Talk:Planting Design 2013 - Working Group 9
Group 2 Comments First of all very nice interpretive work and nicely done case studies, we have gone through your presentation and the Wiki page for your cases and have some comments on your work, please do not think of them as criticism only but as how to make things better and more illustrated.
CASE A: - We found that the approach to the Urban Landscape environment through the drivers and passengers eyes is an interesting idea for analysis. Also green urban planning touch ecological, environmental issues, the impact of pollution to the plants should be considered, the species of plants must resist the high rates of pollution. - We missed the findings how does the comparison of the passing speed change the perception of green spaces by driver; might be blurred textures of plants, silhouettes of trees and very different approach by walker: detail insights and feelings of landscape.
CASE B: - Why you selected it: Reasons stated are: The Location and its connections to the sub-springs – These are more of facts and do not give a strong reason to choose the site. The choice could be based on more personal analysis. For example: Using Point No.3 ´´for a country like Jordan with very less natural resources, the site works as a tourism center for both locals and tourists alike´´ …… This could set you thinking about the current situation, its pros & cons, changes over time, threats faced futuristic vision for the area, etc. Also how it relates to you is quiet unclear. - Author's perspective: Very well clarified. Analytical and Projective drawings are well communicated. Summary: The site is facing a threat is clear and also the possibilities are well suggested. The summary however fails to bring out all the wonderful views suggested in the projective sketches. It falls flat seeing it as a future touristic center which it already is! - One of the suggestions could be to create similar springs around the region and make it user friendly while restricting access or limiting access to the natural spring area. This could help maintenance and conservation to a certain extent. - Conclusion: Interesting case and analysis. Comparison to one or two similar sites in other parts of the world (natural and created) could help readers to arrive at personal views as well. Nonetheless, great effort!
Case C: - The whole idea is nice, simple and the drawings are well illustrated. - There are some punctual mistakes though in the wiki page such as: In the first section 'why is this case interesting' you wrote in the second line 'Rate plants' do you mean by that rare plants? Also Aspekts should be : aspects in second paragraph and others. - What do u mean by the term Alpennationalpark Berchtesgaden - We think more emphasis should be made on the cultural features, dynamics and landscape content of the case. - Building fences in natural landscapes won't be very good in the aesthetic point of view, may be tree hedges are more appropriate or even digging up small water canals to preserve landscape content. - By proposing to fence the area, is there going to be a drawback or side effect to local animal species being trapped or could endanger the local environment?