Professional Objectivity

I see a big difference between client dictation and professional objectivity. Objectivity does not silence the practitioner from moving a project to follow his own values. It is not a black or white choice. It is continuing to provide service when the client is not moved very far in that direction rather than not making any effort to move them.

So many write about how landscape architects are supposed to be leaders by stop projects from exploiting the land and go further to say that we are obligated to impose certain practices on projects (see ASLA statement on climate change, or several threads on this website).

The intended discussion issue is whether it is a professional obligation to to follow the client’s values, or is it more professional to follow the agendas set by ASLA and what is told to us from our professors. The follow up is whether the latter practice or perception is killing us more so than the word “landscape”. I think it is an issue that is avoided because people are afraid to discuss anything that does not imply that landscape architecture is anything other than the highest standards of stewardship.

PS

The picture in my profile is my own work. It is a small condo courtyard at what used to be the Cape Codder Hotel. It is supposedly where the Cape Codder Cocktail was originated.

Geoff,
What you described as what we should do is exactly what we do. It does work 98% of the time. I’m not at all talking about stamping whatever the client wants – this is that “black and white” that I mentioned earlier.

There is post after post about asserting the best possible environmental and social consciousness and accepting nothing short of it.That is the extreme that is opposite the “follow client instructions and stamp drawings with blinders on” extreme.

My discussion point is whether you or I, individuals rather than rhetorical characters, have a professional obligation to our clients to come as close to following their instructions as what is possible within the law and defined professional ethics. Most of these situations come up when the project deteriorates from it original goals for one reason or another rather than having a butcher offer you a hack job. We steer clear of those when they are obvious, but we have had “scope creep” or massive changes develop in a project where it becomes very aggressive on regulations or just on the land in general.

How do those of you who run into this feel? Are you obligated to “make it work” or are you obligated to “maintain the highest standards”?

Where do you (any of you) as an individual draw the line? Please note that it is not a rhetorical question of where “would you”, but a question of where do you or actually where have you drawn that line in the past?

Can someone feel confident that if he hires you he will have a dedicated advocate to get the project done even if budget or other factors force a reduction in how far he can go with progressive practices?