Tim Waterman

Landscape Studies, Food Studies, Utopian Studies

List of London Resources

by Tim-Waterman on October 21, 2021, no comments

This list has been created thanks to a call to Twitter to identify great resources for studying London landscape, architecture, and urbanism. I’m posting it here raw, and will clean it up and develop it as a live document. Please let me know if you see anything significant that’s missing, and do let me know why it’s significant and what part of London it references.

Film & TV

First off, I must make special mention of the BFI Britain on Film map. It’s a slightly clunky interface, but it allows a search of films set in Britain by location, and of course there are a vast number set in London: https://player.bfi.org.uk/britain-on-film/map#/54.69843416/-0.4924633970/6///

15 Storeys High (BBC sitcom 1998-2000) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_Storeys_High

All That Mighty Heart (R.K. Neilson-Baxter 1962) ‘A British Transport Film’ A day in the life of London and the Home Counties in 1962, seen from the perspective of the use of London Transport facilities from buses and tubes to long distance coach routes. Accompanied by extracts from BBC radio. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIgORp3Rvuc&ab_channel=JoanneHarris

An American Werewolf in London (John Landis 1981) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082010/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

The Angel Who Pawned Her Harp (Alan Bromly 1954) Shot at the Angel in Islington and in Haringey. “An angel finds that she needs money to fulfill her mission on Earth. Her only solution to this problem is to pawn her harp.“–IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047830/ 

The Arsenal Stadium Mystery (Thorold Dickinson 1939) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031055/

Babylon (Franco Rosso 1982) The black experience in the UK in the 80s, reggae, sound system culture, family drama, police brutality and much more.

Beautiful Thing (Hettie MacDonald 1996) Gay coming of age story set in the Brutalist housing estate of Thamesmead.

Bend it Like Beckham (Gurinder Chadha 2002) Filmed in Hounslow, Hayes, and Southall. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286499/

Les Bicyclettes de Belsize (Douglas Hickox 1968) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241243/

Blow-Up (Michelangelo Antonioni 1966) Filmed in several locations around London including Greenwich and Notting Hill. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060176/

The Blue Lamp (Basil Dearden 1950) Fantastic views of Harrow Road and Warwick Avenue/ Maida Hill area. See the blog ‘The Blue Lamp Then and Now.’

Children of Men (Alfonso Cuarón 2006) Post-apocalyptic London in 2027 (we’re almost there) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/

A City Crowned with Green (Reyner Banham 1964) Watch it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00sydsh/a-city-crowned-with-green

A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick 1971) Scenes shot in Thamesmead https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066921/

Deep End (Jerzy Skolimowski 1970) “15-year-old dropout Mike takes a job at Newford Baths, where inappropriate sexual behaviour abounds, and becomes obsessed with his coworker Susan.” –IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066122/

Desmond’s (Channel 4 sitcom 1989-1994) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond%27s

East Meets West (Herbert Mason 1936) “The son of a wealthy and powerful sultan is carrying on an affair with the wife of an infamous criminal. The father determines to end the affair, erase the shame of his son and bring the criminal to justice.” –IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027563/

Festival in London (Philip Leacock 1951) Watch the film about the 1951 Festival in the National Archives collection here: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1945to1951/filmpage_fil.htm

Finisterre: A Film About London (Saint Etienne, 2005) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390005/

Free Cinema (BFI Box Set) http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/444789/index.html

Gideon’s Way (TV Series, 1964-1966) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon%27s_Way

Heart of the Angel (Mollie Dineen, 1989) – Documentary about Angel Tube station. Really good, acclaimed documentary and maker. Watch it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074tkn

High Hopes (Mike Leigh, 1988). Filmed in King’s Cross and other locations. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095302/

High Rise (Ben Wheatley, 2015). Ostensibly about London, but filmed in Belfast and Bangor. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462335/

Hue and Cry (Charles Crichton, 1947) An Ealing comedy about children solving a heist, shot on location in a bombed out City/East End. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039478/

I Love This Dirty Town (Margaret Drabble, 1969) Watch it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00rzvqv

It Always Rains on Sunday. I think this is in Camden.

It Always Rains on Sunday (Robert Hamer, 1947) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040481/

The Ladykillers (Alexander Mackendrick, 1955) Alec Guinness and Peter Sellers in the classic Ealing Comedy set in King’s Cross. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048281/

Aerial view of King’s Cross from The Ladykillers

The Lavender Hill Mob (Charles Crichton, 1951) Lavender Hill plays itself in this classic heist movie. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044829/

The Lodger (Alfred Hitchcock, 1927) June Tripp and Ivor Novello in Alfred Hitchcock’s first suspense film, “a story of the the London fog”. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017075/

London, Robinson in Space, and Robinson in Ruins (Patrick Keiller 1994, 1997, and 2010). This trilogy comprises three of the finest films ever made about London. The first two are narrated by Paul Scofield and the third by Vanessa Redgrave. They express London through a landscape sensibility, unfolding meaning through relationships across vast time and space through Sebaldian methods that combine fact, fiction, and memoir.

London Fields (Matthew Cullen, 2018) I have to admit that, from a cursory glance through the film stills on IMDB, this looks like a truly terrible film, but hey, it’s got a scene shot at the top of the Gherkin. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1273221/

The London Nobody Knows (Norman Cohen, 1969) An absolute classic, this, and an insightful document about London. With James Mason. Watch here: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5h8w0mA 45-minute trippy documentary of late 1960’s London and is a fascinating time capsule of the remnants of a bygone age before Londons’s extensive redevelopment in the late 1960’s.” –IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061914/

London’s Green Heritage (Director unknown, 1948) A documentary about London’s parks. https://www.londonsscreenarchives.org.uk/title/1093/

London’s Green Heritage

London Symphony (Alex Barrett, 2017) A recent silent film in the ‘city symphony’ genre celebrating London. “A poetic journey through the life of a city”. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6974916/

London: The Modern Babylon (Julien Temple, 2012) Archive footage and voiceovers construct this kaleidoscopic portrait of London. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1937419/

The Long Good Friday (John Mackenzie, 1980) Rightfully celebrated gangster thriller set in London’s blasted docklands, starring Helen Mirren and Bob Hoskins. This is a must-see. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081070/

Tower Bridge photo-bombs The Long Good Friday

Melody (Waris Hussein, 1971) https://www.reelstreets.com/films/melody-aka-swalk/

Metro Land 73

Momma Don’t Allow This short film – ‘Momma Don’t Allow’ – by the late great Karel Reisz is a perfect rendition of working-class youth having a night out in 1950’s London – absolutely brilliant and should be more well known https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b69e93c9d

My Beautiful Laundrette 85 Particular interesting in relation to nine elms development/what has been lost

Naked Mike Leigh dir.

Night and the City 50

Notting Hill (

The Old Kent Road 2014

Oliver! (sets showing historic London wharfs)

Omnibus: The River Bob Hoskins and Barry Norman – the reality of Redevelopment “makes the Long Good Friday look like a story out of Winnie the Pooh”

Only Fools and Horses (sitcom)

Ours to Keep 85

Paddington Just watched ‘Paddington’ with my 7 year old – very cute, in a good way, staring role for Waterhouse Natural History Museum.

A Palace for Us Lots of good answers have gone but I’d also recommend A Palace For Us by Tom Hunter a short film about the lives of residents of Woodberry Down Estate in Hackney, East London https://serpentinegalleries.org/whats-on/a-pal

Passport to Pimlico 49

The Pedway: Elevating London (

Peeping Tom 60

Performance (

Piccadilly (E.A. Dupont 1929)

Pool of London 50

Postcards from London 2018

Proud City 46

Radio On (

Robbery 67

Robinson in Ruins (Patrick Keiller, 2010) see London

Robinson in Space (Patrick Keiller, 1997) see London

Rocks 2019 – snapshot of east London life from a teenage girl’s perspective – collaboratively made. Sarah Gavron, director. Her earlier films may also be of interest.

Sebastian (Dirk Bogarde & Susannah York) has some great scenes on the walkways in the City of London. Film is very uneven but watchable.

Shakespeare in Love (

Sparrows Can’t Sing (Joan Littlewood 1963)

The Street (Zed Nelson 2019)

Streetwise 96

Thamesmead 1968 (Jack Saward-Greater London Council 1968) https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-thamesmead-1968-1968-online

This Other London John Rogers – This Other London (plus quite a lot of his YouTube channel)

To the World’s End https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074ry7

Top People 60

Utopia London 2010

We Are the Lambeth Boys (Karel Reisz 1959) https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-we-are-the-lambeth-boys-1959-online

The Winstanley Plays Itself (Aileen Reed, avail on Vimeo)

Wonderland (1999) Michael Winterbottom, dir.

Young Soul Rebels (1991) Isaac Julien

Ian Nairn’s CoI film on Churchill/Lillington Gardens; a moment perfectly caught.

London Film Resources: There is an excellent short series of Gresham College lectures – available at https://gresham.ac.uk/series/screening-london/- about London in film.



Aaronovitch, Ben Rivers of London

Amis, Martin London Fields
Ballard’s Crash and The Unlimited Dream Company
Baron, Alexander The Lowlife by Alexander Baron, set around #Hackney in the early 1960s. An all time favourite
Benson, Robert Hugh Lord of the World
Dickens, Charles Bleak House
Fitzgerald Offshore

Ford, Laura Grace Savage Messiah
Gaiman, Neil Neverwhere

Genn, Rachel The Cure
Gibson, William Peripheral

Gissing, George New Grub Street

Greene, Graham The Destructors “The Destructors”, a 1954 short story by Graham Greene: a gang of kids destroy – from the inside – a Christopher Wren house that survived The Blitz. https://ndsu.edu/pubweb/~cinichol/CreativeWriting/323/Graham%20Greene.htm I remember being shocked by the ITV film version of this in the 70s. Kind of prophetic re. London now.

Kureishi, Hanif The Buddha of Suburbia

Lanchester, John Capital
Laski, Marghanita ‘The Victorian Chaise Longue’.

Macauley, Rose The World My Wilderness
Mieville, China King Rat
Mieville, China Kraken
Moore, Alan & Eddie Campbell From Hell Apols if it’s already been said, but: From Hell by Alan Moore & Eddie Campbell (though not the colourised version and definitely not the movie)
Morrison, Arthur Child of the Jago
Morton, H.V.

Murdoch, Iris The Black Prince

Smith, Zadie White Teeth

Spark, Muriel The Girls of Slender Means
Wise, Sarah The Italian Boy


Abercrombie’s County of London Plan and Greater London Plan.
Abbott, Joshua A Guide to Modernism in Metro-Land
Ackroyd, Peter Hawksmoor
Ackroyd, Peter London: A Biography
Ackroyd, Peter London Under
Ackroyd, Peter Thames
Baker, Phil London city of Cities Lovely recently written book, London City of Cities, written by Phil Baker & published by Reaktion Lots of quirky and fascinating details.
Barker, Felix and Ralph Hyde London As It Might Have Been
Best, Anna Occasional Sights
Boughton, John Municipal Dreams good content about some London council estates including Pepys Estate
Branson, Noreen Poplarism, 1919-25: George Lansbury and the Councillors’ Revolt
Brunsdon, Charlotte London in Cinema: The Cinematic City Since 1945
Burke, Thomas The Outer Circle Rambles in Remote London
Chivers, Tom: London Clay – Journeys in the Deep City
Clarke, Linda Building Capitalism: Historical Change and the Labour Process in the Production of the Built Environment (also a history of Somers Town)
Davies, Matthew and James A Galloway Eds. London and Beyond: Essays in Honour of Derek Keene
Davies, Philip Lost London – 1870-1945 by Philip Davies. 500 beautifully preserved photographs of the vast swathes of London that were swept away in the name of ‘urban renewal’ and by the blitz.
Davies, Philip Panoramas of Lost London
Doré’s Engravings in London
Ford, Ford Madox The Soul of London
Gatrell, Vic The First Bohemians by Vic Gatrell
The Gentle Author The Creeping Plague of Ghastly Façadism
Glinert, Ed East End Chronicles
Glinert, Ed The London Compendium: A Street-by-Street Exploration of the Hidden Metropolis
Glinert, Ed West End Chronicles
Grindrod, John Outskirts
Hamilton, Patrick 20,000 Streets Under the Sky
Hatherley, Owen The Alternative Guide to the London Boroughs (Open House)
Hatherley, Owen Red Metropolis
Michael Hebbert: London, more by fortune than design. Out of print but argues that all Plans for London have failed & is gleeful about that. Neither liberal nor anarchist.
Hitchcock, Tim Down and Out in Eighteenth-Century London by Tim Hitchcock and
Jones’ Gareth Stedman Outcast London
Joyce, Patrick Joyce’s The Rule of Freedom: Liberalism and the Modern City!
Keiller, Patrick
Kerr and Gibson Punk to Blair v interesting if read in conjunction w Marshall Berman’s similar 2007 NYC compendium (the former miles better imho)
Khan-Ostrem, Nazneen: London – Immigrant City
Lessing, Doris Regent’s Park
Lichtenstein, Rachel On Brick Lane
Lichtenstein, Rachel Diamond Street Hatton Garden
Linebaugh Albion’s Fatal Tree and the London Hanged
Mack, Maynard For C18 context, I still like Maynard Mack’s The Garden and the City
Manning, Jane Complex City Have to plug the excellent book by my colleagues here: #ComplexCity published by @RIBABooks
Mayhew, Henry London Labour and the LondonPoor
Mayhew, Henry London’s Underworld
McInnes, Colin Absolute Beginners
Moorcock, Michael Mother London
Morton, H.V. In Search of London
Nairn, Ian. Nairn’s London
Nead, Lydia Victorian Babylon
Ogborne, Miles The Spaces of Modernity

Parker, Tony The People of Providence: A Housing Estate and some of its Inhabitants
Pepys, Samuel The Shorter Pepys
Phipps, Simon Brutal London
Pike David L. On underground spaces
Pope, Simon London Walking
Pritchett, V.S. London Perceived
Raban, Jonathan Soft City
Reeves, Maud Pember Round About a Pound a Week by Maud Pember Reeves. Chapter on housing. Lambeth, pre WW1. Riveting.
Roberts, Sam. Ghost Signs: A London Story
Rogers JohnA list which could go on for ever, but I’ll restrict myself to John Rogers’ This Other London, because I can’t see it elsewhere in the replies… funny, amenable, historically grounded walks through London’s less fashionable districts
Long, David Spectacular Vernacular: London’s 100 Most Extraordinary Buildings
Rogers, Pat Hacks and Dunces
Rutherford, Edward London
Sandhu, Sukhdev Night Haunts & London Calling – because London is not a white city, which most urban/architecture writers since forever seem to have missed
Schuler, C.J. The Wood That Built London
Sheppard, Francis London: A History
Sinclair, Iain Hackney That Rose Red Empire
Sinclair, Iain Lights Out for the Territory
Sinclair, Iain and Marc Atkins Liquid City
Sinclair, Iain, Ed. London, City of Disappearances – big anthology, lots of writers on people and things that were in London but are not there any more. Interesting, suitably melancholy premise- it’s quite a mix, lots of surprising/interesting bits
Sinclair, Iain London Overground: A Day’s Walk Around the Ginger Line
Spence, Martin The Making of a London Suburb: Capital Comes to Penge
Steel, Carolyn ‘Hungry City – How Food Shapes Our Lives’ by Carolyn Steel. Written by an architect and a very good insight into the energy / waste embedded in feeding a city population, and the environmental failings of urban planning infrastructure, logistics, vehicle dependency etc.
Summerson Georgian London
Thompson, F.M.L. Hampstead: Building a Borough
White, Gerry ‘London In The Nineteenth Century: ‘A Human Awful Wonder of God’ by Gerry White
White, Gerry The Worst Street in North London
Whitfield, Peter London: A Life in Maps
Wright, Patrick A Journey Through Ruins: The Last Days of London

London: The Photographic Atlas
London’s Lost Riverscape First to mind, I love London’s Lost Riverscape – what the banks of the Thames used to look like
The Inside Outside Book of London (for children)
Survey of London (all)
The Times London History Atlas


Booth’s surveys, obvs
The London County Council Bomb Damage Maps, 1939-1945.

Needs sorting:

Lonely !ondoners; Ipcress File; Call for the dead Le Carre plus Spy who came in from cold: Greengates RCSherriff; Angela Carter; Offshore Penelope Fitzgerald; Spencer Gore; Algernon Newton; Lavery
Performance takes you I think into (post-)Rachman Notting Hill, re which Shirley Green’s biography & Peter Flannery’s Singer are brilliant. Blow-up is still a unique sideways look at London landscapes. And there’s Ballard’s High Rise, and also Millennium People.
Up the Junction – book and film plus this from Survey of London made from film extracts including Poor Cow https://vimeo.com/102127150 The Winstanley plays itself by Aileen Reid; Child of the Jago ; New Grub Street; Riceyman Sreps; Angel Pavement Priestley London Childhood by Hughes
Fishman, 1888;Litvinoff, Journey Through a Small Planet; Nicholas Taylor, The Village in the City…
London Orbital by Iain Sinclair (and many others.) N1 by Zadie Smith and others.


@anonomia, @BardenGridge, @bonapart100, @clashy_girl, @DaubeneyT, @DollyG66, @EastLondonGroup, @infrahumano, @KinondoniDSM,@linea_at_ftc, @Lucotter1, @Megthelibraria1, @planning4pubs, @psychojography, @stef18881, @terry61021, @tomdanewag, @TomPoyn, @un_Arch, @urbanpastoral, @WestminP, A2 Architects, Pam E. Alexander, Peter Barber, Myles Bartoli, Hannes Baumann, Duncan Bell, Alan Benzie, Danny Birchall, Gerald Blessington, Adam Borch, Iain Borden, Steve Bowbrick, Kathleen Brentford, Aidan Budd, Lucy Bullivant, Craig Burston, Eric Dolph, Richard Brown, Rob Cave, Aditya Chakrabortty, Tom Chivers, Shane Clarke, Robert Clayton, Steve Cole, CPRE London, Alan Crawford, Gillian Darley, Andrew Demetrius, Demolition Watch London, Directions Bas, Paul Dobraszczyk, Philip Downer, Michael Edwards, Fiona Fieber, Jason Finch, Suzy Fisher, Jonathan Ford, Justin Fowler, Samantha M Fox, Adam Nathaniel Furman, Leonid Furr, Rachel Genn, John Grindrod, Felicity Hall, Lucy Hall, Dan Hancox, Ewan Hannah, Danielle Hewitt, Frederick Guy Holmes, Colin Hynson, Jake Ireland, Catrin James, Bryony Jameson, Will Jennings, Oskar Johanson, Lyndon Jones, Just Space, Tom Keene, Richard Knight, Bec Lambert, Paul Lincoln, Andrew Lockett, Freddie Lombard, Thomas and Ingrid Marlow, Alison Martin, Matty Massi, Christopher McAteer, Ross McKinley, Darran McLaughlin, The Modernist Magazine, George Morgan, Janice Morphet, Max Morwell, Tim Morton, Andrew John Nelmes, Nita Newman, Miranda Nieboer, Jane Petrie, Christopher Pfiffner, Praxis Architecture, Emma Quinn, Katherine Ramsey, Omer Raz, Nicola Read, Tadeáš Ríha, Ben Rimmer, Sam Roberts (Ghost Signs), Suzy Robinson, Bryony Rudkin, Sibyl Ruth, Robert Sakula, David Samson, Jon Savage, Fred Scharmen, C.J. Schüler, Catherine Slessor, Bob L. Smith, Jonny Smith, Steve Smith, Matthew Sweet, Mark Tewdwr-Jones, Phil Tinline, Matthew Turner, Kieron Tyler, Steve Walker, Paul Watt, S.W. Whiteley, Owain D.H. Williams, Stacey N. Wing, Alan Wylie, Gail Wylie, Andy Yan, Alison Young

Trespass is Necessary to the Defence of Democracy

by Tim-Waterman on April 24, 2020, no comments

Today is the anniversary of the Mass Trespass of Kinder Scout on 24 April 1932. To celebrate the continuing legacy of this momentous event, I reproduce here an excerpt from my book chapter “Democracy and Trespass: Political Dimensions of Landscape Access”, published in Defining Landscape Democracy: A Path to Spatial Justice, edited by Shelley Egoz, Karsten Jørgensen, and Deni Ruggeri, published by Edward Elgar in 2018.

Bounding and Framing

The express link between history and geography is made clear when we say that history ‘takes place’, that movements of people and great conflicts often occur due to disputes over land and resources and conditions of scarcity. The link between history and geography is as reciprocal and relational as the link between humans and their environment is in the concept of landscape. Places are produced and framed by the historical events that occur within them. These determine the scale and tenor of events in such spaces into the future. This is not necessarily always an ‘organic’ progression, however, as the making of landscape has increasingly, in modernity, been tied to the wielding of power, as with the Enclosures in England (Thompson 2013; Williams 1973).

It is easy to naïvely assume that before the Enclosures and the planting of miles of hedgerows that demarcated its definitions that the British landscape was a largely boundless common land defined instead around centres of feudal power: the lord, the castle, the monarch. Firm definitions of territorial boundaries in Britain, however, predate the Enclosures quite considerably. The ancient pagan practice of ‘beating the bounds’, which continues to this day in many places in England and Wales, involves elders of a community accompanying youths on a circuit of the boundaries of the parish, and beating the children with sticks at landmarks along the way (Olwig 2002). Nowadays the beating is light and ceremonial, but the seriousness of understanding precisely where borders lay in case of dispute would have justified painful beatings historically. Where surveying is now the final arbiter of boundary disputes, this more abstract practice was preceded by one in which the body and its situation – its siting, its emplacement in context – were key to maintaining order. The bodily memory and experience of bounding are explicit in ways that reinforce the body’s profound part of human cognition. The senses, in this case excited to the point of pain, are fundamental to human meaning, identity and place.

This very visceral ‘knowing one’s place’ is both literal and figurative, and reflecting on this gives one a sense of what an outrage it was to the peasantry – physical, moral and spatial – that boundaries could be blithely rearranged by the wealthy, ‘landed’ classes in the Enclosures.

The peasantry, forced, often violently, off the land, became the urban proletariat in modernity, and now the underclass is defined by the desperately marginalised and often de-skilled poor or the precariat. The precariat is composed of those who are living at or below the subsistence level, lack job security, and are often in debt. For the peasantry, the proletariat and the precariat, the forces of oppression are tied directly to the practices of capitalism, and the project of the Enclosures must be seen to be one that is ongoing and unfinished, perhaps (though hopefully not) interminable.

Cultural historians Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker identify the oppression that has accompanied capitalist accumulation throughout modernity as ‘the three disabilities of terror’, which are at root three different problems with embodiment, emplacement and identity. These are: (i) the inability to name the oppressor (evident in forms of resistance and misplacement of anger in various forms of racism and xenophobia, for example); (ii) the desire for death (this is quite specifically engendered from the hopelessness of violence and enables people to give up their lives or those of others such as in gang warfare); and (iii) to become deracinated – specifically to be removed from place, culture and identity (Linebaugh and Rediker 2000, pp. 53–54, 60). What is disabled by terror, wherever it is deployed – which is virtually wherever it is conceivable – is the practice of alternative ways of living, often collective, and ‘popular attachments to liberty and the fullness of sensuality’ (ibid., p. 14) Curiously, the terror finds itself directed back upwards at the oppressor, as the fears of rebellion, crime or other transgressions born of the isolation germane to wealth and power is also a form of the terror of deracination.

Acts of Trespass

To know one’s place in a democracy is to know that one’s place is often on the other side of someone else’s fence. Trespass is necessary to the defence of democracy, as is the idea of utopia: the dream of a better world beyond those boundaries. Democracy is a constant pressure against the solidification of forms of authoritarian power, a solidification that is more often than not spatial and enclosing in its expression. Both hope and transgression – ‘a form of politics’ – are the primary forms this resistance takes (Cresswell 1996, p. 9). In politics, hope for the masses is tied to place and setting (and Michael Walzer (1992, p. 98) describes civil society as a ‘setting of settings’). Thus it is situated; topos drives change, and civil society functions in places as social and historical agent. It takes place. Peter Hallward writes, ‘Democracy means rule of the people, the assertion of the people’s will. Democracy applies in so far as the collective will of the people over-powers those who exploit, oppress, or deceive them. Abstracted from such relations of power and over-power, democracy is an empty word’. It is also an empty word when democracy is abstracted from the places people inhabit, and in which power and over-power are physically expressed.

Trespass, as it so often has been historically, is an embodied, emplaced rejection of global capital and its processes of abstraction and extraction – and disembodied dis-emplaced corporations and people – from the land-grabbing gentry of the early days of the Enclosures to the tax-dodging corporations who hide their money and existences in non-places, to the ‘people’ who own urban luxury flats or villas but who are never home. How can any of this be democratic?

Isolation (and splendid isolation) and its accompanying tendencies of bounding and defence breed fear, particularly the fear of trespass. On the other hand, isolation and fortification necessitate trespass in a democracy. Thus the fear of trespass is fully justified, as is the necessity of trespass. Democracy is the project of resisting certain forms of conservatism – in particular the form that seeks to preserve or to entrench structures of power, class (which nowadays may be read as ‘lifestyle’) and wealth, and their expression in landscapes.

In 1932, young members of the urban proletariat of Manchester and Sheffield, frustrated by a lack of access to the beautiful Peak District landscape around the summit of Kinder Scout (a point roughly equidistant from each city), demonstrated the power of trespass as part of the Right to Roam movement. Benny Rothman, one of the leaders of the group that undertook to trespass on the private land, guarded by keepers and used by a wealthy minority to shoot grouse, says of the group:

We were very young, almost entirely under 21. The established rambling clubs were of a far older age group, and had spent a lifetime in the rambling movement. We were impatient at the seemingly futile efforts so far made to achieve access to mountains. Conditions in towns were becoming more intolerable and unemployment, which stood at about four million, greatly added to our frustration. (Rothman 2012, p. 21)

The Manchester Ramblers’ Federation, the more ‘established rambling club’, was hostile to the idea, afraid that it would antagonise the landowners and set the movement back (ibid., p. 20). Kinder Scout, once common land, but enclosed in 1830, was a highly visible but emphatically denied attractor to those ramblers seeking to escape the smoke and crowding of the industrial cities. The ramblers must have felt the constriction of the industrial city in a very real, bodily way. The 24th April 1932 was a clear, bright day, and the young crowd of working-class men and women took to the hills, ready to defy the keepers, who were armed with stout sticks. Rothman and his friend Woolfie Winnick led the group mounting Kinder Scout from the Manchester side, while another group made the ascent from Sheffield. Rothman and Winnick evaded a heavy police presence stationed to prevent them taking to the paths, and addressed the crowd at Bowden Bridge quarry. During the ascent the group grappled with the gamekeepers, but overcame them and walked much of the way to the peak. The ramblers enacted the freedom of access and the freedom to roam and thus won the right of both at Kinder Scout.

The Kinder Scout Mass Trespass was as much addressing problems of urban conditions and proletariat lives as it was addressing conditions in the countryside. The ongoing Occupy movement also embodies manifold meanings, reaching from physical urban places to structural conditions in geopolitics. In particular its actions at Zuccotti Park in New York from 17 September until 15 November 2011, at St Paul’s in London from 15 October 2011 until 14 June 2012, and at Gezi Park in Istanbul from 28 May until 15 June 2013 expressed the right for resistant bodies to occupy public places at the same time as they expressed a desire for a new global political order that excluded the practices of neo-liberal capitalism. Crucial to Occupy is the performance of democracy (Chomsky 2012). Horizontally and non-hierarchically organised, Occupy insists not on making specific demands, but rather demonstrating ‘its refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the existing political institutions’, and ‘to challenge the fundamental premises of our economic system’ (Graeber 2013, p. 99). Its goal is to show by example, by acting it out, that a better alternative to the current system of government manipulated by corporations, at best ignoring and at worst victimising the poor and serving the wealthy, is possible. David Graeber, one of the key figures of Occupy, calls this ‘prefigurative politics’: it is a politics of futurity in a utopian mode, and all the stronger for it. ‘Direct action’, he says, ‘is, ultimately, the defiant insistence on acting as if one is already free’ (ibid., p. 233).

What both the Kinder Scout Mass Trespass and the actions of the Occupy movement demonstrate is an embodied and emplaced resistance to force, violence and enclosures through the assertion of equality – in place, through the use of the body, and through the projection of political imaginaries. This assertion is concrete in a way that that which it resists is not. State and corporate power are increasingly abstract – abstracted away from sources of real value to simple arithmetic measures as well as the physical abstraction of people and human processes from land. Urbanisation has effectively emptied the countryside of people in many places, making the rural landscape little more than a picturesque abstraction for a large segment of the population in the West. Of Henri Lefebvre’s famous statement about the ‘right to the city’, David Harvey (2013, pp. 3–4) writes:

[T]he question of what kind of city we want cannot be divorced from the kind of people we want to be, what kinds of social relations we seek, what relations to nature we cherish, what style of life we desire, what aesthetic values we hold. The right to the city is, therefore, far more than a right of individual or group access to the resources that the city embodies: it is a right to change and reinvent the city more after our hearts’ desire. It is moreover, a collective rather than an individual right, since reinventing the city inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective power over the processes of urbanization. The freedom to make and remake ourselves and our cities is, I want to argue, one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights.

I would argue further that the right to the city must be extended to a right to the country; that all people should have a right to the landscape, to make it and remake it ‘more after our hearts’ desire’.


Chomsky, N. (2012). Occupy. London and New York: Penguin.
Cresswell, T. (1996) In place/out of place: Geography, ideology, and transgression. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
Graeber, D. (2013). The democracy project: A history, a crisis, a movement. London and New York: Penguin.Hallward, P. ‘People and power: four notes on democracy and dictatorship’ Campagna, F. and Campiglio, E. (Eds.). (2012). What we are fighting for: A radical collective manifesto. London: Pluto Press, 61-72.
Harvey, D. (2013) Rebel Cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. London and New York: Verso.
Linebaugh, P. and Rediker, M. (2000). The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, slaves, commoners, and the hidden history of the revolutionary Atlantic. London: Verso.
Olwig, K. (2002) Landscape, nature, and the body politic: from Britain’s renaissance to America’s New World. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Olwig, K. (2011). The right rights to the right landscape? In Egoz, S., Makhzoumi, J., and Pungetti, G. (Eds.). The right to landscape: Contesting landscape and human rights (pp. 39-50). Farnham, Surrey, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Rothman, B. (2012). The battle for Kinder Scout including the 1932 mass trespass. Timperley, Cheshire: Willow Publishing. (First published as ‘The 1932 Kinder Trespass’ in 1982).
Thompson, E.P. (2013) Whigs and hunters: the origin of the Black Act. London: Breviary Stuff Publications.
Walzer, M. (1992). The civil society argument. In Mouffe, Chantal, (Ed.). Dimensions of radical democracy: Pluralism, citizenship, community. (pp. 89-107). London and New York: Verso.
Williams, R. (1973) The country and the city. Nottingham: Spokesman.

The Islecentrality of Philology: a review of Kenneth Olwig’s ‘Are Islands Insular?’

by Tim-Waterman on April 4, 2020, no comments

Kenneth R. Olwig’s essay ‘Are Islands Insular?’ appears in his insightful new book The Meanings of Landscape: Essays on Place, Space, Environment and Justice (Routledge, 2019). I reviewed this essay as part of a series of reviews of his book, which included reviews by Kent Mathewson, Tom Mels, Theano S. Terkenli, and Claudio Minca, and a response from Olwig. It is available here.

Early in 2006, two fishers, Sunder Raj and Pandit Tiwari lay in a drunken sleep after illegally fishing for mud crabs off the shore of North Sentinel Island in the Andamans. In the night they drifted onto the shore after their boat slipped its anchor. They were attacked and killed while they slept by the Sentinelese and buried in shallow graves on the beach. (Foster, 2006: n.p.) Some years later a similar fate awaited a missionary bent on fishing for souls rather than mud crabs. The isolation of the Sentinelese protects them from sexual exploitation, alcoholism, and Influenza, Measles and other diseases to which they have no resistance. The story of the Sentinelese seems to confirm every commonly held notion of insularity. It also, perhaps, helps to underscore the territoriality of the human species and of islands. Homi Bhabha tells us, ““Etymologically unsettled, ‘territory’ derives from both terra (earth) and terrēre (to frighten) whence territorium, ‘a place from which people are frightened off’” (1994: 99-100).

In ‘Are Islands Insular? A personal view’, in his new collection of essays The Meanings of Landscape, Kenneth R. Olwig (2019) challenges the contemporary conception of islands as insular. The essay purports to differ from his usual approach to the philological examination of landscape, rather he uses his “personal experience and background as an islander”—Staten Island, that is (ibid.: 89). Olwig, however, gets stuck right into literature and language in his preface, in which the meaning of choros is explored via Ptolemy, and a literary framework is established through mention of The Odyssey and Moby Dick. The essay does exercise a personal view, but through this seeks to define islands through the evaluation of the underlying actions and ideas that shape western understanding of them in much the same way etymology excavates words to find evidence of the actions and ideas contained within them. As such, then, this essay differs from Olwig’s usual philology primarily only through an increased intimacy of tone.

Olwig’s philology gains its power from its operation on three separate registers, each interdependent. “The philological approach taken here does not only have the traditional philological focus primarily on language and text, but also focuses on the semiotics of pictorial representation in relation to text,” he writes in his introduction (p. 3). His examination of the actions, processes, forces, and relations contained within words is not just augmented by a similar observation of imagery, but also acts on and interacts with the study of landscape forms, land uses, and place imaginaries. The stories written into places, told through wind and water, planting and harvesting, politics and justice, are explicated through a mode that broadens and deepens philology by an alignment with geography, topography, and chorography: a frame for thinking that, although Olwig has not himself used the term, I like to call toposophy. Olwig uses the term environmental geohumanities, which is useful, if clunky, but lacks the sense of a set of tools and ethics for structuring thinking held in the ideas of philology and toposophy.

If one thinks through word, image, and landscape form, it is clear that islands are insular, a point Olwig seeks not to refute, but to augment. Islands are isolated. Both of these terms arise from the Latin insula. The situation of the Sentinelese people exemplifies this. There are other ways of being islandic, though, that are radically different and that enrich the ways in which islands could be conceived. It is Olwig’s gift to the reader in all he writes, to provide not either–or, but both–and.

North Sentinel Island in the Andamans, aerial view. By NASA Earth Observatory image created by Jesse Allen, using data provided by the NASA EO-1 team. – https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/42136/north-sentinel-island-andaman-sea, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8955271

Olwig’s work has been a profound influence in my own thinking, writing, and teaching. His habits of relentless investigation and delightfully, imaginative word and image play (including elaborate puns) showed me I could nurture and gain from such practices already present within my work. Here is an example pertinent to the task at hand: When I teach about the British Isles in ancient times, I present my students with a north-up map view of Scotland and the tip of Norway, centered on the Orkney archipelago. Then, speaking of the difficulty of traveling over land in the interior and the naturalness of seafaring, I invert the map, which completes the process of forcing the students to see the island not as remote, but central from the perspective of a voyager on the North Sea, from the perspective Olwig calls “islecentrality.” “From the sea,” Olwig writes, “the world is made up of islands and peninsulas, and that which is unreachable by water is isolated terra incognita and the true home of insularity. The word for insularity should really be in-continentality” (p. 94). Olwig’s inversion (and his pun) here also helps to show the world in a profoundly different way. This does not, of course, negate the fact that, in the contemporary world such a place as Orkney can legitimately be seen as remote, insular, and isolated, but that it is also simultaneously and fruitfully near, embroiled, and central. Such manifold and often contradictory meanings are precisely and always what landscapes hold and display, a fact that helps to explain the plural meanings employed in the title of this book. Without various and contradictory meanings, word play would not be possible, and so the pun, much maligned as a witticism, can here be elevated to an emblem of an approach to thinking about landscape meanings philologically, toposophically, and playfully.

Orkney inverted, showing how different the view from the water and the island is from the mainland.








Over the past century or so, philology as a practice, as a mode, has fallen into obscurity. Olwig’s body of work, however, along with the work of several other writers who have been close to Olwig both intellectually and through friendship, including Ingold, Lowenthal, and Tuan, have worked, each in their own way, to reclaim the wide-reaching philological base of the (geo)humanities. Olwig’s work helps us to see philology not as a remote, depopulated island, but as a realm that, once one has escaped from the in-continentality of disciplinary silos, can be discovered as a field of intellectual endeavor with its own islecentrality, linking together all the islands and peninsulas into newly intelligible coastlines in an ocean of playful and profound knowledge.

Portolan chart: “The East Coast of Scotland with the Isles of Orkney and Shetland.”
1693? Collins Greenville (National Library of Scotland. https://maps.nls.uk/coasts/chart/178)


Bhabha, Homi K. (1994) The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge.
Foster, Peter (2006) “Stone Age tribe kills fishermen who strayed on to island”, The Telegraph, 8 Feb 2006. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1509987/Stone-Age-tribe-kills-fishermen-who-strayed-on-to-island.html. Accessed 26 March 2019.
Olwig, Kenneth R. (2019) ‘Are Islanders Insular? A personal view’ in The Meanings of Landscape: Essays on Place, Space, Environment and Justice. London and New York: Routledge, 88-103.

Feasting is a Project

by Tim-Waterman on November 27, 2019, no comments

Pieter Bruegel the Elder, ‘The Peasant Wedding’ (1567)

This piece first appeared on the ‘Feasts for the Future’ website of the University of Plymouth’s Imagining Alternatives here. It appeared alongside other short pieces from such luminaries as Ruth Levitas, Kim Stanley Robinson, and Susan Parham, and I’m grateful to be in their company. It seems appropriate to post it here just in time for the autumn harvest feast.

In my tweens, my family made a trip from Harwich to Copenhagen on a cruise ship. It is the one and only trip on a cruise ship I’ve ever taken. Even though it lasted only a couple of days, it was dull, especially for a youngster. Every meal was a buffet, and every meal was enormous, overflowing the table. 1980s Britain was not exactly cornucopian in either the quality or quantity of the meals served. Still, when every meal is a feast, the excitement begins to wear off.

One evening in the ship’s cinema we were treated to a screening of the film ‘Quest for Fire’, which I admit I only dimly remember, as though in flickering cave-light and also queasily rocked by the sea. The film is set 80,000 years in the past and was filmed in the Scottish Highlands. The plot, narrated by the actors in a speculative prehistoric language created by Anthony Burgess (who speculated on future tongues, of course, in A Clockwork Orange), is necessarily thin, revolving around the possession of a carefully kindled germ of fire. Around that glowing nucleus, in the 80,000 years that would follow, would form the campfire, the hearth, the kitchen, the dining room, the feast.

The cooking of food, whether or not it started exactly 80,000 years ago or not, may be one of the most important moments in human cultural evolution. First of all, cooking food makes more nutrients available, and second of all cooking and eating together is very much at the heart of human association. Biological evolution is a series of more- or less-happy accidents–mutations. More than mere happenstance, cultural evolution has shape and direction. It has memory and it is concerned with the future. It is human. To understand the evolution of the feast as a form of human association coupled with a utopian drive, a little reimagining of prehistory is necessary.

A fair amount of biological evolution can happen in a few thousand years, but only cultural evolution can explain the exponential advances of the human species. Primatologist Michael Tomasello speaks about the ‘ratchet effect’, in which innovations are held in place while new innovations are geared up and advanced upon them. That ratcheting, for humans, begins with the campfire, the spear, maybe the atlatl, and various tools for digging at the earth to forage. Many parts of the earth provide generously, copiously for such hunting and gathering lifestyles. There is little reason, rationally, to culturally evolve from this luxurious state into sedentist agriculture. Farming is hard, risky work with long hours, and it developed in many fruitful parts of the world where it might be seen to be unnecessary.

But just as the campfire projects the possibilities of the hearth and the kitchen, so the digging stick imagines the garden. And the kitchen and garden are projects that require organisation. In short, cooking, gardening, and tending animals are interesting. They give people something to talk about; a reason for language, even. The campfire, the kitchen, the garden, and the herd provide a focus for human energies and a reason for human association. The quest for fire leads to a quest for conviviality, and conviviality may well be humanity’s great project.

As flame-roasted meats developed into ‘lunch’ and ‘dinner’, so too did primal nature become formed into landscape, and even more interesting project in total than mere lunch or dinner. And the cycles of time; day and night, season, hunt and harvest–the genius temporum that accompanies landscape’s genius loci–become frames for imagining delicious pasts and tasty futures. ‘We are all utopians,’ wrote Henri Lefebvre, ‘so soon as we wish for something better,’ and the next feast necessarily has to be lovelier.

So, like Kim Stanley Robinson’s article here on this same site [actually, it is here], I come to the potluck, that great dining invention. A potluck is interesting. It’s a project. It requires organisation. It is a frame for conviviality. Then, perhaps most importantly, it is emblematic of the form of evolution which Peter Kropotkin calls ‘mutual aid’. Kropotkin clarified Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’, stressing that the fittest relationships within species and among species were those which ensured the greatest advantage. For humans, stories become part of the advantage; stories about pasts and futures; stories about utopia. Our future feasts (and when I say ‘our’, I mean ‘all humans’) are often utopias; dreams of convivial living in shared landscapes.

Utopia is a drive with the same sort of shape and direction as that of cultural evolution. When Lefebvre speaks about utopia, he speaks of it as part of a work–an oeuvre. Though much of human life in landscapes, whether rural or urban, is composed of drudgery, routine, duty, and hardship, what is created collectively is often beautiful, even transcendent. If human history is a dull fabric, it is woven through with sparkling utopian threads, and when seen in total the drapery of its folds is an astonishment. Those sparkling threads are the emergence of the festival in the everyday, the utopian feasts in which an abundance of food and a surplus of art, music, and dance make the everyday worthwhile.

If human feasting in late capitalism has itself become drudgery, like the overflowing tables on that Danish cruise ship of my childhood, then it’s likely that a return to understanding the nature and the place of the feast as a human project is important. To make the feast interesting and fulfilling, it is not enough for food to magically appear in folkloric abundance, as it does in the land of Cockaigne, but it must be part of a planned project that is undertaken collectively. A feast is meaningless, its utopian significance eviscerated, if it isn’t part of a project that links the landscape (of finding and foraging, whether roots or cheese and chocolate as well as growing) with the kitchen with the table; place-making with companionship (from com-panis, breaking bread together) and commensality (coming together at table). All of life must be lived with one eye on the potluck.

Landscape and Citizenship

by Tim-Waterman on July 18, 2019, no comments

This is an article I wrote for Garden Design Journal last year to promote our symposium ‘Landscape Citizenships’. I’m now in the process, with Jane Wolff and Ed Wall, of working the whole thing up into a book.

A dozen years ago I added British citizenship to my US citizenship, trading up from a work visa when I entered into a civil partnership with my partner Jason. Jason was born and raised in Hong Kong, educated in Derbyshire and Nottingham, and he gained his British citizenship in 1997 when the colony was handed back to China. I grew up in a US Navy family, living in various ports all over the world. I no longer feel as though I belong to the USA (especially not to its current government) but neither do I feel quite British or English. ‘Londoner’ perhaps fits me best, and with my background I’m quite typical. I’m a citizen of London.

I know how to dwell in London. I can operate its landscape. I have learned its people and its customs. I stand aside and let people off the Tube before I board. I know all the shortcuts through my surrounding neighbourhoods. I’ve teased out plant roots to tuck them into London soil, and I’ve traded seeds and tools with other allotmenteers. I’ve acquired the habits that allow me to fit in here and that allow others to accept me as a Londoner. When people ask me where I’m from—and that’s a hard question to answer—it’s not with the assumption I’ll return there.

All places should be this way, offering legible and substantive landscape relationships that are local, regional, and particular, and that give human transplants a chance to root—belonging not just as lip service or abstract allegiance, but to a genuine sense of place. In the last twenty years, the idea of landscape has grown, in various disciplines such as geography and anthropology, and through the influence of the European Landscape Convention, to express a relationship—a landship—in which people are products of their places, and those places are their products. Thus the word ‘landscape’ has come to hold deeper and richer meaning than simply the description of a view.

The richness of the landscape idea also holds the sense that landscape is something mutually constructed and shared, which has sparked powerful new discourses around the ideas of landscape justice and landscape democracy—there is now even a Centre for Landscape Democracy in Norway. What is desired is that people, as part of their existences and as a way of linking to each other, learn the plants and animals and topography of their places.

Of course these ideas have particular purchase in larger landscapes with clear identities, such as the North York Moors or the Highlands, and in urban landscapes like Exeter or West Glasgow. However, there is also an important link to the garden, particularly those gardens that are shared, such as allotments, community gardens, and parks. Even private gardens, which taken collectively form a larger landscape, can be considered landscapes to which we belong, and in which we might find citizenship.

Last year I visited a beautiful community garden called Parckfarm (www.parckfarm.be/) in the tough Brussels neighbourhood Molenbeek. Its construction, by the community with the cutting-edge landscape practice Taktyk and with Alive Architecture, made a once derelict landscape available and legible to its very mixed and multi-ethnic community. How this garden is a community practice and how it has shaped shared identities is a more powerful and grounded form of citizenship than anything the pomp and circumstance of the Belgian state could provide. And in a time of rising nationalism and increasing migration, it’s a practice of belonging that is true and real and necessary—and rooted in the garden.

Even the small private garden offers opportunities to provide engaging relationships with landscape, and this can be realised through an approach to design which, instead of simply employing geometric strategies for scenic spacemaking, actively invites people to interact. Some of this may be accomplished by working through imaginative scenarios for how the garden might be used by adults, and especially by children. Plants, especially edible plants, particular to a region, might be used, and natural processes can be invited in—allowing frost to accentuate a slope or water to pool after a rain. Focusing garden design on use, action, and interaction is, perhaps, a first step to inviting people more fully into the rest of their immediate world as active participants, as citizens.

Flows off the Tongue: Charting climate change futures in ancient place names

by Tim-Waterman on August 4, 2018, no comments

Bawsey (‘Baew’s Island’, Norfolk. Image from https://waternames.wordpress.com/images-of-watery-places/

This article first appeared in Landscape Architecture Magazine in August 2017.

One of the joys of travel, even of armchair travel, is the discovery of euphonious place names. I’ve driven through both Humptulips, on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula, and Quonochontaug, in Rhode Island. Both of these are names that flow off the tongue (well, with a little practice). This is an apt metaphor, given that both names describe the flow and flood—the hydrological characteristics of each site. Humptulips, in the tongue of the Chehalis Tribe, tells that it is “hard to pole” a canoe through the river, which follows a convoluted course that includes fast, narrow torrents, and Quonochontaug (Narragansett for “at the long pond”) is along a string of broad, placid coastal lagoons. 

The guide that indigenous names can provide to landscape qualities and to human interactions with landscape may be followed anywhere such names have not been erased by the conquest of colonialism. This is no less true in Britain, where four British universities, Leicester, Southampton, Nottingham, and Wales have joined forces under a grant from the Leverhulme trust for a two-year study of place names called ‘Flood and Flow’. In Britain, an extra dimension to the record of place names provides a set of clues to how particular landscapes might respond to global warming in the near future. In the period between 700 and 1000 AD, temperatures in the British Isles rose rapidly after a cold phase that began in 400 AD. Extreme weather and an abundance of precipitation in this time is a historic parallel to our present-day situation, and thus the Anglo-Saxon names have once again become meaningfully descriptive of their sites. 

Image from https://waternames.wordpress.com/about/

Not only is this helpful, but a great many of Britain’s present place names were devised in precisely this period. So, though few written records remain from this time, even a modern map holds a hydrographic key to possible futures that have been written in the past. 

Some of these names have particular poignancy: Muchelney, in the Somerset Levels, was cut off during the extreme winter floods in 2013-14. Muchelney means ‘big island’. Communities along the River Swale in Yorkshire have increasingly frequent opportunities to find out that its name derives from Old English swalwe, meaning ‘gush of water’. The River Trent is “the trespasser”. 

Dr. Richard Jones at the University of Leicester is Flood and Flow’s Principal Investigator and a specialist in medieval landscapes. He explains how the project’s aims fit within a larger understanding of indigenous naming: “Place-names are used by all indigenous, aboriginal and First Nations peoples to communicate information about the local presence, behaviour and characteristics of water. For these communities, such names helped them to share and pass on the Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) gained through generations of observation of the flood and flow of water through their home grounds. As such, such names act as active makers of place rather than the passive markers of space they have become in the modern western mind.” TEK describes much of how we have come to understand landscape in recent years, as both maker of people and made by people.

Jones says, speaking of the project’s potential, “It is exciting to ponder how many possibilities might exist everywhere in the world to apply this knowledge—TEK—and to build a richer picture of both the lived and designed landscape from the poetry of original place names.” 

For the Flood and Flow website see https://waternames.wordpress.com/, and for an in-depth analysis, see Dr. Richard Jones’s paper “Responding to Modern Flooding: Old English Place-Names as a Repository of Traditional Ecological Knowledge” in the Journal of Ecological Anthropology, 2016. 

National Progress

by Tim-Waterman on July 18, 2018, no comments

Here is a little piece on landscape, technology, and nationhood (or the lack thereof) I wrote for the Bartlett School of Architecture’s Unit Eleven publication for 2018. It’s part of the thinking I’m doing towards our upcoming ‘Landscape Citizenships’ symposium. https://landscapecitizenships.wordpress.com

Who are we? Where are we from? Where are we going? How will we get there? These are all questions lurking within the idea of national progress, and progress always implies a forward direction towards a goal, a telos, and technology is usually the tool to get us there. William Morris, in his utopian novel News from Nowhere, imagined this goal to be a withering away of the state (he was a socialist, but not necessarily always a state socialist), and a mutual and pleasurable management of all affairs without the domination of government. Famously, he envisioned the Palace of Westminster in the future would be used for storing dung: clearly a punitive downcycling form of adaptive reuse, and, of course, a symbolic home for what he saw was the primary product of governments. 

If we see technology in its broadest terms, as the application of a system to a task or set of tasks, then it is possible to see both nations and buildings (including those at Westminster) as technologies or means. Systems and technologies are mesmerising, and mastery of them deeply satisfying and engrossing. Thus it is easy for them to become worlds unto themselves, bounded and complete, ends rather than means. Questions of government become questions of procedure and policy rather than equality and emancipation, and questions of architecture are framed in terms of practice and construction rather than the classic Vitruvian ideals.

The ideals Morris and others of his time were cooking up (including Ebenezer Howard, Peter Kropotkin, Edward Carpenter, Emma Goldman, Patrick Geddes—not all of them architects or landscape planners) were dreams of whole life economies; how whole community and individual lives could be wholly lived in whole, flourishing places. The task was to bring together head, heart, hand, and land: Geddes sought the encouragement of ‘insurgent life’. Before the hard political boundaries of the twentieth century had formed as ideological schisms and concrete walls, the anarchists, socialists, and a broad range of other radicals were discussing an insurgency in which they all had a stake. The Paris Commune, author of its own unique form of socialism and victim of massacre in 1871, had not died without releasing the ideal of communal luxury into the world, and this was the egalitarian, emancipatory framework for shared human and planetary flourishing in which the forms of garden cities and green belts as planning tools (or technologies) would emerge. 

The green belt is an example of how these grand dreams have progressively been stripped down. From the view of a planner’s, politician’s, or developer’s map, it is merely empty space. From both a radical perspective and a landscape perspective, with a goal of insurgent life and life economies, it is empty not of buildings and development, but of all the rich layers of use, belonging, and conviviality it might contain. And what is humanity’s great project if not conviviality? Green belts are not just technologies, tools, or mapping strategies. They are also landscapes that demand convivial practices of dwelling and meaningful, productive, interesting use. They need life to surge up within them. 

All technologies, from smartphones to planning frameworks to buildings, need to be detached from the worlds they create unto themselves and reconnected with larger practices of dwelling. Our lives have become arenas of permanent destructive revolution (‘disruption’, restructuring, ‘flexibility’ meaning precarity, gig economies), and instead we need insurgencies that rise up from within, holding together those things which are truly of value while transforming all that is malign. Technologies must be bent upon the convivial, upon belonging, upon connecting to landscape. And national progress? The technology of the nation should always be working to minimise its own self-absorption and to prepare us all for finding conviviality in the substantive landscapes in which we dwell: the real towns, cities, countrysides, watersheds, bioregions, and continents to which we belong. The technology of nations should drive progress toward landscape citizenships and towards their own obsolescence. 

Landscape Citizenships: A Symposium: Call for Papers

by Tim-Waterman on March 12, 2018, no comments

Landscape Citizenships_A Symposium_profile_Ed Wall and I, along with the amazing Jane Wolff from the University of Toronto, are organising and hosting a conference this autumn that seeks to explore interrelations with landscapes as the foundation to citizenships. Please see details here: https://landscapecitizenships.wordpress.com

…and follow on Twitter @Citizen_Land

We have an amazing advisory group that includes:

  • Jill Desimini, Harvard Graduate School of Design
  • Shelley Egoz, Center for Landscape and Democracy (CLaD), NMBU
  • Peter Hobson, Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management
  • Jane Hutton, University of Waterloo
  • Ann Lui, School of the Art Institute of Chicago
  • Jala Makhzoumi, American University of Beirut; President, Lebanese Landscape Association
  • Don Mitchell, Uppsala University
  • Kenneth Olwig, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp
  • Amy Strecker, University of Leiden
  • Ed Wall, University of Greenwich; Politecnico di Milano
  • Tim Waterman, University of Greenwich; UCL Bartlett School of Architecture
  • Jane Wolff, University of Toronto

Making a Scene

by Tim-Waterman on January 24, 2018, no comments

The following is an excerpt from my essay, ‘Making Meaning: Utopian Method for Minds, Bodies, and Media in Architectural Design’ published by the Open Library of Humanities. The full essay is available to all, delightfully, as a completely free and open access publication here: https://olh.openlibhums.org/article/10.16995/olh.109/

The imaginative ‘play’ that we call design has a special space—the studio. It is a physical space that is particular to the act of design. Like the theatre, the stadium, or the pitch, it has a particular construction that marks the space out for a particular role. Like ‘once upon a time’ and the set-ups it elaborates, the studio is a physical space that corresponds to a specific space of the imagination. While, as with other species, play can take place anywhere, there is still a particular role for this special place, which is the setting for a ritual that triggers the flow of creativity. When entering the studio this frame of mind takes over, and any interruption to the atmosphere can be catastrophic—or at least it feels catastrophic. It is certainly detrimental to the creative design process.

As I write this, I am sitting in the British Library in London, as I often do, and I am reminded that here is a special place for imaginative play as well. I am also reminded how much I resent any intrusion upon my space of solitary play here. As if to prove my point, a woman has just walked in and is unpacking and rustling around just opposite me; and a young man has followed right behind and sat to my right, wearing too much perfume. I note, looking up at the continuing noise, that the woman is plugging in and setting up three (!) laptops in her space. The space of creativity and play is mental, physical, multi-sensual (as the scene above shows), affective, and particular, and is also marked by prohibitions and restraints—‘rules’—that are often internally imposed:

One generally finds, even in animals, “rules” of play: special signals (such as wagging the tail or not using claws), postures, facial expressions, and sounds that mean “This is make-believe”. Often special places are set aside for playing: a stadium, a gymnasium, a park, a recreation room, a ring or circle. There are special times, special clothes, a special mood for play—think of holidays, festivals, vacations, weekends. (Dissanayake, 1992: 43)

The studio is the particular place where make-believe is enabled in design. Kyna Leski addresses the role of the studio as a space of experimentation (just as the space of the library allows critical experimentation), brilliantly and poetically speaking of the individual experience of material reasoning within it. Her narrative is a modernist one—with roots in the methods of the Bauhaus—in which learning to trust the senses, to trust the materials, involves an initial un-learning (though not a total un-learning: the student does not become a tabula rasa). All the prejudices and preconceptions of the future designer are stripped away, and a newly built Homo faber steps forth. This is a useful narrative with which to encourage the student to trust in the process: We are taking a portion of yourself away, but replacing it with something much better. The importance of that trust cannot be underestimated.

Leski’s methods and interpretation, however, are often too focused on the personal. The studio is not merely a space of trust and a space for the interaction of the teacher, the student, and the media they will employ. It is also an intensely social space. The imaginative work that takes place in the studio is part of a larger process of co-making, co-working, co-imagining; and the studio is part of the larger world of associations, professions, families, etc., all of which inform and support the individual. The musician Brian Eno calls this larger process the ‘scenius’, a portmanteau of ‘scene’ and ‘genius’. This concept helpfully reminds us that even for the seemingly solitary ‘genius’ painting or writing poetry in a garret, that invention emerges from a shared background of teaching, conversation, making, exploring, and feeling together: an ‘ecology of talent’ (Eno, n.d.). It posits a play-space/design space of situated, mediated, and intercorporeal social connectedness—a space of what Elaine Scarry calls ‘aesthetic fairness’—that ‘creates in all participants a state of delight in their own lateralness’ (Scarry, 2000: 114). When I sit and create a space of intellectual experimentation and play for myself, alone in the library, I bring along all that has contributed to my current self, and I am reaching out laterally into other intellectual worlds with every book I open and every connection I make. Then I carry that back out into the world with me, in my own text, my teaching, my engagement with my profession, and so on.

For the architectures, particularly landscape architecture, the awareness of a ‘scene’ must include not only those people involved in co-invention, but they must enter into a constructive dialogue with all the processes and forces that comprise a landscape: biological, geological, climatic, cultural, social. The landscape architect needs to employ a mode of thinking and acting that Lorraine Code calls ‘ecological thinking’ (2006). I prefer a term I’ve borrowed from ethnology: ‘toposophy’ (see Kockel, 2014), thinking that is about place, grounded in place, not just about objects, but about vast arrays of intersecting and interdependent processes and forces. Unlike philosophy—‘beautiful thinking’—toposophy is thinking that is always about somewhere. The term ‘ecological thinking’, useful as it is, seems to direct us too much towards preconceptions of the natural world, while toposophy engages both nature and artifice. Toposophy is a perspective, allied to what Tim Ingold calls the dwelling perspective, which treats people as organisms immersed in their lifeworlds, as opposed to what he calls the building perspective, which supposes that ‘people inhabit a world—of culture or society—to which form and meaning have already been attached’ (Ingold, 2000: 153). This posits that the individual must ‘construct’ their world in order to act on it, rather than being, from birth, an actor in concert with the landscape in which he or she dwells. These simultaneous and interdependent actions and interactions are described well in theories of practice, which hold that practices ‘should be treated as involving thought and action together, and in so far as this is the case, embodied theory, as it were, is a part of practice itself’ (Barnes, 2001: 20). ‘Making a scene’ is connecting with and learning from others as practice; and as intercorporeal, embodied, emplaced sociality. This ‘scene’ contains conversations immersed in their lifeworlds. It makes connections with past realities; past dreams and ambitions; past constructions; and incorporates them as parts of possible futures. Thus it resists tendencies within modernity to clean the slate—where past forms and meanings may be expunged and new ones written upon a tabula rasa. Here an unlearning of the past is necessary for total invention. In a scene, though, ‘[t]hinking means venturing beyond. But in such a way that what already exists is not kept under or skated over’ (Bloch, 1986: 4). What already exists probably contains fragments and relics of past utopias, ready to be called into the future as part of the next scene. To those fragments are pinned satisfaction, fulfilment, beauty, and love; qualities deserving of continuity.

What’s Wrong With This Picture:

by Tim-Waterman on October 24, 2017, no comments


This October 10th, the London office of WATG released this image of a ‘greener future’ for London’s Fleet Street in support of the ongoing proposal to make London a ‘National Park City’. Dan Raven-Ellison, the proposal’s key protagonist, has a flair for PR and has effectively repackaged the worthy, but duller-sounding project to improve London’s green infrastructure (worthy, but dull) through the All London Green Grid (ditto). Just to show how much beneath notice all this earnest work was, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced his support for the National Park City (NPC) idea despite the fact that the All London Green Grid (ALGG) had been in development since Ken Livingstone was in office, and is already in place as Supplementary Planning Guidance. Granted, the National Park City initiative overwrites the whole conception of the city: the ALGG is about creating green space in the city and for the city, while the NPC is about making the whole city green, or at least this is I think what its message is.

There is, indeed, great value in conceiving of the city as a landscape, especially because that is what it is, whether green or not. London, like all landscapes, is made collectively by people, and it also shapes its inhabitants. Because a landscape is shared, it cannot simply be thought of as parcels of property.

So why am I so disturbed by the WATG’s image? Is it not churlish of me to object to something that is “designed for visualisation and conceptual purposes only”? Actually that’s already part of the problem. London is still reeling from the vast waste of public money perpetrated by another totemic visualisation, that of the Garden Bridge, which is thankfully now defunct. Visualisations have immense power to shape expectations, and this image is raising some false ones.

It has clearly been constructed to show the maximum possible use of street space and building envelopes to accommodate greenery. That, however, is a drastically oversimplified project. Cities provide us with a vast range of goods, from industry to entertainment to education and more. They provide general togetherness and proximity to one another. They give us things to do, including work. Cities also need to be maintained. Most of the things we like about cities, especially if they’re well-maintained, require big, heavy vehicles that could possibly be downsized, but not by much. Those vehicles require infrastructure that is decidedly grey rather than green.

Like many, I think the city would benefit from containing fewer cars, and from vehicles better designed for the city, but cities will still need to be served everywhere by vehicles, and by industry where it’s needed, not exiled to the margins. That’s the first false expectation, that we can wish vehicles away, or do everything by bicycle, and the second is that the ‘green’ city could or should resemble a garden.

Then there is a list of other problems, a few of which I’ll list here:

  • There’s plenty of outdoor seating shown in the image. While it’s nice to sit out on the street, it’s not always a good thing. It can make sidewalks difficult to negotiate, it often encourages the use of deeply unsustainable patio heaters, and it expands restaurant floor areas, which might lead landlords to raise rents based upon capitalising upon public space as additional floor space.
  • While a heavily planted streetscape might look appealing, it creates more obstacles for the blind and partially sighted and for wheelchair users. Wheelchair users, in particular, can become trapped in the space of the street by high curbs or planters.
  • Greening of streets diverts our attention from improving existing green open spaces, which are desperately underfunded and neglected due to austerity–especially in the rest of Britain outside London.
  • Property developers are always looking for excuses to build on open space. If streets are like parks, then who needs other open spaces?
  • Extensive use of containers for planting requires extensive irrigation, and uses large quantities of potting mix, which often contains unsustainable peat.


The urge to create clickbait for papers like the Evening Standard can be overwhelming, and the creators of this illustration have succumbed. It’s not that we don’t need to envision what a greener city might look like. We do! Very much! But those visions need to value the city for all its goods, even the tough, messy, dirty (often fun) ones created by work. Suburbanising the city in the way that this image does empties it of much of its vital meaning and purpose.

WATG (Wimberley, Allison, Tong, and Goo) specialises in ultra-high end luxury developments and resorts, which may explain why they might think such a high-maintenance streetscape would be feasible for London. Here is their proposal: http://www.watg.com/london-national-park-city-green-block/