Community Landscape Lab

Brooklyn Cemetery Blog

The Brooklyn Cemetery project was undertaken by four students in Professor Katherine Melcher's landscape engagement studio at the University of Georgia during the fall semester of 2020. The following blog entries were written throughout the course of semester to document the project.

Blog entries and project content were developed by Shihui Deng, David Evans, Aron Hall, and Adedamola Okunmadewa.

Week 1: Introducing the Project

Figure 1: Brooklyn Cemetery Site

Not far from the center of Athens, GA, local community members have been steadily breathing new life into the historic Brooklyn Cemetery since 2006. The cemetery, first established in 1880 to serve Athens' growing African American community, had been abandoned for roughly a decade when Linda Davis and the Friends of the Brooklyn Cemetery Agency began seeking resources to restore the overgrown burial grounds and rebuild ties in the community it once served. The Agency's efforts eventually brought in legal guidance from faculty at the University of Georgia to declare themselves trustees of the property, and later collaborated with Professor Katherine Melcher and a studio of masters of landscape architecture students in 2012 to produce a master management plan that they have been working off of for the last eight years.

Today, Linda Davis and Kimberly Davis are once again leading a cooperative effort between Brooklyn Cemetery and the University of Georgia. Professor Melcher's landscape architecture studio LAND 7050 class will plan and lead public engagement efforts in partnership with the Friends of Brooklyn Cemetery and the Trustees of Brooklyn Cemetery to collect community input on a restored site plan and detailed design elements. Under Prof. Melcher's guidance, masters students Shihui Deng, David Evans, Aron Hall, and Adedamola Okunmadewa have laid out a series of engagement strategies that will lead to direct community involvement in the development of design ideas that will give Brooklyn Cemetery new capacities to connect the surrounding community with its history.

Towards that end, students have met with Linda and Kimberly to discuss engagement phases and respective strategies in addition to collecting relevant background research available under Landscapes for Remembrance.

For additional information about Brooklyn Cemetery, check out BrooklynCemetery.org or explore the 2012 Master Plan.

[Written by David Evans]

Week 5: Meeting the Stakeholders

After several weeks of research and planning for the project, the design team scheduled a meeting with Linda Davis and Kimberly Davis, two key stakeholders from the Friends of Brooklyn group. This was a virtual meeting where we presented to them a series of community engagement strategies that we plan to use in facilitating the design for a new master plan to encourage the growth of the Brooklyn Cemetery. The engagement strategy in place is divided into six phases. For each phase of engagement, we outlined goals, potential participants, suggested engagement format, anticipated methods/activities for engagement, student(s) responsible, and intended outcome.

E1 Exploring and Visioning
E2 Co-design
E3 Plan evaluation
E4 Co-design
E5 Evaluation/implementation
E6 Final presentation

During the meeting we had the chance to hear our stakeholders' experiences with the site and their visions which we are taking into close consideration moving forward. The meeting was highly successful and we are look forward to our next engagement meeting scheduled for September 19th. In the upcoming meeting we expect to meet with all the members of the friends of Brooklyn Cemetery to show them our design progress and get some feedback.

Week 8: Wading into Design

Figures 2 and 3: Public engagement meeting

The past couple of weeks have certainly been exciting for my colleagues and I in regards to the Brooklyn Cemetery. We had our first public engagement activity on Saturday September 19th which was attended by Linda Davis, the head of the Board of Trustees for the Brooklyn Cemetery, and several Friends of Brooklyn Cemetery members and a few outside members of the public. It was held at the Historic Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church off of Hawthorne Avenue in Athens, GA. We learned at the meeting that the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church is one of the longest running churches in Athens, GA and has been in that spot since its inception 150 years ago, an amazing feat for an African American church in the South. It is exciting to be hosting a design studio meeting with members of an historic church about an historic African American Cemetery.

At the meeting, we received a lot of great feedback that we are beginning to incorporate into our designs. Our current task is to develop master plans of the area. It is interesting to see from the input we received how many variations of the plan there are. We have all incorporated some sort of structure onto the site. Where Ade and I have placed a structure on the spot specific to internment, David and Shihui are looking at places elsewhere on the site which they have determined to be more acceptable. Each of us is attempting to respect the wishes of the clients and at the same time bring new ideas to how the site could work.

In the coming weeks, we are refining our designs to present to the clients. It is our hope that we meet the needs of the clients and give them an end product that they can implement. Community design, from my experience so far, is about letting go of any ego that one may have and embrace the differences that are presented. There are differences in opinion and need as well as differences in historical biographies. We have learned a great deal on a variety of levels. Some of this education is in the design process itself, but I would argue most of it is listening and being able to take the ideas of those who are, in fact, more tied to the site. As landscape architecture students it is easy to dive into the project. It is sometimes better to sit back, listen, and then slowly wade into the design.

[Written by Aron Hall]

Week 11: Design & Evaluation

After distilling the early public input through four weeks of vigorous design work, my colleagues and I have developed four individual designs. With the help of Linda Davis and the Board of Trustees for the Brooklyn Cemetery, we conducted our second public meeting to present these design ideas to our stakeholders. The public meeting was held on Saturday October 17th at Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church in Athens, GA. The meeting was held in a hybrid format, with two people attending in person and five attending online.

The meeting went well overall, despite some technical glitches. The four students presented their master plan designs, as well as proposed management strategies for the design. After the design presentation, we had an open discussion. Attendees expressed their favorite elements of each design and discussed possible areas for improvement.

We received positive feedback on the following aspects of our design:

The calling wall and the native planting from Aron's design
The center gathering circle space from David's design
The illuminating light effect from Ade's design, and
The proposed equal-access secondary path development from my design.

Concerns and critique that we received included:

A need to create a sense of reverence for the site through its design
A desire to limit access to the site so as to maintain a peaceful and sacred environment
A need to manage overgrown plantings
A need to communicate the site narrative so to the visitors, and
Concerns over the budget.

This feedback raised the question of what design elements are required of a memorial landscape? In particular, what elements are required to engage the narratives of the deceased? I believe taking a few steps back to the research phase and exploring our case studies might reveal the answer to these questions.

Some takeaways from the meeting include:

I realized how important the clients' input is compared to the designer's preference. Sometimes as designers we have a tendency to push our own agenda. During a public meeting, it is important that designers not talk too much, and instead give the stakeholders the opportunity to talk and provide input. As a designer, I found it challenging to push my own biases aside and design with the clients' vision and values in mind. Another realization that I made was how critical good communication skills are not only in getting a better understanding of the client's vision, but in letting the client know how the proposed design meets their expectations.
Through this stage of the process, I learned a lot about how to effectively host a public meeting. There is a great deal of planning required beyond simply creating an agenda, putting together slides, and scheduling the date. Other critical tasks include planning for the unexpected, and assigning specific tasks (for example note taking) to specific people. Additionally, during the meeting it is important to actively engage the client, limit the topic of discussion to the main focus, and most importantly to be able to immediately process client feedback and react appropriately. I found that the success of a meeting is largely dependent on how well the organizers are able to work together.
Through this process, we also learned that perfection can never be achieved in one try. It reinforces an iterative process, and teaches us to adjust our expectation and approach with each step we take. This type of engagement combined with an iterative design process allows for a more long-term and effective end product.

In addition to feedback received during the meeting, the client agreed to take a closer look at the design and provide more detailed feedback after the meeting. After the meeting, the students shared design documents, meeting recording, and input survey via email to our stakeholders to allow for them to digest the proposals and provide feedback.

Now we plan to refine our final master plan. We hope to continue to get feedback from the client as we iterate our design concepts.

[Written by Shihui Deng]

Figure 4: Initial Design by Aron Hall

Figure 5: Initial Design by David Evans

Figure 6: Initial Design by Adedamola Okunmadewa

Figure 7: Initial Design by Shihui Deng

Week 14: Getting to know you

Fourteen weeks in to this semester and three meetings. Do we know what we are doing yet? Yes and no. But, to be honest, we are all learning -- both clients and students. Looking back, I can see where I, personally, could have done things a little better -- a little differently.

Thinking back to the first meeting, I would have spent a little more time making sure everyone was on the same page with the extent of the project both geographically and from a design perspective. When we began, it was said to pay attention to section G. Section G is a small section within the larger 10-acre site. It covers an area of little more than half an acre. According to the GIS survey of gravesites, there are between 35 and 45 grave sites - a number vastly different than the two dozen gravesites of various markers. We were also told that this would be the site of reinternment, but where exactly was this reinternment supposed to take place on the site? I think spending a little more time with the site in the beginning would have been very beneficial.

From experience on this project and other previous work projects, I have come to realize how beneficial it is to spend some time at the site. At the very least, we should be visiting the site. Luckily, David and I were able to actually work in the site. Working in the site, you get to know the surroundings. You get to know the plants - what is invasive, what is non-invasive and what is native? You get to actually touch and smell the soil. You interact with the ground cover. Depending on the time of year, you can begin to see how the canopy interacts with the understory.

Visiting the site is key to getting to know the site. Now that you are visiting the site, spend some time in the site. Be still in the site. I was reviewing a house plan once and the architect and I had a meeting about some changes. This was before any footings had been poured. Before any grading had been done. He told me, "I went to the site yesterday and put up a hammock and just stayed there for hours. It is a beautiful site." At the time, I thought, "what a strange guy!" But, after this project I am beginning to warm to the idea of setting up a hammock and staying on the site for hours. I am sure you can gain a lot from the experience.

Can the same go for people? I'd think so. In times that are not so precarious as these, maybe a coffee with the client would be beneficial. Just set up a hammock in the coffee shop and stay for hours. It may help.

[Written by Aron Hall]

Week 16: Feedback & Iteration

After a few weeks of re-evaluating design based on client input, we have realized that there are many constraints that need to be further considered. I also wanted to try to understand the gap that differs our designers' visions from clients' visions.

Three main points float to the surface as needing consideration:

Scale -- The Brooklyn Cemetery site is vastly empty while the reinternment site is only a 14x20 ft square. Thus, anything standing higher than half of the width of this square will break the sense of continuity. It also will be interpreted as showing no regard for the rest of the cemetery.
Material -- When compared to the wild natural surroundings, the early design concepts are way too “modern” or "fancy" for the site. The early material choices also mean higher maintenance. Overall, the material doesn’t speak to the surrounding site.
Historic Interpretation -- The calling wall has adequately accomplished the essential task for the historic interpretation. In other cases, previous designs have relied too heavily on architectural form for historic interpretation, which prevents the real issues from coming to light (point 1 and 2).

By understanding these issues, it's clear that designing a grandiose manicured space will not be a good option for this site. The proposed design should be maintain a humility which relates back to the rest of the cemetery. This realization makes me wonder if we have overlooked the most essential elements from the rest of the cemetery. Keeping the ideas above in mind, we decided to re-evaluate our designs once more in the following ways:

Ade minimized his heavy use of concrete and instead promoted more open space;
Aron further developed the chapel idea while maintaining the specific grave box feature to show respect to those reinternment burials;
David proposed two reinternment sites mounted at both north and south entries. He also modified his section G design as a manifestation of a "triumph-injustice" interpretation through an idea of dualism of a coin;
I was more concerned with budget, and focused my design revisions on modifying the form of my monument. I felt that the presence of a monument itself, rather than the specific form, was most important for the historic interpretation of the site. Thus, my final design included a monument that was a scaled down version from my first iteration of the design. In this version, I paid more attention to materials and details with an underlying concern for budget.

At the latest meeting held in a hybrid mode on November 21, 2020, we reported our final version of design. We received some positive feedback from which we re-examined our conjectures and progress. Aron had the most positive feedback on both the chapel and the representation on the grave boxes. Clients agreed with his idea and felt positive about future implementation. Ade also received positive feedback on his idea to create a sitting area in the reinternment site and tomb garden. David had his coin idea applauded for the most creativity.

Through this process, we realized how long and complex the design process can be. It's an iterative process of learning-gaining-progressing, where nothing can be rushed. I think this experience will be beneficial for me in the future, since the level of engagement really toggled my sensor for understanding different perspectives. I think this is the biggest fortune I earned in this project.

[Written by Shihui Deng]

Figure 8: Site inventory and Engagment process (Image credit - Shihui Deng)

Reflections: Good Design Mirrors Good Writing

Designing proposals for Brooklyn Cemetery has been a humbling experience. I have received some of the most substantial and critical feedback of my work during my graduate degree program. I am immensely grateful for the lessons I have learned as a result, and I would like to share a few thoughts for other new designers and for stakeholders working with them. In short, I am convinced that landscape design has a lot in common with good writing: start with a clear thesis statement, present a comprehensive narrative, stay concise, and acknowledge the existing discourse.

1. Starting With a Clear Thesis Statement

Open communication always has a visible purpose. Whether you are asking for help, providing feedback, or discussing the nuances of a cemetery’s history, making your point is difficult when your audience does not understand why you are communicating with them. In similar fashion, landscape design benefits from legibility, meaning that their purpose for being or use is immediately apparent. For example, a coifed lawn bounded by paths lined with trees might invite users looking for recreation in a park, but if that landscape is supposed to be a sacred memorial, the “thesis statement” is probably murky at best. This mismatch may stem from misunderstood goals, a lack of sufficient experience with the site, or a misconception of how to achieve established goals among other possibilities.

Begin the design processes with a thesis containing the client’s primary values and goals for the site, and then translate that statement into a designed landscape experience that highlights those values with maximum clarity.

2. Present a Comprehensive Narrative

Every story misses something, but many compelling narratives still strive to present their audience with multi-faceted examinations of the subject. In writing, this means presenting arguments and counter arguments or telling different perspectives of the same story. In a design context, I felt most successful when my design’s narrative challenged visitors to see the individual stories within the more culturally familiar context. This took the form of an allegorical sculpture element that literally placed a figure against and apart from an oppressive background with explanatory plaques describing the piece’s relevance to the surrounding landscape.

3. Stay Concise

Don’t take 9 acres to make a point that can be made with 2500 sq.ft.

4. Acknowledge the existing discourse

In academic settings, good research typically builds on existing work and references those ideas and efforts in recognition of the collective efforts creating that knowledge. For a landscape, existing conditions represent a single state over the course of a dynamic history, which might include dear memories, hard work, or painful truths. The physical features on these landscape represent just as much history as the events and memories that took place there. Combined, these constitute a physical and social context that often needs recognition, especially in a memorial landscape. Maintaining a light hand in design work provides sufficient formality while also honoring and recognizing the long labor already invested into the site.

[Written by David Evans]

Week 18: It's A Wrap

It's been eighteen long but fruitful weeks of learning, designing, and working closely with our stakeholders, the Friends of Brooklyn group. We have had various engagement meetings where we presented different design iterations and design proposals for a reinternment site for the new master plan for Brooklyn Cemetery. During our meeting we were exposed to positive feedback as well as constructive criticism that have triggered our creative minds in deferent ways and challenged us to think in various directions.

We planned a final engagement meeting to show our progress so far and say thank you to the stakeholders for their guidance through the semester. We presented slides that showed our first design iteration compared to our final designs highlighting our lessons and design considerations. Our final engagement meeting took place on the 12th of December and went well. The stakeholders also expressed their gratitude to us for our designs and handiwork.

[Written by Adedamola Okunmadewa]

Figure 9: Final Monument Design by Shihui Deng

Figure 10: Final Tomb Design by Adedamola Okunmadewa

Figure 11: FInal Reinternment Wall Design by David Evans

Figure 12: Final Master Plan by Aron Hall

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse