Bernard, I don't think landscape architects (and/or ordinary architects)
need anyone else to bring their reputations into disrepute, they do a
terrific job at this all on their own.
90% of the built/'landscaped' environment is total crap, and so-called
'professionals' need all the help they can get to improve it. Gertrude
Jekyll, Wm. Kent, etc, weren't "landscape architects" either, but I bet they
appear in any decent landscape design course. They aren't bringing the
professional reputation into disrepute, are they?.
I don't know about landscape arch., but in most countries you can't call
yourself 'architect' until you have passed exams, paid money, etc. This is
justified on the grounds of "protecting the public safety", but, it's
(mostly) just a highly-lobbied, protectionist ploy to limit the competition.
(In Switzerland anyone can have a sign on the front door saying 'architect',
but I haven't noticed that their buildings fall down sooner than anyone
else's.)
With some notable exceptions, landscape architects are the people who
provide 'ground cover' (read: ivy + cigarette butts), and incongruous
'berms' of mowed grass next to motorway entry ramps. And those dinky little
flowering trees in car parks. They are completely clueless and unmotivated
as designers (like most architects).
Well, I feel better now I've got that off my chest.
Jeremy
(a narchitect)
AFAIK yes. And to be honest I can't se a reason why that should be
changed.
If you are concerned about someone you might be employing then ask for
qualifications, references, to see some of their work etc. as
appropriate
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson
Leeds
8<---S-N-I-P--->8
>With some notable exceptions, landscape architects are the people who
>provide 'ground cover' (read: ivy + cigarette butts), and incongruous
>'berms' of mowed grass next to motorway entry ramps. And those dinky little
>flowering trees in car parks. They are completely clueless and unmotivated
>as designers (like most architects).
Isn't landscape architecture subject to a recognised course,
including accredited exams? I've worked with quite a few LAs, and they
have all been thoroughly professional, albeit unimaginative, people.
I have noticed that one or two contractors have taken to
touting themselves as 'landscape architects', but never within the
construction industry, only to the unregulated, domestic market. Like
most other trades, there is an unwelcome cowboy element.
--
cormaic - http://www.tmac.clara.net/cormaic/garden/garden.htm
Culcheth - paving pages at http://www.tmac.clara.net/paving2.htm
Cheshire (allegedly) Last Updated on 1st February 1999
cormaic CAN BE FOUND AT tmac.clara.co.uk
I seem to recall that all architects have to be covered by a bond, which is
why their fees are so high as their insurance has to give unlimited cover.
If your landscape architect's work results in your house sliding down the
hillside, you would expect the same degree of cover as from any other
architect.
I'm led to believe that you can't legally describe yourself as an
architect without membership of the appropriate professional
association. There was a thread about the (il)legality of the job
description "software architect" on uk.org.bcs.misc a few weeks back.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
http://www.meden.demon.co.uk/Lavatera/lavatera.html
Replace username by stewart for email replies.