Prototypes in Landscape Design – Final Thoughts

A few final wrap up comments about applying prototyping to landscape design.  These comments and observations are mostly things I have carried over from my prototyping experiences in the systems field.

Getting client requirements is crucial.  Having a design methodology with an approach to gathering requirements is extremely important but probably more important is having a toolkit of methods and approaches you can apply in different circumstances.  One size does not fit all in design methodologies.  The major thing to keep in mind is that you must gather all client requirements, gather them completely, and gather them accurately.  Finding the mix of tools and approaches that will allow you to accomplish this comes with experience and practice.

I would not tell a client I am going to prototype their design or some portion of their design.  However, I would use a prototyping approach if it was appropriate and it would allow me to draw out and/or confirm some of the client’s needs.  If I was doing a physical representation with stakes, cord, boxes, and other materials, I might describe it as a walkthrough or simulation.  The approach is the same; I just am not bogged down in the use of the term prototype.

As I said in an earlier post, almost everything we create to represent the client’s design is a prototype.  These artifacts just have different levels of visual and functional fidelity.  A simple plan view is a prototype.  If I can use that plan view to validate the client’s requirements there is no reason to go further.  However, if the client continues to waver or expresses concerns, I may have to dig into my toolbox and apply a creative approach to representing the design that will communicate the design intent and how it meets the client’s needs.

Some prototyping can be done with either 2D or 3D design software.  Other prototypes may be visually enhanced photos.  Physical models take time and talent but, if you know what you are doing and are good at it, giving the client a scale model can be impressive.  Simulating areas and/or spaces with objects, lines, and other materials is a good way to give the client a sense of space and proportion.  The point is you need to determine what you need to convey, how much fidelity you need, and the best way to convey it.

Having the right tools and knowing which tool to use is important.  In addition to DynaSCAPE, VizTerra, DesignWare, and other landscape design packages I use other tools to augment my design analysis and presentations.  Software such as PowerPoint, Excel, Work, Visio, Photoshop and others allow me to produce analytic materials and client presentation materials.  They can play a role in prototyping if they allow you to create a representation you can use to convey what you need.  I typically use the tool that will work best for what I need to accomplish whether it be analysis, design, or creating a prototype.  However, I always keep in mind how I might be able to leverage that material later in the project.

Making the choice to use physical representations with rope, cord, hose, stakes, boxes, etc. is a little more difficult.  Deciding when to use physical representation is primarily a matter of experience and ability to read what the client needs.  There are clients who just cannot visualize anything.  Even with a plan view, enhanced digital photos, drawings/sketches, and other representations, they just cannot sense or visualize how it will work, how much space will be available, etc.  In some cases, you might decide to use a physical representation in order to convince the client that their ideas will not work or you want to show them an alternative approach.  Whatever the motivation for a physical representation, you need to decide how much effort to put into it to create the level of functional or visual fidelity to meet your needs.

Prototypes do work.  The key is to use the right tool or technique at the right time for the project.

More Power in PowerPoint 2010

Digital pictures are an important part of the validation process.  They also make great design tools.  You can take pictures of the client site and enhance them to show a proposed new design.  You can pull out specific elements you want to focus on or exclude.  You can also use scanned images of magazine clippings, pictures downloaded from the internet, and stock photos.  There may be elements that you can isolate in an image that may be useful in your design development or for creating a storyboard.  There are many reasons to use, manipulate, and enhance digital photos.

Manipulating digital pictures can be difficult though.  The standard for photo editing and manipulation is probably Photoshop.  Photoshop is expensive and so complex it is hard to learn and hard to remember what to do if you don’t use it all the time.  There are other software tools available.  There is a very large range of capabilities and price.  However, there is an unexpected new tool available that is really worth looking at.

The newest version of PowerPoint, PowerPoint 2010, has been greatly enhanced with photo manipulation tools that are very powerful.  What makes them even more amazing is that they are included in PowerPoint.

The first new tool is the Background Removal tool.  After you insert a digital picture, you can select it and then click on the Background Removal button.  PowerPoint will then analyze the picture and make a recommendation as to what it thinks is the foreground (keep) and background (remove).  Shown below are screen-shots of an original picture and the result of the first scan of the picture.  The areas highlighted in magenta are areas PowerPoint has marked as background.

Original Picture and PowerPoint Background Removal Analysis

Note the box with handles around the image.  Those are the macro controls to select the area you want to keep.  There are other tools included to help you tweak the selection and fine tune what you want to keep and what you want to remove.  When you are done, you finalize the removal.  The result is shown below:

Result of Background Removal

The final image is in PowerPoint, on a slide.  There are several things you can do at this point.  You can save that new image as a file to use in another program.  You cam use PowerPoint’s draw and text tools to make notes on the image to record your ideas.  You can print the image and sketch ideas by hand.  You can also load the saved image file in a digital design tool such as DesignWare to add new elements.

There is a lot of power in this tool and it produces results that are more than satisfactory.  The Background Removal tool is useful for isolating specific images also.  For example, assume you want to use the container in the photo below but just the container.

Background Removal Used to Isolate Container in Picture

The Background Removal tool does a quick job of isolating just the container as shown below.  This isolated image can be imported into other pictures, used in drawings, traced, etc.

Another useful way to use this tool is to isolate portions of a picture.  In most cases, the focus of your picture is in the center.  However, if what you want to keep is off to the side or in a corner, you can simply drag the selection box around the portion you want to keep and let PowerPoint work its magic.  You can fine-tune your selection regardless of where the selection box is located.

There are other useful photo enhancement tools built into this version of PowerPoint.  I will discuss some of them and some new features in Word 2010 in upcoming posts.

The Case for Electronic Ideation

This is a third follow-up to a post in January about gathering client and site data [Gathering Data: Challenges, Irony, and Value].  The questions raised in that post were:

• how much information do you need to collect?
• how do you record the information so that it is accessible and usable?
• how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material?
• how do you reduce the data to its essential components?

In February, I did a follow-up to the first question in my post: The Case for Gathering More Information.  Several days ago, I did the second follow-up post:  The Case for Recording Client and Site Data Electronically.  This post will deal with the third and fourth questions:  how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material, and how do you reduce the data to its essential components?

This is a hard issue because there are numerous approaches that you could take to start the organization and ideation process.  One of the most basic is to start laying pictures, drawings, etc. out on a large table or posting them on a wall or board.  This is essentially a mind mapping or brainstorming approach.  Seeing all the pieces at one time together can stimulate your thinking and help you make connections.  It may help identify conflicts or interrelated issues.  The value of information or data is usually in the connection to other pieces of information and data.  Knowing a whole bunch of things doesn’t help unless to put them all together and make sense of them.

I tend to find the paper-based methods slow.  If I lay out drawings, plans, pictures, and other visual data I usually want to supplement it with some of my notes and thoughts.  This means writing out things on Post-it notes or note cards and positioning them in the mix of other things.  Having the paper laid out or posted on a wall makes it visible and it is easy to move things around or replace things.  However, the one thing I really find the most limiting is that it is not portable.  I have to be in front of it to see it, work with it, and analyze it.

My preference is to create my project brainstorming or ideation board electronically.  I have used different software tools to do this.  PowerPoint has some advantages as does Photoshop.  You can even use DynaSCAPE albeit with some constraints.  There are probably other software tools to do the same types of things.

I will use PowerPoint as an example since it is more familiar to more people.  The basic process is to create a new PowerPoint file with a single slide.  If you think you want to print it out later on a large format printer then format the slide size to 24×36 or some other large size.  Then simply start inserting your electronically stored content.

Maybe the base plan goes into the center.  Place digital photos around the edges representing their orientation toward the plan.  Everything will need to be sized.  However, just get the elements into rough position.  The nice thing about electronic format is that you can size up and down and drag things into a different position.  If you want to add comments or thoughts from your notes, simply copy them from your electronic notes and paste them into text boxes in PowerPoint.  You can then move them around, size them, and even color-code them.  If there are pictures of ideas or elements that you want to consider, copy and paste them into the slide.  Size and position them where they belong.  If something is important, increase the size, make the font bold, or color the background so it stands out.

I tend to use the outside edges and corners for other things such as the client profile or color swatches.  If the clients give me pictures or clippings of things they like I can sample colors and build a color palette to work from.  I usually put the client profile in a corner so I keep it visible.  Other random ideas may come up and again I place those on the edges so I don’t forget them.  If I see where they fit in later, I simply drag them into position.

Just like using a wall or tabletop, you may run out of room or have to reduce the size of some content just to fit it in.  You can use the drawing tools to make lines, arrows, or other symbols to help you focus on elements.  This isn’t really any different than creating a mood board, concept board, story board, or any other display board.  The only real difference is that it is for your ideation purposes.

Two of the main advantages of the electronic project board are that you can easily update it with new ideas, pictures, or any other content and it is portable.  If I have it on my laptop I can take it with me and work on it whenever I have time.  If I get an idea for some portion of the design, I can simply pull up the file and make the addition.

Where I find real value in the electronic approach is in two techniques; versioning and focusing.  Versioning is essentially an approach where you create an initial project board electronically and then copy it to start modifying it.  Maybe you have a couple of ideas of now you might approach the design.  Make copies of the original project board and modify each copy for a particular design approach.  Each is a version of the original board but with a different design concept.  You can use these to make decisions or bounce ideas off your clients.

Focusing is a variation where you make a copy of the project board but eliminate everything not related to a specific area.  If you are focusing on the entertaining area, eliminate everything else and build on that project board as a separate piece.  You can repeat this for other specific areas.  This also allows you to scale things up since you are dealing with a smaller area.  When you are done you can copy in each of the separate pieces to the overall project board to see how they fit and work together.

The project board is really a tool for you but you can use it to bounce ideas off the client.  This is a form of versioning.  If I want to use my material for a client discussion, I make a duplicate copy of it and then tweak it for client presentation.  I usually have to take it to a print shop to have a large-format copy printed, but this gives me a working document I can use with the client for discussions.

Lastly, material from you project board is a like many other things, a candidate for reuse.  As you move into the project, some of your content may be repurposed for other portions of your design work, analysis, or client presentation.  Working electronically to compile all of your data and information will save you time, leverage your work, and give you more flexibility to explore alternatives.

Can You Afford to Expand Your Perspective?

If you are use to working in plan view, you typically have a base plan that encompasses the client’s property or maybe just the space you are working in.  You will probably take into account what is outside the perimeter of that base plan through your site analysis.  You may try to capitalize on views or block them.  You may create barriers to wind or noise.  Those offsite elements are just not directly addressed in plan view.  You may discuss how your design takes advantage of the fabulous view behind the property in the client presentation, but that portion is “off the page” so to speak in terms of the plan view.

You can take the same approach with 3D designs.  You simply work with the client’s property or the specific space you are creating.  One of the factors I have mentioned previously about 3D design is the lack of background imagery.  You typically have a horizon line and a blue-sky background in the 3D site view.

However, what if you included the surrounding properties within your design space?  In the case of a client’s backyard, that would mean including the houses on either side, directly behind, and behind and to the left and right.  For a full client site there would be nine other residences to consider plus the street.  That is obviously going to increase your scope of work.  Even if you did very elementary design features on the other residences, there is still a lot of additional detail to include.  You could very easily obtain what you needed from public block plan records and digital pictures from your site analysis.  You would have the opportunity to include visual elements that the client with have to deal with when the design was actually implemented.  If the residence directly behind them has children’s playground equipment, you could include that in the design and show how you obscure the view of it.  The impact of neighboring trees on sun / shade patterns can be included because those trees would be part of your working design space.  The question is whether it is worth the effort to add all of these additional details.

First, I think the job has to be large enough from a revenue standpoint to warrant the additional effort.  Second, are the elements that you are trying to portray in the surrounding area worth portraying?  Are they truly important in your design response and important to your design presentation?  If one of your main design responses in preserving a view of the mountains that are miles away, there really isn’t anything you can realistically portray offsite as long as the view is not currently blocked.  On the other hand, if you are including design elements to block noise and visual distraction from a nearby intersection you may have reason to include space to that side of the client’s property.

Within 3D design software, you have the opportunity to present the view from any vertical or horizontal angle.  Expanding the area to include surrounding property allows you to back the view out to present how the design will appear from the neighbor’s perspective.  That may be important to some clients.

This approach is not something that is impossible to do in plan view.  You could do the same thing by simply expanding your base plan to include portions of the surrounding properties and include the design features that are important to your design.  The effect of the presentation just is not the same.  You do not have the 3D perspective view from multiple directions.  However, even if you attempt this approach in plan view, it is still a question of is it is worth it or not.

I know it seems counter intuitive to make extra work.  However, I think the results in terms of visually showing a client how you have considered the contextual problems and addressed them in 3D walkthrough would be dramatic.  Being able to back the view up from beyond the property line to show views of the landscape from the neighbor’s perspective is going to be important to some clients.  Obviously, the reverse, the view of the neighbor’s property, is important to almost every client.  Given that there is extra work in using the approach, I think the key to making it worthwhile is to establish two things.  First, what is the value in your design and design presentation in including the expanded area?  Is it going to create value and help you sell the design?  Second, what is the minimum amount of detail you can show to convey the issue and the result?  Can you easily get what you need to add enough detail to make the surrounding space appear realistic enough to convey your design issues and intent.

A very big portion of site analysis is looking at the context of the site.  How does it fit into it’s surroundings.  Including that context may make a lot of sense in some circumstances if the site context in crucial to the design response.

100th Post in Landscape Design Validation – What’s Changed?

This is post number 100 for this blog.  The Landscape Design Validation blog started July 1, 2009.  This blog started with a simple premise: how do you validate that a landscape design will work for the client and meet their needs before construction begins.  Writing about this topic for the past eleven months has helped refine some of my ideas.  My interest in this topic stemmed from an independent research class topic that started in September 2008.  When I started that project, I assumed there might be a solution to this issue in virtual reality and 3D design software.  By the time this blog started ten months later, I had realized that there was not a readily available solution.  This blog began because I wanted to explore what the solution might be in terms of a process rather than a tool.  The following is a recap of how my thinking has evolved over the last eleven months.

At the time of my first post, I had already looked at our peers in landscape architecture and interior design.  I found interesting tools and approaches.  I continue to find design disciplines related to landscape design to be a rich source of ideas for analytical tools and approaches.  Other disciplines such as graphic design may have tools and approaches to offer also.  Design disciplines such as interaction design and web design have also provided me with many provocative ideas about designing for user experience.

When I started this blog, I had looked at virtual reality as a potential tool / solution to this issue.  I was very disappointed in virtual reality as a potential and practical tool.  Conceptually, there is a lot to offer.  The cost and time requirements to capture everything necessary to really and truly use virtual reality are staggering.  It just is not going to happen anytime soon.  However, a related technology, 3D landscape design software, looks very promising.  These 3D design tools cannot be ignored.  They are very powerful.  You have to be careful choosing which one you want to learn and use.  The learning curve is steep but the results are visually very powerful and compelling.

I still fundamentally believe that everything that can possibly be accomplished with validation starts and ends with the client and the site.  You have to know who you are working for, what they want, and what they need.  Want and need are two very different things.  Validation is all about requirements and requirements come from the client.  Anything and everything that can possibly be done to better understand the client and the site is worthwhile.  Basic client management skills and tools for soliciting needs from clients are paramount in developing a design program.

As much as I believed that validation was a part of other design disciplines I am even more convinced of it now.  Most of the current literature and discussion about design validation is related to other types of design.  It may be obvious in some disciplines.  For example, you cannot design a cell phone application without truly understanding what the users (clients) want to do with it.  I worked in the information systems field and requirements validation was a large part of successful development projects.  Landscape design does not really speak to the issue of validating what the client wants and needs.  There may be models, drawings, and plans but they do not necessarily speak to how the clients needs and requirements are being met.

I still think there is work to be done in applying approaches, methodologies, processes, techniques, tools, etc. from other design disciplines to this issue.  It is fundamentally an issue of translating what other disciplines have learned about validation and client requirements to landscape design.  Something that makes so much sense, designing what will meet the client’s needs, cannot be ignored.  This is much, much more that the client wants a patio to entertain guests.  It has to be the right patio to meet their entertaining needs.  Those needs have to be understood.  There are many other aesthetic issues.  There are practicality, cost, and other issues.  Balancing all of those things is what we do.  At the end of the process, we want to make sure that the design is the right design for the client.

You Can’t Ignore the Future

In a number of posts, I have pointed out various shortcomings in virtual reality and 3D design software.  In spite of the shortcomings, is this technology too compelling to ignore?  Is it the future?  Is it what clients will expect from designers?  Virtual reality is common in video gaming.  It is becoming more commonplace as a tool for training in a variety of industries and settings.  Airlines have been using flight simulators for years.  The military and major corporations use virtual reality as a training tool.  A popular HGTV television show about buying houses that can be updated to make them meet the buyer’s requirements features virtual reality makeovers.

Client expectations are high.  Many parts of life that use to be mundane such as catalog shopping are now interactive in the form of ordering online via the internet.  You use to have to be home or work to get a phone call.  Now you can set your phones to track you down via home, cell, work, or some other location.  Your landscape project for a client may be posted on the client’s social media sites as an important activity in the life.  Dozens of people may get updates about what you are doing for the client and how the project is going.  Technology has and will continue to change our lives as well as those of our clients.

I just don’t think we can ignore this type of design tool.  It is too compelling in terms of both power and presentation.  Right now, we may not want to rely on virtual reality or 3D design exclusively.  There is still power in 2D plan views, hand drawings, and other traditional tools.  I find it very interesting that many software tools allow you to take sharp, clear photos and graphics and modify them so they look more “hand drawn”.  There will always be a place for the hand rendered visual aid.  In the meantime, you cannot ignore the power of the software tools that are available now.  Your clients certainly won’t.

Looking at the Fourth D

Several times, while discussing 3D design technology, I have mentioned the capability to show changes over time. For example, how plants will mature and grow or the simple change from daylight to nighttime. These are really fourth dimension changes; changes over time. Being able to look at a design in different circumstances adds tremendously to your ability to present a complete portrayal of the space to the client. Long-term changes in plants due to growth and maturity will alter the overhead space, views, backdrops, and other visual elements. Changes during the course of a day will alter shade patterns and the impact of accent and mood lighting. Seasonal changes also alter the look and feel of the space. These are all obvious changes due to natural time ordered events and cycles. This is classic “time is the fourth dimension” stuff.

I think another component of that fourth dimension, and the on that is not really well addressed in 3D design software, is the impact of different types of space utilization. How the space looks when it being used for a quiet evening at home, a family barbecue, or a large party are unique. The space will have a different utilization pattern in different scenarios that will give it a unique feel and appearance. Being able to get a sense of how the space will look and feel in these cases is just as important as the time ordered events or cycles. The fourth dimension is time but it is also utilization.

2D Versus 3D Design – The Extra D Really is Worth the Effort

Is it more difficult to design in 3D software versus 2D?  There are obviously many more variables to deal with in a 3D design.  However, you get the benefit of seeing a more realistic depiction of the work area and the result while you are designing.  That is the trade off.  To get better visual feedback requires more input work.

I am going to try to break this down but first, in this discussion, I am referring to professional design tools and not the low-end do-it-yourself software tools available at discount prices.  First, let’s assume that we are dealing with a client’s entire property.  In either 2D or 3D software, you have to define the property size and shape and define any existing structures.  In either case, you would outline the property and depict the structures including doors, windows, etc.  With 3D software, you have the added height dimension and the vertical surface materials and colors.  If there are significant terrain changes, you have to show them.  Existing walls, fences, steps, or other hardscape elements that are going to remain need to be defined by their height and material.  In 3D, you also have to specify exterior materials, roof pitches and cuts, overhangs, and anything else that affects the display of the structures.  In 2D, you are only concerned with dimensions, shapes, and patterns of visible elements.  In 3D, anything visible in the third dimension has to be defined.

Moving on, you would depict any existing hardscape elements.  There may be existing sidewalks, driveways, and other features.  In either case, you should be portraying materials, colors, and other visual elements.  Some elements may be more difficult than others.  For example, an existing pool, outdoor kitchen, pergola , etc. all need to be included.  If the 2D design package has a symbol to represent those elements you can use those.  Otherwise, you need to create your own.  This also applies in 3D.  You use existing libraries of structural elements or create your own.

To this point, we have more work defining elements in3D.  The thing to keep in mind is that at this point we can look at the basic layout and visually see terrain changes, existing elements, and change our view of the property to see it from any angle.  At this point in a 2D drawing, you have to remember where those terrain changes are unless you have created contour lines in the drawing.

In either 2D or 3D, you are ready to begin adding new hardscape areas, defining planting beds, showing the locations of new trees, and all of the other things you would do in creating a design.  In either case, you use the software package’s library of plant materials or plant material symbols.  You draw the new hardscape structures and use the library of materials to define the patterns.  A couple of things are different.  First, with plant materials, you can define size in either 2D or 3D, but in 3D, you have the option of displaying the height of the plant.  For hardscape, if there are steps or raised or lower areas you have to specify those height changes between levels of hardscape surface.  The same would be true of raised planting beds.  The material that is used to create the bed would be defined and in a 3D design, you would need to specify the height of the bed walls.  The same would apply to fences or walls.  The layout and material have to be defined but in 3D, you need height.

You probably get the point that you are essentially creating the view in the third dimension.  This is really the key point because that little bit of extra work allows you to stop and at any time, change to a 3D viewing mode, and examine what you have created from any direction and any viewing angle.  What does the upper deck look like from the lower patio area?  How well does the water feature standout when viewed from different perspectives?  You have to imagine these types of views in 2D.  You can actually see them in a 3D design.  If you stop and think about it, in a 2D design you still have to show or at least describe some of the elements in the vertical dimension.  Take a retaining wall for example.  You would include it in the plan but supplement the client presentation with a sample block to show the material, color, and texture.  The third dimensional view just isn’t incorporated directly into the plan as it is in 3D design.

So far, I have honestly stated that there is more input and procedural work in creating a 3D design.  The 3D design process can save you work though.  There is less information that you need to keep in your head as you design.  While you are designing the patio, you don’t have to think about how it will look next to the residence.  You simple switch to 3D viewing mode a see how it looks.  You don’t need to worry about the drop off in the backyard and how you are concealing it.  You can actually see the result of your design in 3D viewing mode.  Secondly, you have less supplemental material to prepare for client presentations.  You may not really need the storyboards or material samples since you can show 3D views that accurately depict the materials, colors, and textures.  Lastly, 3D designs may help you prevent errors and oversights.  That pergola may be in the wrong position due to an existing tree overhang.  In a 2D plan this may not have been caught.  In 3D, it would be readily apparent.

The 3D design software available now is very powerful and creates compelling designs.  Typical desktop computers easily handle the software quickly and efficiently.  Designing in 3D is fun.  You can see the results of your ideas immediately.  You get instant feedback and gratification.  It engages clients.  They can see easily what they are going to get.  This is not to say that you have to make sure you select the right 3D design software package.  You also have to be prepared for a learning curve.  However, the result of making the switch will astound you and your clients.

Why Use 3D Design Software

My last two posts have discussed some of the shortcomings of 3D design packages.  So what is right with them?  Why should you use them?  The following are my reasons for considering them as very serious design tools.  My only caveat is that we are not talking about the discount special software packages for $5 on the internet or on the clearance rack at the electronics store.  These are capabilities of high-end professional 3D landscape design packages.

Why use 3D design software:

• 3D designs are interactive.  You can change views, show movement, and change elements on the fly while making your client presentation.
• The libraries of plants, trees, etc. rival high-end 2D packages like DynaSCAPE.  You can create very realistic renderings of what you intend to plant and how it will look.  Switching to alternative plant materials is accomplished quickly and easily.
• Terrain can be modeled with current and proposed grading changes and depicted realistically as rock, grass, etc.
• Hardscape areas are presented realistically with a variety of materials and colors available to meet the requirements of the design.  In some packages, actually libraries of manufactures materials are available.
• You can add accessory elements that the client will add such as tables, chairs, fire pits, clocks, etc. to make the scene show as the client will use it.
• Water features can be added in a variety of forms such as fountains, pools, lakes, etc.
• Rock elements whether natural or designed can be added to depict outcroppings, retaining walls, components of water features, etc.
• The client residence can be depicted very realistically as it currently exists and any new features can such as overhangs, walls, awnings, and so forth can be added.
• The design can be depicted in day or night lighting and outdoor lighting effects can be added to show the effect.  Lighting effects can be switched during the presentation to show clients how the design will look in different scenarios.
• Depending upon the package there are usually import capabilities to use existing plans or graphics and export capabilities to create materials lists and other specifications.
• You also get the 2D plan view and specifications you would get in a 2D design package.

I believe these are some very compelling reasons for switching to 3D design software.  Should you still use other mediums to represent your work?  The simple answer is yes.  If you are a good artist, a well-crafted perspective drawing will do wonders for representing your design concept.  A beautifully colored 2D plan view can be very persuasive.  Enhanced digital photos of the clients existing site make a very credible statement of how the site will look when the design is implemented.  You should use the tools that will make the best representation to your client of exactly what they will be getting and how it will meet their needs.

3D Design Issues – The View Outside

My last post discussed the issue the resulting display of a 3D design looking like a video game.  I am not convinced that this is a huge issue.  I mentioned the inability to add people to the design output as being a bigger issue.  Another limiting factor is current 3D design software output is the inability to show external views or views off-site.  When panning around the 3D design output you are viewing toward the residence or away from it.  When you have the residence as a backdrop, the good design packages allow you to create a very good resemblance of the client’s residence.  However when you are view away from the residence you are usually shown a flat horizon and some type of gradient sky background.  The really good packages allow you to change the view from day to night so the sky coloring can change.  However, the real shortcoming is the lack of an external view.

On some sites, you want to screen a view.  Within the 3D design software, you can add the hardscape or softscape to create this effect and show it.  This is a great application of the tool because whatever you add is a screen of the external view.

On some sites, however, the off-site view is a huge asset.  Being able to depict how the design capitalizes on that view or fits into the view would be a huge asset.  The only work around I have found for this involves panning the design to the point where you are looking toward the area in the design where the view would be.  Then do a screen capture.  This image can be combined with a digital photo of the view using Photoshop or a similar tool to create a still image.  This just doesn’t have the impact that would be obtained with having the view within the virtual design.  Also, this really isn’t much different than using digital imaging software like DesignWare to simply enhance the digital photo of the view.

I think the point is that the current state of the tools we have available require us to mix and match tools and techniques to create the most compelling client presentation.  We may be able to use combinations of plan views, 3D design, enhanced digital photos, drawings, etc. to depict what we thing are the things the client needs to see to convince them that the design meets their needs.

Design Process Model – The Site

Analyzing the client site is a much more technical, analytical task than the client analysis.  You are dealing with the physical and tangible.  However, there are often one or more vague elements.  There aren’t any personalities or egos or agendas to deal with.  Site analysis is also much more scalable.  By that, I mean you can adjust what you do to the scope of the potential job.  You don’t need a geological survey for a small job or updating some planting beds.

The real issue comes down to those big jobs that have a huge impact on the property and the client is potentially investing a lot of money.  You also have to watch out for the medium size jobs that have unusual site circumstances.  Site analysis comes down to a drawing a line that will make you comfortable that you know enough about the site for the scope of work and that you can avoid overlooking anything major.  It is also extremely helpful to understand the site well enough to develop some creative ideas.

I really do not like checklists.  They tend to make us think that we have covered everything just because we have gone through them.  In this case, though, I have compiled a comprehensive list of things you might or might not do as part of a site analysis.  The list is broken up into three sections:  Natural features, Man-made features, and Contextual features.

• Natural features are those things related to the location and ground.  Even if the site was initially graded and landscape previously, the existing terrain, soil, plant materials, climate, etc. are all part of this section.
• Man-made features are the structures on the site and any infrastructure supporting the site.  This also includes the architectural style and related detail of the structure including ingress and egress.
• Contextual features are all of the surroundings of the site and now the site fits into those surroundings.

The list is as follows:

Natural features

• Terrain (rise / fall of land)
• Topography (record of terrain)
• Slopes (steepness measurements)
• Erosion (present / potential)
• Directions of surface drainage
• Areas of puddling / drought
• Geology
• Soil conditions / qualities
• Existing softscape
• Microclimates
• Climate (regional macro)
• USDA Plant Hardiness Zone
• Sun / shade angles
• Prevailing winds
• Annual rainfall / snowfall
• Depth of frost line
• Off-site view

Man-made features

• Existing buildings
• Utilities
• Paved areas
• Existing hardscape
• Existing landscape features
• Building architecture
• Building details (doors / windows)
• Lines of force
• Image / style
• Access
• Enclosure (screening)
• Current storage spaces
• Adjacent property development

Contextual features

• Property lines
• Setback
• Zoning regulations
• Deed restrictions
• Covenants
• Right-of-ways
• Easements
• Zero lot lines
• Off-site noise / odors / etc.
• Historical significance
• Regional / local style

Since the type of data we are gathering for the site analysis is less subjective than client data, it lends itself to being recordable in a graphic or visual format.  Most of the data can be graphed, drawn, sketched, plotted, or recorded in some type of visual format.  If we can record the data in a central place such as over a base plan, we have the ability to summarize and consolidate the various types of data we collect.  I have two ways of managing the data and making it easy to manipulate.

The first is to use DynaSCAPE and take advantage of its layers feature.  I import the base plan as a graphic and redraw the elements I need.  This becomes my base plan layer.  After that, I work from my notes and transfer different types of data over my base plan using a different DynaSCAPE layer for each.  For example, anything dealing with terrain, slope, or topography goes on one layer.  I may use another layer for microclimate data.  The number of layers and the way I group or merge data will depend on how much data I have and how finite I want to break it down.  When I am done, I can use DynaSCAPE to select various layers in combination to see how they impact or interact with each other.  For example, I might look at how the lines of force overlay the topography.  The base plan layer is always selected to give a reference point to the view.  However, mixing up and combining different layers of data allow you to see how site elements influences one another.

The second method is to use Microsoft PowerPoint.  I insert a graphic of the base plan onto an initial slide.  I then duplicate that slide for the number of times that I want to create separate overlays.  Then I follow the same process as above.  I use PowerPoint drawing tools to layout various site elements one slide at a time.  Mixing and matching gets a little more tricky with PowerPoint.  If I want to combine two elements, I will duplicate the slide for one of them and then add the overlay graphics for the second set of elements to the new slide.  Working this way with PowerPoint is doable and in some cases can be easier but you have to be a little more careful and manage your individual slides so you know what you have.

Both of these methods work.  They both can be tedious.  However, the real power of analysis is the ability to combine different kinds of data and information.  The results can be well worth the effort.  You may not always know which layers of data to combine.  It sometimes comes down to looking at the individual components and giving some serious thought to how that might affect one another.  You might have an area with drainage issues that you need to deal with but easements could constrain how you address those issues.  There may be opportunities to use the existing structures and lines of force to create a compelling space layout but the pattern of sun and shade in the space may preclude that solution.  You have to think about the information and go through the analysis.  That is really the point.

One other advantage to the DynaSCAPE method is that when I get to preliminary design I can pull some of my analysis layers to the preliminary design to see the impact.  For example, I may look at how prevailing wind or sun / shade angles to make sure they are fitting into my design correctly.

My last point is to not forget reusability.  Any graphic or visual you create for one client can be copied over the base plan for another client.  Don’t recreate the wheel.  Save your time for the in-depth analysis of your data.

Landscape Design Process Models — Does the process work?

Landscape design process models tend to be linear descriptions of what we do.  For this discussion, I am not including anything beyond final design.  No construction or maintenance phases are included.  The typical linear model has major activities divided into several “steps”.  For example:

• Research and preparation
• Design

Or a model with more phases:

• Initiation
• Analysis
• Synthesis
• Design

Regardless of the terminology or name of the phase, you move from one phase of design to the next in a clear sequential order.  Each phase is completed and the next begins.  A few authors have addressed this issue.  Some do refer to iterative approaches or the use of cycling through analysis and synthesis to resolve or reduce the design issues.  Occasionally, there may be a reference to iterating back to an earlier phase, but the assumption is usually to move sequentially, phase to phase.

I have been a proponent of iterative design and development methods for thirty years.  Using iterative design methods provides numerous advantages.  These include early client feedback and acceptance, catching problems sooner rather than letter, and the ability to incrementally develop solutions.

The term iterative can mean different things.  First, it can mean cycling between phases such as between analysis and synthesis, refining the data to develop a design program or design concept.  It can mean developing a project in phases, each small piece being an iteration of the development of the project as a whole.  I tend to use the term, with reference to landscape design, as an approach that focuses on frequent client input and feedback and secondly, not being afraid to take a step back and go through steps a second time to make sure they are complete and correct.  In other words, iterate the process until you validate that it is complete and correct.

My opinion is that the linear models provide direction.  They provide structure and give you an approach.  However, the way to move between or through phases should be dependent upon the project and the designer’s preferences.  Within a phase model, customize the sequence and timing of process steps to suit the needs of the project.

The design process as a whole is not as important as the process steps and methods you utilized during the process.  For example, virtually every design process starts with an initiation phase.  It may be labeled Initiation, Discovery, Orientation, or something similar.  For our purposes, this is where we get to know the client, view the site, uncover client needs, gather information, and all of the background activities that are necessary to find out exactly what the client wants and what we have to work with.

It would be nice to place all those activities into one nice neat phase, complete them, and move on.  However, two very real things happen.  First, you may have to go back to discovery activities later in the project.  You may need to review the site again, question the client further, or undertake some other basic research.  New facts have a way of cropping up throughout a project.  We have to deal with those facts.  The second thing that happens is that as designers we start analyzing immediately.  Everything the client says and every observation is analyzed at least at some subconscious level.  We automatically throw ourselves into an Analysis phase even though we are just starting a Discovery phase.

I think technology has given us a set of tools that allow us to circumvent the design process even further.  It is very easy to gather some information and then sit at a computer a mock up design rapidly.  The quality of those designs is so impressive that clients may be ready to sign off on what they see.  However, no real thought or analysis has been accomplished that determines if those designs are right for the client or what the client really needs.

In subsequent posts, I am going to be developing a landscape design process model that addresses activities and steps that support validation.  That model will look similar to other models you may have seen.  What I think you will find different is that it builds confidence at each phase that the final design is right for the client.