Should landscape architecture contemplate the inclusion of garden design as an additional field of activity?

[Jamie Metcalfe]

Hi, 

My name is Jamie Metcalfe, I am a post-graduate student of landscape architecture at the University of Gloucestershire. I am currently writing a report titled “Should landscape architecture contemplate the inclusion of garden design as an additional field of activity?” 

This report is written in response to a column by landscape critic Tim Richardson in the June 2012 Garden Design Journal advocating a merger between the Landscape Institute and the Society of Garden Design. 

‘A merger between the LI and the SGD, with a single, hard-won qualification which has landscape, spatial design and planting theory components… The new generation would be titled ‘landscape designers’… The word ‘architect’ would be dropped, which would be a boon to landscape architects, who tend to be seen as poor cousins of the ‘real thing’ (architects).’

(Garden Design Journal 2012)

As landscape architecture is a multi-disciplinary field that incorporates aspects of: botany, horticulture, the fine arts, architecture, industrial design, geology, the earth sciences, environmental psychology and ecology etc. I am wondering if the inclusion of garden design will mean the landscape architects are over extending themselves and I have prepared a few questions to get a professionals viewpoint on this topic. If you have the time I would extremely appreciate it if you could answer them. 

Do you feel landscape architecture is currently over extending itself into fields where others are already experts in? 

In your opinion how do would you feel landscape architecture would benefit from the inclusion of garden design as an additional field of activity?

Do you think the current economic austerity is the underlying reason behind Tim Richardson’s view of a merger? 

Who do you think benefits most from a merger?

Do you see any problems with a merger? i.e. between institutions or accreditations or the identity of landscape architecture

Do landscape architects already think they are qualified to be garden designers?

Many thanks in advance

Jamie

[Alan Ray, RLA]

Jamie, I’ve been doing garden design as a part of my LA practice over 25 years and as an employee of others for another 15 years…I find these are not mutually exclusive…why do others? Is it because we’re no longer teaching hort. courses in the LA curriculum? When I was in school, we took several hort. courses that have served me well, especially during this down economy. While many have no work, I’ve been making a living designing gardens. I’m so glad I learned this art and skill in school otherwise I would have been out of business.

I talked to a recent grad of a nearby LA program and he told me that they no londer teach planting densgn.

When did the schools decide that landscape architects do not need to know landscape design?

Well, no wonder the current crop of LA grads don’t want to do garden design…they don’t know how!!!

Do I feel garden design should be included in the LA practice?  I’ve never known anything else.

I invite anyone to see my website where you’ll see a broad spectrum of LA work displayed. Why be focused on only one thing? I find that boring and it explains why many get burned out so quickly in this profession. Broading out will help keep it all fresh and interesting….

 

[L. colunga]

I am always baffled by this distinction.  I am an American with and MLA (currently taking LARE) and just spent the last 3 1/2 years living in the UK and have met and seen Tim Richardson speak once or twice.  I love garden design as much as I do public space design, urban planning and community design and consider myself qualified in all of these areas.  Tim is always stirring the pot and usually raises valid points.  I whole-heartedly agree that landscape architects should consider themselves garden designers, or more accurately, be encouraged to pursue this as a valid and worthy use of their time.  Landscape Architecture has many roots and has evolved to be able to address many issues in modern times.  I think planting design should be able to be done by anyone, as it currently is, but grading, structure and overall planning of the landscape should require consulting a LA (this is not the case in the UK for garden design).

If there were to be a merger between the SGD and the LI, I would hope the standards of the LI would remain the same and the garden designers would be held to the higher standard.  I’m not sure if this would ever happen in England though as a lot of people in the SGD come from very different backgrounds, sometimes with no formal design training at all.  Garden design in the UK is such a national past time, I can’t see it becoming so regulated.  Clients always have the choice about which profession to choose though, although I not sure most clients in the UK or US understand how LA’s differ from garden designers.

Long story short, I think LA’s should take ownership of garden design, but planting design can be open for the taking if someone is resourceful enough to make it a profession.

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

The world seems to be all about packaging and naming. The field of landscape design is rediculously diverse on countless facets. Landscape architects are a subset of landscape designers who jumped through all of the hoops to get licensed. They are as diverse from one another as any other landscape desiigner is from any other.

 

Garden designers are a subset of landscape designers. Some garden designers are landscape architects, some are not. Some landscape architects are garden designers, some are not. Why is this an issue?

 

This profession has an obsession with definition. It seems like many people expect that their careers and status are defined by how the entire profession is perceived. The most important thing seems to be to make everyone believe that the profession is great, we are part of it and are therefore great. Why else can this trivial nonsense be so important to so many people?

 

Everyone complains about being identified as being qualified to do this and unqualified to do that. If you are an LA, you are automatically supposed to know “x” and automatically incapable of knowing anything about “y”. The fact is that many people have great knowledge in all kinds of things and not so much in other things.

Having gone through the requirements to be licensed as an LA proves minimal competency but does not restrict any other knowledge or competence. The licensing requirements are the only thing that factually defines what a landscape architect is – nothing more and nothing else. Everything else is opinion and perception and really does not matter.

 

All of this comes from this yearning for professional identity. We beg to be labeled and then we get mad that we don’t like how we are labeled. We find that no matter how someone defines the profession, we don’t fit the description. Instead of getting over it, moving on, and working as hard to define ourselves individually, we want to rally everyone to rename and/or redefine the profession to fit ourselves. It won’t happen.

 

This profession is great BECAUSE it can’t be packaged to a specific definition.

 

It’s your thing, do what you want to do and stop worrying about stuff that does not matter.

 

[Alan Ray, RLA]

Well said, Russell.

[L. colunga]

Well put.  I wish I could have put it this way myself.  The one thing I really struggle with is being dismissed by other professions as the plant person just because I have an MLA, when my focus is so much more than that.  Best of luck to everyone pursuing their own version of happiness!

[Jamie Metcalfe]

Thanks you for your responses very insightful.

I initially felt that landscape architects were over extending themselves into other specialist fields but after talking to a number of professionals I realise that a broad knowledge of all aspects of the environment and how these specialist areas fit into the process of design is essential. Would you agree with this point?

Thanks

Jamie

[Alan Ray, RLA]

Yes Jamie, and remember, everybody is a critic…..

never heard of Tim the landscape critic. Never even heard of a landscape critic. I’d pay more attention to my stone mason….

[Anonymous]

Yes, Russell you’re on point once again.

[Darragh Adam Mullen]

maybe 😉

[Jordan Lockman]

The final question is odd, “do Land. Archs. already think they are qualified….”

We should be qualified to be garden designers after 4-5 years of specialized university training and a minimum of 3 years of intern. While to qualify as a garden designer you need to have a pulse and know what a plant is.

The problem that I see is that most people outside the field think that(garden designer) is all that we are… So it is important that we all get to know our plant material and practice this part of our field well. I know that when I am designing a parking lot there will likely be a garden in there and as a good landscape architect I  should build an amazing garden for that parking lot. One that follows all the design principals and makes the space work aesthetically, this is a small part of what LA is.

[Ernst Glaeser]

 

Where is the problem?

In the very old days both was done by the Garden and Landscape Artist, strong background in horticulture and/or architecture.

When I graduated, in Germany, it was Garden and Landscape Architecture. 

Look at it that way, when you blow-up a garden plan you have a great landscape plan. When you scale down a landscape plan to garden size you most probably have nothing left.

I call myself sometimes a balcony box architect. The Japanese way of bonsai and moribana are idealistic landscapes. Here we all experience the human scale, a thing I’m missing in most gigantic landscape and urban design.

So, where comes the LA into the picture? Right now I,m working on 24 sqkm.

[Author]

Posts