Reply To: What don’t you know (well enough)?

[Mark]

Since we are not dealing with the military weapons, 3d gaming, or Hollywood-to-silicon-valley industry “digital personality”, we can look at landscape architecture as a severely retrograde industry composite applying digital tools today, that it should have been applying by the early 90s. So, as we should be applying aplha AI to problems for permanent but dynamic solutions, we find landscape architecture not even understanding late-automation principles already programmed into the OOP apps it uses.

For me in this industry, keeping up with the wake of this technology is my objective, since it is going the way of AI in time anyway. As such, we will always be behind, but deeper technological understanding of even basic automation and object-oriented software principles is the road less traveled, but the road it is going in any event, as the younger generation gets clued in by the technology element, because landscape architecture in academia is still at least two decades behind it all.

Now doing things the slow way only eats up more time which could, by now, be put to dynamic automation solutions and documentation to also ready for the next level asap. So, landscape architecture as an industry will continue to resist where it is going, because now the model is one of ever increasing inefficiency, so it cannot “make” the time now to even try to keep up, only the uncommon will. Only a rare few will take it to the next level, but it will be the way for the rest to follow in time.

Landscape architecture today is a brontosaurus which needs to go the way of the velociraptor which increased technological depth of application provides the new “DNA” for.