LA’s expanded role

[Zach Watson]

From what this article says, it sounds like the State of Delaware is examining the possibility of expanding the role of Landscape Architects.  I may be wrong because I don’t know what work Landscape Architects are legally able to preform in that state but I know that here in Arizona we legally can’t sign grading/drainage plans. 

Legislative Update for Delaware Landscape Architects

http://www.landscapeonline.com/research/article/16061 

[Boilerplater]

It reads that way to me.  Maybe its time to get licensed in DE.  The state seems to be in slightly better shape economically and you still see building going on.  My Dad lives there, and I realized from this article he’s only a mile or so from the board’s offices there.  Lots of people who were priced out of NJ and southeast PA moved there in recent years.  The influence of LAs on most of the new developments is not readily apparent!

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

It looks to me that LAs are currently specifically listed along with CEs an PLSs and that the new language is more qualatative and up to some discretion regarding “qualified to perform”. I don’t see how that translates to expanded roles, unless I am mis-interpretting what I read.

 

Massachusetts has two bills stalled away. One that basically applies politically correct gender language to replace proper English, lists what landscape architects do, adds every loop hole imaginable to make it effectively a Title Act (which is what it is now), and then calls it a Practice Act. The second one basically does the same thing, but requires continuing education credit$. Neither is truly a Practice Act in my opinion.

 

I think a Practice Act should not be to exclude others from doing landscape plans, but to allow us to apply the additional KSA’s that we are certified to be capable of in our respective states. Grading and Drainage that is limited to CEs in most states comes to mind first. Some structural design as well. … it still should depend on the licensing requirements matching the allowance to do the work.

 

I don’t think that it is in the public interest to use a Practice Act to give us a monopoly on everything landscape design related.

[Zach Watson]

Your comments in regards to allowing LA’s the ability to develop Grading/Drainage plans is a large part of what I thought I read about in the link.  Here in Arizona we can not develop those plans all though I know of some Civil Firms who work with LA’s to develop the vision for the project accordingly.  

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

Here in Massachusetts we still have only a Title Act. LAs typically draw out their own grading plans and then hand them off to a CE to finish it off with the final calculations and drainage structures unless they are part of a multi-dis firm. The CEs don’t really re-design the grading so much as refine the LAs grading to make sure they are comfortable that it works well and meets the applicable standards. It is almost a win-win situation – the LA designs it and the CE is responsible for it. I can’t tell you how many g&d plans for LAs that I have worked on as a staff person in CE offices – some very recognizable firm names.

The benefit of LAs being allowed to do their own Grading & Drainage is in those rare cases when a CE is not needed for anything else. Then it is a marketing plus as we would fit the “one stop shopping” mold – a reason why we are often displaced by CEs when it comes to Site Plans. However, in my state there are few projects that do not require CEs for other reasons, so that marketing advantage would be all but non-existant. … all we’d get is more liability.

Many of us think that we can be made relevant and therefore busier and better paid through regulation. I think it is more wishful thinking than reality. It falls back to whether we want to wait for the profession to carry us or what we do to carry ourselves as individuals or individual firms. … wait for the bus, or get there on your own.

[Author]

Posts