As we see few traditional boundaries in the ways we affect the human environment, it is only natural that we see no boundaries between the making of healthy places and the restoration of unhealthy places.
Our deep understanding of the connections between all aspects of the physical environments of the earth leads us predictably to the task of environmental management and restoration.
We see no contradiction in these divergent roles because we see the shaping of place, from the point of view of stewardship, as a universally consistent approach, whether the place is an historic building, a family farm compound, an intense urban neighborhood or a damaged watershed.
Thus we see the restoration of high country timberlands as little different from the restoration of great neighborhoods. The tools are slightly different, the methods vary, but the singular attitude of stewardship remains constant.
Plus, we are simply interested in a wide range of problems. As we do not simply design one building type, neither do we limit our work strictly to the built environment. As stewards, we seek to affect place on many levels. As architects, we seek to use our ability to visualize change, and then actively effect that change, for the benefit of a wider range of problems than just buildings.
We believe this diversity of approach is consistent with the various diversity models found throughout the natural worlds. It is about complexity as found in nature.