A Process-Based Landscape Approach to 

Landform Architecture 

 

by 

 

Iryna Volynets 

 

 

 

 

 

A dissertation accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the 

requirements for the degree of 

Doctor of Philosophy 

in Landscape Architecture 

 

 
 
 
 

Dissertation Committee: 
 

Mark Eischeid, Chair, Advisor 
 

Ignacio López Busón, Core Member 
 

Justin Fowler, Core Member 
 

Erin Moore, Institutional Representative 
 
 

 
University of Oregon 

 
Spring 2025  



 

 2 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2025 Iryna Volynets  

This work is openly licensed via CC BY 4.0 

 
 

 

 

  



 

 3 

DISSERTATION ABSTRACT 

 

Iryna Volynets 
 
Doctor of Philosophy in Landscape Architecture 
 
Title: A Process-Based Landscape Approach to Landform Architecture 

 

Landform architecture treats buildings as topographically continuous with their sites. 

Despite the growing interest in landform architecture among practitioners and scholars in the last 

few decades, a large gap between the broad concept and its application in design still exists. The 

current theory focuses on building aesthetics and uses natural landforms as a source of 

architectural metaphor. Design solutions are influenced by intuitive attempts to reconnect 

landscape and architecture and are focused on a form-based approach that ignores or fails to 

address landscape processes. This research proposes to expand the existing theory and practice 

by acknowledging landscape as a dynamic system to design buildings that not only look like 

landscapes, but function as landscapes. The purpose of this research is to develop a strategy that 

identifies site-specific landscape processes to design landform buildings. By engaging the 

potential agency of landforms to impact natural systems, landform architecture can play a 

significant role in addressing climate-related issues and urban growth challenges. 

To address gaps in research and practice, as well as expand existing theory, the 

dissertation will critique existing landform architecture theory, offer a landscape approach to 

landform architecture, and propose a process for designing resilient buildings. The project is 

divided into three stages: (1) review of the existing state of theory and practice through literature 

review and case study analysis; (2) development of a theoretical approach to design landform 

architecture through comparative analysis, classification, 3D modeling, and simulations; and (3) 

tests of the theoretical approach through design experimentation. 

 

 



 

 4 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

 
Never, never, never give up on your dreams.  

It was my dream to earn a PhD in the United States. But I cannot say how many times I 

wanted to give up. I truly believe that I came to this moment because of the unwavering support 

of people to whom I am deeply grateful. 

I want to say thank you to people who believed in me more than I believed in myself, 

especially in moments of self-doubt and difficulties. 

To my advisor Mark Eischeid: Thank you for your guidance, support, and care. I cannot 

imagine anyone else in this role.  

To my comprehensive exam committee, Roxi Thoren and Chris Enright: Thank you for 

your guidance and for helping to shape the research.  

To my dissertation committee, Justin Fowler, Erin Moore, and Ignacio Lopez Buson: 

Thank you for support, encouragement, and advice. 

To my sister and father: Thank you for supporting me to finish what I have started in 

times of complete uncertainty, when the war has started in our home country and we were ready 

to go back to Ukraine.  

To my husband: Thank you for letting me follow my dream and for following me 

wherever my dreams are taking me. Thank you for your love, care, and for helping to raise our 

son Levko.  



 

 5 

PREFACE 

This dissertation is the culmination of a long personal and professional journey that 

explores the relationship between built form and landscape. I have not followed a typical 

academic path. I have been shifting back and forth between practice and research, as well as 

teaching. Each experience became a solid ground for further development, eventually leading me 

to the decision to pursue a PhD in Landscape Architecture. 

Over the past decade, my interest in research and practice was at the intersection of 

building and landscape, with a focus on the potential of landform architecture to engage 

topography, territory, and urban ecosystems. My early professional experience in architecture—

winning international competitions, collaborating internationally, and building landform projects 

in Ukraine and Norway—were intuitive attempts to landform design.  

A major shift from practice to research happened when I received a Fulbright Faculty 

Development grant to begin a study of landform architecture. The Fulbright Program allowed me 

to initiate a theoretical exploration of my previous intuitive attempts in practice. As a Visiting 

Fulbright Scholar in the Department of Architecture at the University of Oregon, USA (2015–

2016), my research focused on the exploration of natural landforms, the way they form, and the 

way they change over time. One of my conclusions was that we can understand and design 

landform architecture by referring to the original source—the land and its forms. 

My doctoral work has expanded the investigation of landform architecture to how 

environmental processes can inform architectural form. Through simulation-based research, I 

have examined how architectural form, shaped by site-specific processes, changes local 

microclimate and addresses climate-related challenges.  

As I complete this dissertation, I recognize how the diverse paths of my career, across 

countries, disciplines, and scales, have come together in this work. I am deeply grateful to the 

University of Oregon for its support and the opportunity for critical inquiry and creative 

experimentation.  

I hope this work serves as a solid foundation for what comes next: a continuous 

exploration of the intersection of research and practice as well as architecture and landscape 

architecture. And I also hope to have a chance to share what I have learned with my colleagues 

and students. 



 

 6 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 28 

1.1 Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................... 28 

1.2 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 29 

1.3 Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................... 29 

1.4 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................ 30 

1.5 Research Through Design ...................................................................................... 31 

1.6 Methods .................................................................................................................. 37 
1.6.1 Stage 1 ............................................................................................................. 38 

1.6.1.1 Literature Review ..................................................................................... 39 
1.6.1.2 Precedent Study ........................................................................................ 39 

1.6.2 Stage 2 ............................................................................................................. 42 
1.6.2.1 Comparative Analysis ............................................................................... 44 
1.6.2.2 Case Studies .............................................................................................. 44 

1.6.3 Stage 3 ............................................................................................................. 47 
1.6.3.1 Development of Site Selection Criteria .................................................... 49 
1.6.3.2 Site Visits .................................................................................................. 50 
1.6.3.3 Site Selection ............................................................................................ 50 
1.6.3.4 Data Collection for Site ............................................................................ 53 
1.6.3.5 Site Analysis ............................................................................................. 54 
1.6.3.6 3D Simulations ......................................................................................... 55 
1.6.3.7 Conceptual Design .................................................................................... 58 

1.6.4 Stage 4 ............................................................................................................. 58 
1.6.4.1 Environmental Performance Evaluation ................................................... 59 

1.7 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 61 

1.8 Assumptions, Hypotheses, and Researchable Questions ........................................ 61 

1.9 Summary ................................................................................................................. 62 

II. LANDFORM ACROSS TIME, CULTURE, AND DISCIPLINE .............................. 65 

2.1 Ancient Landforms ................................................................................................. 65 
2.1.1 Settlement ........................................................................................................ 65 

2.1.2 Defense ........................................................................................................ 70 
2.1.3 Rituals .......................................................................................................... 72 

2.2 Art ........................................................................................................................... 76 

2.3 Design ..................................................................................................................... 83 
2.3.1 Cosmomorphism .............................................................................................. 84 
2.3.2 Hydromorphism ............................................................................................... 89 
2.3.3 Biomorphism ................................................................................................. 101 
2.3.4 Geomorphism ................................................................................................ 108 



 

 7 

2.3.4.1 Topographical Integration ...................................................................... 113 
2.3.4.2 Geomorphological Form ......................................................................... 116 
2.3.4.3 Crystallographic Form ............................................................................ 119 
2.3.4.4 Landscape Integration ............................................................................. 121 

2.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 122 

2.5 Revised Definition of Landform Architecture ...................................................... 124 

2.6 Summary ............................................................................................................... 125 

III. PROCESS AND LANDFORM ARCHITECTURE ................................................ 128 

3.1 Landscape as Process ............................................................................................ 128 
3.1.1 Ecological Process-Based Design ................................................................. 129 
3.1.2 Systems Process-Based Design ..................................................................... 133 
3.1.3 Phasing Process-Based Design ...................................................................... 137 

3.2 3D Simulations ..................................................................................................... 140 

3.3 Modeling of Natural Processes (Case Studies) ..................................................... 146 
3.3.1 Landform Simulation ..................................................................................... 147 
3.3.2 Atmosphere Simulation ................................................................................. 152 
3.3.3 Fluvial Simulation ......................................................................................... 160 
3.3.4 Vegetation Simulation ................................................................................... 165 

3.4 A Process-Based Landscape Approach to Landform Architecture ...................... 171 

3.5 Summary ............................................................................................................... 172 

IV. SITE CONTEXT ...................................................................................................... 174 

4.1 Site-Specific Process-Based Approach to Landform Architecture ...................... 174 
4.1.1 Site Selection ................................................................................................. 175 
4.1.2 Context: Natural and Cultural History ........................................................... 183 
4.1.3 Site Analysis .................................................................................................. 193 

4.1.3.1 City Scale ................................................................................................ 193 
4.1.3.1.1 Geomorphological Processes ........................................................... 195 
4.1.3.1.2 Hydrological Processes .................................................................... 198 
4.1.3.1.3. Vegetation Processes ...................................................................... 212 

4.1.3.2 Neighborhood Scale ............................................................................... 218 
4.1.3.3 Site Scale ................................................................................................ 227 

4.2 Summary ............................................................................................................... 233 

V. SIMULATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC PROCESSES ................................................. 236 

5.1 A Process-Based Landscape Approach to Landform Architecture ...................... 236 

5.2 Current Processes on Site ..................................................................................... 237 

5.3 Simulations ........................................................................................................... 248 
5.3.1 Geomorphological Simulation ....................................................................... 250 
5.3.2 Hydrological Simulation ................................................................................ 252 
5.3.3 Wind Simulation ............................................................................................ 258 

5.3.3.1 Building-Focused Wind Simulations on a Larger Scale ........................ 259 



 

 8 

5.3.3.2 Building-Focused Wind Simulations on a Smaller Scale ....................... 263 
5.3.3.3 Landform Wind Simulations .................................................................. 273 
5.3.3.4 Vegetation Wind Simulation .................................................................. 277 

5.3.4 Vegetation Simulation ................................................................................... 279 

5.4 Integrated Simulation Framework ........................................................................ 281 

5.5 Summary ............................................................................................................... 289 

VI. DESIGN EXPERIMENT ......................................................................................... 290 

6.1 Introduction to the Design Experiment ................................................................ 290 

6.2 Design Experiment ............................................................................................... 291 
6.2.1 Simulations .................................................................................................... 291 
6.2.2 Building Design ............................................................................................. 312 
6.2.3 Landscape Design .......................................................................................... 318 

6.3 Environmental Performance of Landform Building ............................................. 319 

6.4 Summary ............................................................................................................... 324 

VII. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 325 

7.1. Contribution to Knowledge ................................................................................. 326 
7.1.1 Theoretical Contribution ................................................................................ 326 
7.1.2 Methodological Contribution ........................................................................ 327 
7.1.3 Evaluative Contribution ................................................................................. 329 

7.2. Limitations of the Research ................................................................................. 331 

7.3. Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................... 332 

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 334 

APPENDIX A. LANDFORMS SHAPED BY DIFFERENT PROCESSES ............. 334 

APPENDIX B. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF PORTLAND .................................. 335 

APPENDIX C. WIND SIMULATIONS .................................................................... 421 

APPENDIX D. GRASSHOPPER 3D SIMULATION DEFINITIONS ..................... 446 

REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................. 453 
 

 

  



 

 9 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 
 

Figure 1. Stages of the research. ....................................................................................... 37 

Figure 2. Stage 1. .............................................................................................................. 38 

Figure 3. Stage 2. .............................................................................................................. 43 

Figure 4. Stage 3. .............................................................................................................. 48 

Figure 5. Site selection process for design experiment. ................................................... 52 

Figure 6. Stage 4. .............................................................................................................. 59 

Figure 7. Typology of landform architecture. .................................................................. 67 

Figure 8. Early settlement in Petra, Jordan. From Encyclopædia Britannica, n.d-a. ........ 67 

Figure 9. Mesa Verde in Colorado, USA. From BBC, n.d. .............................................. 68 

Figure 10. Machu Picchu in Peru, Mexico. From National Geographic, 2025. ............... 69 

Figure 11. Dun Aengus in Ireland. From Heritage Ireland, n.d. ...................................... 70 

Figure 12. Maiden Castle in Dorset, England. From Ancient Origins, n.d. ..................... 71 

Figure 13. Hambledon Hill in England. From National Trust, n.d. .................................. 72 

Figure 14. Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England. From Encyclopædia Britannica, n.d.-b. .. 73 

Figure 15. Top: The Tovsta Mohyla kurgan in Ukraine. Bottom: The Golden Pectoral of 

the Scythians from Tovsta Mohyla. From Google Arts and Culture, n.d. .................................... 75 

Figure 16. Asphalt Rundown in Rome, Italy by Robert Smithson (1969). Left: Site map. 

Right: Picture of the site with the sculpture. From Holt/Smithson Foundation, n.d.-b. ............... 79 

Figure 17. Spiral Jetty in Great Salt Lake, Utah, by Robert Smithson (1970). From 

Holt/Smithson Foundation, n.d. .................................................................................................... 80 

Figure 18. Broken Circle/Spiral Hill in Emmen, the Netherlands, by Robert Smithson 

(1971). From Holt/Smithson Foundation, n.d.-d. ......................................................................... 81 

Figure 19. Amarillo Ramp in Lake Tecovas, Amarillo, Texas, by Robert Smithson 

(1973). From Holt/Smithson Foundation, n.d.-a. ......................................................................... 82 

Figure 20. Landform Ueda in Edinburg, Scotland, by Charles Jencks (1999–2002). From 

www.charlesjencks.com. .............................................................................................................. 85 

Figure 21. The Scottish World in Kelty, Scotland, by Charles Jencks (2003–2010). From 

Jencks, n.d.  .............................................................................................................................. 87 



 

 10 

Figure 22. Land War Garden in Salford, Manchester, by Charles Jencks (1998–2001). 

From Jencks, 2011. ....................................................................................................................... 88 

Figure 23. Left: The Wave Field in Ann Arbor, MI, by Maya Lin (1995). From Maya Lin 

Studio, n.d.-b. Right: Models for the Wave Field. From Lin et al., 2015. .................................... 90 

Figure 24. Left: Flutter in Miami, FL, by Maya Lin. From Maya Lin Studio, n.d.-a. 

Right: Sketch by Maya Lin. From Lin et al., 2015. ...................................................................... 91 

Figure 25. Left: Storm King Wavefield in Windsor, NY by Maya Lin (2009). From Maya 

Lin Studio, n.d-c. Right: Site plan sketch by Maya Lin. From Lin et al., 2015. .......................... 92 

Figure 26. Left: Shell Petroleum Headquarters by Kathryn Gustafson in Rueil-

Malmaison, France (1992). Right: Site image and sections of the building and adjacent 

landforms. From Levy & Gustafson, 1998. .................................................................................. 95 

Figure 27. Left: Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain in London, United 

Kingdom (2004), birds-eye view. Right: Water running over textured stone. From Gustafson 

Porter + Bowman, n.d.-b. ............................................................................................................. 96 

Figure 28. Left: View of Cultuurpark Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam (2004). Right: 

master plan. From Gustafson Porter + Bowman, n.d-a. ............................................................... 97 

Figure 29. Parque do Tejo e do Trancão (1994) by Hargreaves Associates in Lisbon, 

Portugal, aerial view of the site and landforms. From Hargreaves et al., 2009. ........................... 99 

Figure 30. Left: Crissy Field (2001) by Hargreaves Associates in San Francisco, CA. 

Right: Aerial view of the site and landforms. From M’Closkey, 2013. ..................................... 101 

Figure 31.The Möbius House in the Netherlands by UNStudio. From UNStudio, n.d. . 103 

Figure 32. HtwoOexpo pavilion in the Netherlands by NOX (1997). From Hidden 

Architecture, n.d. ........................................................................................................................ 104 

Figure 33. Library Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands by Mecanoo. From 

Mecanoo, n.d.  ............................................................................................................................ 105 

Figure 34. Stranded Sears Towers in Chicago by Greg Lynn (1992). From Greg Lynn 

Form, n.d.  ............................................................................................................................ 106 

Figure 35. Yokohama International Port Terminal by FOA (1995). From Langdon, n.d. ... 

  ............................................................................................................................ 107 

Figure 36. Fort L’Empereur in Algiers by Le Corbusier (1931), conceptual rendering. 

From Foundation Le Corbusier, n.d. .......................................................................................... 110 



 

 11 

Figure 37. NTR Headquarters in the Netherlands by MVRDV (1997). From MVRDV, 

n.d.-a.  ............................................................................................................................ 114 

Figure 38. Villa VPRO in the Netherlands by MVRDV (1997). From MVRDV, n.d.-b. ... 

  ............................................................................................................................ 115 

Figure 39. Olympic Sculpture Park in Seattle by Weiss/Manfredi (2013). .................... 116 

Figure 40. City of Culture of Galicia in Spain by Peter Eisenman (1999–ongoing). From 

Eisenman Architects, n.d. ........................................................................................................... 118 

Figure 41. Mountain in Spain by Vicente Guallart (2002). From Guallart, n.d. ............ 119 

Figure 42. New Maribor Art Gallery project in Slovenia by Stan Allen (2010). From Stan 

Allen Architect, n.d. ................................................................................................................... 120 

Figure 43. Chulalongkorn University Centenary Park in Bangkok by LANDPROCESS 

(2017). From Landezine, n.d. ..................................................................................................... 121 

Figure 44. Underground Parking Garage in the Netherlands by Royal HaskoningDHV 

and OKRA Landschapsarchitecten (2016). From ArchDaily, n.d. ............................................ 122 

Figure 45. Byxbee Park by George Hargreaves, Palo Alto, CA (1989). Left: Photo from 

the site. Right: Phase-one master plan. From Hargreaves Jones, n.d. ........................................ 130 

Figure 46. Jardin élémentaires by Michel Desvigne (1987), hand drawings. From MDP 

Michel Desvigne Paysagiste, n.d. ............................................................................................... 131 

Figure 47. Mill Race Park by Michael Van Valkenburgh, Columbus, Indiana (1993). . 132 

Figure 48. Valley of energy: exploratory combination of surface and subsurface: Top: 

Flows of waste and water. Bottom: Mobility, and forestry by OPSYS. From Belanger, 2016. 133 

Figure 49. Freshkills Park by James Corner/Field Operations, Staten Island, New York 

(2001–2036), field diagram. From ArchDaily, 2013. ................................................................. 135 

Figure 50. Parc de la Villette by Rem Koolhaas / OMA, France (1982), diagrams. From 

OMA, n.d.-b.  ............................................................................................................................ 137 

Figure 51. Downsview Park by Rem Koolhaas/OMA, Toronto, Canada (2000), 

masterplan. From OMA, n.d.-a. .................................................................................................. 139 

Figure 52. Layering approach by Ian McHarg. From McHarg, 1992. ........................... 141 

Figure 53. The Mississippi River Basin Model by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 

physical model. From ElMalvaney, 2010. .................................................................................. 142 



 

 12 

Figure 54. Heliomorphism. The study of sun process by Ralph Knowles. The diagram 

shows the arrangement of multifamily units on a site. From Knowles, 1980. ........................... 143 

Figure 55. Guadalupe River Park by George Hargreaves, San Jose, California (1989–

1990), physical model. From Hargreaves Associates, n.d.-b. .................................................... 144 

Figure 56. City of Culture of Galicia Santiago de Compostela, Spain by Peter Eisenman 

(1999–2011). Left: Overlay layers. Right: The building. From Eisenman Architects, n.d. ....... 145 

Figure 57. MAX IV Laboratory by Snøhetta, Lund, Sweden (2016), aerial view of the 

building and landscape. From Snøhetta, n.d. .............................................................................. 147 

Figure 58. Before and after the construction of the MAX IV Laboratory. Left: 2020 aerial 

view before the construction. Right: 2024 aerial view after the construction. From Google Earth 

Pro.  ............................................................................................................................ 148 

Figure 59. MAX IV Laboratory. Left: Building shape and the direction of the landscape. 

Right: The shape and location of landforms hills. From Snøhetta, n.d. ..................................... 149 

Figure 60. MAX IV Laboratory 3D model. Top: In Rhino. Bottom: Grasshopper 

definition.  ............................................................................................................................ 150 

Figure 61. Jade Eco Park by Philippe Rahm, Taichung, Taiwan, competition 

visualization. From Philippe Rahm architectes, n.d. .................................................................. 153 

Figure 62. Before and after the construction of Jade Eco Park. ..................................... 154 

Figure 63. Human body reaction to heat, humidity, and pollution by Philippe Rahm, 

competition diagram. From Philippe Rahm architectes, n.d. ..................................................... 155 

Figure 64. Anticyclone device, section. From Philippe Rahm architectes, n.d. ............. 156 

Figure 65. Dry Cloud device. From Philippe Rahm architectes, n.d. ............................. 156 

Figure 66. Ozone Eclipse device, section. From Philippe Rahm architectes, n.d. ......... 157 

Figure 67. North Wind Speed simulation map. From Philippe Rahm architectes, n.d. . 157 

Figure 68. Southwest Wind Velocity and Vector simulation map. From Philippe Rahm 

architectes, n.d. ........................................................................................................................... 158 

Figure 69. North Wind Velocity and Vector simulation map. From Philippe Rahm 

architectes, n.d. ........................................................................................................................... 158 

Figure 70. Yanghwa Riverfront: Mud-Infrastructure by PARKKIM in Seoul, Korea 

(2011), aerial view. From PARKKIM, n.d. ................................................................................ 161 



 

 13 

Figure 71. Before and after the construction of the Mud-Infrastructure. Left: 2006 aerial 

view before the construction. Right: 2023 aerial view after the construction. From Google Earth 

Pro.  ............................................................................................................................ 161 

Figure 72. Transformation of the Mud-Infrastructure park, initial concept drawing. From 

PARKKIM, n.d. .......................................................................................................................... 163 

Figure 73. Mud-Infrastructure Park. Left: Aerial view during its normal operational time. 

Right: Aerial view during flooding. From PARKKIM, n.d. ...................................................... 164 

Figure 74. Sony City Ōsaki by AnS Studio in Tokyo, Japan (2011), view from the path. 

From AnS Studio. ....................................................................................................................... 166 

Figure 75. Before and after the construction of the Sony Forest. Left: 2010 aerial view 

before the construction. Right: 2012 aerial view after the construction. From Google Earth Pro. .. 

  ............................................................................................................................ 166 

Figure 76. The final composition of the Sony Forest. From Takenaka & Okabe, 2011. 168 

Figure 77. Seed scattering process, various layouts. From Takenaka & Okabe, 2011. . 168 

Figure 78. Sony Forest 3D model. Top: In Rhino. Bottom: Grasshopper definition. .... 170 

Figure 79. A process-based approach to landform architecture. .................................... 171 

Figure 80. Process-based approach and analysis of the site’s history. ........................... 174 

Figure 81. Temperature map and tree canopy cover across Portland, Oregon. .............. 177 

Figure 82. Site 1: Vanport (Northeast Portland along the Columbia River). ................. 180 

Figure 83. Site 2: Albina neighborhood (Interstate 5 area). ........................................... 181 

Figure 84. Site 3: Northwest of the Willamette River (historical Guild’s Lake area). ... 181 

Figure 85. Selected site for design experiment, marked by a dashed line. ..................... 182 

Figure 86. Portland historic maps of 1897, 1940, 1954, 1961, 1975, and 1990 (left to 

right). From Harvard Old Maps online. ...................................................................................... 183 

Figure 87. Cadastral map of Portland, 1852. From Public Land Survey System. .......... 185 

Figure 88. Albina area plat map of 1873. From Roos, 1997. ......................................... 186 

Figure 89. The early development of the Albina neighborhood. From Glover, 1879. ... 187 

Figure 90. Oregon Railway and Navigation Dock, 1882. The Albina community is shown 

in the background. From Wikimedia Commons. ....................................................................... 188 

Figure 91. The first Steel Bridge, connecting Portland across the river and Albina in the 

foreground, 1887 (before the bridge went into service). From Volga Germans, n.d. ................ 189 



 

 14 

Figure 92. Map of Portland, East Portland, and Albina. From Volga Germans, n.d. ..... 189 

Figure 93. Albina neighborhoods. From Volga Germans, n.d. ...................................... 190 

Figure 94. Albina Vision Trust community investment plan by El Dorado Architects.  

From El Dorado, n.d. .................................................................................................................. 192 

Figure 95. Analysis of processes on the city scale. ........................................................ 194 

Figure 96. Geomorphological processes influenced by environmental and human agents. . 

  ............................................................................................................................ 195 

Figure 97. Workflow process. ........................................................................................ 196 

Figure 98. Left: Geologic map of Portland. From USGS. Right: 2D AutoCAD drawing of 

the map.  ............................................................................................................................ 196 

Figure 99. Portland surficial geologic simulation map. .................................................. 197 

Figure 100. Left: Missoula Floods inundation extent and primary flood features in the 

Portland metropolitan Area, 2012. From DOGAMI, 2012. Right: AutoCAD 2D drawing of the 

flood area.  ............................................................................................................................ 198 

Figure 101. Missoula Flood simulation map. ................................................................. 199 

Figure 102. Hydrological processes influenced by environmental and human agents. . 200 

Figure 103. Willamette River flood crests simulation. ................................................... 203 

Figure 104. USGS topographic maps of 1897, 1940, 1954, 1961, 1975, 1990, 2011, 2014, 

2017, and 2020. From USGS. ..................................................................................................... 206 

Figure 105. AutoCAD 2D drawings of the city. ............................................................. 206 

Figure 106. Willamette River simulation. ...................................................................... 207 

Figure 107. Willamette River bathymetry data, 1888 and 2005. From GIS. ................. 211 

Figure 108. Willamette River bathymetry simulation. ................................................... 211 

Figure 109. Vegetation processes influenced by environmental and human agents. ..... 213 

Figure 110. Workflow process. ...................................................................................... 214 

Figure 111. Satellite maps for 1951, 1970, 1975, 1990, 1994, 2000, 2011, 2014, 2017, 

and 2020. From Google Earth, Oregon State Aerial Imagery, and Portland Maps Advanced. .. 214 

Figure 112. Analyzed data in Photoshop. ....................................................................... 215 

Figure 113. Vegetation simulation. ................................................................................ 216 

Figure 114. Analysis of processes on the neighborhood scale. ...................................... 219 

Figure 115. Workflow process. ...................................................................................... 220 



 

 15 

Figure 116. Aerial photos from 1948, 1960, 1975, 1990, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 

2023. From Google Earth satellite images and University of Oregon Knight Library aerial maps 

reserves.  ............................................................................................................................ 221 

Figure 117. AutoCAD 2D drawings of the neighborhood. ............................................ 221 

Figure 118. Albina neighborhood simulation. ................................................................ 222 

Figure 119. Albina neighborhood gauge historic crests simulation. .............................. 226 

Figure 120. Analysis of processes on the site scale. ....................................................... 227 

Figure 121. Workflow process. ...................................................................................... 228 

Figure 122. Aerial photos from 1948, 1960, 1975, 1990, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 

2023. From Google Earth satellite images and University of Oregon Knight Library aerial maps 

reserves.  ............................................................................................................................ 228 

Figure 123. AutoCAD 2D drawings of the site. ............................................................. 229 

Figure 124. Site scale simulation. ................................................................................... 230 

Figure 125. Lower Albina gauge historic crests simulation. .......................................... 232 

Figure 126. A process-based approach to landform architecture and analysis of a site’s 

current processes. ........................................................................................................................ 237 

Figure 127. Top: Delaunay mesh definition in Grasshopper. Bottom: Site model with 

contour lines.  ............................................................................................................................ 239 

Figure 128. Simulation of FEMA’s 100-year flood plain. ............................................. 240 

Figure 129. Top: Groundhog Grasshopper definition for surface water flow. Bottom: 

Surface water flow simulation (larger view in Appendix D, Figure 351). ................................. 241 

Figure 130. Ladybug + Grasshopper definition for wind rose analysis (larger view in 

Appendix D, Figure 352). ........................................................................................................... 242 

Figure 131. Wind rose analysis for prevailing wind and monthly wind patterns from 

January to February. ................................................................................................................... 243 

Figure 132. Wind rose analysis for prevailing wind and monthly wind patterns from 

March to August. ........................................................................................................................ 244 

Figure 133. Wind rose analysis for monthly wind patterns from September to December. 

  ............................................................................................................................ 245 

Figure 134. Current wind conditions for northwest and southeast winds. ..................... 246 

Figure 135. Simulation of vegetation process. ............................................................... 248 



 

 16 

Figure 136. Computational workflow. ........................................................................... 249 

Figure 137. Geomorphological simulation. Definition in Grasshopper (larger view in 

Appendix D, Figure 353). ........................................................................................................... 251 

Figure 138. Geomorphological simulation. .................................................................... 251 

Figure 139. Hydrological simulation. Definition in Grasshopper  (larger view in 

Appendix D, Figure 354). ........................................................................................................... 253 

Figure 140. Hydrological simulation. Options 1–4. ....................................................... 255 

Figure 141. Hydrological simulation. Options 5–10. ..................................................... 256 

Figure 142. Diagram of wind speed in urban and non-urban environments. From 

Krautheim et al., 2014. ............................................................................................................... 259 

Figure 143. Wind simulation. Definition in Grasshopper  (larger view in Appendix D, 

Figure 355).  ............................................................................................................................ 260 

Figure 144. Wind simulation for prevailing wind 10 m/s for Option 1. Plan, perspective, 

side, and front views. .................................................................................................................. 261 

Figure 145. Wind simulation for prevailing wind 10 m/s for Options 2–7. Perspective 

views.  ............................................................................................................................ 262 

Figure 146. Wind simulation for prevailing wind 10 m/s for Options 8–10. Perspective 

views.  ............................................................................................................................ 263 

Figure 147. Left: Wind simulation for cuboid shape. Right: Wind simulation for two 

cuboids.  ............................................................................................................................ 264 

Figure 148. Wind simulation for two cuboid shapes rotated 10 degrees. ...................... 265 

Figure 149. Wind simulation for one, two, and three cuboid shapes rotated 30 degrees. .... 

  ............................................................................................................................ 266 

Figure 150. Wind simulation for one, two, and three cuboid shapes. ............................ 267 

Figure 151. Wind simulation for one-sloped shapes. ..................................................... 267 

Figure 152. Wind simulation for convex-like shapes. .................................................... 268 

Figure 153. Wind simulation for a concave-like shapes. ............................................... 269 

Figure 154. Wind simulation for u-shapes with right and fillet edges. .......................... 270 

Figure 155. Wind simulation for u-shapes with fillet edges rotated every 45 degrees. . 271 

Figure 156. Wind simulation for one-sloped u-shapes with fillet edges. ....................... 272 

Figure 157. Wind simulations for single landforms. ...................................................... 274 



 

 17 

Figure 158. Wind simulations for two landforms. .......................................................... 275 

Figure 159. Wind simulations for two landforms rotated 45 degrees. ........................... 275 

Figure 160. Wind simulations for three landforms. ........................................................ 276 

Figure 161. Wind simulation for single tree with 6 m/s and 10 m/s wind speed. .......... 277 

Figure 162. Wind simulation for two trees. .................................................................... 278 

Figure 163. Wind simulation for three trees rotated 15, 30, and 45 degrees. ................. 279 

Figure 164. Vegetation simulation. Definition in Grasshopper (larger view in Appendix 

D, Figure 356). ............................................................................................................................ 280 

Figure 165. Vegetation simulation. ................................................................................ 281 

Figure 166. Visual summary of the simulation process. ................................................ 282 

Figure 167. Visual summary of the geomorphological simulations. .............................. 283 

Figure 168. Visual summary of the hydrological simulations. ....................................... 284 

Figure 169. Visual summary of the large scale wind simulations. ................................. 285 

Figure 170. Visual summary of the building-scale wind simulations. ........................... 286 

Figure 171. Visual summary of basic forms wind simulations. ..................................... 287 

Figure 172. Visual summary of landform wind simulations. ......................................... 288 

Figure 173. Visual summary of vegetation and wind simulation. .................................. 288 

Figure 174. A process-based approach to landform architecture and an envisioned future. 

  ............................................................................................................................ 290 

Figure 175. Simulation workflow diagram for building design. .................................... 292 

Figure 176. Visual summary of simulation process (building design). .......................... 293 

Figure 177. Visual summary of simulation process (building design, landforms, 

vegetation).  ............................................................................................................................ 294 

Figure 178. Wind simulation for cuboid building. ......................................................... 295 

Figure 179. Wind simulation for cuboid building with three pockets. ........................... 296 

Figure 180. Wind simulation for cuboid building with fillet pockets. ........................... 297 

Figure 181. 1897 USGS map of Portland, fragment. From USGS, 2017. ..................... 298 

Figure 182. Geomorphological simulation. .................................................................... 299 

Figure 183. Wind simulation for cuboid building with wave-like facade. ..................... 300 

Figure 184. Hydrological simulation. ............................................................................. 301 

Figure 185. Wind simulation for building form. ............................................................ 301 



 

 18 

Figure 186. Wind simulation for a landform building, with wind speed of 6 m/s. ........ 303 

Figure 187. Wind simulation for a landform building, with wind speed of 10 m/s. ...... 303 

Figure 188. Wind simulation for north landform. .......................................................... 304 

Figure 189. Wind simulation for enlarged north landform. ........................................... 305 

Figure 190. Wind simulation for two north landforms. .................................................. 305 

Figure 191. Wind simulation for south landform: Option 1. .......................................... 306 

Figure 192. Wind simulation for south landform: Option 2. .......................................... 307 

Figure 193. Wind simulation for two south landforms. ................................................. 307 

Figure 194. South wind simulation. ................................................................................ 308 

Figure 195. Hydrological simulation for the landform building and adjacent landforms. ... 

  ............................................................................................................................ 309 

Figure 196. Vegetation simulation. ................................................................................ 310 

Figure 197. Seasonal vegetation simulation. Left: Fall months. Right: Spring months. 310 

Figure 198. North wind simulation for building, landforms, and vegetation. ................ 311 

Figure 199. South wind simulation for building, landforms, and vegetation ................. 312 

Figure 200. Bird’s-eye view of the landform building from the Steel Bridge. .............. 313 

Figure 201. Zoning requirements for the site (outlined in white). ................................. 314 

Figure 202. Bird’s-eye view of the landform building from above the Broadway Bridge. . 

  ............................................................................................................................ 315 

Figure 203. Pedestrian bridge from N. Broadway green plaza. Building glass sections.316 

Figure 204. Historic 1948 streets and the project site. ................................................... 316 

Figure 205. North side of the building. .......................................................................... 317 

Figure 206. Building form and site program. ................................................................. 318 

Figure 207. South side of the building. .......................................................................... 318 

Figure 208. UTCI definition in Grasshopper (larger view in Appendix D, Figure 357).320 

Figure 209. UTCI simulation for current site conditions. .............................................. 321 

Figure 210. UTCI simulation for cuboid shape. ............................................................. 322 

Figure 211. UTCI simulation for a community center building, developed by El Dorado 

Architects.  ............................................................................................................................ 323 

Figure 212. UTCI simulation for the landform building. ............................................... 323 

Figure 213. UTCI simulation for the landform building and green roof. ....................... 324 



 

 19 

Figure 214. Different types of landforms and processes that shaped them. ................... 334 

Figure 215. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 24, 1876. .......... 335 

Figure 216. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on July 1, 1880. ............ 336 

Figure 217. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 14, 1882. .......... 337 

Figure 218. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 21, 1887. .......... 338 

Figure 219. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on February 6, 1890. ..... 339 

Figure 220. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 7, 1894. ............ 340 

Figure 221. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 23, 1899. .......... 341 

Figure 222. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 18, 1903. .......... 342 

Figure 223. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 13, 1913. .......... 343 

Figure 224. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 12, 1921. .......... 344 

Figure 225. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on January 8, 1923. ....... 345 

Figure 226. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on May 31, 1928. .......... 346 

Figure 227. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 13, 1933. .......... 347 

Figure 228. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 14, 1948. .......... 348 

Figure 229. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 1, 1948. ............ 349 

Figure 230. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 26, 1950. .......... 350 

Figure 231. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 4, 1956. ............ 351 

Figure 232. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on December 25, 1964. . 352 

Figure 233. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on January 18, 1976. ..... 353 

Figure 234. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on December 16, 1977. . 354 

Figure 235. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on February 21, 1982. ... 355 

Figure 236. Willamette River gauge historic crest simulation on June 9, 1996. ............ 356 

Figure 237. Simulation of the Willamette River in 1897. .............................................. 357 

Figure 238. Simulation of the Willamette River in 1940. .............................................. 358 

Figure 239. Simulation of the Willamette River in 1954. .............................................. 359 

Figure 240. Simulation of the Willamette River in 1975. .............................................. 360 

Figure 241. Simulation of the Willamette River in 1979. .............................................. 361 

Figure 242. Simulation of the Willamette River in 1990. .............................................. 362 

Figure 243. Simulation of the Willamette River in 2011. .............................................. 363 

Figure 244. Simulation of the Willamette River in 2014. .............................................. 364 



 

 20 

Figure 245. Simulation of the Willamette River in 2017. .............................................. 365 

Figure 246. Simulation of the Willamette River in 2020. .............................................. 366 

Figure 247. Willamette River bathymetry in 1888. ........................................................ 367 

Figure 248. Willamette River bathymetry in 2005. ........................................................ 368 

Figure 249. Portland vegetation simulation in 1951. ...................................................... 369 

Figure 250. Portland vegetation simulation in 1970. ...................................................... 370 

Figure 251. Portland vegetation simulation in 1975. ...................................................... 371 

Figure 252. Portland vegetation simulation in 1990. ...................................................... 372 

Figure 253. Portland vegetation simulation in 1994. ...................................................... 373 

Figure 254. Portland vegetation simulation in 2000. ...................................................... 374 

Figure 255. Portland vegetation simulation in 2011. ...................................................... 375 

Figure 256. Portland vegetation simulation in 2014. ...................................................... 376 

Figure 257. Portland vegetation simulation in 2017. ...................................................... 377 

Figure 258. Portland vegetation simulation in 2020. ...................................................... 378 

Figure 259. Lower Albina neighborhood simulation in 1948. ....................................... 379 

Figure 260. Lower Albina neighborhood simulation in 1960. ....................................... 380 

Figure 261. Lower Albina neighborhood simulation in 1975. ....................................... 381 

Figure 262. Lower Albina neighborhood simulation in 1990. ....................................... 382 

Figure 263. Lower Albina neighborhood simulation in 2011. ....................................... 383 

Figure 264. Lower Albina neighborhood simulation in 2014. ....................................... 384 

Figure 265. Lower Albina neighborhood simulation in 2017. ....................................... 385 

Figure 266. Lower Albina neighborhood simulation in 2020. ....................................... 386 

Figure 267. Lower Albina neighborhood simulation in 2023. ....................................... 387 

Figure 268. Lower Albina neighborhood gauge historic crest simulation on June 14, 

1948.  ............................................................................................................................ 388 

Figure 269. Lower Albina neighborhood gauge historic crest simulation on June 26, 

1950.  ............................................................................................................................ 389 

Figure 270. Lower Albina neighborhood gauge historic crest simulation on June 4, 1956. 

  ............................................................................................................................ 390 

Figure 271. Lower Albina neighborhood gauge historic crest simulation on December 25, 

1964.  ............................................................................................................................ 391 



 

 21 

Figure 272. Lower Albina neighborhood gauge historic crest simulation on January 18, 

1974.  ............................................................................................................................ 392 

Figure 273. Lower Albina neighborhood gauge historic crest simulation on December 16, 

1977.  ............................................................................................................................ 393 

Figure 274. Lower Albina neighborhood gauge historic crest simulation on February 21, 

1982.  ............................................................................................................................ 394 

Figure 275. Lower Albina neighborhood gauge historic crest simulation on February 24, 

1986.  ............................................................................................................................ 395 

Figure 276. Lower Albina neighborhood gauge historic crest simulation on February 9, 

1996.  ............................................................................................................................ 396 

Figure 277. Lower Albina neighborhood gauge historic crest simulation on June 2, 2011. 

  ............................................................................................................................ 397 

Figure 278. Lower Albina neighborhood gauge historic crest simulation on March 30, 

2017.  ............................................................................................................................ 398 

Figure 279. Lower Albina neighborhood gauge historic crest simulation on April 4, 2019. 

  ............................................................................................................................ 399 

Figure 280. Lower Albina in 1948, site scale simulation. .............................................. 400 

Figure 281. Lower Albina in 1960, site scale simulation. .............................................. 401 

Figure 282. Lower Albina in 1975, site scale simulation. .............................................. 402 

Figure 283. Lower Albina in 1990, site scale simulation. .............................................. 403 

Figure 284. Lower Albina in 2011, site scale simulation. .............................................. 404 

Figure 285. Lower Albina in 2014, site scale simulation. .............................................. 405 

Figure 286. Lower Albina in 2017, site scale simulation. .............................................. 406 

Figure 287. Lower Albina in 2020, site scale simulation. .............................................. 407 

Figure 288. Lower Albina in 2023, site scale simulation. .............................................. 408 

Figure 289. Lower Albina gauge historic crest simulation on June 6, 1948. ................. 409 

Figure 290. Lower Albina gauge historic crest simulation on June 26, 1950. ............... 410 

Figure 291. Lower Albina gauge historic crest simulation on June 4, 1956. ................. 411 

Figure 292. Lower Albina gauge historic crest simulation on December 25, 1964. ...... 412 

Figure 293. Lower Albina gauge historic crest simulation on January 18, 1974. .......... 413 

Figure 294. Lower Albina gauge historic crest simulation on December 16, 1977. ...... 414 



 

 22 

Figure 295. Lower Albina gauge historic crest simulation on February 21, 1982. ........ 415 

Figure 296. Lower Albina gauge historic crest simulation on February 24, 1986. ........ 416 

Figure 297. Lower Albina gauge historic crest simulation on February 9, 1996. .......... 417 

Figure 298. Lower Albina gauge historic crest simulation on June 2, 2011. ................. 418 

Figure 299. Lower Albina gauge historic crest simulation on March 30, 2017. ............ 419 

Figure 300. Lower Albina gauge historic crest simulation on April 12, 2019. .............. 420 

Figure 301. Wind simulation Scenario 1. ....................................................................... 421 

Figure 302. Wind simulation for Option 1. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 421 

Figure 303. Wind simulation for Option 2. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view  ............................................................................................................................ 422 

Figure 304. Wind simulation for Option 3. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 422 

Figure 305. Wind simulation for Option 4. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 423 

Figure 306. Wind simulation for Option 5. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 423 

Figure 307. Wind simulation for Option 6. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 424 

Figure 308. Wind simulation for Option 7. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 424 

Figure 309. Wind simulation for Option 8. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 425 

Figure 310. Wind simulation for Option 9. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 425 

Figure 311. Wind simulation for Option 10. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 426 

Figure 312. Wind simulation for Option 11. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 426 

Figure 313. Wind simulation for Option 12. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 427 



 

 23 

Figure 314. Wind simulation for Option 13. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 427 

Figure 315. Wind simulation Scenario 2. ....................................................................... 428 

Figure 316. Wind simulation for Option 1. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 428 

Figure 317. Wind simulation for Option 2. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 429 

Figure 318. Wind simulation for Option 3. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 429 

Figure 319. Wind simulation for Option 4. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 430 

Figure 320. Wind simulation for Option 5. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 430 

Figure 321. Wind simulation for Option 6. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 431 

Figure 322. Wind simulation for Option 7. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 431 

Figure 323. Wind simulation for Option 8. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 432 

Figure 324. Wind simulation for Option 9. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 432 

Figure 325. Wind simulation for Option 10. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 433 

Figure 326. Wind simulation for Option 11. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 433 

Figure 327. Wind simulation for Option 12. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 434 

Figure 328. Wind simulation for Option 13. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 434 

Figure 329. Wind simulation Scenario 3. ....................................................................... 435 



 

 24 

Figure 330. Wind simulation for Option 1. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 435 

Figure 331. Wind simulation for Option 2. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 436 

Figure 332. Wind simulation for Option 3. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 436 

Figure 333. Wind simulation for Option 4. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 437 

Figure 334. Wind simulation for Option 5. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 437 

Figure 335. Wind simulation for Option 6. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 438 

Figure 336. Wind simulation for Option 7. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 438 

Figure 337. Wind simulation for Option 8. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 439 

Figure 338. Wind simulation for Option 9. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 439 

Figure 339. Wind simulation for Option 10. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 440 

Figure 340. Wind simulation for Option 11. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 440 

Figure 341. Wind simulation for Option 12. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 441 

Figure 342. Wind simulation for Option 13. Plan view, perspective, side view, and front 

view.  ............................................................................................................................ 441 

Figure 343. Wind simulation Scenario 4. ....................................................................... 442 

Figure 344. Wind simulation for Option 1 and 2. Perspective view with horizontal wind 

vectors and vertical wind vectors. .............................................................................................. 442 

Figure 345. Wind simulation for Option 3 and 4. Perspective view with horizontal wind 

vectors and vertical wind vectors. .............................................................................................. 443 



 

 25 

Figure 346. Wind simulation for Option 5 and 6. Perspective view with horizontal wind 

vectors and vertical wind vectors. .............................................................................................. 443 

Figure 347. Wind simulation for Option 7 and 8. Perspective view with horizontal wind 

vectors and vertical wind vectors. .............................................................................................. 444 

Figure 348. Wind simulation for Option 8 and 9. Perspective view with horizontal wind 

vectors and vertical wind vectors. .............................................................................................. 444 

Figure 349. Wind simulation for Option 11 and 12. Perspective view with horizontal 

wind vectors and vertical wind vectors. ..................................................................................... 445 

Figure 350. Wind simulation for Option 13. Perspective view with horizontal wind 

vectors and vertical wind vectors. .............................................................................................. 445 

Figure 351. Groundhog Grasshopper definition for surface water flow. ....................... 446 

Figure 352. Ladybug Grasshopper definition for wind rose analysis. ............................ 447 

Figure 353. Definition for geomorphological simulation in Grasshopper. .................... 448 

Figure 354. Definition for hydrological simulation in Grasshopper. ............................. 449 

Figure 355. Definition for wind simulation in Grasshopper. ......................................... 450 

Figure 356. Definition for vegetation simulation in Grasshopper. ................................. 451 

Figure 357. Definition for UTCI simulation in Grasshopper. ........................................ 452 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 26 

LIST OF TABLES 

 

Table Page 

Table 1. Differences Between Research and Design .................................................................... 32 

Table 2. Suitability analysis of potential sites for design experiment ........................................ 179 

Table 3. Willamette River gauge data (Morrison Bridge gauge) ............................................... 201 

  



 

 27 

LIST OF SCHEMES 

 

Scheme Page 

Scheme 1. Albina neighborhood building footprint areas vs. vegetation area. .......................... 223 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  



 

 28 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 

1.1 Statement of the Problem 

The growing urgency of climate-related issues and their compounding negative effects 

require innovative design strategies. While landform architecture has a significant potential to 

address such challenges, the current approach in research and practice remains predominantly 

form-oriented. The form-oriented approach neglects the site, its history, and landscape processes 

that have the potential to shape the building. Such an approach fails to fully address critical 

challenges, such as urban heat growth, flooding, and habitat loss. 

These issues are especially evident in urban areas like Portland, Oregon, where 

postindustrial land, hydrological shifts, and disrupted ecology lead to environmental problems. 

The Lower Albina neighborhood offers an opportunity to critically rethink infrastructural 

violence and erasure via the lens of landform architecture. 

The lack of theoretical, methodological, and evaluative frameworks for landform 

architecture diminishes its potential to respond to climate-related challenges. There is a need to 

develop a process-based approach to landform architecture that: 

• Establishes a theoretical framework that repositions landform architecture within a 

broader historical context by embracing site history and unique characteristics. 

• Proposes a methodological framework that integrates site-specific landscape 

processes into the design process. 

• Illustrates an evaluative framework that incorporates digital modeling and 3D 

simulation tools to visualize time, change, and history, along with site-specific 

processes to design a landform building and adjacent landscape within the selected 

site in the Lower Albina neighborhood. 

The gap in knowledge and practice limits the potential of landform architecture. This 

study proposes a paradigm shift of landform architecture to process-oriented design that 

embraces the concept of time and change to seamlessly merge with context while mitigating site-

specific problems. By focusing on the selected site for a design experiment, this study illustrates 

how process-based landform architecture engages with the site, its history, and environmental 

processes. Such an approach has the potential to develop a design that creates comfortable 

outdoor conditions and responds to climate-related issues. 



 

 29 

 

1.2 Purpose of the Study 

The history of landform design dates to prehistoric times, where landform hills and 

mounds were used for settlements, military defense structures, religious purposes, and protection 

from natural forces. More recently, landforms have been a source of inspiration for architects, 

landscape architects, and artists. With the development of digital technologies and construction 

practices, architects have been able to design landform buildings that use landscape as a 

generative metaphor to imitate natural forms. Landscape architects have designed landforms for 

a range of expressive and functional purposes, such as directing movement, providing visual 

frames and foci, dividing space, and fostering stormwater management. Land artists have used 

earth as a material to create site-specific earthworks and landforms in the landscape. 

While landforms are understood by geomorphologists in terms of their form and the 

processes that shape them, current theory and practice of landform architecture focuses on a 

form-based approach based on the metaphoric interpretation of nature, rather than landscape 

processes and their potential to address large-scale problems. Landscape processes create a 

dynamic system that is constantly changing over time. In this research, landscape processes that 

shape the resultant form are a key research interest for design theory and practice. Understanding 

these processes is essential for designers to move beyond the static representation of the 

relationship between nature and architecture toward the living and changing qualities of the 

environment. Such a shift enables more responsive and integrated design solutions that can 

address climate change issues. 

The purpose of the study is to develop a process-based approach to landform architecture 

that integrates landscape history, natural processes, and a site’s challenges into design. Such an 

approach moves beyond form-based design solutions to process-oriented architecture that is 

responsive to climate-related challenges. 

 

1.3 Objectives of the Study 

The objective of this study is to develop a process-based landscape approach to landform 

architecture that addresses climate-related challenges and integrates site-specific processes into 

design. The research objectives are: 



 

 30 

• Theoretical: Critique existing landform architecture theory and practice to identify 

gaps in knowledge and a process-based landscape approach to landform architecture, 

where landforms are understood as a process rather than a fixed form. 

• Methodological: Establish a design method that integrates landscape processes into 

landform architecture. 

• Evaluative: Test and refine the proposed approach through design experimentation by 

using digital modeling and simulation tools. 

By structuring the research around these interconnected objectives, this study provides a 

framework for advancing landform architecture as a process-oriented design practice. 

 

1.4 Definition of Terms 

Research through design (RTD): An approach to scientific inquiry that takes advantage 

of the unique insights gained through design practice to provide a better understanding of 

complex and future-oriented issues in the design field (Frayling, 1993). 

Simulation: The action or practice of simulating, the technique of imitating the behavior 

of some situation or process by means of a suitable analogous situation, especially for the 

purpose of study (Oxford University Press, n.d.-b). 

Case study: A well-documented and systematic examination of the process, decision- 

making, and outcomes of a project that is undertaken for the purpose of informing future 

practice, policy, theory, and/or education (Francis, 1999). 

Landform: A content-driven art form that operates between different categories of 

urbanism, landscape, architecture, and sculpture, and that brings together different levels of 

nature (Jencks, 2002). 

Microclimate: The climate of a very small or restricted area, especially when this differs 

from the climate of the surrounding area (Oxford University Press, n.d.-a). 

Urban Heat Island (UHI): A effect that occurs when a developed area experiences 

higher temperature than nearby rural areas, or when areas experience hotter temperatures within 

a city (U.S. EPA, 2022). 

Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI): A measure of the human physiological 

response to the thermal environment. The UTCI describes the synergistic heat exchanges 

between the thermal environment and the human body (Climate-ADAPT, n.d.-b). 



 

 31 

Mean Radiant Temperature (MRT) : The average temperature of all surfaces that 

surround a person, which represents the combined radiant heat exchange between a human body 

and the environment (Climate-ADAPT, n.d.-a). 

*Other terms developed in this dissertation are introduced later in the body of the text. 

 

1.5 Research Through Design 

Research through Design (RTD) is a practice-based approach that positions design as a 

process and a mode of inquiry. It generates new knowledge through an iterative design process, 

where practice and theory inform each other. In this research, RTD is a general methodological 

approach that informs subsequent methods. 

Multiple publications on RTD claim that connection between research and design creates 

a fertile ground and produces a new type of knowledge. Furthermore, RTD considers design as a 

method of inquiry to solve complex spatial questions. While RTD became one of the most-used 

methods in design disciplines over the last few decades, this method is still discussed and 

debated because there is no agreed-upon model that allows its practical use. The present study 

argues that the RTD method still lacks practical guidelines to use appropriately and thus creates 

confusion for practitioners and researchers to thoroughly understand and apply the method. 

To understand the RTD method from academic and practice perspectives, it is necessary 

to define the terms “research” and “design” separately. Despite many definitions of both terms, I 

propose to use the one that is cited in design publications (Lenzholzer et al., 2018). In general 

discourse, research is understood to be a process of searching and researching again. Glanville 

defines research as an act of seeking deeply, with intensity, where the result of the search is a 

“new knowledge” (Glanville, 2014). The misunderstanding of the term “research” creates 

confusion, especially for practitioners, who are stating that they produce new knowledge through 

their practice. In contrast, the misunderstanding of the term “design” in the academic 

environment is mostly rooted in the design process. In creative disciplines, design is understood 

as a way of giving form and function. Carl Steinitz proposed a dual framework for thinking 

about design as a “verb” and design as a “noun” (Steinitz, 1995): Design as a verb is used for 

asking questions, and design as a noun is used for choosing among answers. In other words, 

design is an activity and process, as well as the result of activity in which a product has been 

given a shape. 



 

 32 

There are many studies that support the idea that academics and practitioners learn and 

produce knowledge differently (Table 1). While there is a general consensus that research is 

more objective and design is more subjective (Simon, 1974; Schön, 1983; Lawson, 2010), there 

are other differences. Good research is characterized by a systematic process, which includes 

validity, transparency, communicability, and originality (Archer, 1995), and, as a result, 

produces fact-based knowledge. On the other hand, design is defined by project goals and 

requirements and produces practical knowledge (Schön, 1983; Lawson, 2010; Cross, 2006). 

Research questions can be identified as “puzzles” that scientists set for themselves, whereas 

design questions are “wicked” (Cross, 2006), typically not well defined and lacking all necessary 

information (Lawson, 2010). Researchers solve problems by analysis, while designers solve 

problems by synthesis (Cross, 2006). In other words, practitioners learn about the problem 

through the process of finding the solution, whereas academics are focused on studying the 

problem. The final outcome of research is new knowledge that is oriented toward theory 

development. On the contrary, in practice, design is the final product that offers specific 

solutions to a problem. 

 

Table 1 

 Differences between research and design 
 

Research Design 

Type of perception Objective Subjective 

Type of knowledge 

(Simon, 1974; Darke,1979; 

Schön, 1983; Lawson, 2010) 

Explicit knowledge 

Rational 

Fact-based 

How things are 

Tacit knowledge 

Practical 

Appropriate 

How things ought to be 

Type of questions 

(Cross, 2006; Lawson, 2010) 

“Puzzle” questions “Wicked” questions 

Methods of developing 

knowledge 

(Cross, 2006) 
 

Controlled experiment, 

classification, analysis 
 

Modeling, pattern, 

synthesis 
 



 

 33 

 
Research Design 

Type of perception Objective Subjective 

Process 

(Lawson, 2010) 

Problem-defining 

Analysis 

Problem-focused strategy 

Systematic process 

Problem-solving 

Synthesis 

Solution-focused strategy 

Process is based on project 

requirements 

Final outcome 

(Cross, 2006) 
 

Knowledge 

General concept or theory 

Design 

Specific solution 

 

The essential difference between research and design is that academics use a problem-

focused strategy, while practitioners use a problem-solving strategy. In other words, academics 

and practitioners understand solutions to a specific problem differently and produce different 

types of knowledge. 

In academic discourse, the combination of research and design, especially in creative 

disciplines, was understood as an approach that can answer complex questions (Archer, 1995; 

Zimmerman et al., 2007) and incorporate design activity into the research process. 

The discussion about the relationship between research and design started with the urge 

to find new research methods to answer spatial questions. In 1993, design theorist Christopher 

Frayling described such a relationship in his seminal paper “Research in Art and Design,” where 

he pointed out that while research has historically been associated with words, not actions, that 

type of activity is far from the typical designers’ actions. Thus, Frayling developed a framework, 

which is used today as well, to describe relationships between research and design. He identified 

three groups of “research and design interaction[s]” based on relationships between academia 

and practice: (1) research for art and design, (2) research into art and design, and (3) research 

through art and design (Frayling, 1993). 

Research for art and design includes the production of an artifact and gathering of 

research materials. The study in this category is focused on the design product and design 

process, and on what designers do when they collect information for the purpose of designing. 

Here, research outcomes inform the design process, so both design product and design process 



 

 34 

benefit. In landscape architecture, this may include material studies or soil testing for green roofs 

(Simon & Steinemann, 2000) and produce design guidelines. 

Research into art and design includes historical, aesthetic, and perceptual research into 

theoretical perspectives of art and design. The study in this category is focused on the design 

product. In landscape architecture, this may include a critical study of landscape, urban design, 

and their interpretation from different points of view (Nijhuis & Bobbink, 2012), as well as 

comparative case study analysis (Brinkhuijsen, 2008) and evaluation of design after realization 

(Meir et al., 2009; Sherman et al., 2005). 

Research through art and design includes research processes that use design. Here, the act 

of design(ing) is considered as a research method. In order to consider it as research, however, 

the study in this category requires careful step-by-step documentation of the process. The result 

of such research cannot be just design itself: it should produce a new knowledge (Frayling, 

1993). In landscape architecture, RTD is focused on the design process as a research instrument 

(van den Brink, 2017). 

Frayling’s categories were a stepping stone in the development of the RTD method, as 

they prompted a discussion that design can be considered as a research method. And in order to 

become a research strategy that produces a new type of knowledge, RTD would require a 

theoretical framework. 

In the landscape architecture academic environment, Frayling’s categories fostered a 

discussion about whether design has a potential to be accepted as a research method, and if so, 

how. This period was signified by the use of different terms that were supposed to describe the 

role of design and the application of its insights in research. Steenbergen et al. (2008) used 

“design experiment” and “experimental design” to describe design research in landscape 

architecture. A design experiment, in their understanding, is developed within the specific 

context, while investigation requires different design-based strategies. Experimental design, on 

the contrary, is developed when context and design strategies are changeable. Deming and 

Swaffield (2011) introduced “projective design,” which represents a unique design process for 

research outcome. Projective design, in their definition, helps to incorporate a design framework 

and evaluation of design projects by testing them through design processes (Deming & 

Swaffield, 2011). The above-mentioned literature also emphasized that design needs to be 

guided by a clear research question, appropriate method, and valuable research outcome. 



 

 35 

Nevertheless, it was not obvious how to apply these requirements into a research process. In my 

opinion, the design strategy during that period still remains poorly understood, even though it 

was frequently discussed. 

In contrast to academia, the application of Frayling’s framework in practice was signified 

by a shift to the idea that design can produce recognizable knowledge (Davis, 2008; Rodgers & 

Yee, 2015; Zeisel, 2006). In practice, such research was described as “practice-based” (Candy & 

Edmonds, 2018) or “practice-led” (Smith, 2009). Practice-based design research, contrary to 

academic understanding, was focused on the role of the practitioner, who had the skills and 

expertise in the field to undertake such research. Vaughan (2017) claimed in her book Practice-

based Design Research that design-specific skills are the foundation needed to carry out 

practice-based research. The result of practice-based research was understood as one that 

advances knowledge and provides valuable application for practice. 

During this period, design as research was described with the use of different, yet similar, 

terms. Different publications (Archer, 1995; Downton, 2005; Zimmerman et al., 2010; Collins, 

2019; Glanville, 2014; Vaughan, 2017) also supported the idea that RTD is associated with 

learning through the process of designing. The huge development during this period was an 

alignment of RTD with research criteria, such as a research question, appropriate methodology, 

and a clear outcome. However, the process of designing was still underrepresented. 

As the RTD method continues to develop in the landscape architecture field, some 

scholars have begun to investigate practical guidelines to use the RTD method. Multiple 

publications and studies have explored research as a part of the design process (Lenzholzer et al., 

2013; RTD Conference Series, 2015). One publication described a three-staged study, where the 

major part of the research was focused on in-depth interviews and surveys with university 

faculty. 

Following the interviews, Milburn and Brown (2003) developed a survey, where 

landscape architecture educators discovered that there are three design stages where research is 

incorporated into design: before design, during design, and after design. Before design includes 

library research, precedent study, case study analysis, and site analysis. During design, research 

influences the concept development. Finally, after design research allows the evaluation of the 

design itself (Milburn & Brown, 2003). 



 

 36 

The most recent publication by Nijhuis and de Vries (2019) describes the RTD process as 

a sequence of design problem, design process, and design solution. The authors distinguish three 

interconnected phases of the design process: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The analysis 

phase includes data collection and understanding the context. The synthesis phase introduces 

different form-based solutions to the problem. The evaluation phase is focused on solution 

assessment (Nijhuis, & de Vries, 2019). At the same time, there is no data in the publications 

cited above that prove that practitioners incorporate research into the design process as the 

authors described. While the general framework for the design process proposed by Nijhuis and 

de Vries is valuable, the design itself is a more iterative and complex process. Additionally, there 

is a lack of literature that describes how RTD should be carried out in a practical sense. 

Though scholars identified what the RTD approach means and explored the potential 

influences on knowledge, there is little information on how practitioners understand this research 

approach and design processes. Practitioners rarely communicate about their design processes; it 

is rather something more mystical than well documented and well explained. Currently, the 

number of practitioners who communicate their work as research-influenced is growing. 

However, they misuse the term “research” in the design process and do not have a complete 

understanding of what RTD actually means. 

RTD is a relatively new method in design disciplines, which is considered to be a link 

between academia and practice, as well as research and design. Despite scholars’ and 

practitioners’ rising interest in this research method, that link is still not well established. The 

main difference between academic and practice approaches to RTD is that researchers and 

designers think differently. This explains why academics focus on discovering the theory, while 

designers focus on the solution and final result. In academia, the strategy to address the research 

question is problem-focused, while in practice it is problem-solving. 

Researchers solve problem by analysis, while practitioners solve by synthesis. In other 

words, researchers study the problem, while designers discover something through the process of 

making and trying out multiple solutions. While RTD might look very similar to the actual 

design process, its goal, however, is new knowledge, not the design itself. Contrary to the typical 

design process, it requires careful documentation of the entire research process, so someone else 

could recreate that process too. 

 



 

 37 

1.6 Methods 

This research aims to contribute to existing theory and design knowledge in landform 

architecture and uses a combination of research methods to answer research questions. This 

study consisted of four stages (Figure 1): 

Stage 1. Review of the existing state of theory and practice. 

Stage 2. Development of a methodological framework for a process-based approach to 

landform architecture. 

Stage 3. Design experimentation. 

Stage 4. Environmental performance evaluation. 

 

 
Figure 1. Stages of the research. 

 
By structuring research in stages, where each stage builds on findings from the previous 

one, the study aimed to create a systematic approach to develop and test a process-based 

framework to landform architecture. 

 



 

 38 

1.6.1 Stage 1 

Stage 1 examines the existing state of knowledge both in research and practice in order to 

identify a knowledge gap and critique existing landform architecture theory. This stage (Figure 

2) examines how landforms have been utilized in various fields and combines the knowledge 

and insights gathered from different disciplines to shape a comprehensive approach toward 

landform architecture. This stage enables a deep understanding of how the concept of landform 

architecture has developed over time, how it has been employed in other areas, and how insights 

from other fields could be incorporated to develop an approach to landform architecture design. 

 

 
Figure 2. Stage 1. 

 

The objectives of Stage 1 were to: 

• trace the evolutionary development of landform architecture, 

• understand how landforms have been used in other disciplines, and 

• synthesize how knowledge from other disciplines could inform an approach to landform 

architecture. 



 

 39 

This stage of research consisted of the literature review and precedent study analysis. 

Qualitative data, such as text and images, were employed for analysis. The sources for analysis 

included peer-reviewed articles, books, architects’ and artists’ websites, and site visits to some 

precedent study projects. 

 

1.6.1.1 Literature Review 
The literature review addressed the following categories of landform expression: 

• landform in ancient cultures, 

• landform in art, 

• landform in landscape architecture, and 

• landform in architecture. 

These categories were selected to provide a comprehensive understanding of how 

landforms have been represented, utilized, and conceptualized across different disciplines and 

historical contexts. 

The literature review informed theory and helped to: 

• explore the use of landforms throughout history across cultures and disciplines, 

• explore the development of landform architecture theory, 

• critique landform architecture theory, and 

• identify the theoretical potential of landform architecture. 

 

1.6.1.2 Precedent Study 
The precedent study analysis examined selected projects that integrated landforms into 

art, landscape architecture, and architecture. Such analysis helped to connect theoretical research 

with design practice. 

The list of precedent study projects was derived from the literature review and analysis of 

key themes and trends in the field. The precedent study included the following selection criteria: 

• The project resembled a landform (vegetated hills, grass mounds, earthworks). 

• The project description included words such as “earthwork” or “landform.” 

• The project was integrated into the context in a way that asserted the continuity of the 

context. 

The literature review identified the following precedents: 



 

 40 

1. Architecture 

• The Möbius House in the Netherlands by UNStudio 

• HtwoOexpo pavilion in the Netherlands by NOX 

• Library Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands by Mecanoo 

• Stranded Sears Towers in Chicago by Greg Lynn 

• Yokohama International Port Terminal by FOA 

• Fort L’Empereur in Algiers by Le Corbusier 

• NTR Headquarters in the Netherlands by MVRDV 

• Villa VPRO in the Netherlands by MVRDV 

• Olympic Sculpture Park in Seattle by Weiss/Manfredi 

• City of Culture of Galicia in Spain by Peter Eisenman 

• Mountain in Spain by Vicente Guallart 

• New Ma