], defining its powers and functions, providing funds therefore and for other
purposes." The powers of the MMDA include development [physical] planning, transport and traffic
management, solid waste disposal and management, flood control and sewage management, urban
renewal and zoning, health and sanitation, and upholding of public safety. The territory of the
Authority is comprised of the cities of Caloocan, Manila, Mandaluyong, Makati, Pasay, Pasig, Quezon,
and Muntilupa as well as the municipalities of Las Piñas, Malabon, Marikina, Navotas, Parañaque,
Pateros, San Juan, Taguig, and Valenzuela.

Landscape Architecture

Introduction

Landscape architecture translates as the design of almost anything under the sky. Think of iconic
places like New York City’s Central Park and the FDR Memorial in Washington, D.C. But also consider
your downtown square, your local park, or even your own backyard. Green roofs, urban farms,
corporate campuses—all define landscape architecture. Landscape architecture covers a huge
spectrum, perhaps best understood by the profession’s mantra: achieving a balance between the
built and natural environments. It requires a multidisciplinary approach involving environmental
science, art, ecology, and much more, leading to extraordinary results: restoring endangered
wetlands, reducing hospital stays, securing government and other buildings, removing toxins from
rainwater. These aren’t pie in the sky. It’s what landscape architects are designing right now

Landscape architecture

A multi-disciplinary field, incorporating aspects of botany, horticulture, the fine

arts, architecture, industrial design, soil sciences, environmental psychology, geography, ecology,
and civil engineering. The activities of a landscape architect can range from the creation of public
parks and parkways to site planning for campuses and corporate office parks, from the design of
residential estates to the design of civil infrastructure and the management of large wilderness areas
or reclamation of degraded landscapes such as mines or landfills. Landscape architects work on
structures and external spaces with limitations toward the landscape or park aspect of the design -
large or small, urban, suburban and rural, and with "hard" (built) and "soft" (planted) materials, while
integrating ecological sustainability. The most valuable contribution can be made at the first stage of a
project to generate ideas with technical understanding and creative flair for the design, organization,
and use of spaces. The landscape architect can conceive the overall concept and prepare the master
plan, from which detailed design drawings and technical specifications are prepared. They can also
review proposals to authorize and supervise contracts for the construction work. Other skills include
preparing design impact assessments, conducting environmental assessments and audits, and serving
as an expert witness at inquiries on land use issues.

History

"Landscape architecture" was first used by Gilbert Laing Meason in his book On The Landscape
Architecture of the Great Painters of Italy (London, 1828). Meason was born in Scotland and did not
have the opportunity to visit Italy. But he admired the relationship between architecture and
landscape in the great landscape paintings and drew upon Vitruvius' Ten books of architecture to find
principles undere relationship between built form and natural form.
'Landscape architecture' was then taken up by John Claudius Loudon and used to describe a specific
type of architecture, suited to being placed in designed landscapes. Loudon was admired by the
American designer and theorist Andrew Jackson Downing and 'landscape architecture' was the
subject of a chapter in Downing's book A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening,
Adapted to North America (1841).
Olmsted used the term 'landscape architecture' describing the whole professional task of designing a
composition of planting, landform, water, paving and other structures, using the word for the first
time when designing the Central Park.

This led to its adoption by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux. Frederick and a man named
George Oskar gave a different slant to the meaning of 'landscape architecture', using the term to
describe the whole professional task of designing a composition of planting, landform, water, paving
and other structures. Their first use of this term was in the winning entry for the design of Central
Park in New York City. Olmsted and Vaux then in 1863 adopted 'landscape architect' as a professional
title and used it to describe their work for the planning of urban park systems. Olmsted's project for
the Emerald Necklace in Boston was widely admired and led to the use of 'landscape architecture' as
a professional title in Europe, initially by Patrick Geddes and Thomas Mawson. Frederick Law Olmsted
and Beatrix Farrand, with eight other leading practitioners

Landscape architecture has since become a worldwide profession, submitted for recognition by
the International Labour Organization and represented on a world-wide basis by the International
Federation of Landscape Architects.
Garrett Eckbo and Dan Kiley were prominent modernist landscape architects in the mid-20th century.
Their work is represented by a shift away from what might be termed the "Wild Garden" aesthetic of
earlier landscape architects influenced by Romantic Naturalism, and toward a more spare and
rectilinear aesthetic. Both studied under Warren Manning at Harvard, who in turn had studied under
Frederick Law Olmsted.
Several landscape architects practicing in the 1980s and 1990s moved the discipline beyond its roots
in High Modernism. These include Martha Schwartz, Peter Walker, and Michael Van Valkenburgh.
Starting in the mid-1990s, a new disciplinary shift occurred toward what has been called Landscape
Urbanism, a term that attempts to merge urban design, infrastructure design and landscape.
Three remarkable histories of the landscape architecture profession were published in the 1970s.

6 Landscape Architecture Considerations

1. Current Landscape Amenities and Space.

Even if home is brand new, it has some existing landscaping to contend with. Perhaps you
love some aspects of your current landscaping and hate other aspects. We can design your
 landscape architecture to highlight the parts you love and completely change the parts you'd
rather get rid of.

2. Landscape Grade
It's possible to change some of the grading on your property, but it's important to consider
its natural grade when designing your overall landscape design. When you carefully plan your
landscaping around your property's natural grade, your landscaping will flow and perform
beautifully.

3. Proposed Landscape Architecture Changes and Budget.

Here at Green Impressions, we don't start working on a landscaping project until we have a
full and complete budget, even if the project will be completed in stages. For the sake of your
own personal finances, we suggest that everyone follow the same course. Make a complete
plan for your landscape architecture, including how much it will all cost.

4. Home's Natural Environment.

Homeowners are happiest with their landscaping when it reflects the property's natural
surroundings for several reasons. First, native plants live longer and happier lives than plants
imported from different climates. This means less work for you over the years. Second,
planning your landscape architecture to fit in with your natural surroundings gives your home
a more harmonious look.

5. Privacy Needs
You buy and install window coverings to protect your privacy while you're inside your home;
there's plenty you can do to ensure privacy while you spend time out of doors on your
property as well. While some parts of your landscaping should be designed to show off your
home's architecture, other parts should be designed to hide your personal and social lives
from public view. Here are some simple ways your landscaping can help to protect your
privacy:

 Hedges and shrubs

 Layered plantings
 Container gardens
 Fences and walls
 Pergolas and arbors
 Fountains and pond less water features

6. Landscape Maintenance.
When all is said and done and your new landscape architecture is installed, a lifetime of
maintenance begins. That's why it's imperative that you consider landscape maintenance
from the earliest steps of your planning. You can significantly decrease and simplify your
future maintenance tasks by planning low-maintenance landscaping in the first place.
Including hardscaping, native trees and plants, water features, and irrigation systems are all
ways to reduce your future landscape maintenance.
Pioneer in Landscape Architecture

Ildefonso Paez Santos

Ildefonso Paez Santos Jr. (September 5, 1929 – January 29, 2014), popularly known simply as "IP
Santos", was a Filipino architect who was known for being the "Father of Philippine Landscape
Architecture." He was recognized as a Philippines in the field of Architecture in 2006.
He was the son of Filipino poet Ildefonso Santos and Asuncion Paez.
Santos graduated from the University of Santo Tomas in 1954 with a degree in the field of
architecture. He then pursued a second degree in Architecture, as well as a Master of Architecture
degree at the University of Southern California School of Architecture.

Santos pioneered the profession of landscape architecture in the Philippines. He was bestowed with
the title of "national artist" for his outstanding achievement in architecture and allied arts on June 9,
2006.
Among the locations that comprise IP Santos' body of work are the landscaping of:

 Cultural Center of the Philippines

 Manila Hotel
 San Miguel Corporation Building
 Nayong Pilipino
 Paco Park
 Rizal Park
 Loyola Memorial Park
 Tagaytay Highlands Golf and Country Club
 The Orchard Golf and Country Club
 Magallanes Church
 Asian Institute of Management

LAW

By the Republic Act No. 9053 also known as the “Philippine Landscape Architecture Act of 2000”,the
landscape architect is entitled to the protection, conservation and rehabilitation of the natural
environment and scenery to enhance the ecological system and quality of life, such as, but not limited
to:

(1) The act of planning sites and outdoor spaces;

(2) Recommending on and formulating landscape development policies concerning visual
resources, streetscapes, the rehabilitation of inner cities, slums and historical districts, parks
and recreation items which are important components of area development plans at the
local, regional and national levels, and as components of area development and planning
codes, zoning ordinances and other studies;
(3) Consultation, oral advice and direction, conferences, evaluation, investigation, estimates,
appraisals and assessment, landscape architectural and operational programming;
(4) Schematic design, design studies and development, concepts and contract documents;
 (5) Preparation of preliminary technical, economic and financial feasibility studies of plans and
project promotional services including preparation of specialized studies such as
environmental impact assessments (EIA);
(6) Preparation of plans, specifications, bills of materials, cost estimates, general conditions and
landscape work contract documents;
(7) Construction and project management; giving general management, administration,
supervision, coordination and responsible direction to the planning, designing, construction,
reconstruction, enlargement, renovation, repair, orderly removal or demolition, remodeling,
alteration, preservation or restoration of landscape sites or structures including all their
component sites and environs intended for private or public use;
(8) The practice of Landscape Architecture shall also include all other works, projects and
activities which require the professional competence of Landscape Architects, including
teaching of Landscape Architecture subjects given in the licenser examinations for Landscape
Architects; computer-aided design; the scientific, aesthetic and orderly coordination of all
works and branches of the work, systems and processes necessary in order to enhance and
safeguard life, health and property, and the promotion and enrichment of the quality of life;
the landscape architecture design of engineered structures or any part thereof;
(9) The planning, layout and utilization of spaces within and around buildings or structures
including their sites; environment and urban design, site planning, outdoor space planning,
landscape architectural detailing, landscape architectural lighting, laying out of associated
mechanical, electrical, sanitary, plumbing and other utility systems, equipment and fixtures;
and
(10)Site programming, grounds maintenance and administration, and landscape architectural
conservation and restoration.

The practice of environmental planning, within the meaning and intent of the Republic Act No. 10578
also known as the “Environmental Planning Act of 2013”, shall embrace the following:

(a) Providing professional services in the form of technical consultation, rendering of technical
advice, plan preparation, capacity building and monitoring and evaluation of implementation
involving the following:

1. National, regional or local development and/or physical framework and

comprehensive land-use plans;

2. Zoning and related ordinances, codes and other legal issuances for the
development and management, preservation, conservation, rehabilitation, regulation
and control of the environment, including all land, water, air and natural resources;

3. Planning and development of a barangay, municipality, city, province, region or any

portion or combination thereof; and

4. Development of a site for a particular need or special purpose, such as economic or

ecological zones; tourism development zones; and housing and other estate
 development projects, including the creation of any other spatial arrangement of
buildings, utilities, transport and communications;

(b) In relation to any of the activities enumerated in paragraph (a) above, preparing the
following studies:

1. Pre-feasibility, feasibility and other related concerns;

2. Environmental assessments; and

3. Institutional, administrative or legal systems;

(c) Curriculum and syllabi development in licensure examinations for environmental planners
and teaching in academic institutions and conducting review courses in environmental
planning;

(d) Serving as expert witness, resource person, lecturer, juror or arbitrator in hearings,
competitions, exhibitions and other public fora; conduct of hearings, competitions, exhibits
and other public fora;

(e) Ensuring compliance with environmental laws including the acquisition of regulatory
permits.

The Professional Regulatory Board, subject to approval of the Professional Regulation

Commission, may add to, or exclude from, this section any activity or act of professional
practice, or revise it as the need arises to conform to changes and new developments
brought about by the latest trends in environmental planning; and

(f) Perform other acts or conduct other activities that may be determined by the Board,
subject to approval by the Professional Regulation Commission in light of the trend of the
practice of the profession.

Relation of Site planning in landscape architecture

Site planning in landscape architecture and landscape architecture refers to the

organizational stage of landscape design process. It involves the organization of land use;
zoning, access, circulation, privacy, security, shelter, land drainage and other factors.

Scope of Work in Site Planning

1. The process of designating the use of land in detail is done by:

2. Selecting and analysing sites
3. Forming land use plans. Organizing vehicular and pedestrian circulation
4. Designing visual form and material concepts
5. Readjusting the existing landforms by design grading
6. Providing proper drainage.
 7. Developing the construction detail necessary to carry out the project.

Example of a Basic Site Plan

Needs and Objectives

• A design which is site specific and responds to the unique conditions of each place

• Development which integrate into and harmonizes with the existing landscape

• Outdoor space which respond to orientation, views and microclimate

• The use of sustainable materials and indigenous vegetation.

• Maximize efficiency of services- plan new development in proximity to similar existing/new or

future spaces

• Access and inclusion - An inclusive environment is one that can be accessed and used by everyone.
It recognizes and accommodates differences in the way people use the built environment

References:
  "Architect IP Santos Jr. Library Collection Turnover to the College of Architecture Library | UP
Library Bulletin Online". [Link]. Retrieved 2014-01-29.
 "Ildefonso P. Santos Jr. | Arkitektura | Philippine Architecture, Architects, News".
[Link]. Retrieved 2014-01-29.
 Jump up^ "National Commission for Culture and the Arts". Archived from the original on
2008-07-29. Retrieved 2014-04-03.

Citations:

 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
Case Study Example: Bryant Park, New York City14
PROJECT NAME Bryant Park
LOCATION Avenue of the Americas between 41st and
42nd Streets, behind New York Public
Library, Manhattan
DATE DESIGNED/PLANNED Original design completed in 1934;
Redesigned early 1990s
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED Built in phases from 1991 to 1995
CONSTRUCTION COST Park Rehabilitation = $5.9 million
SIZE 4.6 acres
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT(S) Hanna/Olin, Landscape Architects
CLIENT/DEVELOPER New York City Parks Department & Bryant
Park Restoration Corporation (BPRC)
CONSULTANTS/ARCHITECTS Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer, New York City
MANAGED BY New York City Parks Department & Bryant Park Restoration Corporation (BPRC)

Context.
Bryant Park, located one block from Times Square and behind the main branch of the New York
Public Library, is a major public open space in Manhattan’s bustling midtown. It is located in a busy
office and educational district of Manhattan and serves as an outdoor retreat for office workers,
tourists, and students. In the 1970s it was populated by drug dealers and the homeless. Today it is
heralded as a revitalized and democratic urban public space that can serve as a model for other
cities. The history of the park graphically demonstrates some of the conflicts inherent in managing
public spaces in dense urban centers. Considering its location, the notion of Bryant Park as a place
for relaxation can be viewed as appropriate on one hand and unrealistic on the other. Clearly many
urbanites seek a place of retreat from the activity of the city, and Bryant Park is one of the few
places in central Manhattan that could conceivably offers this respite. Indeed, in their 1976 study of
the park, Nager and

However, as these same researchers suggest, some of the very factors that made the park a place
for retreat and relaxation, such as its ample vegetation and the stone fences separating it from the
street, also encouraged its intensive use by drug dealers, who operated easily in the semi-seclusion
of the park during the 1970s until its redevelopment in 1990s. During the 1970s it became clear that
some design or management changes were necessary in order to counteract the appropriation of
the park by dealers and their clients and to increase its use by a wider range of people, including
local office workers and shoppers. This concern gave rise to current redesign and development of
the park, completed in phases from 1991 to 1995.
Site [Link] Park is bounded on three sides by streets and on the fourth by the back of the
New York Public Library. Two of the three streets, 42nd and Avenue of the Americas, are heavily
trafficked. Historic elements include a stand of heritage Sycamore trees on the site framing a central
lawn area and a plaza at the western end. There are stunning views of the skyline of midtown
Manhattan from most parts of the park, and the New York Public Library building forms a strong
visual edge at the east end of the Park. Wally Wentworth and Anita Nager (1976) conducted a
behavioral analysis of Bryant Park in the early 1970s followed by filming and observation of use of
the park by the sociologist William Whyte. Landscape architect Laurie Olin conducted detailed
sketches, site analysis and redesign studies of the park in 1980s15. Several economic studies were
done on the importance and redevelopment of the park during that same period.

Project Background and [Link] Bryant Park has served as a public open space since the mid-
1850s, its main configuration was established in 1934 and then modified in the early 1990s. Bryant
Park was originally a potter’s field in 1823. It was developed as a park in 1847 and named Reservoir
Park—“after the city reservoir that was constructedon the site now occupied by the public library”
(Berens, 1998, p. 45). In 1884, it wasrenamed Bryant Park after the poet William Cullen Bryant, who
was a strong advocatefor parks. When Robert Moses became head of the New York City Parks
Department in1923, he mounted a major redevelopment of the park. Moses intended the park to be
aplace of "restful beauty," with ample trees and hedges, rather than a space for activerecreation
(Biederman&Nager, 1981). Moses held a design competition, and thewinning design converted the
park into a classically influenced formal space,surrounded by a stone fence and laid out in a
symmetrical fashion.
Until then the park was on grade with the surrounding sidewalk, but fill was used fromnearby
subway construction to raise the park above the surrounding streets. Gayle

After Whyte’s report, the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation, a public-privatepartnership, was
formed to redevelop the park and a team of designers was [Link] of the park took place
in the early 1990s and the park has enjoyed a rebirthand transformation as a result. Today it is a
well-used and popular open space inmidtown Manhattan.

Genesis of Project.
The recent redevelopment of Bryant Park grew out of significantsocial and crime problems with the
park, especially during the 1970s. To redevelop thepark, the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation, a
private nonprofit group fundedprimarily by corporations located near the park and the Rockefeller
Brothers' Fund, wasfounded in 1980. While the Corporation dealt extensively with maintenance
andsecurity issues in cooperation with the City's Parks and Police Departments, its majorgoal was "to
fill Bryant Park with activity, to attract to the park as many legitimate usersas possible" (Bryant Park
Restoration Corporation, 1981). In the years it has operated,the restoration group in conjunction
with the Parks Council, the Public Art Fund, andother organizations has been responsible for an array
of events and new activities in thepark. These include several concert series, an artists-in-residence
program, arts-andcraftsshows, a booth selling half-price tickets to musical and dance events, and
bookand flower stalls (Carr et. al, 1992). It is generally agreed that these activities, along
withimprovements in policing and maintenance, significantly increased park use andreduced crime
(Fowler, 1982). However, it was clear that more had to be done to restoreand refresh the park.
Landscape architects Hanna Olin were hired in the early 1990s toredesign the park. Their design goal
was to make the park a multiuse and user-friendlyurban open space.
Design, Development and Decision-Making Process.
Six million dollars worth ofphysical changes were made to the park in several phases in the early
1990s. Theseincluded adding more seating, increasing access points, refurbishing hedges, lawns
andflower beds, restoring the fountains and Bryant statue, and expanding the library’scentral book
stacks underneath the Great Lawn (Program on Public Space Partnerships,1987). The office of Hardy
Holzman Pfeiffer Associates, a firm known for beingsensitive to historical landmarks, was hired as
architects for the restaurant addition atthe rear of the New York Public Library facing the park. This
proposal to encroach intothe public park with a private development received considerable
opposition, includingobjections from the influential private advocacy group, the Parks Council. After
threeyears of public debate and review, a scaled-down proposal called for two smaller

Role of Landscape Architect(s).

Landscape architect Laurie Olin and his firm HannaOlin played a major role in the design and
redevelopment process16. Their concern was“design, rather than sociology” since the existing park
had many physical problemsranging from years of neglect to numerous dead ends, hidden places
and general lack ofamenities. In the end, many of the changes were subtle, building on the
classicalprinciples of Moses’s 1930s design.
Program Elements.
The park redesign program was essentially identified in the originalbehavioral research done by
Anita Nager and Wally Wentworth, two doctoral studentsin environmental psychology at the City
University Graduate Center, directly facing thepark (Nager& Wentworth, 1976.). William Whyte
summed up the problems with thepark as “Access is the nub of the matter. Psychologically, as well
as physically, Bryant
Park is a hidden place. The best way to meet the problem is to promote the widestpossible use and
enjoyment by people.” (quoted in Berens, 1998, p. 46). Whytetranslated this observation into a
number of specific recommendations in 197917:
 Remove the iron fences;
 Remove the shrubbery;
 Cut openings in the balustrades for easier pedestrian circulation in and out of the
park;
 Improve visual access up the steps on the Avenue of the Americas;
 Provide a third set of steps midway between the existing stairs and 42nd Street;
 Provide ramps for the handicapped;
 Open up access to the terrace at the back of the library with new steps;
 Restore the fountain; and
 Rehabilitate Carrere and Hastings’ historic restroom structures.
While not all these ideas were adopted in the final design program, they became the essential
redesign agenda for Bryant Park. A number of additional elements were included in the park
including 2,000 movable folding chairs, extensive new planting (to make the edge of the park more
like a public garden). The restrooms were also restored (complete with fresh flowers and a baby
changing table).
Maintenance and Management.
One of the keys to the park’s rebirth as described in recent case studies of Bryant Park was its
extensive management and maintenance program (Berens 1998; Thompson 1997). Aggressive
activity programming has clearly played a key in the park’s success. For example, numerous free
concerts, fashion shows, and fairs have been held in the Park on a regular basis. A staff of over thirty
people maintain and manage the park including “a full time horticulturist, a maintenance and
sanitation crew, and a security team that operates twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week”
(Thompson, 1997, p. 33). This unusual level of maintenance is made possible by a unique public-
private partnership between the City of New York (who in many ways gave up its claim to
maintaining the park), corporate and institutional tenants of surrounding buildings, and the private
foundations. A Business Improvement District (BID) assesses fees that are used to fund management
and staff maintenance for the park18.

User/Use Analysis.
Significant behavioral problems identified in several detailed studies of the park led to the current
redevelopment. In the early 1970s, the detailed study conducted by environment psychology
doctoral students Anita Nager and Wally Wentworth (1976) identified many of the core physical
problems with the park. Many of these were perceived safety concerns that kept people out of the
park except during peak periods. My faculty office at the City University Graduate Center was
directly across the street from Bryant Park from 1977-80. and I frequently used the park during lunch
hours and on nice days. I also had my students use the park as a way to evaluate the use and
meaning of urban parks. The park was run down but a pleasant retreat from the busy world of
Midtown Manhattan. One would see drug dealing occurring on the edge of the park, but the Central
Lawn was often a safe haven especially during periods of heavy use19. It was this perceived sense of
danger that led planners and land owners to want to change the park.
Since redesign, amount of use and diversity of users have clearly increased in the park. Park use has
reportedly more than doubled since the redesign and female use of the park is up considerably
based on records kept by the managers (Thompson, 1997, p. 33).
A postoccupancy evaluation was conducted after some construction was completed in 1993 by a
student in the same CUNY environmental psychology program that

One wonders if this activity has only shifted to less supervised and policed public spaces. The
problem in Bryant Park was that during periods of low use of the park, drug dealing was the
predominate activity in the park. Conducted the original 1976 study of the park20. Using behavioral
observation and interview methods, the author found that increased visual and physical access
resulted in people feeling safer using the park. The CUNY study found much of the success was due
more to increased maintenance and policing than physical design. It is clear however that the
redesign is a magnet for users and contributes to the park’s overall success. Continued observation,
evaluation, programming, and redesign will be needed to keep the park functioning as a successful
urban park.
Peer Reviews.
Bryant Park has enjoyed a very favorable acceptance by the larger landscape architecture and urban
design community. It has received many awards from organizations such as the American Society of
Landscape Architects, the American Institute of Architects and the Regional Plan Association
(Thompson, 1997, p. 34). It has been widely publicized in professional magazines and books. Bryant
Park was selected by a distinguished jury assembled by Urban Initiatives in 1996 as one of the 60
most flourishing and successful public spaces in America (Longo, 1996). In 1998 it won one of the
first Exemplary Place Awards by the Environmental Design Research Association and the journal
Places (Places, 1998) awarded by a jury that included the landscape architect Lawrence Halprin,
architect Donlyn Lyndon and social researcher Clare Cooper Marcus. As far as peer review, Bryant
Park has become one of the most publicized and heralded urban parks since Olmsted’s Central Park.

Criticism.
Bryant Park has also enjoyed quite favorable reviews in the popular press. According to Bill
Thompson (1997, p. 34), Time magazine named Bryant Park the “Best Design of 1992”, New York
Magazine called it a “touch of the Tuileries…the perfect endorsement for restoring public space with
private funds,” and a New York Times article by Paul Goldberger called the restored park “a
monument of pure joy.”
Yet the redesigned park has not been without critics. Some have expressed fear that the park has
become privatized. With its redesign and upgrading and addition of expensive restaurant, the park
has attracted more of an upscale clientele and discouraged use by more undesirable users.
Urban designer Stephen Carr, landscape architect Mark Francis, environmental psychologist Leanne
Rivlin and planner Andrew Stone raised a number of concerns before redevelopment of the park
took place (Carr et. al., 1992). First we worried if Bryant Park could accommodate all of these new
activities and still serve as a place of retreat and relaxation for some of its users. Another issue was
who has ultimate control over public parks. In spring 1983, the Restoration Corporation, in
cooperation with the
New York Public Library, entered into a 35-year agreement with the City Parks Department whereby
the Corporation would be responsible for all aspects of the park's maintenance, management, and
renovation, under the overall supervision of the City's

Parks Commissioner.
Responding to the original cafe proposal and the overall management plan, Peter Berle, then
president of the Parks Council said, "I'm concerned about taking public land, removing it from the
protections of public park status and turning it over to a private entity....If you have a private entity
running a public park, who is to say that you and I may not be the undesirables next year?"
(Carmody, 1983, p. B3).

Significance & Uniqueness of Project.

Bryant Park has become a model for how to transform rundown historic urban parks into lively and
successful public spaces. The private-public partnership used to redevelop Bryant Park has been
widely heralded as one of the best ways to renew older urban open spaces in periods of declining
public funding of parks and open spaces (Berens, 1998).
Limitations.
It is unclear if the early success enjoyed at Bryant Park can be sustained over the long term. Recent
declines in funding for maintenance and management for Bryant Park have caused some to worry
whether current levels of use can be maintained without impacting on the park’s overall image and
safety.

Generalizable Features and Lessons.

The key ingredients of Bryant Park’s rebirth—programming, movable seating, food, high quality
maintenance, strong design anddetailing—are ingredients for any successful public open space. Yet
the scale of fundingused to transform Bryant Park is not typically possible even in major parks in
otherdowntown areas. Yet there is evidence that funding is increasing for parkrehabilitation21.
Bryant Park process and design offer several lessons for the design of similar parkprojects. The
process used in Bryant Park’s transformation is a model for similarprojects. Bryant Park is an
exemplar of how behavioral analysis can be combined withthoughtful design to create successful
public spaces. Yet not every urban park cancommand a multimillion-dollar budget raised from
private sources. Most projects aremore modest in budget and scope. However the principles are the
same—get peopleinvolved, do careful social and economic analysis, realize that design alone is often
notenough (programming and management are critical as well) and that good parks mustbe
continuously evaluated and redesigned to ensure success.

Future Issues/Plans.
The Bryant Park Restoration Corporation is continually seekingadditional funding for the park. They
would like to extend the park hours and institute a sculpture program (Berens, 1998). In addition
they would like to renovate the Pavilionat the corner of West 40th Street and Sixth Avenue.
Landscape architect Laurie Olinoffers the following assessment of the future of the park: “The Park
now has aconstituency of tens of thousands of people. It’s going to endure.” (Thompson, 1997,
p.34).
Bibliography and Project Citations or References. See Footnotes or References at end
of report.

Web Sites/Links. See list at end of report.

Contact for Further Information
Laurie Olin
Olin Partnership
421 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 440-0030
(215) 440-0041 (Fax)
Case Study Example: The Sea Ranch, California22
PROJECT NAME The Sea Ranch
LOCATION Mendocino Coast, northern California
(about 100 miles north of San Francisco)
DATE DESIGNED/PLANNED 1963-1968; plan refined and modified since
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED Being built in phases, currently about 63%
built-out
SIZE 5200 acres along 11 miles of coastline with
3500 acres developed as home sites and
common areas with the remainder in
permanent open space and forest preserve;
2310 house sites with 1461 houses (or 63 %)
developed by 1997
COST N/A
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT(S) Lawrence Halprin, Lawrence Halprin and
Associates, San Francisco
CLIENT/DEVELOPER Oceanic Properties (until 1988)
CONSULTANT/ARCHITECTS23 Charles Moore, Donlyn Lyndon, William
Turnbull and Richard Whitaker (MLTW);
Joseph Esherick; Richard Reynolds,
Ecologist; Robert Muir Graves (Golf Course
Architect)
MANAGED BY The Sea Ranch Homeowners Association
Context. The Sea Ranch is a planned community located along 11 miles of the Northern
California Coast about a two and one half-hour drive north of San Francisco. Located
just north of Stewart’s Point and south of the community of Gualala, The Sea Ranch is a

former Sheep Ranch now transformed into one of the most fashionable yetenvironmentally friendly
communities in California.
The Sea Ranch is an early and largely successful example of sustainable [Link] with the
Woodlands in Texas, Amelia Island in Florida and Village Homes inCalifornia, Sea Ranch is an
example of a large scale residential development planned tofit the environment. It has become one
of the most celebrated and recognized examplesof environmental planning and architecture.
Site Analysis.
The Sea Ranch property is one of the most beautiful found along theCalifornia coast. It has a rich
ecology ranging from tidal pools to meadows and coastalforests, all with extensive biological
diversity. Visually it is a striking landscape and onethat has been well preserved, especially given the
large amount of development that hastaken place over the past three decades. Environmentally, the
Sea Ranch has a numberof problems, including strong coastal winds, harsh storms and high risk for
forest firesthat occasionally occur along the coast24.
Aided by Richard Reynolds, an ecologist, landscape architect Lawrence Halprinconducted ecological
studies of the site including analysis of climate, wind, and [Link] writes in his own thoughtful and
frank autobiography of the project, The Sea Ranch:Diary of an Idea (1995): “We began by camping
on the Del Mar Ranch and continued inthat mode for several years, living on the land with the
weather, the seasonal changes,the native inhabitants and the culture of the area. In those days this
North Coast waswild, unfriendly, mostly uninhabited, austere and sometimes belligerent”
(Halprin,1995, pp. 4-5). He goes on to say that “our most difficult task was to find a way forpeople to
inhabit this magnificent and natural system without destroying the veryreason for people to come
here” (Halprin, 1995, p. 26). What Halprin and the otherdesigners did not realize at the time was
that the environmental ideals would becomeembraced by the future generations of the
environmental movement. Sea Ranch becamea perfect place for some people to express their own
environmental concerns.
Halprin decided “that the narrow linear form of the parcel and its complex typographywere not
conducive to a town like plan” (Sexton, 1995, p. 34). His studies led to theconcept of clustering and
tucking structures into hedgerows to leave broad natural areasof open commons and meadows.
Overgrazed land was to be rested and allowed toreturn to its natural state. The development would
become a wildlife preserve.

Residential design would allow houses to blend in and become part of the naturalenvironment.

Project Background and History.

In 1964, Oceanic Properties, Inc. (later calledOceanic California, Inc. and now Castle and Cook
Development) purchased the ten-mileDel Mar Ranch. In 1964, Sonoma County approved a “Precise
Development Plan” forthe southern one third of the Ranch. A similar plan for the northern two-
thirds wasapproved in 1968. At this time, the developer gave to the county the 124-acre
GualalaPoint Regional Park at the Gualala River estuary. By 1988, all remaining building siteshad
been sold.

Genesis of Project.
The Sea Ranch began essentially as a developer’s desire to create alarge housing project on a
beautiful undeveloped site. To their credit, the developershad the foresight to hire landscape
architect Lawrence Halprin and a group ofenvironmentally minded architects in planning their
development. According to authorRichard Sexton, who has done a comparative analysis of The Sea
Ranch and the newurbanist community Seaside, Florida, the goals of Sea Ranch planners were to
protectthe environment and “enrich the lives of its residents” (Sexton, 1995, p.27). The goal hestates
was “to provide an opportunity for people to get back to the land.”
It is important to note that planning for The Sea Ranch began before the environmentalmovement
had become such an integral part of the development review process. It isclear that The Sea Ranch,
even with its environmental sensitivity, would never beallowed to be developed today given the
strict development controls imposed by theCalifornia Coastal Commission and its environmental
review process.

Design, Development Process.

Sea Ranch was developed with a number of siteplanning principles intended to protect the natural
and open space quality of thispicturesque part of the California coast. These included keeping
houses nestled againsthedgerows, preserving open spaces, and developing an extensive system of
trails andaccess to the bluffs and beaches. A major planning idea was the development of
“OpenSpace Commons” intended to protect nature while providing for public access andenjoyment.
These commons are “open spaces preserved or created for their view valuesacross meadows to
oceans, bluffs, special structures, land configurations, etc. Theseopen spaces would contain hiking,
bicycling, and equestrian trails as well as naturalland features such as rock outcroppings, drainage
swales, sand dunes, etc.26. About halfof the land in Sea Ranch is kept in commons or permanent
open space protection.

Even with such a clear vision for development of Sea Ranch by Halprin, the planrequired continued
refinement and clarification. As early as 1969, the developers hiredlandscape architect
YoshKuromiya to carry forward Halprin’s original planning in areasof equestrian and hiking facilities
and the impact of expansion of Highway 1 (whichruns the length of Sea Ranch).

Role of Landscape Architect(s).

Landscape architect Lawrence Halprin and his officeplayed a critical leadership role in this project. In
fact, The Sea Ranch project allowedHalprin to develop and test many of his early design principles of
integrating peopleand nature through design. He writes, “For me, The Sea Ranch became the place
whereI tested many of the basic ideas on the importance of place as a generator of
communitydesign” (Halprin, 1995, p. 11-12). Halprin and his colleagues not only established
theoverall plan of conservation and development of the site but also contributed designguidelines
that would ensure that future development would be kept to these principles.
With changes in developers and the involvement of residents, it is a tribute to Halprin’soriginal
vision that these principles have largely held up over time.

Program Elements.
The Sea Ranch is primarily a second home residential communityplanned on 3500 acres. There are
2310 private house sites, of which about two-thirdshave been developed as of 1998. About 80 new
homes are being built each year. Theproject also includes many miles of hiking, biking and
equestrian trails that run along itsentire length, two community swimming pools; golf course;
community garden; villagecenter with mailboxes, small gift shop, restaurant, lodge and rental
agency. Home salesprices in 1998 ranged from the mid $200,000 to well over a $1 million.
Maintenance and Management.
The Sea Ranch functions with a large number of rulesranging from those governing trail use and
dogs to architectural guidelines. Designreview is an extensive and sometimes contentious process
that is strongly linked to theplanning and environmental goals of the community. The Sea Ranch
Homeowners Manualpresents a complicated design review process with over 35 steps. Site specific
designand design quality is emphasized. Its “Declaration of Restrictions, Covenants and
Conditions” states:
It must be assumed that all owners of property within The Sea Ranch, by virtue oftheir purchase of
such property, are motivated by the character of the naturalenvironment in which their property is
located, and accept, for and amongthemselves, the principle that the development and use of The
Sea Ranch mustpreserve that character for its present and future enjoyment by other owners. It
isalso assumed that those who are entrusted with the administration of The Sea Ranchwill discharge
their trust in full recognition of that principle and, to the extentconsistent therewith, will foster
maximum individual flexibility and freedom ofindividual expression.
The Sea Ranch Owner’s Manual (1996) goes on to state: “The Sea Ranch Conceptembraces the idea
that we can ‘live lightly on the land,’ and achieve a harmonious relationship with nature by
introducing only structures that seem to exist within thelandscape instead of intruding upon it.”
Clearly, design review is intended to reinforce the importance of the landscape andconspicuous non-
consumption while allowing some freedom of [Link] of these principles is
governed by a Design Committee, an autonomousbody made up of design professionals, who must
approve all construction andlandscape changes through an established design review process. They
utilize designcriteria, including height, bulk, setbacks and siting standards. Minimum overhangs
areused to maximize solar heating. Roof forms must reflect the slopes of the hills. Onlynative plants
are allowed and property lines are kept invisible. As stated by thehomeowners association, these
restrictions are intended to “maintain architecturalquality, protect property values and uphold the
philosophy of the early designers andarchitects.”
The Sea Ranch Trails Code is an example of the strong environmental ethics of thedevelopment. It
states:27
 Respect the people, the land and the sea
 Protect wildlife, plants and trees.
 Safeguard streams, tide pools, beaches and ponds
 Honor the property of others
 Go gently and stay on the trails
 Keep horses under control, dogs on leash
 No bicycle riding on the bluff trail
 Respect the environment
Be responsible for your own safety

Use/User Analysis.
The Sea Ranch is comprised of three primary user groups: homeowners (some of whom live
permanently in Sea Ranch), renters and tourists/passersby. The Sea Ranch with its beautiful natural
surroundings, open space and amenities, enjoys considerable use, both by residents as well as the
general public.
Recreational activities include golfing, tennis, swimming, biking and fishing. Visiting The Sea Ranch
during peak seasons, one is struck by the few people ones sees. This is due to the fact that the
development is so spread out and the fact that many people use it as a retreat from their hectic lives
in the city. Many of the old timers know each other and can be found talking together at their
mailboxes, at the recreation centers or when they pass on trails.
Permanent residents have developed a number of informal groups, clubs and interest groups to
create more of a sense of community. The Sea Ranch Homeowners Manual lists over 50 cultural,
card, exercise and special interest groups ranging from quilting groups

to music groups. There is much to do here if one wants to, although as a visitor it is difficult to get a
strong sense of community. It is interesting that with all its publicity and interest, I could not find a
systematic evaluation, such as a post occupancy evaluation, of The Sea Ranch.
Peer Reviews.
Sea Ranch has received substantial recognition from the press and from the professional design
community. It has also received numerous planning and design awards. The Sea Ranch stands with
developments such as McHarg’s Woodlands in Texas and Mike and Judy Corbett’s Village Homes in
Davis, California as one of the most notable and celebrated ecological developments of this century.

Criticism.
The Sea Ranch with all its success and recognition, has attracted criticism28. Much of it relates to the
ephemeral nature of The Sea Ranch as a second home and rental community. With its strong open
space and trail system, it is still primarily an autooriented development (Sexton, 1995). Social
diversity is limited. Halprin states that one of their original goals was to have “a great diversity of
people in their interests, backgrounds and hopefully, incomes.” (Sexton, 1995, p. 46). This clearly is a
goal that was never realized.
Larry Halprin himself is one of the sharpest critics of how The Sea Ranch has evolved differently than
intended. He writes, “In my mind, The Sea Ranch started out to be a new kind of utopia. It was a
vision of how a like-minded group of people could live together under a set of environmental and
aesthetic premises and constraints and govern themselves to maintain an agreed upon value
system. The entry of the new settlers was encouraging and ecologically synergistic. But as time went
on, the succeeding waves of people flawed the experience for me” (Halprin, 1995, p. 54). This shift is
also true of most other planned utopian communities from Greenbelt, Maryland to Seaside, Florida.
Halprin is also critical of the way houses have grown in size and their distraction from the open space
quality of the development29.

Significance & Uniqueness of Project.

This project is significant in a number of ways. It broke new ground in environmental planning,
showing developers that environmental sensitivity can be economically successful. It provided a
model for other designers and planners to follow for site planning and community design. It also
marked a historic collaboration between some of the most important modern architects and
landscape architects. It was also a unique project in that it was done before environmental
restrictions would have made the project almost impossible to implement.

Limitations.
Perhaps the greatest limitation of The Sea Ranch is its lack of social diversity. While this was a
concern of its original planners, their vision of a modest development with diverse residents was
undone by the project’s popularity and economic success. Like any community, the Sea Ranch has
experienced growing and management pains. Yet the active engagement of its residents in the
overall management of the community has served to address many of these problems.

Generalizable Features and Lessons.

The Sea Ranch provides many lessons and models for other development. It serves as a workable
environmental planning model that has been well documented and disseminated for others to
follow30. The great economic success of The Sea Ranch demonstrates the value of producing a
strong environmentally based plan at the beginning and sticking to its principle.

Comparison to other Projects/Cases.

There are a number of similar case studies of planned residential communities. There is also a well-
developed comparative case study of The Sea Ranch and Seaside Florida31. Other similar cases
include Village Homes in Davis and Laguna West in Sacramento, both in California.

Future Issues/Plans.
Halprin himself poses the most critical question for Sea Ranch’s future: “Perhaps most importantly,
The Sea Ranch still needs a heart. Most communities come by that organically because they are
based physically on a contained mandala form. Our community, however, is 11 miles long. It is
narrow and linear. This may be the greatest challenge which lies ahead for The Sea Ranch – to create
a community centerwith a heart.” (Halprin, 1995, p. 57).
Like most planned communities, The Sea Ranch continues evolve. Larry Halprin hasrecently
completed a plan to expand The Sea Ranch’s commercial center. Newrecreational facilities continue
to be developed as the community grows. New hikingand bicycle trails continue to be developed
along the forest ridges. Design reviewstandards are being refined to address community concerns32.
The Sea Ranch willchange and evolve over time, yet its essential qualities will remain over time.

Bibliography of Project Citations/References. See Footnotes or References at end of

report.

Web Sites/Links. See list of Web sites at end of report.

Contact for Further Information:
The Sea Ranch Association
Box 16
The Sea Ranch, CA 95497-0016
(707) 785-2444
(707) 785-3555 (Fax)
[Link]
Implications/Recommendation

Source:
[Link]

Citations:
Bryant Park, Activities scheduled in:
[Link]/E/V/NYCNY/0004/51/96/[Link]
Bryant Park, Live camera shot: [Link]/cgi-bin/parsefile?TEMPLATE=/htdocs/[Link]
The Sea Ranch Association: [Link]
The Sea Ranch History: [Link]/[Link]
The Sea Ranch Environment (including lists of birds, endangered species,
environmental restrictions): [Link]/[Link]#Environs
The Sea Ranch Activity Groups: http:[Link]/[Link]#Activity%20Groups
The Sea Ranch Design Manual (including design review guidelines):
[Link]/[Link]
The Sea Ranch Maps: [Link]/[Link]
The Sea Ranch Properties: [Link]
Local Case Study
SM Mall of Asia, also abbreviated as SM MOA, is a shopping mall in Bay City, Pasay, Philippines, near
the SM Central Business Park, the Manila Bay, and the southern end of Epifanio de los Santos
Avenue (EDSA).
Owned and developed by SM Prime Holdings, the largest mall chain owner and developer in the
Philippines, it has a land area of 42 hectares, a gross floor area of approximately 406,962 square
meters (4.38050×106 sq ft), and attracts a daily average foot traffic of about 200,000 people.
It is currently the 4th largest shopping mall in the Philippines and the 11th in the [Link] it
opened in 2006 it was the largest shopping mall in the Philippines until SM City North EDSA was
redeveloped in 2008 and was relegated to third place by the expansion of SM Megamall from 2011
until November 27, 2015 when SM Seaside City Cebu opened to the public

Architect Arquitectonica

No. of stores and 600+ shops, including 217

services dining establishments

No. of anchor 16
tenants

Total retail floor 406,962 m2 (4,380,500 sq ft)

area
The mall in May 2016
No. of floors Main mall buildings: 3
Location Seaside Boulevard, (including expansion)
Barangay 76, Bay The SM Store: 3
City, Pasay, Philippines Carpark buildings: 8

Opening date May 21, 2006

Developer SM Prime Holdings Parking 8,000 slots[1]

Management SM Prime Holdings Website [Link]

Owner Henry Sy, Sr.

The mall is the centerpiece project of SM Prime at the SM Central Business Park, where five one-
story buildings serve as the company's corporate offices (the sixth building being occupied by
TeleTech Holdings, Inc. as their flagship site in the country).
The SM Mall of Asia's design team includes Arquitectonica, design architect; GHT Services, project
manager, and Hilmarc's Construction Corp. (for the South Parking Building, Main Mall, and
Entertainment Mall) and Monolith Construction Development Corp. (for the North Parking Building),
general contractors.
The mall would have opened before Christmas Day of 2005 but had been delayed due to hitches in
the delivery of construction materials. Frequent rains in the last quarter of 2005 also delayed the
turnover of mall space to tenants. SM Prime decided to move the opening date to March 3, 2006.
On February 27, 2006, local newspaper Manila Standard Today, reported that a team of Pasay City
engineers found huge cracks underneath the structure, which was causing the structure to
vibrate.[7] When questioned about the inspection, the Pasay City Engineering Department denied
making any statement regarding defects in the Mall of Asia. Engineer Edwin Javaluyas, Pasay City
engineering officer, in his letter to SM Prime Holdings Inc., said he never stated that the city hall's
engineering department inspected the Mall of Asia on February 23, 2006.
SM Prime, however, decided to move the opening to May 21 of that year. Jeffrey Lim, corporate
information officer of SM Prime Holdings, emphasized that a rescheduling of the mall's opening was
made to give the company an opportunity to allow more tenants to open shops and denied that the
change was due to structural defects.
The mall was officially inaugurated by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo with a special screening
of Everest in the San Miguel Coca-Cola IMAX Theater. The movie was shown three days after
Philippine tri-athlete Leo Oracion reached the treacherous mountain's summit.
Layout

Panoramic view of SM Mall of Asia (2009)

Mall of Asia consists of four buildings interconnected by walkways; the Main Mall, the Entertainment
Mall, and the North and South Parking Buildings.

Aerial view of SM Mall of Asia

The Main Mall includes shopping and dining establishments and the food court. The Entertainment
Mall is a two-story complex, most of which is open-air, and faces Manila Bay. Both have concierge
desks.
The mall's 5,000 parking spaces are divided across two, six-story parking buildings conveniently
designated the North and South Parking Buildings. The South Parking Building houses the mall's
official The SM Store, while the mall's supermarket, the SM Hypermarket is located at the North
Parking Building.
Since its opening in 2006, visitors to the mall have been welcomed by large steel framed globe on
a roundabout at the southern tip of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue. In 2009, the globe was turned
into Globamaze, an LED display.
Plan Features
The mall includes branches of all of the standard anchor stores found in most of the SM Supermalls.
The first-ever branch of Taste Asia, one of the SM Supermalls' food court brands, is located right
outside the mall's supermarket, the sprawling SM Hypermarket.
One of the mall's main attractions is the first ever IMAX theater in the country, along with a
Director's Club Theater for intimate screenings (30 La-Z-Boy seats), a Premiere Cinema, and the
CenterStage Cinema which can use for live musical concerts and theatrical performances. The San
Miguel-Coca-Cola IMAX Theatre is one of the world's biggest IMAX screens in 3D including 2D
screenings.
In addition to the mall's special theaters, it also has six regular two-tiered movie theaters similar to
the ones found in almost every SM [Link] new digital theaters were opened at the north
side of the entertainment mall, for a total of eight theaters.
The mall features the Philippines's first Olympic-sized ice skating rink. At 61 by 30 meters, the rink is
described as the biggest of its kind in Southeast Asia. It can accommodate both recreational and
competitive figure skating, as well as ice hockey. Along with plain access and skate rentals, the rink's
operators also offer training programs in both figure skating and ice hockey. Several ice
skating competitions have been held at the mall's ice skating rink, the most prestigious yet having
been Skate Asia 2007. It was also the first time that the Philippines had hosted any international ice
skating event.
The mall's open-air music hall directly facing the sea has also held several events, contests and
concerts.
The mall also provides office space. Dell International Services, a subsidiary of Dell, Inc. once
occupied a 13,470.5-square meter area at the second floor of the North Parking Building of the mall.
Until 2015, Teleperformance took over that space. Currently, It has been replaced by the mall
anchor Cyberzone for IT-related shops, one of the biggest since SM North EDSA.

 Concert grounds
 Esplanade
 The MOA Eye along the western bay area.
 SM By the Bay Amusement Park
 Mall of Asia Arena
 Exploreum Science Center
 SMX Convention Center
 Mall expansion and redevelopments

 Transportation
There is a 20-seater tram within the mall.
Adjacent to the convention center is the MetroStar Ferry Terminal ferry service to Cavite City. The
terminal also serves as a passenger port to SM's tourism estate, the Hamilo Coast, in Nasugbu,
Batangas.

Positive Site and Landscape Planning

 Well- distributed security

 Good view from the shore.
 Open area for recreational activities like parades
 Open malls using no air conditioning which promotes green architecture from the usage of
natural ventilation


Negative Site and Landscape Planning

 Abandoned and unused stores and spaces located facing the seashore
 Lack of pedestrian lane and man access to the entrance of the building
 Far parking lot
 Buildings are built far apart from each other causing exhaustion to the users
 Recreational parts of the mall is directed towards the sun, obtaining much heat
 No cross ventilation between stores
 Complicated access to the parking lot
 No vegetation in parking
 Few landscape elements that would affect the user’s comfort ability.
 Few sun shadings in the back/rear side of the site
 Other Parts of the Site is located on the Wind shadow
 Some spaces are too dark caused by the buildings in between the spaces.