theory lab lecture series
Topography. FS 2014 V05
The first topographic maps were maritime and quite rudimentary; they appeared out
of necessity as point maps using a long pole to fathom harbour shallows. These points
were later linked into contour lines to draw the invisible shape of the sea bed along a
coast. It was translated into a general method for 2D topographic land maps used by
the military showing the actual relief of an entire region with precise contour lines.
Later the contour line was used as a design tool per se. Even today, two topographic
methods prevail: that of the point elevation and that of the contour line. Computers
use either method to represent topography, and are then able to generate 3D forms
from this 2D base information. But this extraordinary leap in technological achievement
coincides precisely with a period of general disinterest in topography. The technology
has progressed to such a point of perfection, that unmanned automated machinery is
now capable of terracing vast areas of land for the purpose of roads, infrastructures and
buildings guided by computer technology coupled with precise geographic information
systems (GIS).
Topography is the necessary starting point of every landscape architectural project.
Whether it respects scrupulously a site in its existing natural condition, or presses for
various topological modifications, a project always needs an initial reading of the relief
and an understanding of the dynamic forces at work. Why have topographical modifications occurred on the landscape since the most remote times in history? And what
has changed today in the relationship between topography and our living environment?
In this era of rapid mechanization, the irreversible alteration of natural topography
through massive displacements of matter, has taken-on another meaning, call it mass
erasure if you will. It is ironic that the methods pertaining to the management and shaping of quantities of displaced material escape, more often than not, the hands of architects. This is in part due to a lack of concern in the subject, but also to a fundamental
lack of know-how in topological methods. Today, the hiatus between object design and
landscape design has reached a paradox, where our environment, despite its relative
precision, is becoming even more fragmented and topologically incongruent.
Computer tools are now used to work out complex topographic manipulations over
time. Not only can volumes of cut and fill be calculated with a high degree of precision,
they can also easily be optimized, remodeled and shaped according to the simulation
of water flow or wind flow. Each period of history has had its share of topographic
feats, famous places like Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid of Gizeh displaced material
from far away in order to achieve a unique topography and vision. What characterizes
our epoch, however, is the sheer quantity of displaced material at hand without a clear
purpose in mind. The expediency with which most material is handled, means that the
rules of traditional terracing are simply not respected. Efficient topographic forming
“Hochäcker” in Hagenwil/Switzerland
Photo: Georg Gerster.
www.girot.arch.ethz.ch
www.facebook.com/LandscapeArchitectureETHZurich
Landscape Architecture FS 2014 Page 01
and compacting depends on an initial objective that is clear, call it a vision if you will.
It then follows three basic rules: First, the material needs to be homogenous in order
to be correctly compacted in regular layers. Second, the external slope of the form can
only exceed a 2/3 ratio if it is held by walls or gabions, otherwise erosion will ensue.
Third, material should avoid being displaced and be kept on site as often as possible.
This is what engineers call the balancing of cut and fill. In this instance, particular
attention to the soil horizon and the sorting of top soil needs to be done. A respect of
these basic rules will ensure the stability of a work and its potential for landscape development in the future.
Literature:
Contemporary architects often use the word topography abusively to describe a sort of
“surface skin” on the roof of their buildings. But, this has nothing to do with the long
established tradition of modeling the land. These architectural works avoid any contact
with the natural terrain, they are prophylactic pieces, meta surfaces of sorts detached
from local reality of natural systems. The challenge for architects in years to come, is to
come back to the root and purpose of normal topography, and to integrate it in their
work. Only then will their architecture be able to reconcile the topography of the city
with the surrounding landscape.
Leatherbarrow, David: Uncommon Ground. Architecture, Technology and Topography, Cambridge
2000.
Birksted, Jane: Relating architecture to landscape,
London 1999.
Cache, Bernard: Earth moves. The furnishing of
territories, Cambridge 1995.
Cosgrove, Denis: Mappings, London 2002.
Leatherbarrow, David: Topographical Stories.
Stories in landscape and architecture, Philadelphia
2004.
Lehr, Richard: Taschenbuch für den Garten- und
Landschaftsbau, Berlin 1997.
Niesel, Alfred: Bauen mit Grün, Berlin 2002.
© Christophe Girot 2014
The Wave Field, University of Michigan/USA, Photo: Maya Lin 1995.
Landscape Architecture FS 2014 Page 02