landscape or garden?

garden is a smaller space, very intended for specific recipients. The landscape must be universal so that everyone feels all right in it.

I understand that the British tend to call an entire residential property a “garden,” and American speech tends towards the use of “garden” for a specific area within even a residential property…ie. herb garden, flower garden, vegetable garden etc. Someone else comment if I’m mistaken.

But this might explain why LA was chosen as the name of the field. There are excellent garden designers who just aren’t geared to large public spaces, even something like an arboretum that might mainly feature plantings. And in the US  maybe we just tend to think less of gardening as a primary purpose even in the private realm since we use such areas for recreation, pools, pet runs, etc. Hence in terms of marketing LA is a better term to associate with and get work on a parallel plane to architects, who also may design residences but don’t call themselves “floor planners” in order to show their upper reach into more complex projects. 

It may be unfortunate, but I’m willing to bet that a multi skilled team going after a big transportation, trails, new campus, brownfield in-fill project, etc. would be more likely to consider and also to advertise having a LA on board than a garden designer, although the final plans may include spots that are garden-like.

In other words, some of the difference in use of terms may be cultural, some a reflection of expectations and training (more site engineering insight etc. with LA’s). The “exterior designer” idea may not be bad except I wonder if people would hear it as “facade” of buildings and not the resource base at the foundation of it all. 

If you design gardens, then perhaps.  If you are doing a large scale campus for example with a lot of complex grading and drainage with retaining walls, signage and tons of corresponding details… it is a gross undersell.

A garden can be in the landscape but the landscape is not in the garden.

I have often designed things that have to be approved by an engineer, as many LA’s have, which means we need to be aware and knowledgeable about such things.  I work for a firm that is engineering heavy, so our designs tend to be skewed in that direction.  Engineers are a breed all their own.  However what separates us from engineers is a softer eye, as I think engineers tend to over design–sometimes that is an understatement, and in general the aesthetic quality of something designed by an engineer most typically does not compare nor compete with something designed by a Landscape Architect.  Most civil engineers I know cannot hold a candle to a competent LA in the creation of space that makes one want to linger there.

As far as plant life is concerned, yeah, admittedly most LA’s aren’t very strong in this area, but that could be said for many sub-sects of the profession.  There are some whom are very good with graphics, others whom are very good with project management, and others whom are excellent with plants, some whom are decent at all but we are the jack of all trades and masters at none.  I myself feel extremely comfortable dealing with plants that are woody in nature, but not so much at perennials. 

If you want to become proficient in any are on any subject, all it takes is cracking a book and reading.  We are limited only by time and sufficient motivation.