Article by: Theresa Konova
The future holds many mysteries that we can not predict, even though we might be closer than ever in making assumptions, due to the fast pace of technological development and gained knowledge of our society. However, technology alone can not shape every significant outcome for the future: it can provide solutions to environmental issues, but that depends on how humans operate with it, how far they go in using it and where they implement it most. In the design of the innovative landscape, we cannot count on technology alone to deliver all the solutions to the problems we are facing, so we should include nature systems as well, as they can offer crucial environmental contributions. In sculpturing these landscapes, various responsible actors make decisions, based on complex factors, such as educational and cultural background, substantial research, mentality and personal connections to environment, physical and emotional reflections, etc. Thus, technology is a powerful tool, but behind it lies the strong initial base of the human mind with its various intricate ideas and considerations.Â

In the process of constructing the future, outcomes can derive even from more simple approaches (many inspired by ancient civilisations). As mentioned, the future holds mysteries, but so does the past – the heritage of our ancestors teaches us much more than we expected. Sometimes to travel into the future trying to predict how the landscape might look, we need to travel back in time and see how it was initially and how archaic communities applied nature-based solutions to face ongoing climate challenges. One great example can be the way in which ice can be made in the desert – sounds futuristic, but it dates back to 400 years BC in Persia in the form of a dome structure, called ‘Yakhchal’: a windcatcher, maintaing evaporative cooling, natural ventilation and thermal insulation inside of it (Admin, 2009 September 4).

When considering the futuristic landscape we must think of the geology and climate system of the planet and reach conclusions of how this might develop alongside our anthropogenic activities. However, as humans are already so intertwined with the landscape and we change it so much, it is hard to assume how we are going to shape the futuristic landscapes simultaneously with nature force and tempo. This can pose many questions, but in relation to the topic, the following can be asked:Â 1. Would the futuristic landscape become similar to what it used to be as a natural environment or would it become something alienated and unknown to us, maybe even strange? And 2. Would the futuristic landscape be shaped mainly by nature and the climate processes or rather by our technological and man-made interventions within these processes?
Upon imagining futuristic landscapes, they could take up many different forms (anything is possible). However, the evolution of each futuristic landscape is strongly connected to a specific place and the current development and issues of that place. When it comes to imagining the future of a landscape, we really need to see it in context and if there are present threats, we focus on them: ‘What is under threat is really the status quo.’ (Eagle, B., 2017). Although threats are a main concern for decisions to be made and design to be created, they are also highly dependant on the political, cultural and power-knowledge relations of this place. The futuristic landscape of Saudi Arabia will likely differ significantly from that of Western Europe. Nevertheless, similarities could emerge in the approaches and measures taken to address climate system needs, as both regions face the growing challenges of environmental degradation. While harmonies in design may be achieved through shared commitments to resilient and climate-adaptive landscapes, disparities could arise from differing policy objectives and socio-economic values.
If we consider futuristic landscapes as climate-resilient, sustainable and technologically advanced, we can imagine ‘Smart Cities’, ‘Urban Farms’ or ‘Interactive Digital Landscapes’ (simulated experiences that will allow people to explore the environment not only physically, but also through technology). However, if we look through a nature-based lens, this can give rise to very alternative types, because the values would be connected to ecological principles, harmony with natural systems and a deep connection to the environment. Then such futuristic landscapes can be: ‘Biophilic Landscapes’ (restorative spaces for ecological health in the cities), ‘Forest-Cities’ or ‘Permaculture ecosystems’.Â
Personally, I find it an interesting juxtaposition to look into two contrasting landscapes in order to find both differences and similarities between them. For example, let us take the popular futuristic landscape scenario of ‘Smart cities’ (with climate-resilient facilities and technologies, controlling our daily environment) and compare it to the scenario of ‘Biophilic Landscapes’. The first one is much more connected and dependant upon technology and how that mitigates climate challenges and contributes to our urbanscapes overall, while the second one is more connected to growing communities in and around the landscape and the ability for natural systems to regulate and withstand (climate) challenges. The below images are two examples from real-life projects, the first one being the utopian vision of architect Vincent Callebaut ‘2050 Paris Smart City’ (Fig. 1) and the second one the ‘Sponge City’ concept by architect Kongjian Yu (Fig.2).

Fig. 1 (Source: Ibrahim, N. N. (2020))

Fig. 2 (Source: Ghisleni, C. (2024, June 23))
Upon first look, the images look similar: skyscrapers and greenery. However, upon understanding the concepts and goals of these projects, the conclusion is that the ways in which these landscapes function are extremely different. The goal of Kongjiang Yu’s ‘Sponge City’ is to cope with stormwater flooding, creating both nature habitat and restorative space for humans. Instead of channeling it away, the concept is to absorb rainwater, filter it and reuse it, improving ecological health and visual beauty in cities (Perkl, R., 2024). As China would like to absorb 70% of rainfall through nature-based solutions, this idea aims to make 80% of its cities sponge-ready by 2030 (Grassi, C.A.d. et al., 2020), which will mitigate overflow risks and contribute to the liveability and sustainability factors of the country. Meanwhile, the project ‘2050 Paris Smart City’ is similar in the goal of facing and alleviating climate change issues (in relation to the issuing of the Climate Energy Plan of Paris aiming to reduce 75% of the greenhouse gas emissions by 2050) (Ibrahim, N.N., 2020). However, this futuristic plan is rather drastical, as it proposes to built eight mixed high-rise buildings with plus energy for the surrounding areas. In this suggestion, these towers integrate nature amidst the center of the city, following rules of bioclimatism, meanwhile the deserted railways going around them would be used as a green corridor and urban gardens (Ibrahim, N.N., 2020). But in fact, this project contains so much technologically innovative features (e.g. piezo-electrical materials for energy harvesting, multiple renewable energy installations, garden balconies and roof phyto-purification lagoon for recycling of used water, biofacade to produce biofuel, etc), that it is hard to imagine how this will intervene with the daily lifestyle of the Parisian citizen. It would be not only a huge financial challenge for the integration of these towers in the urban network, but also a socio-cultural change. If this idealistically sustainable idea is set up, who would profit most from its use and would it be not then a major contrast to the rest of the Parisian neighbourhoods? Would that not create significant socio-economic pressures and inequalities as a result?
In making a comparison between a nature-based solution like the ‘Sponge City’ and a smart city like ‘Paris 2050’ vision, as a landscape designer, I could be more inclined towards the nature-based approach for several reasons. Firstly, such solution is much less costly, which means it will not create big pressures in straining government budgets or reliance on private investments (leading to private-public conflicts) as much as ‘Paris 2050’ project would. Secondly, a natural system does not rely on technology to function, but on the natural processes themselves, making it much more reliable in the long run, with less needs of highly paid and regulatory maintenance. Thirdly, the smart city poses various threats, such as gentrification, job displacement, marginalised groups, and cybersecurity risks. On the positive note, the sponge city contributes to purified water system, enhanced biodiversity, communal and recreation space for humans (accessible to everyone and not to privileged users) and reduction of the urban heat island effect.
In conclusion, the Sponge City model presents a more harmonious and enduring way to tackle urban issues with minimal reliance on technology and external investments. Its affordability and holistic benefits, such as ecological enhancement and universally accessible spaces, position it as a more resilient urban solution.
References:
Admin (2009, September 4). ‘Yakhchal: Ancient Refrigerators’. Earth Architecture. https://eartharchitecture.org/?p=570
Eagle, B. (2017, March 9). ‘Imagining Future Landscapes’. Thinking Country. https://thinkingcountry.com/2017/03/09/imagining-future-landscapes/
Ghisleni, C. (2024, June 23). ‘Urban Landscape as an ‘Art of Survival’: An Interview with Kongjian Yu, the Advocate of the Sponge Cities Concept’. Archdaily. https://www.archdaily.com/1017697/urban-landscape-as-an-art-of-survival-an-interview-with-kongjian-yu-the-advocate-of-the-sponge-cities-concept
Grassi, C.A.d., Rovira, M., Cahyani, A., Borsi,A. (2020, October 1). ‘China’s Sponge Cities Program’. Knowledge Hub Powered by Circle Economy. https://knowledge-hub.circle-economy.com/article/5040?n=China%27s-Sponge-Cities-program
Ibrahim, N. N. (2020). ‘Paris Smart City 2050 by Vincent Callebaut Architectures’. Amazing Architecture. https://amazingarchitecture.com/futuristic/paris-smart-city-2050-by-vincent-callebaut-architecturesÂ
Perkl, R. (2024, May 14). ‘Sponge City: Using Water to Improve Social and Ecological Outcomes’. Esri Blog. https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/blog/sponge-city-improves-social-ecological-outcomes/Â
Comments