Blandly pleasant houses flank wide roads. Inoffensive strip gardens line dull driveways and plain, wooden slat fences. Every street is perfectly plain and welcoming. The normal neighbourhood stretches on, unchanging for blocks.
If you have looked for a house, flat, or rental in the past fifteen years, you have visited this suburb. Welcome home.
Does anyone else listen to the Magnus Archives? It’s a fictional horror podcast where an archivist records first hand accounts of people pursued by manifestations of their own fear, including the fear of always being watched, hunted by dark beasts, or being horribly, completely alone. The endless suburbia described above is from one of these accounts: an episode named Cul-de-sac.
Horror employs the unknown, unnatural, and surreal to frighten its audience. I find it disconcerting that modern suburbia is considered uncomfortable enough to feature. Scarily, it works. In this particular account, the writer finds themselves alone in a desolate suburban neighbourhood, absent of life and vigour. Nothing defines one home from the next. Gardens are non-existent, and no other living thing is present. Why is this dull repetitiveness so horrifying?
Our homes define us as much as we define them. When an area is so lacking in character, in life, it ceases to be a place at all. Global trends of urban design (especially in western countries) have spent decades prioritising vehicles over personal well-being, land-use diversity, and ecosystem health. Poor planning has resulted in biologically desolate, emotionally draining landscapes that we spend our entire lives in. Some land uses, such as industrial, are considered incompatible with nature. As a result, suburban design has an imperative theatre to reintroduce biodiversity into our every-day lives.
Image: Author. All rights reserved.
In 2008, Maria Ignatieva, Glenn Stewart, and Colin Meurk published an article in the New Zealand Landscape Review titled: “Low Impact Urban Design and Development (LIUDD): Matching Urban Design and Urban Ecology.” They recognised New Zealand’s poor history in applying ecological principles to landscape design, which has led to the depreciation of native biodiversity, landscape legibility, and the tidal wave of invasive exotic organisms. Global trends, such as rewilding in the UK, nurture communities that respect, conserve, and enhance natural processes. This is not easy, as ingrained cultural perceptions of our relationship with ecology are complex. As put by Joan Nassauer in her article Messy Ecosystems, Tidy Frames:
“People may care about improving ecological quality, but not at the expense of the proper perception of their own landscape”
Socio-cultural norms borne from the picturesque design movement still drive perceptions of how landscapes should appear, more than 200 years after they were conceived. To see an iconic picturesque landscape, take a glance at this article on Stourhead Gardens in England. These preconceived values, lack of diversity, and cost-driven urban development result in homogenised, unlively neighbourhoods; perfect habitats for Cthulhu-esque, eldritch beings to consume lonely creatures’ fears in, but less perfect for our native flora and fauna.
Two key methods of Low Impact Urban Design and Development were identified to address these issues: designing for sense of place (to improve public perceptions), and for native biodiversity. As an example, Ignatieva and colleagues suggest the use of ‘plant signatures’ in suburban design. These signatures are assortments of plants that provide context clues of the landscape; species are chosen deliberately to represent the ecological needs and habitat functions of that environment. This contrasts with most plant selections which are often driven by cost, function, or amenity driven calculations. Character and identity are inherent in an ecologically aware plant palette, and designers worth their salt should demonstrate this in thoughtful design choices.
These ideas have been present for decades: plant signatures were coined by Nick Robinson in 1993, and Ignatieva and colleagues’ article was published 16 years ago. So, what effect have Low Impact Urban Design and Development and plant signatures had on increasing urban biodiversity? I met with Colin Meurk, one of the authors, to hear his thoughts. “Low Impact Urban Design and Development is pretty much history, apart from the legacy effect,” he said. “We use different jargon now.” Oh. Right.
The thing is, just because ideas are innovative does not mean they are embraced and applied. In places, Low Impact Urban Design and Development has successfully evolved– Meurk points to stormwater design and ‘sponge cities’ as evidence that ecological concepts can assimilate successfully into current landscape practice.
Te Whāriki in Lincoln is a great example of this: as a result of high clay soil and ground-fed springs, this subdivision needs to detain high levels of stormwater. The standard method to do so is with large grass-mown basins, such as those seen down the road in Wigram. Instead, Te Whāriki is designed with extensive wetland systems that support a wide range of native plants, bird species, and invertebrates. The wetlands also provide excellent public spaces, with walking tracks, seating, and street-inter-connectivity. My own parents chose Te Whāriki as their new home in 2022 specifically for the wetlands!
Yet, ecological principles within suburban design are the exception rather than the rule. Is this because ecological action is still viewed in opposition of cultural values, as Nassauer would suggest? Is it that policy makers do not sufficiently emphasise ecological principles, or because developers dislike the financial ‘deadweight’ of ecological oriented design?
I would suggest all three, although there is greater nuance and complexity than I have room to explore here. Notably, Te Whāriki was developed by Ngāi Tahu in conjunction with Lincoln University, both parties whom have a vested interest in increasing biodiversity in the region.
It is disquieting that a common expression of modern living is easily utilised as a metaphor for horror and loneliness. What does it say about modern design that it can easily parallel horror and fear? When we met, Colin Meurk labelled modern subdivisions as an ‘extinction of experience’.
Younger generations are often criticised for spending too much time on technology, but when they live in lonely neighbourhoods, can we blame them? In failing to design for biodiversity, we rob ourselves of opportunities to experience the natural world. Low Impact Urban Design and Development may have been subsumed into other concepts, but designing in a manner conducive to the natural world and people is more relevant than ever. Plant signatures are an excellent method to incorporate biodiversity and character in our suburbs. Birds, invertebrates, reptiles – they would love to take part in our neighbourhoods, and I, for one, would prefer a lively neighbourhood over a horrifying, lonely suburbia.
This article was prepared by Master of Science postgraduate student Nathan Campbell as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.
Reference Article: Ignatieva, M., Meurk, C. D., & Stewart, G. H. (2008). Low impact urban design and development (LIUDD) : matching urban design and urban ecology. Landscape Review 12(2):61-73.
Leave a Reply