Architects are beginning to embrace the notion of landscape and, moreover, to acknowledge the conceptual scope of a dynamic and creative synthesis of ecology and materiality. In so doing, the conception that architects could not (or should not) draw a tree, is being consigned to the landfill site of antiquated practice. There is an increasing acceptance amongst planners, urban designers and governments that the greening of urbanity is necessary to, and indicative of, a viable, sustainable future. However, whether or not the traditional design rationale delivers the necessary innovative outcomes is open to question. The visual homogenization of urban developments within our cities is symptomatic of both hackneyed design orthodoxies and a tokenistic approach to sustainable practice. The paper debates the proposition that traditional design values and practice contribute to the fragmented adoption of genuine sustainable ecological applications within the urban landscape. It contends that rather than enriching, civilizing and sustaining urbanity; the reliance on time-honoured practices contributes to the establishment of bland and fundamentally unsustainable public spaces. As the demarcation between landscape and architecture becomes less profound the role of ecology is also viewed as integral to `placeness'. The fusion of spatial form and ecology serves as a valuable addition to sustainable development. For any urban development to maximise claims of sustainability, architects, landscape designers and planners need to demonstrate a more dispassionate approach to implementing change.
