A deliberate, collaborative approach to building complex teams reaps rewards.

Building teams is of course inherent in the process of designing and constructing landscapes; we routinely partner with engineers along with experts in ecology, soils, irrigation and lighting. But as the scale, the complexity, and the ambition (climate change, social and racial equity, environmental justice) of the projects we are asked to address grows, our teams have amplified, especially when you include stakeholders and clients in the mix. Elaborate and tangled, large teams can become unwieldy quickly, seriously undermining a project’s success. But, collaboration is critical, the underlying goal (and reward) is the ability to draw on team member’s professional and life experiences, to allow for a mix of ideas and perspectives that will inform a project in interesting ways.

Moakley Park Team

A quick glance at the project team graphic above underscores how incredibly important it is to be deliberate about the collaborative process. After leading two very large teams in the past few years, Moakley Park and the Brickline Greenway, we have learned (sometimes the hard way) the fundamentals critical in the process of building and managing teams. And, while we often talk about this internally, sharing our learnings helps us all be better partners. When we approach collaboration we believe there are four components to consider; behavior, structure, process, and communication.

Behavior

Underpinning all great collaboration is trust. Of course trust is built-in (hopefully) when you team with people/firms with whom you have a positive shared history. To that end, cultivating good relationships pays dividends; you get a head start when adding ‘heritage relationships’ to your team and we do this 50-60% of the time. But building new relationships is the lifeblood to any practice, providing opportunities for learning and growth. Here, there are a couple of essentials that must be practiced, fostered and institutionalized… respect, adaptability, and organization. Conflict is inevitable on large projects and without these three ingredients successful collaboration is impossible. 

Structure

When we speak of structure, we think about setting a solid foundation. Firstly, we look for diversity within our teams to ensure that many voices and perspectives are represented. We think this difference makes for better collaboration. But at the same time, we look for common ground, partners and even clients with shared values, goals and expectations for the project as well as alignment on levels of commitment and motivation. 

Process

As important as developing a process for collaboration, is articulating it to the entire team. Processes for collaboration, communication, and conflict resolution are essential and must be clearly established at the outset of any multi-partner project. In addition, we work hard to eliminate ambiguity and ensure that everyone has clear roles and lines of responsibility and that members' strengths and capabilities are clearly defined and complimentary. Organizational charts and diagrammatic maps provide visibility and clarity to the team as do clear and precise protocols and detailed schedules and expectations for collaboration. The upfront work of providing detailed governance for a project team pays off over the course of a complex project.

Communication

Orchestrating the flow of knowledge is imperative. While transparency and keeping everyone ‘in the loop’ is essential, it’s also important to make sure that communication is efficient and productive. When we think of communication we look at how it is organized, integrated, filtered and condensed–an overload of unorganized communication is as detrimental as too little communication. Meeting notes that are precise, easy to digest, and actionable are essential along with investing in tools for real-time collaboration like Slack, Miro or even Google Docs. Mindful communication facilitates flow, eliminates barriers, and is action oriented. Lastly, there must be a culture of knowledge integration where everyone is willing, able and encouraged to share knowledge – this goes full circle back to trust.

These are the tenets we employ when building teams at Stoss but there is one last component that we try to incorporate whenever possible… a social component. A happy hour or lunch before or after a meeting, a dinner to celebrate a project milestone, this helps bind us on a more personal level and helps bring down those invisible walls that can sometimes build up. 

The process, especially in the case of complex projects,  can be messy at times, taking unforeseen turns as new information is uncovered and new perspectives are brought to the table. But a structured approach to building teams, alongside a willingness to respectfully critique, reflect and iterate, allows for continuing, authentic and constructive input, all of which make any collaboration richer and more productive.

A pragmatic plan for tree equity in Los Angeles.

Until recently, green space was considered an ‘amenity’. But thankfully that perspective has shifted, accelerated by a global pandemic that exposed how essential access to quality urban green space is to human health. Today, we are reckoning with decades (and decades) of systemic lack of urban canopy in low income neighborhoods, finally confronting this poignant social and environmental injustice. Anyone living, working, and playing in these communities disproportionately bears the brunt of exposure to toxic, polluted air, water and the effects of extreme heat. Imagine sitting for a moment, at an exposed bus stop, on a sweltering 90 degree day surrounded by nothing but white-hot concrete. With no shade or shelter, and the constant bombardment of choking fumes from exhaust and dust, it takes but a few moments to realize that green infrastructure is absolutely not an ‘amenity’, but a necessity and right of every human being.

Los Angeles is a prime example of the scale of the problem. Tree-lined streets and backyards and public open space can generally be found in whiter, wealthier areas; meanwhile, low-income Angelenos of color are far more likely to be exposed to the high temperatures and air pollution that are associated with lower tree canopy. When compounded with disparities in access to healthcare and transportation, the existing inequity in tree cover across the city has major implications for the health, wellbeing, and quality of life of millions of L.A. residents. According to TreePeople the average existing canopy in the county is 20%, as opposed to the national average of 27%. Yet, in the majority of low income communities, we see averages of 5-8% tree canopy.

In 2019, the L.A. Green New Deal plan was proposed by the Mayor’s office. Amongst many other benchmarks, it strives to plant 90,000 trees by 2021, with the focus on increasing the tree canopy in low income communities by 50%. A tall order that can feel insurmountable when faced with real on the ground challenges. When analyzing typical streetscapes and urban intersections, the obstacles stack up with issues arising from the simplest of interventions. Large concrete driveway aprons, underground utilities and overhead power lines impinge even on simple tree planting efforts. Minimal soil volume, watering, and visibility issues, coupled with aesthetic and shared maintenance conflicts, derail more ambitious efforts and of course, removing any parking is a hot button issue. Yet, we have to navigate these barriers and find solutions to this intractable problem.

Recently, our team worked with a multidisciplinary team including City Plants, CAPA Strategies, TreePeople, the City's Chief Forestry Officer, as well as representatives from Streets and other city departments to help produce an Urban Forest Equity Streets Guidebook for the City of Los Angeles. The team’s research delves into the history of redlining and links disparities in tree cover with the long-term impacts of disinvestment and racial segregation. Working from case studies on ten streets (selected from across the city, and within some of the most socially vulnerable and those facing intense heat challenges, with a focus on South LA, East LA and the Northeast SF Valley to demonstrate varying conditions) the guidebook identifies challenges to implementation, potential trade-offs, and proposed improvements at multiple tiers of investment.

The plan breaks down improvements into 3 tiers. At tier 1, the team identifies opportunities that can be implemented with minimal cost and infrastructural change. For example, in Los Angeles available open parkways and private property were identified and solutions for easy low-cost planting presented. Yet, the reality is that even if all tier 1 sites were planted, the city would not achieve its 50% goal. Thus, the team proposed tier 2 interventions requiring more change and associated costs, and ultimately tier 3 solutions which involved new infrastructure like curb extensions and creating bike lanes and medians that would also help to calm traffic and filter stormwater run-off.

Before

Before

After

After

This framework offers a pragmatic, actionable plan to dramatically expand L.A.’s urban forest in the areas where trees are most urgently needed. It acknowledges the constraints and trade-offs while also providing solutions that can serve as a benchmark for other cities.

Amy Whitesides expands role, focusing on Resiliency & Research.

As with any organization, Stoss is all about the people whose passion, focus and expertise drives the work. Meet Amy Whitesides. Amy has been an integral leader at Stoss for over 10 years, helping to shape both the firm’s portfolio and the studio’s culture. She has directed numerous award-winning projects that focus on environmental sustainability and resilience, including the Trinity River Waterfront in Dallas, Vision Galveston on Galveston Island, North Shore Promenades in Edmonton, and various Climate Ready Boston district planning studies including East Boston & Charlestown and Downtown.

In 2021, we are pleased to announce that she will build on her expertise as Director of Resiliency and Research. In this capacity, Amy will continue to build the practice’s climate related knowledge, bringing new insight and solutions to both the internal team and externally through her involvement with the Van Alen Climate Council, Stone Living Lab, ASLA, as well as teaching climate-related studios at Harvard Graduate School of Design.

Amy’s background in landscape, ecology and biology informs all aspects of her work and sparks a keen interest in the role of landscape in food production and in mitigating climate change. In addition, her life-long passion for open water swimming and surfing literally keeps her in touch with the effects of sea-level rise on the ocean and most critically along the shore. Currently, she is overseeing multiple waterfront design and redevelopment efforts in Boston, at the L Street Power Station, as well as a major renovation to Moakley Park–Boston’s most significant open space investment since Olmsted’s Emerald Necklace. She is also collaborating with our frequent partners in design, Weston & Sampson on coastal resilience engineering and design projects at Ryan Playground in Charlestown and along the waterfront in East Boston. And with Arcadis on Coastal Resiliency Planning on Nantucket Island. Amy’s work is sensitive to context and larger ecological systems while advocating for greater diversity and equity in the types of social spaces and open space experiences available in the City. 

Currently serving as a Design Critic at the GSD, Amy previously taught landscape history and studio courses at Northeastern University and University of Toronto. She is a graduate of the Harvard Graduate School of Design where she obtained a Master of Landscape Architecture. As we head into the new year and Amy dives into her new role, we asked her a couple of questions.

How does your love for the water, as a swimmer and surfer, play into your focus on climate resiliency? What changes have you personally witnessed in the water or along the edge in your lifetime?

It is central to my interest in design and resilience specifically.  I have seen first-hand how dramatic the experience of being at the water and physically immersing yourself into it can be in people’s lives, my own and others. I used to volunteer with an organization that took kids with various physical and mental challenges out to surf. Watching kids who lived inland get out on a surfboard and into the water for the first time ever is incredible and solidifies the need for us to keep this resource public–and be the best stewards we can be. One way we do that is to ensure that protecting ourselves from coastal storms doesn’t cut us off from the water. In Boston in particular, a lot of work has gone into making the harbor safe and turning the City’s attention to the harbor as a public resource. Planning for coastal resilience needs to build on this work, not set us back to a time in which we ignore it and worse, make it uninhabitable for us and the marine life we rely on and admire. 

Living in coastal California for many years, I saw a lot of erosion and shifting beaches. The response to this has largely been development of hard infrastructure such as seawalls and fabricated cliff faces. It’s nice to hear more discussion today of nature-based solutions and opportunities for living shorelines and ongoing management tactics that allow for changing conditions that seek to improve ecological value while protecting human resources. 

You have an ecology background, how have you been able to incorporate this into your resiliency planning work for both coastal and inland projects?

My background in ecology drives my interest in resiliency planning. It doesn’t come into play per se, but informs how I think about resiliency and the values I put forward as we make decisions on what to prioritize. I want the city to thrive, but I want it to do so alongside a thriving ecology, in the water and out. Planning for stormwater management, improved canopy and coastal parklands helps to promote that. 

The City of Boston has been very proactive in planning for climate change and you have worked on a number of projects for them that have set the bar. Is the city shifting into implementation mode? Are you starting to see them act on the plans?

Yes! We are currently working on 3 projects that have emerged from the district scale planning and are moving into site-specific vision and design development in the coming years. Two of those were direct outcomes of our work on the East Boston and Charlestown Coastal Resilience Solutions project in 2017. 

Moakley Park is not well known in Boston but plays a huge role in protecting the city from storm surge, how might your work on this project inform how other coastal cities can adapt to a changing climate?

Moakley Park is a great opportunity to showcase many innovative design principles and solutions to very difficult challenges.  The Vision Plan itself is a good model for how city planning can lead to site-specific implementation and continue to coordinate with state and local entities to ensure construction aligns with adjacent efforts to complete a stretch of coastal flood protection. As we move through the design, we know that we will encounter many sub-grade challenges from varied urban soil conditions that tend toward subsidence to high groundwater and the presence of critical utilities. Stay -tuned for more as we collaborate with our engineering team to develop creative design solutions to these challenges. 

You are leading research initiatives at Stoss. What issues are you exploring, what areas of the practice are you looking forward to expanding in 2021?

Right now I am focusing on two efforts, one in Boston and one in Los Angeles. In Boston I’m coordinating with researchers at UMass through the Stone Living Lab. We’re working on ways to expand their research on seawall materials into the urban environment and hope to further expand this in the future. In Los Angeles, Stoss Associate, Davi Schoen, and I are working with City Plants and Tree People on a visualization of their efforts to establish principles and planning for tree equity in LA County. This means really looking at the current conditions of the tree canopy and evaluating how and where to increase canopy while focusing on the neighborhoods and communities that have historically suffered health and excess heat conditions that result from low canopy levels. 

The resurgence and resilience of urban forestry.

Rendering of the proposed urban forest at Triangle Park, Cambridge, MA.

Increasingly, a spotlight is trained on the layered benefits of the urban forest, highlighting the significant impact they can have on everything from climate adaptation to human wellness and mental health. Notwithstanding that trees can improve property values by as much as 15 percent, more critically they are instrumental in the mitigation of urban heat island effect, in improving air quality by absorbing pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and ozone, and urban forests are a key green infrastructure tool in the management of stormwater. And, it is critical to note that disadvantaged communities, particularly black, Indigenous and people of color are more impacted by the absence of trees further exacerbating the negative effects of climate change.

We are becoming a more urbanized nation. The U.S. Forest Service identifies urban forests as, “dynamic ecosystems that provide critical benefits to people and wildlife. By reducing noise and providing places to recreate, urban forests strengthen social cohesion, spur community revitalization, and add economic value to our communities.” According to the Los Angeles Urban Forestry division, “a properly selected and maintained tree can reduce summer cooling cost by 10 to 50 percent.” In addition, “trees produce oxygen, and a mature tree can produce enough oxygen annually to meet the needs of a family of four for an entire year.” 

It’s no surprise then that municipalities are increasingly developing urban forestry programs to evaluate, maintain and expand the urban forest canopy. The City of Cambridge is no exception and is developing a master plan to provide guidelines, goals, objectives, targets and best practices for the city's urban forests. As a demonstration, our team is currently working with the city on a naturalized forest habitat in a tough urban context. Triangle Park is one of three small urban parks designed as part of a new open space initiative. As a small ‘leftover’ space within a quickly developing area of Cambridge, this park is surrounded on three sides by highly trafficked roads and dense architecture. 

Current conditions 2020.

The goal for this 1 acre park was to create a buffer zone from the busy street, but also address urban heat island effect, stormwater management, and biodiversity. The design concept was to bring a naturalized forest habitat into this frenetic urban environment but also provide both passive and active recreation opportunities for those who live and work in the neighborhood. To that end, the natural forest succession and gentle topography are punctuated with a custom concrete bench system with varying profiles that encourage both socialization and the ability to sit quietly and enjoy the lush surroundings.

Digital platforms provide new tools for public engagement during pandemic.

Image: 2019 Mike Belleme

In 2020, many of us have been forced to fully embrace digital life. The Covid-19 pandemic has forced us to rethink how we work and how we engage with one another. When it comes to moving urban planning/design projects forward during these uncertain times, teams are increasingly turning to digital tools to interface with the public out of necessity. Yet, even prior to the normalization of social distancing, public engagement in its traditional sense had its fraught moments. Large public meetings, often held at days and times inconvenient to many working people, also tended to be dominated by groups with specific agendas who, more often than not, hijacked the conversation. With poor attendance and lack of diversity in the feedback, engagement tactics were ripe for new strategies and technology.

Today, there are a plethora of new software platforms on the market, and in most cases these tools are not designed to supplant in-person meetings but complement a suite of traditional efforts. Engagement tools include things like project websites, social media, virtual meeting platforms, and web platforms designed for information sharing, gathering feedback, and facilitating interaction with community members. This virtual interaction can be static or interactive and according to the APA, “include virtual meetings and events, online surveys and polls, project visualizations, interactive maps, and crowdsourcing”.

However, these tools have their own caveats. According to the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, 15% of households do not use the internet at all, and 9% use it outside the home but do not have a home connection. This highlights why teams cannot rely on digital tools alone, especially when striving to seek input from all generations and a diverse socio-economic and cultural constituency. Several best practices have emerged in the engagement arena, and more specifically in the use of digital tools for public engagement including;

• Map networks of people with whom you wish to engage, critically looking for under-represented communities.

• Assemble a diverse sample of the community-at-large, as a critical mass for your efforts.

• Involve people in one-on-one or small-group discussions, then mix in larger forums for amplifying bigger ideas and moving the discussions forward.

• Give participants the opportunity to share values and stories by creating shared work and ideation spaces.

• Allow citizens to mutually consider a range of options, to understand priorities, trade-offs and choices inherent in the process.

• Determine project metrics, measure often to gauge the success or failure of campaigns. Learn from your findings.

• Create conversations that appeal directly to people’s core interests and find ways to propel that dialogue.

• Add tools like Wikis, polls, surveys, mapping and crowdsourcing functions that promote direct involvement.

• Gamify the engagement process in ways that produce hard data.

Our team has shifted rapidly into virtual online formats, in some cases partnering with organizations who have robust digital outlets. On our Moakley Park project in Boston, we are working with with Boston Harbor Now for virtual community forums as a way to update the community and seek additional feedback. For a project in Downtown St. Louis, our collective team lead by Interface Studio, has launched a robust and interactive community open house that is achieving some press coverage!

In the past few years, new software tools have continually come on the market and are evolving quickly into easy-to-use graphic platforms that have a wide array of tools and functionality. We’ve compiled 9 platforms (none of which we endorse) as a quick snapshot of what is available right now.

---

Digital Platforms

METROQUEST

-multi-platform online surveys
-micro-learning and mini-games embedded

MINDMIXER

-community collaboration platform
-surveys, idea submission, idea refinement, idea voting, interactive budgeting, and community challenges

BANGTHETABLE

-Listen. Use a combination of forums, polls, and other tools to better understand your community’s perspectives and needs.
-Inform. Communicate initiatives through newsletters, blogs and social media to keep your residents informed.
-Measure. Advanced analytics and reporting deliver actionable insights and data-driven evidence for better decisions.
-Build community. Capture participant information, develop resident profiles and target communications

COURBANIZE

-provides communication and reporting tools for developers and planners
-project background & updates
-forum moderated by coUrbanize
-timelines and schedules
-share files, presentations, and images

SOCIALPINPOINT

-surveys, forums, interactive mapping, ideation tools, participatory budgeting, pages, stakeholder management

76ENGAGE

-customizable discussion forums, comments, surveys & polls, alerts, voting

THEHIVE

-customizable social mapping, gather input, discussion forums, surveys & polls, Q&A, participatory budgeting

INSIGHTS

-civic engagement facilitation
-digital advisory boards

SPIGIT

-innovation or idea management
-crowdsource and track ideas

---

Digital engagement tools can certainly foster a faster, easier and less intimidating way for the public to participate in helping to shape their civic life. Project teams can reach a more diverse group of people and these tools have a longer shelf-life than traditional outreach, collecting data continuously through the life-cycle of a project. That being said, the overall community engagement strategy for any project should include a robust mix of online and in-person channels which in tandem will reach a diverse and representative sample of the community.

Other Resources:

Interesting interactive lab: https://elab.emerson.edu/
Good resource for best practices: http://www.futurewise.org/assets/reports/CET.pdf

Engaging artists to help choreograph open space design can transform project outcomes.

image ©2019 Mike Belleme

While site specific art has always played a role in landscape architecture, the parameters of public art are expanding; ephemeral, temporal and performance-based art is now regularly integrated into sites. Until recently, art has largely served to cultivate a sense of identity within a public space or to highlight the unique stories, histories and culture of a place. Communal and accessible outdoor art is generally embraced by the profession and revered by the community, but the reality is, public space is not always welcoming for all.

In many ways, acknowledging the emotional potency of public art, and it’s ability to create transformational change within communities, has opened our eyes to the potential for artists to collaborate on landscape projects—not just as creators but as innovators, communicators, instigators and liaisons. Early on in the Chouteau Greenway Competition (2016), the project team realized the power that artists could play in thinking creatively, pushing the boundaries if you will, but also in engaging and facilitating sensitive dialogue with communities.

Early on, the competition team worked with renowned artist and architect, Amanda Williams, to help shape the submission. Her project, Color(ed) Theory, was acclaimed for its confrontational look at race and space in the South Side of Chicago. As an artist, she is not just interested in art for arts’ sake, but as means to shift the narrative and explore ways that art can impact the landscape as a whole, transforming it, educating people, bringing them together and starting a dialog. Ms. Williams describes her intent as a way to, “spark conversations, that lead to ideas, that lead to solutions… to set the table, or the canvas if you will… for what the future could be.”

At the inception of the Chouteau Greenway project (now the Brickline Greenway), the team advocated for the inclusion of local St. Louis artists of color to actively inform, craft, and participate in the planning and design process. Artists; Mallory Nezam, an entrepreneurial civic artist, cultural producer, writer, and communications strategist; De Nichols, a social activist focused on addressing civic and social challenges within communities; and Damon Davis, who uses his art to empower the disenfranchised and powerless, became integral members of the 13 member project team helping to shape both the process and outcome. Their unique perspectives and insight helped to frame the explicit goals for the project—a 22 mile greenway through 17 St. Louis neighborhoods—which ultimately became unearth, connect, heal, provoke, cultivate and envision. 

The Brickline Greenway framework plan, released in late 2019, crucially addressed how to equitably reinvest in the city, to increase walkability and vibrancy through neighborhoods, to bridge geographical and cultural divides, to incentivize greater social and economic equity, and to deeply engage, reflect and connect the diversity of cultures that exist in the city. Art became embedded in every aspect of the project, solidified by the formation of the ‘Artists of Color Council’. Embedding art in catalyst sites such as the Griot Museum of Black History and the historic Mill Creek Valley, a vibrant African American community erased in the creation of a freeway overpass, as well as under the 601 freeway, became explicit opportunities to bring public art into marginalized communities. 

Under trestle art park.

Kings highway art park.

Ideas like the “stoop”, an architectural element that celebrates the residential stoop where generations have gathered to share stories, and temporary art installations on vacant lots, became grounding elements that emerged from community dialogue facilitated by the artists. And, when the Council described the dire need for a welcoming, large-scale, public sculpture park accessible for all within the inner city, the idea for the Kings highway overpass was born—a cloverleaf design that winds through a new art park, then launches across the roadway to connect with Forest Park. 

Griot Museum vacant lot activation.

The boundary pushing, creative thinking, community dialogue, and social activism that the art community brought to the vision, was key to the vibrant and inclusive plan that emerged. This project is a prime example of how the role of art and the artist can be expanded, by embedding people like Ms. Nezam in the discovery and design process. She highlights the team’s contribution as, “forefronting the experiential components of the greenway (how do we want people to feel when they are on it?), integrating cultural nuance into the framework plan, and leaning into the storytelling of forgotten histories.” Their understanding that, “the greenway is more than a linear path, that has to be built from the history of a place, react to and reflect its inhabitants' lived experiences, and nod towards a better shared future,” provided a strong foundation from which to build.

St. Louis Improv Anywhere pop-up performance, 2011, St. Louis, MO - Mallory Nezam

With that being said, different artists will have different ways that they approach working in the public realm. Nezam suggests, “artists with a community or collaborative practice can be incredibly integral to helping forefront community culture, needs & wants. Yet, there are other artists who bring the strength of creative problem solving, dreaming outside of the traditional ways of operating and pushing teams to take risks. I'm also personally really interested in how artists can collaborate to reimagine the systems themselves of design, construction, implementation and governance of public projects. How we, as inherently creative and imaginative practitioners, re-conjure and build new systems in which the folks we are designing for can become the folks we are designing with.” 

Seawall models engage Galveston residents in designing their future.

photo: ©2019 Mike Belleme

For planning projects at the city-scale, civic engagement is an essential tool to empower the public to actively participate in envisioning the future of their communities. If done authentically, with an open mind and a willingness to make it comfortable for people to share their stories, the process can be informative and provide a much-needed context regarding the complexities inherent in making urban design choices. The best engagement strategies are people-centric, hands-on, and creative.

A recent resiliency project in Galveston, Texas, offers a peek at how these types of gamified engagement exercises can both inform the design team and thoughtfully engage the public. Galveston is built on a barrier island in the Gulf of Mexico and is a small city with a history of hurricane devastation, most notably in 2008 when hurricane Ike made landfall. A 13-foot storm surge flooded nearly the entire island and in the immediate aftermath, the City’s population dropped from 57,000 to 48,000. 

The project began with an ambitious goal; to develop a community vision plan for Galveston by engaging at minimum 15% of the population. The team, a collaboration between Huitt-Zollars, Asakura Robinson, Mass Economics and Stoss proposed several initiatives that ultimately led to ‘Vision Galveston’, the framework plan that was developed through three rounds of public outreach. Throughout the process, the engagement team focused on involving as many as people as possible, especially the traditionally underrepresented, seeking groups that represented the diversity of Galveston in age, race, sex, and geography.

One of the highlights of the engagement process was an interactive exercise that involved developing a series of 3D printed seawall options that people could shuffle in order to design their ideal promenade, seawall and beach configuration. The seawall, a 10-mile long concrete barrier protecting downtown Galveston from tropical hurricanes, is central to Galveston’s identity and much beloved by the community. In fact, the Seawall is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. According to the report, “Recommendations and concerns regarding the Seawall were raised during the outreach process. This included requests for better access—more parking, free parking, improved connection to public transit, and safe crossings across the busy Seawall Blvd. … There were requests for better amenities for recreational activities along the boulevard and diversifying the land use and businesses across the street from the beach. Since the Seawall is central to the identity of Galvestonians, many people requested further beautification to the Seawall, using landscaping and other means.”

In order to better understand and convey these types of interventions, the Stoss team modeled, then 3D printed various configurations of the promenade, the seawall and the beach which allowed residents to configure their ideal sections. Seawall options included access ramps, a grand staircase, shaded overlooks, skate ramps and natural rocky shorelines. 

existing condition

ramps

grand staircase

shaded overlook

rocky shore

skate ramp

Seawall options paired with potential sea-level rise.

Public engagement poster.

During community events people were encouraged to play with the sections and share their preferred options which was then recorded by the design team. Not only did the team gather critical insight, but the community had an enjoyable time learning about the options and visualizing possibilities other than what exists there today. These types of exercises help transform a community’s mindset and pave the way for design innovation.

PROJECT DESIGN TEAM:
Chris Reed, Amy Whitesides, Lisa Hollywood, Rawan Alsaffar, Kanani D'Angelo, Chris Reznich

Designers use pleached trees to punctuate a compact public plaza in Toronto.

Sometimes, we look to the past to give a modern space a distinct personality. In the case of 50 Scollard, a residential tower in the Yorkville neighborhood of Toronto, our team turned back time and ambitiously resurrected the art of pleaching. Pleaching was a common technique in late medieval to early 18th century gardens whereby trees were interwoven to create dense, hedge-like shapes. Branches were trained over time to weave together and in some cases naturally grafted to become living fences. This process would take years as young branches were trained while they were pliable and nurtured into place as they grew and strengthened. Commonly a frame was constructed with stakes, dead branches, or cords to aid in achieving the desired form. The results are stunning—architectural, sculptural, and formal shapes that serve to frame walkways, gardens and lawns. 

Examples of pleached trees. Image sources L to R: Steve Whysall, Pinterest, The Telegraph, Wikipedia

In 2017, our team began working on the public plaza and roof terraces at 50 Scollard in conjunction with Foster + Partners. At the ground level, the compact corner plaza space demanded a focal element that could hold its own against the distinct 43-story tower while respecting the historic buildings remaining on site. The solution needed to have an impact but also allow for circulation and a range of programming options such as public events, movie screenings and performances. This is where Stoss designers looked to the past for something new and different. The team presented a bold idea; an undulating canopy of pleached trees that not only oscillates between the building facade and the public sidewalk but also ascends in height. Designed to accentuate seasonal color change, the pleached hedge will be a riot of color in the fall as the trees transition from the green of summer to the bright red of fall.

Translating this big idea into a realistic opportunity has been a challenge and an investment in time and effort. Working with Lanterra Developments, Braun Nursery and PAO Horticultural, Stoss Associate, Marin Braco, has overseen the selection and cultivation process that will ultimately take over 3 years.

Several tree species were considered  during the design development phase beginning with trees that were used for pleaching historically, including Lindens, Tilia cordata  and European Hornbeams, Carpinus betulus. The team found that many of these species were not appropriate for the conditions of this site—the right tree would need to be able to withstand pressures of a harsh urban plaza, tolerant of drought, salt, wind and disease resistant. With this in mind, the design team narrowed down the selection to 3 varieties of red maples: Armstrong, Red Sunset, and Autumn Blaze. After meeting with the horticulturists and examining both young and mature specimens, it was determined that Autumn Blaze was the best fit for site conditions and design parameters. Characteristics that were considered included:

• Growth Rate: While a faster growth rate requires more maintenance, it allows for the final form to be recognizable at the time of installation, and fully realized within 5 years after installation.

• Mature Size: A larger mature tree size allows for more flexibility in the training and trimming process.

• Branching Structure: Density, pliability, and horizontal growth are all required to achieve the desired results of pleached trees, forming one continuous mass.

Additionally, since the final form requires different canopy heights, the planting was broken up into 5 zones. Zone 1 being the tallest trees, descending down to Zone 5, the shortest. Trees were tagged by zone, with additional trees tagged per zone in the event that replacement is required. 

In all, 30 trees were tagged as primary specimens with an additional 14 selected as replacements if needed. The trees were tagged in October of 2018 and in the spring of 2019 were relocated to the nursery where they will be trained and formed over a 3 year period. While this is a lengthy process, this period dovetails with the building’s construction schedule. If all stays on track, in fall of 2022 the trees will be gently separated, excavated, transported on flat beds and planted on-site—carefully rewoven branch by branch. We can’t wait. This has been a labor of love for our team, stay-tuned to see the results!

A rendering of the pleached trees in formation.