Assignment 2: Analysis of a landscape transect

Back to Assignments

Task

Assigned: Tuesday, October 19

Due: Monday, Nov. 8 / Nov. 15 for Kassel students

The pictures you have made for assignment 1 gave a brief overview of the landscape of your university town. In a second step you will now take a closer look to get a more in depth understanding of the current landscape. To start your documentation and interpretation, walk a complete transect from the city/town center to the edge of the settlement and examine what you see. Explore and analyze your landscape transect by making notes, taking pictures, and ‐ very important ‐ make video clips that document your walk. This can be done with a video camera or with the video function of your photo camera.

Beside a visual documentation, further background information is necessary, for example about ecological, social, cultural and economic aspects, design interventions, etc. which you can’t get with a visual examination only. Looking back into the past of the landscape gives you additional insight into how and why the landscape has transformed over time. Review relevant literature about this landscape, browse the www, talk to people living in the area, etc.

Create 1) a video and 2) a presentation (ppt or similar) that can illustrate the findings of exploration. Together these two inputs should clearly address the current state of the landscape, its change over time and an outlook to the future. Don’t be just descriptive. Analyse and comment what challenges this landscape faced over time and faces today. How did landscape architecture address them in the past, what approaches seem necessary for the future?

The video will document the most important and informative parts of your transect walk. Use maps, sections, diagrammatic drawings and other forms of documentation and interpretation in your ppt then to underline your analysis and findings. Include written comments on your presentation slides so that they are also understandable without your oral input.

Literature:

As a major reference for your analysis look at the following book:

• Corner, James; MacLean, Alex S. 1996. "Taking measures across the American landscape". New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press.

Further literature which will help you with your reflection:

• Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. 1980: "By way of conclusion. How to study the landscape" In: The necessity for ruins, and other topics, 113-126. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

• Meinig, D. W.. 1979. "The Beholding Eye: Ten Versions of the Same Scene." In: The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays, edited by D. W. Meinig and John Brinckerhoff Jackson, 33-48. New York: Oxford University Press.

• Meinig, D.W.. 1979. "Reading the landscape. An appreciation of W.G. Hoskins and J-B. Jackson." In: The Interpretation of ordinary landscapes: Geographical essays, edited by D. W. Meinig and John Brinckerhoff Jackson, 195-237. New York: Oxford University Press.

• Sieverts, Thomas. 2003. Cities without cities. An interpretation of the Zwischenstadt. English language ed. London: Spon Press.

Deliverables:

• 7-10 minutes video

The video has to be uploaded on youtube by Nov. 8 (Nov. 15 for Kassel students). Each student group is responsible to establish a youtube account and provide the whole seminar group with the internet address of the video as demonstrated among "Assignments" AND additionally send the link to Heike heike.kaiser(at)gmail.com for illustration on seminar presentation slides

Please be aware: Uploading a video file of 10 minutes length can take up to a day! So take care to have your video done early enough to have it uploaded on time!

• 5 minutes presentation

including maps, sections, diagrams, pictures, etc.; include written comments on your presentation slides! Please send your presentation (as ppt.zip or pdf) to Ellen ellen.fetzer(at)hfwu.de by Nov. 8 (Nov. 15 for Kassel students).

Evaluation criteria:

• 50% Content: depth of analysis and reflection; clearly communicated findings, creativity in the process of analysis, delivery of products assigned;
• 25% Communication of content: ability of the video and presentation to illustrate the major aspects of the analysis; structure/logical flow, written and spoken language;
• 25% Graphic quality: visual quality, organization, cohesiveness of layout, craftsmanship.

Back to top

Groups

Clemson University

• Clemson Group 1 | hanna, koschnitzski, mclaughlin, ogletree, yonce
• Clemson Group 2 | beyza, elise, ginny, susannah, vineet
• Clemson Group 3 | managad, hartness, zhang, lashley, letzeiser
• Clemson Group 4 | pay, ray, badwe, qin, zhong

BIOS Institute Montevideo

• BIOS Group 1 Teresa Hampe/Cecilia Curbelo/Rafael Dodera
• BIOS Group 2 Luis Contenti/Adriana Babino/Carina Nalerio
• BIOS Group 3 Beatriz Diaz/Rita Soria/Pilar Ramos/Keiko/Alejandro Recoba

Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu

• Tartu Group 1 Maria Derlõš / Polina Palo / Mart Simisker
• Tartu Group 2 Annika Nurmi, Baiba France, Madara Medina
• Tartu Group 3 (for the students at Hamä Polytechnic) Triin Orav / Anne Erik

IMLA Master Programme

• IMLA Group

Kassel University

• Kassel Group

WUR Wageningen

• Wageningen Group

Back to top