Are Landscape Architects Just Being Used As Graphic Designers/Visualisers

Graphic design, 3D and other responsibilities are a niche, a specialization. First and foremost we are landscape architects. Almost everyone gravitates toward specializations from that point.

It sounds like you have been pulled into a lot of graphic work/3d modeling. It also sounds like you don’t like it. I don’t know your exact situation but as a part of a design team I can honestly say I have never felt that my architectural/engineering counterparts thought of my work solely as pretty pictures that I colored up or as an animator even though done my fair share of it.

Landscape Architects always have to explain what we do. It is the nature of an undefined profession. I have seen many definitions of what we are, and some come close, but we have such a wide breadth of services we provide it is hard to define without some specialization.

Graphics are an essential part of our skill set, quite possibly the most important. Graphics are communication.

Most stakeholders do not or cannot think in planview the way that landscape architects and other designers can. It doesn’t matter how good a design is or how completely it reacts to the environmental conditions of a site if the designer cannot communicate their thoughts to the stakeholders.

3d software is just another communication tool like trace paper and markers. Furthermore, the 3d modeling that goes into producing graphics requires the landscape architect to think about spatial and construction issues in far more detail than “traditional” 2d drawings do. This is precisely why it can be risky to utilize a graphic specialist rather than possessing the knowledge to produce a design image in house. Sure they can make a nice picture, but many of the details and reality will get lost along the way.

Finally, I agree that it is possible to stretch our skill-set too thin, and burnout is a possibility if you get stuck doing any one specific task. But if you are uncomfortable with new technology, you had best possess some mean traditional graphic skills, because construction drawings don’t inspire stakeholders.

Precisely, you can’t do CD’s without landing the job.

Another thought; I can’t speak to larger firms, but being involved with graphics has allowed me to have a very significant role in the conceptual design phase of numerous projects that would have traditionally been designed by the principals.

I guess I have only responded to the statements of others rather than making an attempt at answering your question, so here it goes… the firs question is who is using you as a graphic designer/visualizer (GDV)? if you are being only used as a GDV by your client and then they are passing the construction documents on to a different LA firm, then yes you are being used. Are other members of the design team (architects, engineers, urban planners) doing the diagrammatic planting plans, planting selection, pathway design, and amenities layout, then passing on the preliminary design to be colored and modeled by your firm, if they are then you are being used as a GDV. if you answered yes to these scenarios then yes you are being used and are not really doing Landscape Architecture, you are correct to say that you are being used as a Graphic Designer/Vizualizer. A landscape design consists of many components and graphics are a huge part of design, and new cutting edge graphics and modeling have became a more integral part of the LA office. Younger designers coming out of university are often asked to do a large portion of these tasks because older project managers have not learned the software or skills to do these types of tasks and do not have the time to learn them. If your firm has pigeon holed you into graphics design, modeling, or visualization do not think that the entire industry is collapsing in upon itself to only produce graphics or models, there are plenty of other skills to learn and apply in the world of Landscape Architecture

Yes and No.

First and foremost, we’re landscape architects.

Secondly, whether it’s 1909 or 2009, graphics are an essential method of conveying ideas, so that the ideas you so thoughtfully created as a landscape architect can by demonstrated to clients and the public who may not have the experience reading a black and white technical drawing.

Third, there’s much more to the profession than just creating designs. There’s the whole business side, there’s marketing, there’s graphics, there’s techincal, legal…etc…and you need to be submersed in all/most of these to be a well-rounded, succesful LA.

I agree that it’s very easy to get pigeon holed into doing nothing but graphics within an office, especially being a younger professional in this down trodden economy. There’s little jobs, little money and little room for advancement. I came out of school 3 years ago and have become the “graphics master” in my office. Everything digital runs through me…do I get a cool title and a hefty pay raise? No…but it’s a skill. A good enough skill that I told myemployer I quit because I found a job in a different firm, for nearly 1.5x my salary. Do I want to do it forever…hell no, but if it’s something that people need, and I can offer it…well, heck we’re just going back to basic economics now.

I totally agree with your perspective Ben. If you don’t have the LA working on the graphics or modeling tools, you may be producing graphics that don’t match your design. I think that it is very important to own many tool sets as an LA, especially in today’s environment.
I personally really enjoy the graphics (both hand and digital). As a visual person, as most LA’s I’ve met are, it is what originally caught my interest with LA. But if there is no depth behind the graphics than it’s true that it is basically graphic design.
But beyond graphics, construction docs and other technical productions can be very interesting and educational. I think any person can specialize and find their niche in our profession, which makes it that much more diverse and invigorating.