We'll have a Landscape Urbanism to kick around for a bit

But not forever.

I still read every commentary about Landscape Urbanism (LU) because as a marketing phenomenon it is remarkable. Here's another one and of course I largely agree with John Massengale: Is Landscape Urbanism the new New Urbanism? The RPA continues the debate

But put aside the debate, what puzzles me is "How does one actually use LU?"

Imagine I am an elected official and I've decided that LU is the next big thing and I have to get  my town involved.

How do I use it? Hire James Corner to design a park? Maybe. But then it's a park. Nothing new there. You have to go beyond the boundaries of a park before the park intervenes in a novel way.

Develop a new Comprehensive Plan based on LU principles? Sure. But what does that mean?  Implementing a Comprehensive Plan means — no matter its philosophy and values — changing the day-to-day world of how cities evolve through lot-by-lot construction.

What would a zoning code based on LU actually look like?  Beats me and I am curious to see one.

The more I see of LU is not so much as whether I agree with it but whether there isn't anything there. I have heard nothing about LU that would suggest anything new. 

For example, as I mentioned a few days ago about James Corner's analysis of Seattle Central Waterfront, there was nothing in it which would not be done by any reputable and competent designer. You start with what is: describing and characterizing existing conditions. I'll listen more but it's my sense that in reality LU offers nothing new by way of technique or intellectual structure.