Two letters to the editor printed in the January 2004 edition of Landscape Architecture challenge landscape architects to create places, not designs.

Our "Great Public Spaces" exercise (Land Matters, December) is meant to find the truly wonderful spaces that are sacred to each community. Our criteria are quite simple: Is the place comfortable, does it have a good image, does it have appropriate activities and uses, is it accessible, and is it sociable? We use a community exercise called the "Place Game" to evaluate a public space. When this is done by the citizens in a community, they don't adhere to some abstract design theory. They evaluate the public space as a place -- and they know very well what works and what doesn't.

You identified a Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates redesign of Marion Square in Charleston as a nominee for our Great Public Spaces in the "parks" category. Last spring we called for entries for our "place" awards for parks. Marion Square was nominated by a member of Van Valkenburgh's staff. This is not against our rules, but we are looking for successful spaces, not design. So we will take the staff nomination and vet it with the community. We know the space and think it is important to Charleston, but we were not that impressed with the design features along the edge of the park where many of the "improvements" were done. The jury is out, and we will look to community members to tell us how it works as a place.

We have enormous respect for the landscape architecture profession, but we feel that the profession is severely off track. Our "Hall of Shame" of landscape designs could be very large, and we would find them very easily in the pages of your magazine and especially among your ASLA awards. Most of Martha Schwartz's projects would easily get in our Hall of Shame, but so would Peter Walker's, George Hargreave's, some of Van Valkenburgh's, EDAW's and those of many other "name" designers. We may eventually get around to putting their work on the site, but our interest is not in exposing their narrow idea of design, but in finding and supporting community efforts facilitated by professionals who act as resources rather than as "experts." So, while it might take an hour to put Martha Schwartz's Minneapolis Plaza in our Hall of Shame, we would rather put our time into places that work.

We think there is a powerful change going on all over the world. People are looking for ways to involve themselves in their communities. They seek gathering places, more connections with their resources of food and other products, and the ability to walk and ride bicycles. This translates into more usable parks, roads that are available for uses other than just cars, and central squares as an expression of their community. The opportunity for various design disciplines is vast, but the emphasis will be on context and functional places that support local values. Firms that espouse just a design solution are going to miss the needs of the community they are trying to serve.

Fred Kent Project for Public Spaces

Over the past 10-12 years, I have gradually come to the realization that, with few exceptions, what we as landscape architects do in the design of public space is irrelevant to making life better, especially in urban centers. "Iconic" design has replaces the passion and potential that exist to advance humanistic solutions that may not raise eyebrows but that make people feel good.

Just because we are trained as designers, do we always feel compelled to "design"? Or should there be an honest approach not to design as was done at Marion Square (Land Matters, December)? Should we have awards for designers who are honest enough not to design?

A small park I visited last summer in Athens, Greece raises serious issues that are pressing in American cities. This park has served its context for many years and has become part of the city's fabric, an oasis, a place with meaning and visual character: It is a small rectangular space with a few old trees, some hard surface and worn benches, and sidewalks all around that host throughout the year tables and chairs from the surrounding cafes and restaurants -- a gem!

Then the Greek government decided to "improve" the park to show a better image for the 2004 Olympic Games. Designers responded, and the new design is currently under construction by the office of architecture and public spaces. The miserable results have drawn the resentment of the people who live nearby and frequent the cafes. Demonstrations and graffiti show the people's opposition to tearing down the old trees and installing street furniture from a catalogue. Although I am sure that the new design received praise in Athens among design professionals, the people resent the idea of making the park "clean" and "prosper" -- like the privatized spaces they do not want.

We as landscape architects have no clue -- nor do our schools teach our students to be sensitive -- about the emerging global trends to make everything look the same: designed spaces with no spirit. We always look to Olmsted as a designer who cared about people, but then we design privatized spaces that come about through public-private ventures. Public space is gradually diminishing in the city. Governments do not have money to put together the beautiful spaces and boulevards of the past. They will increasingly rely on private money to put together public spaces as marketing/festival spaces in urban entertainment centers and reinvented mixed-use environments. What is our responsibility for design that makes life better in a pluralistic society?

Menelaos Triantfillou, ASLA University of Cincinnati