Initial Thoughts

[skye]

hopefully this message is seen by the entire group...

first of all the biggest problem with landscape architecture is that,
as a profession, it spreads itself way to thin. it tries to do too
many things in many different areas, and has its hands in both
engineering and architecture. this can be an asset; but to date it is
its biggest liability. this spreading out allows the profession to do
many things in an average way, instead of concentrating on a few areas
of concern and doing them well. this, in combination with the
stereotype that landscape is planting bushes, is detrimental to the
profession. plus, here in the US, the national organization (ASLA),
cannot even organize itself enough to provide a consistent
registration system for our 50 states. in general, LA's have no
unified face to present to the world.

landscape architects need to step up and decide where he or she fits
in to the profession and assert themselves accordingly. in the
profession (regardless of in a developing country or otherwise) we
need to assert our technical abilities more strongly. we are often
sidelined or cut from a project because our roles can easily be
overtaken by an engineer or architect. therefore, it is our
responsibility to give benefit (cost, environmental, etc.) to a
project that neither an engineer or architect can give- to go beyond
what an engineer would do or think of, while combining an aesthetic
comparable to the architecture.

this begins in the classroom, where many curriculums do not adequately
prepare students with proper technical skills. what use is a pretty
landscape design if it is not technically sound and the client could
save money by having the engineer do the grading and planting design
in-house? it is only with these skills that a landscape architect
could go to developing countries and make a concerted impact-
infrastructurally, environmentally, and aesthetically.

thoughts?

greg





www.skyedesignstudio.com