May 29, 2011 at 4:29 pm #162667Heather SmithParticipant
Funny side note: I read an article about Brad Pitt where they called him an amateur architect…haha. So I guess having the money and fame to get you an audience with well known architects and dabbling in design is now enough to make you an architect. If I was an architect this would drive me crazy…and this does nothing for their profession. I almost wanted to write the magazine to let them know how ridiculous that was…or was it? With some of the opinions here…maybe I should have just subscribed to Landscape Architecture Magazine (could I be a junior ASLA member?) and saved myself thousands in education.May 29, 2011 at 10:07 pm #162666
Jarrod, you are in TN, if I’m not miataken. Tennessee has no definitions in their title/practice act of what landscape architecture is according to the reference on ASLA’s web site.
It has a long list of people who can can do landscape architecture work even though they don’t define what landscape architecture work is (effectively negating it from being a Practice Act). Then it goes on to clearly state “None of these exempt persons, including persons employed by the state of Tennessee or its political subdivisions, may use the title landscape architect.”
It seems that you have either not read the law for TN or you simply want to decide it means something different from what it says.
READ IT! :May 29, 2011 at 11:01 pm #162665Heather SmithParticipant
Hiya Miya Jarrod…you SHOULD read what Andrew posted…I checked out some places you are advertising services and I am pretty sure that would qualify for what…a Class B misdemeanor whatever that is…and they count every day you are guilty of advertising that.May 31, 2011 at 9:47 am #162664Tin-Tin AzureParticipant
I am 50/50 on my view. In its simplest form, I think it should be as easy as, if you have a degree then you are Landscape Architect (or an associate or something, but STILL using the LA name), if you have the degree and a license then you are registered, chartered, etc etc and can use the relevant letters before the LA. Its pretty clear to see that somebody with RLA is of a higher class than an LA, and so I don’t see the problem.
Sure you worked your but off to get the license, but everyone who has the degree worked their buts off too to get that far, and I think it adds a more creditable to the profession to have a consistent use of titles. So I think it should be acceptable to just use LA, and if you are registered then you use RLA, simple, and clear for all, I really see why nobody would beat the bush up about using LA if they can use RLA, its the next step up that every LA is working towards.
Besides, there are separate degrees for Design now, so using LD just gets confusing . . . LA for having a degree, RLA for being registered. Then everybody knows whats what. Whats the point of only registered people being able to use LA & RLA? That just makes it even more confusing because you have a selection of titles to use for the same level of professionalism but no title what so ever before hand. So for several years, or decades depending on your effort levels, you seemingly have no real suitable title.
For my own part, I prefer to use Designer anyway, the second you use Architect everybody seems to assume you are involved with a different career. Besides designer allows you to be a bit more free in your expressions as to what exactly you design.
I do understand it can be upsetting for all those who have worked for many years (and yes not forgetting the money) to get the registered title. But I think using the registered part already ups your status.
p.s – Couldn’t agree more about the accountant part, you have your degree in accountancy, you are an accountant. you have not been chartered, so you cant use the certified name etc. It is so very simple, and effective and has worked for them for a very long time. My dad is a chartered accountant, and as far as I am aware they have no qualms in their industry about it, because its very clear that you either say your chartered or not. If you change the title, then you change the profession. Landscape Architecture will become weak and divided if there is a constant changing of status and titles.
Another stance, take sports, If you play football, you have levels. Amateur, Semi-Pro and Pro . . but ALWAYS still a football player, nobody can take that away from you, because it is what you do, some Amateurs are better than the pro’s, but until they reach that level they cannot use the Pro status, but either way, they are what they are, Accountants Architects or Football Players, its the same story over.
If this peeves anyone off, then sorry, and sorry again, just my very lowly and youthful view, opinions make us strong right?!?!?! And I will retract all and let you win. But still just a belief.
A Designer of Stuff and ThingsMay 31, 2011 at 11:28 am #162663
All perfectly practical until someone writes a law. Then you go by the letter of the law.
The biggest things that I’m getting out of this thread are that the subject of licensure is not well taught and not enough people are reading the laws that govern their state in regard to the subject. .
Or there may be a “Pirates of the Caribbean” attitude that these laws are “guidelines” and only apply until they get in the way.May 31, 2011 at 11:47 am #162662Tin-Tin AzureParticipant
change the law?
(I just wrote a lot more and it didnt post it besides that half a sentance nevermind)May 31, 2011 at 10:25 pm #162661
They have been changing the laws … to make them more restrictive. Surely, you did not miss ASLA’s “50 by 2010” campaign?June 3, 2011 at 7:59 pm #162660
secure the profession from what, exactly? Rogue unregistered Landscape Architects?
If you have achieved a BLA you are already leagues above a Landscape Designer, who quite often got lucky with his lawn service business and now calls himself a Landscape Designer. The same being true for an Interior Designer versus the Interior Decorator. It is quite an insult.
If registration was really all about the ‘welfare and safety’ of the public as they say, then why aren’t contractors required to be registered, as they are not here? Doesn’t matter how many stamps are on a drawing, the final product is mostly up to them.June 4, 2011 at 5:04 am #162659Brett T. LongParticipant
Are you a landscape architect?June 4, 2011 at 12:19 pm #162658Christopher PatzkeParticipant
I don’t think I have ever worked in a state that does not require contractors to be licensed (DC, CA, and MA)June 5, 2011 at 4:33 am #162657
yes I am for 28 yrs.June 5, 2011 at 4:34 am #162656
that does not mean they don’t existJune 5, 2011 at 7:35 am #162655Douglas M. RooneyParticipant
So when you say you have been a Landscape Architect for 28 years, you mean you have been licensed for that long, right? Or was there a “rouge unregistered period” in there?June 5, 2011 at 7:13 pm #162654
Actually, you don’t need a license to be a landscape contractor in Massachusetts.June 6, 2011 at 2:02 pm #162653Christopher PatzkeParticipant
There is no specific license for landscape contractors in Massachusetts. You are correct, however, accessible egress steps (for instance) must be installed by a mason who is a licensed Construction Supervisor in the Commonwealth. In short, any construction that impacts “health, safety and welfare” must be performed by a licensed (in one form or another) contractor for the same reason Landscape Architects are licensed. I would refer you to Don Finocchio – Technical Code Analyst at the Commonwealth Board of Building Regulations and Standards.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.