Loading field map
Landscape Urbanism is a body of theory and practice in architecture, urban design, and landscape architecture that emerged in the late twentieth century and argues that landscape—rather than architecture or traditional urban planning—should be the primary medium for organizing contemporary cities. The term names both a diagnosis and a prescription: it holds that the fixed master plan and the isolated building object are inadequate tools for shaping cities shaped by rapid change, ecological pressure, and economic flux, and it proposes that the landscape architect's methods—working with systems, processes, time, and open-endedness—are better suited to the task.
The approach arose from a specific sense of failure. By the late twentieth century, many designers and theorists in Europe and North America observed that the traditional tools of urban design were struggling with the conditions of the post-industrial, decentralized city. The classic urban plan assumed stable programs, predictable growth, and a clear center; the contemporary metropolitan region, by contrast, was characterized by deindustrialized brownfields, sprawling suburbs, informal settlements, and infrastructure corridors that cut across older urban fabric. Architecture, with its emphasis on the permanent object and the finished composition, seemed ill-equipped to handle these large, indeterminate, and dynamic territories.
Landscape Urbanism's central claim is that these conditions are not anomalies to be corrected but the actual material of the contemporary city. The city, in this view, is not a collection of buildings but a set of interacting systems—hydrological, ecological, economic, social, infrastructural—that are constantly in motion. Landscape, understood not as a picture or a garden but as a medium that organizes surfaces, flows, and processes over time, offers a way to work with these systems rather than against them. The landscape architect's traditional concern with grading, drainage, plant succession, and seasonal change becomes a model for urban design: instead of designing a final state, the designer sets up conditions that allow for adaptation, growth, and change.
The term "landscape urbanism" was consolidated in the 1990s, though its intellectual roots reach back several decades. A key precursor was the American landscape architect Ian McHarg, whose 1969 book Design with Nature argued that urban development should be guided by ecological analysis of the land—its soils, hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife—rather than imposed upon it. McHarg's method of mapping environmental constraints and opportunities influenced a generation of planners, but his approach remained largely analytical and deterministic: it sought to find the best location for a given use, not to design for ongoing change.
A more direct influence came from European urban theory, particularly the work of the Spanish architect and theorist Manuel de Solà-Morales, who in the 1970s and 1980s wrote about the "urban periphery" and the need to design for the vast, formless territories beyond the historic city center. His concept of the "urban project"—a strategic intervention that could catalyze transformation in a larger area—resonated with designers who felt that both traditional urbanism and modernist planning had failed to address the actual scale and character of the contemporary metropolis.
The term itself was coined or at least popularized in the mid-1990s, most prominently through the work of Charles Waldheim, a Canadian-American architect and theorist who organized a conference at the University of Pennsylvania in 1997 and later edited the influential anthology The Landscape Urbanism Reader (2006). Waldheim and his colleagues drew on the work of the Dutch architect and theorist Rem Koolhaas, whose writings on the "generic city" and the "junkspace" of contemporary urbanism argued that architects should abandon nostalgia for the traditional city and engage with the actual conditions of sprawl, infrastructure, and deregulation. They also drew on the work of the American landscape architect James Corner, whose essays in the 1990s called for a more projective and creative understanding of landscape—not as a passive reflection of nature but as an active medium for shaping urban life.
Several ideas recur across the diverse work gathered under the Landscape Urbanism label. The first is a shift from the object to the field. Instead of designing buildings as isolated monuments, the landscape urbanist designs the ground plane—the surface that organizes movement, water, vegetation, and program. This surface is often conceived as a "field" or a "mat" that can accommodate a variety of uses over time, rather than a fixed composition.
The second is an emphasis on process over form. Landscape Urbanism is less interested in what a place looks like at a given moment than in how it changes over time. This draws on ecological concepts such as succession—the natural process by which plant communities replace one another over time—and on the idea of designed systems that are "seeded" and then allowed to develop. The designer's role is not to specify the final state but to set up the initial conditions and the rules of transformation.
The third is a commitment to working with infrastructure. Many Landscape Urbanist projects treat roads, railways, flood-control channels, and utility corridors not as obstacles to be hidden or mitigated but as the very armature of the city. The design task is to make these infrastructural systems perform multiple functions—ecological, social, aesthetic—rather than a single technical one.
The fourth is an interest in the "drosscape"—a term coined by the American landscape architect Alan Berger to describe the wasted, leftover, or underused landscapes of the post-industrial city: parking lots, vacant lots, abandoned industrial sites, and the margins of highways. Landscape Urbanism sees these not as problems to be erased but as opportunities for new kinds of urban life.
While Landscape Urbanism is often discussed as a single movement, it contains several distinct tendencies that differ in their assumptions and methods.
One tendency, associated with Waldheim and with the Harvard Graduate School of Design, where he later taught, is primarily diagnostic and theoretical. It uses landscape as a lens for understanding the contemporary city and as a critique of both traditional urbanism and conventional architecture. This approach is heavily influenced by post-structuralist theory and by the work of Koolhaas; it is more concerned with reading and representing urban conditions than with producing built work. Its critics sometimes charge that it remains at the level of metaphor and fails to offer concrete design guidance.
A second tendency, associated with Corner and with the New York-based firm Field Operations, is more projective and constructive. Corner's writing emphasizes the creative and imaginative dimensions of landscape—its capacity to produce new forms of urban experience—and his built work, such as the High Line in New York City (a park built on a disused elevated railway) and Freshkills Park in Staten Island (a landfill being transformed into a public park), attempts to demonstrate how landscape urbanist principles can be realized at scale. This approach is more willing to work with existing urban fabric and to produce designs that are legible and popular, but it has been criticized by some for domesticating the more radical implications of the theory.
A third tendency, associated with the Dutch landscape architect Adriaan Geuze and the firm West 8, is more pragmatic and infrastructural. West 8's work—such as the redevelopment of the Madrid Río park along the Manzanares River and the master plan for Toronto's waterfront—treats landscape as a large-scale engineering and ecological system. This approach is less concerned with theoretical debate and more with delivering functional, buildable projects that manage water, movement, and ecology at the scale of the city or region.
A fourth tendency, sometimes called "ecological urbanism," was articulated by the American architect and theorist Mohsen Mostafavi, who served as dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Design. Mostafavi argued that Landscape Urbanism had paid insufficient attention to ecology as a scientific discipline and to the social and political dimensions of urban life. Ecological urbanism seeks to integrate ecological science, urban design, and social equity into a more comprehensive framework. This is less a rival school than a broadening and correction of the original Landscape Urbanist agenda, but it reflects a real disagreement about how central ecology should be and how the field should relate to the natural sciences.
These approaches are not mutually exclusive, and many practitioners move between them. A single project might combine the theoretical sophistication of the Harvard school, the design inventiveness of Field Operations, and the engineering pragmatism of West 8. The differences are more a matter of emphasis than of fundamental opposition.
The most significant critiques of Landscape Urbanism come from two directions. The first is from traditional urbanism, particularly the New Urbanism movement, which argues that the city should be organized around walkable neighborhoods, mixed uses, and a clear public realm of streets and squares. New Urbanists charge that Landscape Urbanism is too willing to accept sprawl and formlessness, that it neglects the social and civic dimensions of urban life, and that its emphasis on process and change can become an excuse for vagueness and lack of commitment.
The second critique comes from within landscape architecture itself. Some landscape architects argue that Landscape Urbanism, despite its name, has actually marginalized the discipline—that it has reduced landscape to a technical instrument for managing urban growth while abandoning the cultural, symbolic, and artistic dimensions of the field. Others argue that the movement's claims to novelty are exaggerated, and that its core ideas—working with natural processes, designing for change, integrating infrastructure—were already present in the work of earlier landscape architects such as McHarg, Lawrence Halprin, and the German landscape architect Günther Grzimek.
By the early twenty-first century, Landscape Urbanism had moved from a provocative theory to an established—if still contested—part of the design disciplines. Its ideas are taught in most architecture and landscape architecture schools in North America and Europe, and its vocabulary—fields, systems, processes, infrastructure, drosscape—has become common currency in design discourse. The term itself is used less frequently than it was in the 2000s, partly because its ideas have been absorbed into mainstream practice and partly because the theoretical energy has shifted toward related concerns such as climate adaptation, resilience, and social justice.
The built work associated with Landscape Urbanism is now substantial, though it is often realized in modified form. Large-scale parks and waterfront redevelopments—the High Line, Madrid Río, the Toronto waterfront, the redevelopment of the former Tempelhof Airport in Berlin—show the influence of Landscape Urbanist thinking, even when the designers do not use the label. These projects share a commitment to working with existing conditions, to designing for multiple uses and future change, and to treating landscape as the primary organizing element of the urban environment.
At the same time, the movement's limitations have become clearer. Critics note that many Landscape Urbanist projects have been realized in wealthy cities and have sometimes contributed to gentrification rather than to social equity. The emphasis on process and open-endedness has sometimes produced designs that are difficult to maintain or that fail to provide the clear, legible spaces that people actually use. And the movement's early enthusiasm for infrastructure has been tempered by the recognition that infrastructure is not neutral—it embodies political and economic choices that can exclude as well as include.
The durable contribution of Landscape Urbanism is probably not any single project or theory but a shift in the questions that designers ask. Before the movement, urban design tended to assume that the city was a problem of form: how to arrange buildings, streets, and public spaces into a coherent whole. Landscape Urbanism reframed the question: how to work with the dynamic systems—ecological, economic, social—that actually produce the contemporary city. That reframing has proven durable, even as the specific answers proposed by the movement's founders have been debated, modified, and in some cases abandoned. The field today is less a unified school than a set of ongoing conversations about how landscape, ecology, and infrastructure can shape urban life—conversations that continue to evolve in response to climate change, urbanization, and the growing demand for more just and sustainable cities.