Analysis Of David Heymann's Article Landscape Is Our Sex

In the 2011 Places Journal article “Landscape Is Our Sex”, writer David Heymann questions the legitimacy of landscape based design, insisting that such designs do not equate to a building that is sympathetic to the landscape from which it was conceived. Moreover, he expresses his view that architects apply the ‘site as source’ rhetoric as a means to deliver a convincing sales pitch. Although Heymann provides some interesting points, the article is largely biased and rhetorical.
Heymann claims that site informed building design may be nothing more than a ploy to conceal underlying motives – a language, spoken by architects to achieve their own creative ends, or to close the deal. Justifying their designs as being sympathetic to the landscape, the writer’s view is that under this guise, architects can exercise creative liberties,
The writer persuasively states that architects are aware that landscape sells, and holds more credibility than the structure in the prospect’s eyes. Under this assumption, their stylistic pitch is delivered to potential stakeholders, proposing a design that is, falsely, a response to the site. Furthermore, he argues that if a building is indeed informed by the site / landscape, it should become part of that landscape; not some imposing structure, dominating the site, radically changing the landscape, lacking any obvious connection to the land it is built on.
The writer declares that architects use landscape informed design to convince stakeholders and justify their designs. Heymann argues that the prospect values site over structure; the cultural significance of site, its history and it’s meaning to the people. Likewise, he writes “architects know this is a shorthand method of tapping into a primary vein of cultural meaningfulness; they rely on this blood link to get ambitious buildings built, to