Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 9, 2016 at 4:31 pm #151519
DC
ParticipantYou need 2 years post-graduate work experience, plus all 4 LARE exam passes to become licensed. During the two year period you have to complete internship information on a quarterly basis. At this time you can also take your LARE exams. So if you do things really streamlined, you can be licensed after 2 years. That’s the minimum. The requirements for licensed BC landscape architects are slightly more stringent than in Ontario.
I know people who have done Masters at both Universities and both loved it and are very successful. You really can’t beat the scenery in Vancouver or the west coast, but Guelph is also great, and closer to Toronto, New York, etc.
January 23, 2013 at 3:14 pm #155669DC
ParticipantI think it’s also largely due to the media. Whenever a new building goes up you’ll read paragraphs about the architect who designed it.
Whenever a new park goes up (that is also groundbreaking and spectacular and unique), there is no mention of the landscape architect. It’s usually credited to the city, as if it magically appeared there.
Changing that is going to be hard.
I’d be interested in hearing what your own thoughts are on this.
March 8, 2011 at 3:28 am #164478DC
ParticipantNever mind, I just found it! (Surface Design for those wondering).
February 3, 2011 at 9:25 pm #165172DC
ParticipantI had no idea until now that the two camps were fighting. I don’t think of their ideas as being mutually exclusive. Like Thomas said earlier, can’t the landscape urbanism principles be applied to new urbanist thinking, and vice versa?
Personally I think a lot of landscape urbanism writing is ridiculously steeped in obscure “systems-speak” and that it often doesn’t have a point, really. But I also think that on the flip side new urbanists need to update their ideas a little bit, and become more flexible to different realities.
January 20, 2011 at 4:53 pm #165554DC
ParticipantI second the suggestion of carbonmade.
Very nice, subtle colours and very simple layout to focus the attention on your work, looks sleek and professional (for the price you’re paying – zero!).
January 18, 2011 at 7:30 pm #165648DC
ParticipantThis is the kind of thing I would like to hear more about on here.
Gives me hope.
January 18, 2011 at 5:05 am #165578DC
ParticipantI think you will find some resistance to the idea on here, since we are all designers and love to do this kind of thing (most of us anyway) ourselves. Also, a big component of a landscape architect’s training is to learn how to come up with a marketable concept for a design and to sell it to the client.
The thing that intrigues me is how you would brand a landscape architect firm to distinguish it from all the other firms out there. Would it be the overall design style the firm takes? What if the style is all over the place? Would it be the type of clients the firm wants to attract? The design approach they take? Would that be above the heads of most clients?
Is branding more effective for a company that provides a set service, like fedex, or a set product, like coffee, as opposed to a company that offers design services? In my mind design services are largely bought and sold on reputation and being cheaper than competitors, and big personalities/visionaries, not a brand of the company per se. But something tells me I’m wrong about this and just need a little convincing otherwise.
I think if I was going to start up a small landscaping company I would potentially be interested in this, but would not have the money to do it.
January 17, 2011 at 11:38 pm #165758DC
ParticipantFirst of all, Nicole Foss is a trained biologist, not a trained economist.
Second of all, the bank publication is using statistics with sources to back up its information, whereas Nicole Foss did not give any information to back up her statements.
Finally, she did not say peak oil is “kookiness”, she said Nicole Foss is kooky – as are a lot of people in the whole peak oil transition town movement.
(Not saying I think all people involved are kooky – I was briefly involved in this stuff, and know a lot of cool people). But I think thats what yukon was getting at here.
January 17, 2011 at 8:21 pm #165773DC
ParticipantIf I can jump in here for a minute I’m interested in hearing what figure you started out at and how you made it up to “well over 50k” with only 5.5 years of experience?
January 15, 2011 at 10:38 pm #165634DC
ParticipantAs far as I know landscape architecture doesn’t have much geology in it. I would echo a previous statement and ask why you don’t go for geology instead?
If you like the idea of grading and drainage (the only thing I could think of that is somewhat geology-related), then yes there is a lot of that, combined with design. But you will be doing a lot of sitting in an office on a computer drafting in AutoCAD….unless you get work at a small design-build firm which allows you to go on site visits regularly.
Also, I don’t see any problem at all with using architecture stuff in your portfolio but I would take a few of those projects out and try to diversify it with different pieces/interests.
January 13, 2011 at 4:36 pm #165666DC
ParticipantYeah, I guess chances are I wouldn’t find anything since the market is so saturated, but it’s worth a shot…if I have enough time that is.
January 12, 2011 at 9:07 pm #165885DC
ParticipantI agree. Private forces largely drive development, and it tends to be the same old same old suburban style that gets implemented. In my opinion, it’s only because of “new” municipal policies asking for some mixed use, or slightly smaller lot sizes to accommodate slightly more density, that even a bare minimum of choice and diversity has been incorporated into the suburban landscape.
I don’t see how this type of development results in less infrastructure costs, unless people will be using grey water harvesting systems and septic tanks and generating their own power…unless you are talking about changing existing dense urban neighbourhoods into a more permeable environment by removing paving and adding green infrastructure to reduce the load on grey infrastructure.
January 12, 2011 at 12:36 am #165688DC
ParticipantI really wish more firms would consider this model! Think of all the traffic congestion that would be reduced and the cost of overhead.
But the idea of being a free-floating contract worker for the rest of my career doesn’t appeal to me that much. Especially in an international and globalized economy where maybe the bulk of contract work would go to workers in countries that can demand a lot less money…
-
AuthorPosts