January 21, 2010 at 7:48 pm #171462
I am looking for some great talking points on the topic of a city requiring a landscape architect to prepare landscape/planting plans on development projects. There is a local city that has a challenge to their landscape architect-only requirements from a landscape designer in the area that would like to design commercial projects. What do you think are the main benefits in requiring landscape architects to be the only profession allowed to provide the work?January 21, 2010 at 8:05 pm #171469Jonathan J. BobParticipant
I’m assuming (I know, bad to do), that you are in a state that has a practice law. The main advantage is that a landscape architect is a licensed professional, with the education/training and liability that goes with licensure. I don’t know if there are requirements in the location in question for being a “landscape designer”. If LA’s are practice licensed and there are no real rules for landscape designer, should be “game over”. in New Jersey anyone can call themselves a landscape designer. In addition (again in NJ),I don’t think there is any thing that a landscape architect is legally allowed to do that a licensed engineer or planner can’t do. We had to make a lot of concessions to those practices to get even our old title law.January 21, 2010 at 8:49 pm #171468
Yes, we do have a practice act.
Your points echo my thinking, but your statement is much more succinct than my thoughts. Thanks for the input.January 21, 2010 at 8:59 pm #171467David MoormanParticipant
I think issues of liability become the greatest reason, not to mention specific expertise and training that LA’s have that quite frankly most LD’s don’t. As a LD I have actually done a few planting and irrigation plans for commercial projects, but for the GC/LG responsible for the project. I’ve had to turn down work because a few communities require an LA for any new construction, commercial or residential. The bottom line is that sometimes work is hard to find but relaxing certain standards that are designed to protect the general public shouldn’t happen.January 21, 2010 at 9:37 pm #171466
I enjoyed and appreciate the cynicism…
That’s a great letter. Thanks.January 22, 2010 at 3:44 am #171465Keven GrahamParticipant
I think Chad is correct Practice Act game over, not really an argument. What you need to find out is what allowances there are for landscape designers in your practice act if any exist. I’ve seen some practice acts allow certain allied professionals to do landscape architecture work under certain circumstances. Why should we protect it and why do we need to be strong on regulating landscape architecture. I know of one discussion going on now where landscape architects may not be allowed to do grading on landscape plans because a local communities engineers are fed up with reviewing the grading of persons preparing landscape plans that are not landscape architects. So theri responce is only PE’s even thow it might be a PE with 2 years of experience and never done a grading plan, yet the 200 years of experience for the LA does not matter. This is why need licensure.March 3, 2010 at 4:24 am #171464Claudia ChalfaParticipant
If you change the law, you’re on a slippery slope back to the land of very bad planting plans. I wish we had such a law in our state, so LA’s would be getting some jobs right now.March 3, 2010 at 5:12 am #171463Jason T. RadiceParticipant
LA’s are also a bit more reponsive when it comes to code issues related to ADA and IBC egress. Even local codes and proper placement of materials in a commecial project (think blind spots because of too tall of vegetation in parking lot islands). Also, with the commecial aspects, there is the issue of any site engineering that may need to be done, and stamped. It’s essentially an insurance policy for the town that you know what you are doing when it comes to this stuff.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.