Mediocrity

I would disagree with the author's judgement of "ugly".
But if we compare our buildings to what's being built elsewhere in the world, we have only managed to live up to our usual level of expected mediocrity.

Boring

The Curling Rink is typical Vancouver bland. The Richmond Oval is at least interested compared to the boring buildings in Vancouver.

Different for the sake of?

Haven't we had enough architect's nightmares already?
Must every new building represent something different? Must every new school be different when one standard plan would save us money?
Did we not learn anything from the leaky condo's?
We were able to build weather-tight apartments for decades, but designers required new and fancy roof structures with little overhang and flat roofs.
Why must a building be different and unique because some athletes have to sleep there for a couple of weeks?
Did the roof of that Montreal stadium prove anything except that it did not work?
Why not leave fashion to womens clothing, that at least only has a limited lifetime
and is not sponsored by taxpayers!

It's Not that Bad...

I wouldn't actually call same a dog:

http://rogersradiointernet.com/BC/CKWX/images/2007/richmond%20oval%20webcam%20july16.jpg

Throw more money at something and yes ... a structure can certainly become more inspiring (thinking now about Montreal's Olympic stadium and Velodrome in '76)

Again, I disagree. Especially when viewing the project from the North False Creek steps at the old BC Pavillion (now Edgewater Casino):

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5219/olympicvillagefromfcnaurf5.jpg

For instance, the building on the front right has a certain semblance to the Fairmont Acapulco Princess Hotel... in the "Aztec" style.

And these exterior rounded balconies, on another part of the complex. has some semblance to Chicago's Marina Towers:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3094/2815866063_88c1b0b8eb_b.jpg

So all in all, not too shabby. But it also takes much more money to construct "remarkable" architecture in terms of "reaching for the sky".

Camel: A Horse Designed by a Committee

An excellent, well written piece. So timely, so true, and so disappointing for BC residents. Given the nature of the Campbell Liberal regime, its really no wonder.

The direction Campbell has taken is stark: arbitrary, undemocratic, unilateral, impatient and angry. That kind of leadership has potent ripple effects on anyone trying to work for him. Architects included.

The result? Committee designed stuff that uninspires and underwhelms. Welcome to BC, no longer the best place on earth.

Great article.

Kudos, Adele

Great article!

Our obsession with being a 'world class city' is such a farce. Self-delusional hype promoted by Campbell and his ilk so he can line his friends' pockets with our hard-earned tax dollars.

A Vancouver-born friend living in England, put it this way:
[How our political turmoil is playing (not really) in the USA]
No mention in the UK press either, which was totally captivated by the American elections. The only time I recall the BBC reporting on the Canadian elections was when Harper was caught plagiarizing a speech from, of all sources, former UK Labour leader Neil Kinnock! Even the result of the election was little reported and NOTHING about the aftermath.

Dave, part of the problem is certainly a starry-eyed love of all things American, but another part of the problem is that Canada does go out of its way to be irrelevant on the world stage – Occasionally Chretien played the “Trudeau” card, but otherwise Canada has not had an international profile in the entire time I have been away – well, actually, that is not quite true – the Winter Olympics always garner us some press, especially when Team Gretzky got crushed!

Where does this leave Canada and Canadians? I, as an expat who has lived in 5 countries (US, Mexico, Bulgaria, France and the UK) will tell you: it is STILL the case that each and every week I meet someone new who asks what part of “America” am I from. Normally I simply answer, without batting an eye, “Vancouver”, and the conversation goes on since most of my interlocutors do not know where Vancouver is! When they DO know I get the annoying (because it is so clichéd and shallow) “Oh, sorry about that, you Canadians don’t like being mistaken for Americans do you”, spoken in a condescending sort of “isn’t that cute” way. Depending on my mood I then respond with either:

Oh no, we LOVE America even more than you do, which is why we are taking the place over – haven’t you noticed how they now speak English, eat proper bacon and cheese and watch Jim Carrey on the television? I also have a great riff I do on the “actual Canadian-ness” of virtually anything and everyone you can think of!
No, don’t mind it much – say, what part of Wales are you from (many of a certain sort of Englishman finds this rather abrasive, especially if spoken with a cod-Welsh accent!).

So you can see I have had considerable time to work out counter-strategies! But the fundamental problem is that Canada is, in the minds of most people, and as Voltaire so eloquently put is, “quelque arpents des neiges”.

Over and out, from the “Green and Pleasant Land” where welfare mothers arrange for their children to be kidnapped so that can then be “found” by friends with whom they split the reward money!

Dystopically yours,

The Most Mediocre Place On Earth

If you want to see a truly amazing building inspired by birds, check out Santiago Calatrava's work for the Milwaukee Art Museum. http://www.calatrava.com/main.htm
If Wisconsin can make such brave choices in architecture, what is wrong with us in Vancouver? Are we so awe-struck by the richness of our natural landscape to conceive that man is capable of equally amazing creations? Or are we so "nice" and afraid of offending that we indulge everyone's opinions/feelings until all architectural interest is eroded? The combined legacies of Expo and 2010 seem to be a grey-green glass gaggle of blah-dom. What a shame when these buildings could have been a reflection of the striking beauty and bold wildness of our natural surroundings.

Lets blame the Architects?

Thank you Adele Weder for stimulating this round of architect bashing. Does anyone else squirm upon reading that architects (along with economists) are "The most dangerous people on Earth today...filling our lives with waste, costs, desperation and ugliness." ?? It seems the Tyee brings out the real nutbars. And why should new schools be repetitive standard plans - this approach does not save money, as every site and context is different, plus it is well known that students, teachers, and their communities take a real pride in the uniqueness of their schools, and there are huge positive spin-offs.

I'm no Olympic booster, but if there is any value to this 17 day boondoggle, it will be the leftover buildings and infrastructure which have been partly funded by other than just we local taxpayers. From what I have seen, these buildings are not "uncool" - they are handsome, sophisticated, intelligently designed, and will benefit their communities. If they lost some of their more flamboyant gestures due to the collaborative process, well so be it. The implication that they ought to be worldwide tourist attractions is misguided. Let Beijing have its Birds Nest and Water Cube. I would rather live here.

I am with you dave49

After having spent six years in Norway and other parts of Europe (moved back to Van three years ago) I ran into exactly the situation that you describe.

I had a sat dish and watched BBC, Sky News, French TV, German TV and Norwegian TV, Canada was barely ever mentioned, let alone any politics involving Canada.

The interesting thing is that most Europeans expected non-Euros to appreciate the most minute nuances of European culture. If you didn't, you were an uncultured oaf. On the other hand, for most non-British Europeans (also except for Germans), they lumped Canadians in with the Americans

EURO: "Oh, you are from America"?
ME: "No, I am from Canada!"
EURO:"Well. It is practically the same thing"

At any rate, I have never been able to figure out the infatuation with having a "world class city". I have been to a few and, when you go a couple of streets off the main drag, they are ridden with the same problems that we have over here. A gold-plated dog turd is still a dog turd.

OK Isaac, what have

OK Isaac, what have economists given to us in the past 40 years, except inflation, poverty, homelessness, fraudulent accounting, like the GDP etc. and now a monumental crash that already kills millions every year?

I've been working with architects for all my working life, as a tradesman an designer. Whenever one of them showed up on the worksites, the whispers from between the teeth: "What the hell does the asshole want here now?" Because they came up with the most ridiculous ideas, screwing up the whole show.

I was working on our local school 21 years ago, built for up to 40 kids, with 17 corners and not a single roofline the same angles. Designed in New West.

We tried to warn the architects that the roof will dump dangerous avalanches on the footpaths, but they ignored us. Several years later, all the roofs have been sporting blockers and snow fences.

As I understand, architectural students in Germany have to serve 1 year as carpenter, or whatever, apprentices.

I was asked to build the custom cabinets and installations for the fancy, Williams Lake restaurant the Laughing Loon in 1988.

The architect was a German, who gave me a pile of drawings, with construction details etc. I called him about it and and he asked: "What are your recommendations?" I just about fainted as in 30 odd years before no architect ever asked me anything like that. So I told him and he agreed.

The work looked exactly as he wanted it, but I saved the owners up to 50%. After that he only gave me the perspectives and everybody was, and still is happy. So happy that the new owners tell customers that it was all imported from England, because nobody in Canada could make anything like the quality .

Of course, I'm only a nutbar with a Cambridge education, also a skilled tradesman and professional artist, with a large number of articles an illustrations in trade magazines.

Pick up a collection of Lee Valley Tools Wood Cuts magazines, where you'll find a number of my articles and also all the "Shop Tip" illustrations, done by me.

So, what can you do, or is your claim to fame?

Ed Deak.

Really?

This article is ridiculous! There is not one interview, not one expert, just one person's opinion. Nothing more. This is just another great example of complaining for the sake of complaining. Do some real research. Find out what the architectural industry is saying about the 2010 venues. Maybe that will be something worth reading.

Did anyone think about the costs?

This article attempts to compare the Beijing Olympic venues made by cheap Chinese labour working like little worker bees to get those things done on time. China is flush with cash and you know it, yet you continue to make a comparison. Egregious.

I agree that the architecture isn't great, the Oval is nice and the rest of the buildings fit in nicely with the communities they are in. There were design modifications and scale backs on most projects due to risings costs. Again the people at the Tyee would know that yet they continue to bash the Olympics any chance they get.

So the oval wasn't on budget? I thought initially there were cost overruns that the City of Richmond agreed to pay. After that they didn't bury the costs they simply modified and took out certain elements to bring it to the new budget. Thats what you do in any kind of project. Maybe venture into the business world and see what goes down to make things happen. Perhaps, then you could write with a full perspective and not just your anti-corporate propaganda.

We get it that you aren't for corporations because somehow you feel they are the enemy.Yet, you expect great architecture with design competitions and then expect it to be on budget and on time. Give your head a shake.

me too

I can so most certainly back up Ed Deaks claim that architects are a breed unto themselves, living in a make-believe-world where everything is possible.
They have never lifted a hammer in their lives and have no ideas about what works and what is a waste of time.
I too have had the misfortune to have to work to plans drawn up by such dreamers, and can testify that they cause delays and eventually their ideas need to be modified anyway.
The only time you do not see them, is when you want them to explain what in hell they had in mind, and you can point to a print and show that it is faulty!
Obviously they think that their purpose in life is to make sure that whatever already has proven to work, will never again happen!
In a nutshell their motto seem to be: change for the sake of change!

Who cares what the Architectural Industry

is saying about the 2010 venues.

They are not paying for it and they don't have to live here.

I'm with Ed D. on this one.

I'd bet that some clever architects probably spec'd out some Christmas tree and they are the upside down ones you see around these days.

Visually... interesting. But hard to keep hydrated.

Professionals

I ran across an apt quote w/r/t professionals today, attributed to Lazlo Moholy-Nagy:

By 1946, in Vision In Motion, Lazlo Moholy-Nagy was more direct. While criticizing the division of labor that relieves all workers, designers, manufacturers, and distributors of direct responsibility for the contents of products, he complained that “…irresponsibility prevails everywhere” and reserved especial disdain for professionals:
“The industrial era marks the extinction of the amateur and the arrival of the careerist, whose only aim is to commercialize the means of expression, that is, not to produce out of conviction, but merely to deliver technical skill for whatever subject is asked.”

It seems apropos to the discussion here.

sorry Isaac

Everybody is qualified to judge architects and their designs!
Only people looking to create monuments for themselves have any need for a special structure!

Now it is no longer the Emperors and kings, but the multinationals who seem to have a need to leave a permanent reminder of their presence!

But still it is us, the fools, who have to pay for it!

So we get fed this garbage about the importance of leaving a reminder of a silly olympic game.

What are those games by now: a bunch of people who have developed unusual traits and as a result can do things ordinary athletes may not be able to do!
Big deal!

What is infuritaing is the parasites who make a permanent living promoting this nonsense.

Apology

I apologize for what was interpreted as a personal insult to another commentator. I am a relatively new and infrequent Tyee participant, and I apparently broke the rules. I responded to his initial comment regarding architects, which I considered outrageous in the extreme, and he then responded with a longish diatribe, disparaging architects in general, boasting about his own accomplishments, and challenging me to match his credentials. I did not take the bait, but reiterated my opinion of his initial comment, and unfortunately repeated my insult, for which I am sorry.

I remain disappointed by the level of commentary on the subject at hand, which is the 2010 Olympic architecture. As another commentator pointed out, Adele Weder did not really provide much other than her own perspective, and her opinion that the Architects were overly constrained by the beaurocratic and/or corporate powers behind the Olympics – it’s hard to judge how true this really is.

I repeat that I am not / was not an Olympic booster and remain unconvinced that we should have gone down this road. However, from what I have seen of the building designs, my opinion is that the Architects have done a worthy job within their constraints, and that it is entirely appropriate that the buildings do not strive to be overly grandiose. As for the suggestions that these buildings (and all Architecture?) should be viewed somehow as either Propaganda or Art, or that we are meant to be inspired and intimidated to suit some sinister agenda - that is a simplistic idea, and harkens back to some very outdated concepts of Utopia and Big Brother - I think we are largely past all that by now (although great design should continue to inspire). To those of you who might really believe that a community Curling Rink is corporate/government “propaganda”, give your heads a shake.

The Olympic buildings are first and foremost functional facilities, which are intended to have a useful community life beyond 2010, and that's what is important, more so than any symbolic legacy. As to their on-going operating costs, I think we can assume the design teams have been pretty careful in planning for energy efficiency, life cycle costing, etc. – that’s a big part of what professionals do these days.

Cheers

"To those of you who might

"To those of you who might really believe that a community Curling Rink is corporate/government “propaganda”, give your heads a shake."

If you don't think that's the case, please explain why so many arenas and stadiums sell naming rights? And why so many of those contracts go for big bucks. GM Place is so named for a reason. Think of all the places bearing corporate names. No offence, but you're being very naive if you don't think buildings are a form of propaganda.

Thanks for that Isaac

I suspected you were new here and, as I hope my comments illustrated, I wasn't trying to be overly critical - just informative.

I'm happy to see the discussion move back into the area of the built environment.

Actually considering the 'architecture' of the 2010 games: one of the main problems with the skating oval is exactly the 'functional' question you've brought up.

The Calgary Olympics, as far as I know, have been considered a 'success' from a functional or training and development perspective as a means to enable young Canadian athletes to develop their potential as future Olympians.

Correct?

I'm not dealing here with the 'value' of Olympic hype or the commercialization of the games or the political uses they’ve been put to but simply making an observation about the worth and appropriateness of that venue - long term - to a certain class of Canadians and to the goal of promoting athletics and excellence on a broad - winter sports oriented - front.

On that score, assuming you agree that the major architectural achievement of the games is the Richmond Oval, I'd have to say the effort is an embarrassing failure. Irrespective of how well the ‘profession’ has handled itself.

Not as much as a ‘building’ per se but in terms of being a piece of ‘great’ architecture which is true to its function and worthy of its aims.

My understanding is that the future of the building is as a gargantuan community field house - not a dedicated facility to encourage Canadian skating excellence and future Olympic development. A local and isolated ‘Richmond –centric’ facility that will have little or no meaning to Canadians outside of the municipality.

If the Chinese facilities have anything to recommend them, it is in the sense that they are relevant to future ‘national’ Chinese sporting development in ways that virtually all of the Vancouver venues are not. If you wanted to debate the actual ‘designs’ of the ‘bird’s nest’ or the ‘water cube’ I’d be inclined to suggest they are novel and quirky, inherently functional and appropriately purpose built. In the longer run, I’d be surprised if the Chinese installations - particularly the water cube - ever really enter the lexicon of ‘great’ architecture. In many cases, what makes a building great has less to do with the structure itself and more to do with the negative space around it.

I think, as a matter of fact, that that's the primary point Ms Weder's making - and I tend to agree with her.

Cheers.

Negative 'Hype'

Because Burnaby and the administration there desperately wanted the Oval - and didn't get it, there are many sympathizers that just would love it if the Richmond Oval were a failure. Like so many negative longings these people were also longing for the Oval to come in late and over budget - which it didn't. It's open on schedule and the financing came primarily from a private company paying more than expected for land Richmond had purchased, over the years, from owners wishing to sell.

The Richmond Oval is a striking architectural facility, inside and out, in a spectacular location and is close to the soon-opening sky train line. The graceful roof is supported by an impressive exposed BC wood structure. The north glass wall brings in massive daylight illumination and offers spectacular views.

"After the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, the Oval will expand to its permanent full-use model with the capability of hosting both summer and winter sports simultaneously.

Beginning in March 2010, Olympic decommissioning and retrofitting will transform the Oval into a multi-use facility featuring ice, court and track. Indoor track, badminton, volleyball, basketball, combative and wheelchair sports, indoor soccer, gymnastics and special events are just some examples of the Oval’s many uses. It will become a centre of high performance sport competitions, training, testing, rehabilitation and administration.

Other Oval amenities will include: a 9700 square foot athletic development centre; a 16,000 square foot sports science and research testing facility; a sport rehabilitation and medicine area; an indoor paddling centre; a fitness studio for group exercise; a rowing and cycling studio; and a community fitness facility. Retail and commercial leasing space will be available, as well as multi-purpose community meeting spaces. A number of Canadian national sports teams are expected to make the Oval their international training centre and it will also be the home of leading sport development agencies."

It will have to be decommissioned

The ultra-expensive speedscating oval amounting to millions of dollars of refrigeration equipment etc. will have to be decommissioned because the ground will not support it. The soil/silt is too unstable. I wonder if it was part of the original plan to decommission the oval or if, after the fact that they had won the bid and construction was begun, they had to figure out how to make lemonade out of a lemon? It seems incredibly wasteful to put in an olympic class speed-skating oval with the intention of tearing it apart after the olympics.

Sharing

Perhaps the good burghers of Richmond can turn the Oval into a west coast version of Montréal's Biodome - which is what happened to the Velodome cycling facility from the 1976 Montréal Games.

I guess we should take some small comfort that 'Chairman' Jack Poole and his Olympic henchmen didn't build an ice palace to rival the Montréal Stade Olympique. But then, we're going to have enough trouble paying for the rest of the mess they're working up to.

I reckon that collapsed tower at Whistler will be bringing memories back to a time a handful of years ago when the 'maintenance' schedule and safety record of their little mountain playground was called into serious question.

That's the trouble when money is the only thing you think is important - you just can't help getting into trouble.

By the way, is HSBC an Olympic partner?

Seems to me I read just the other day they got taken for about a billion beans by Madoff's little ponzi scheme.

R'man

blah, blah, blah.

Nothing your unmediated press-relations bumph quotes hides the fact that Richmond sold part of its legacy of property - something that no other municipality in the Lower Mainland has ever done - to fund a single-purpose facility that will be useless twenty years after its construction, solely to market itself to the world.

Richmond taxpayers in 2030 will look back and shake their heads in sorrow and wonder. It's a piece of municipal governance worthy of a minor emirate fast running out of oil. And Halsey-Brandt and Brodie will go down in local history alongside Cain, Omri and Judas.

kvetch, kvetch, kvetch.

"Besides Manoah Steves, Samuel Brighouse (1836-1911) is probably the most recognizable name in the municipality.

Samuel Brighouse made two very successful purchases of land when he returned from the Cariboo Gold Rush. One was in the west end of Vancouver where he and two partners purchased 550 acres of forested land. Because of this purchase, they became known as the Three Greenhorns.

In 1864 he purchased 697 acres in what is today the downtown core of Richmond where he raised thoroughbred horses and grazed cattle. The present and past City Halls, Minoru Park, and Richmond Centre Shopping Mall were eventually built on land that he had once owned. Minoru (later Brighouse) Racetrack was built on a piece of his property as well.

He, too, was a petitioner for the incorporation of Richmond as a municipality and served on Council in 1883."

http://www.richmond.ca/cityhall/archives/exhibits/schools/boomers/brighouse.htm

"The River Road property was purchased as part of the Brighouse Estates in 1962 for which the City paid approximately $1.45 million for the full estate of approximately 548 acres. The River Road property which is approximately 17 acres is the last parcel of land from the Brighouse Estates. The River Road site was also identified.. as a possible location and/or funding source to cover the cost of replacing Richmond City Hall. This option was rejected; however, Council directed staff to explore other opportunities for the future use or sale and development of the River Road property that would
provide a community legacy in recognition of the fact that this site is the last of the legacy lands that the Brighouse Estates had become since its purchase in 1962.

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:2IuelhYZZB8J:www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/DOC07032616906.pdf+brighouse+estates&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4

WIN, WIN, WIN.

26 March 2007

The City of Richmond announced today that it has reached an agreement to sell and lease the 18.6-acre Oval Riverfront Lands to ASPAC Developments Ltd. for a total of $141 million.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-456738.html

“The Oval Riverfront Lands are the last remaining portion of the Brighouse Estates, which was purchased by the City more than 40 years ago,” noted Mayor Brodie. “That wise investment provided for many of the civic amenities we enjoy today and helped guide the development of our City Centre. The legacy of the Brighouse Estates gave us the opportunity we have today and we need to make a new investment in our community that will also pay dividends for future generations.”

Nope wrong again

You're still not addressing the real issue.

The Olympics are meant to be a legacy for the country and for Canadian athletics- not for the municipality of Richmond and its soccer moms.

Which is fine with me as long as the good Burghers of Richmond don't come crying for financial help a few years down the trail.

How many skaters are going to reach Olympic levels of performance at the Richmond Oval after it has been turned into a field house for soccer tots?

I don't care how much Taillibert's nightmare cost in 'extras' - the failure of the Montréal Olympics was a consequence of catering to the same kind of megalomania that pushes Poole and Campbell.

I never wanted the Olympics in the first place, but, if we're going to have one, it should be about athletes and performance and not about pointless preening.

Paul Ramsey was exactly right - it's what goes on IN schools that is important. Most of the good that was done in this country since the war - by the generation of men and women who fought in World War II - was the result of education administered in Nissen Huts and temporary structures erected hurriedly after the war to accommodate the higher educational needs of returning soldiers. The last thing real education needs is architectural tomfoolery….

Architecture is too often little more than a manipulative attempt to enforce conformity or show off some pointless technical trick.

Virtually all them leak and shed bits too boot - for all the fuss about Taillibert as a designer, the suggestion that the Stade Olympique is a good example of anything but a white elephant is simply not sustainable.

I suspect the Richmond Field House - if it survives the next earthquake, will be pretty much on a par with the Big Owe. Richmond is welcome to it!

Intersting responses

First of all stump, who do you think really brought it to the forefront? i know it comes as a shock, (it always does) just read SITE circa 1963. who do you think leads it today? Ever hear of LEED, green architecture (not a bad book to start with), sustainability etc. Do you really think these are main street movements. Son, main street is just learning what architects have been pounding on the table for over 40 years. in case you didnt know, and from the sounds of it you dont, the "JOB" of architecture is prediction of whats next. All architects work in the future, some are 10 years ahead, some are more. FLW may have been a 100 or more. Point is do you know whats next after the "age of ecology" - the architectural movement we are now entering ( I say entering because the formal nature of the movement has yet to be fully determined.)
The next movement is.......sorry, thats for me to know. ( you'll find out in about 30 years ) and still think you were in on it. lol

As to the eco vs organic blog. I didnt say FLW started eco architecture, I just said he used the word ecology before it was a 'word". By the way, you dont see the link bewteen eco and organic?

I'm interested in your views folks, please answer with suppotive positions, not just
?? or uniformed outright rejections.

Good for you Mr_Minimal..

… to ask for reasonable responses. I hope you get them, but I must say, as a relative newbie here, much of what I see in these discussions is something else. As the Tyee Editors have put it, there is an awful lot of “sarcastic baiting” in these threads, (and I may be guilty of that too) usually preceded by self-righteous know-it-alls making marginal but outrageous comments in the first place.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but some folk’s credibility really diminishes in my mind when they are so quick to oversimplify some pretty complex issues, and then attach blame with such certainty.

I guess we can be thankful that the hardcore conspiracy theorists have not yet weighed in (please don’t!).

Nope

Wright's dates are June 8, 1867 – April 9, 1959.

His book, from which I quoted, was published in 1943.

And by the way, that was one of the more rational passages I could have picked from his section on 'Broadacre City' near the end of the book.

No baiting, just facts.

Wright was voted the 'Greatest American Architect' by the AIA...a designation I have no problem with. He was also a serial philanderer and a consumate liar.

I think my responses on this subject have been entirely reasonable. LEED classifications are fine things, but watch them disappear from the table as the recession worsens.

Furthermore, Mr Minimal, if you have a link for SITE, whatever it is, I'd like to see it.

Here's the Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=SITE&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

And the link to organic - Wright's term

Isn't relevant, in my view.

Wright meant something when he talked about 'what' organic architecture is or was, but he wasn't saying anything about ecology.

I assume the 'visionary' you're writing about is Paolo Soleri and his 'arcologies'.

As for the word ecology, it has its roots in 19th century biology and was adopted by certain 'political' movements dedicated to protecting the environment, especially from pollution, in the late 20th century....

As for the first ecologist, in the North American context I think it's hard to argue that anyone except John Muir deserves that title.

In any case, cheers.

Who came first

"First of all stump, who do you think really brought it to the forefront?"

I'd agree with G. West that John Muir was probably one of the first environmentalists and one of the first people to bring environmental issues to the forefront.

I'd say the Great Stink in London (1858) would also be one of the events that precipitated the realization that we had to take better care of the planet to ensure our own wellbeing, although I doubt the good people of London would have put it in those terms.