[John Black]

Fantastic suggestions, all! Clearly I won’t be able to see everything, but you’re giving me a great start. If anything else comes to mind please keep adding to the list…

[John Black]

Having actually been on several episodes of “Landscape Smart” and won my “Landscapers’ Challenge,” I have to chime in here. HGTV exists to sell ads, not to show good work. “Landscape Smart” aims at the DIY audience, who want free advice and cheap fixes; “Landscapers’ Challenge” hooks us on the drama of competition, but it’s hardly a celebration of thoughtful design.

I think HGTV simply cannot promote quality landscape architecture. Principles get sacrificed for camera angles and production schedules. Projects get dumbed-down for sound bites and cheap installation (you really think the network wants to spend their profit on competent contractors?). The work we did wasn’t always great, and sometimes it wasn’t even good. The one episode of “The Outdoor Room” I’ve seen was, I’m sorry, horrible: the designer decorator decided as the concrete was being poured that the new patio was too big. On these shows, “success” so often equates with avoiding disaster that I suspect only outright failure could be more compelling.

Programs like HGTV’s are, in my opinion, too focused on results, on the “after,” when our real value comes in the “before” and the “during.” I agree with Keven that it would be much more valuable to our profession to have a few well-placed experts on CNN or MSNBC or other credible outlets to discuss ecosystems, sustainability, urban planning, site remediation — all the things that make landscape architecture unique and valuable. Public awareness of ecological issues has never been higher; why shouldn’t the local news have some expert commentary on the latest infill project, or the planning issues that President Obama’s high-speed rail corridors will raise? In part, it may be that landscape experts have the sense and discretion to not speculate or sensationalize. But it also may be that the media don’t know us well enough yet to ask us. I think ASLA is doing a fine job of broadening its reach and marketing more resources to the media and the general public; individual designers and LAs can always follow suit to become local and regional experts.

[John Black]

To the first question: Depends on what kind of a practice you want to have. You need experience in whatever you intend to do — not only types of projects but also business development, personnel management, etc. — or sufficiently connected to others who have that experience.

To the second: There’s a lot more to running a design firm, even a one-person studio, than designing. I would guess not every newly-minted LA is ready to become a business owner, or can afford to until they have a couple of good projects in hand.

Landscape Architecture magazine had a nice piece in the June 2008 issue featuring LAs who had struck out on their own, plus a few complementary articles this year. You might check the archives at asla.org

[John Black]

Claudia, you sound passionate enough to make just about anything happen, and I doubt I could dash cold water on your zeal even if I wanted to. BUT (sorry, you felt it coming), having founded a nonprofit once upon a time, I feel you may be underestimating both the process and the power of such an agency. You said:

>>Non-profit organizations are tax-exempt and able to charge much less for services, and are also able to accept grants and donations

Don’t be fooled by the words “tax exempt.” Functionally, the only difference between a non-profit and a for-profit is that the non-profit serves a broad base, i.e. your work benefits the general public as opposed to a private interest, so the (U.S.) government gives your corporation a nod in terms of tax relief. But that means “accepting” grants and donations isn’t optional; it’s the heart of your non-profit status, and seeking those grants, in sufficient number and diversity, will be your consuming endeavor.

There is plenty of grant money out there, but identifying it and making your case to the grantors season after season will take at least as much effort as your true mission. It’s work best done by a specialist, who will be expensive — as will your staff, their benefits, office space, computers, travel, insurance, insurance, insurance… and where does that money come from? For us, fundraising (especially at startup) was an unforgiving furnace that had to be fed constantly to keep the agency going, draining vital resources away from our “real” work. And unfortunately, if you start bidding for the lucrative private projects — which probably are more interesting/fulfilling anyhow — you jeopardize your nonprofit status because the government may just decide you don’t serve the public so you don’t need that tax break after all.

I’m a year behind you on the career trajectory, so I’m hardly in a position to give you job advice. But I do know that in tough economic times, some for-profit firms actually increase their pro bono work to (a) keep staff busy and (b) polish their portfolios. I wonder whether you would be happier finding a firm with a strong pro bono record and selling yourself in as a talented, passionate, affordable resource? Not that it’s that easy, but starting a non-profit might just be harder. Good luck!

[John Black]

Extension is interesting in that, unlike a traditional university, the instructor for a class can vary from semester to semester; and of course the instructor can make or break the class. I could have really enjoyed Principles & Elements of Design with a more constructive teacher. I loved John Thomas’ inquisitive, philosophical approach, perhaps more than his Studio L1 class itself (here’s my L1 final project). I would follow Quin Ellis into the most tangled jungle.

Here’s a tangential question: given that our curriculum is fairly practical rather than theoretical, what have you found most inspiring about any given class or instructor?

[John Black]

Joyce, I haven’t splurged on a tablet yet… I think it’s my way of remaining in denial that I’m now a slave to the tech side of drafting. For the way I work (back & forth between drafting and web) the Intuos would be a better choice so I can just keep my head up and neutral. Plus, for the price of the Cintiq, I’d probably buy a good printer or scanner first to better integrate the CAD & hand rendering.

Joyce E. Weise said:

Nice work John.

I am with you on the use of a computer over doing a plan by hand. I want to try to use both if I can. Are you using a pen tablet? Any thoughts on a Cintiq 12 WX? I would appreciate your thoughts.

Joyce

John Black said:

Brandon, I agree nothing beats hand graphics… unfortunately it’s too time-consuming (and/or technically challenging) for me, so I’ve spent the last year teaching myself how to tweak VectorWorks and SketchUp to look as hand-drawn as possible. VectorWorks’ “rendering” feature gives lines jiggle, end extensions, etc., and SketchUp can manipulate line weights, extensions, colors, and so on. Typically I’ll do all my line work in these programs, then print onto bond or vellum, and render by hand with marker. On my last project (files attached) I experimented with scanning the rendered print back into VectorWorks for a full digital file, but the output from my service bureau was pretty far off from what I was seeing on screen, so there’s lots of learning to do there.

[John Black]

Brandon, I agree nothing beats hand graphics… unfortunately it’s too time-consuming (and/or technically challenging) for me, so I’ve spent the last year teaching myself how to tweak VectorWorks and SketchUp to look as hand-drawn as possible. VectorWorks’ “rendering” feature gives lines jiggle, end extensions, etc., and SketchUp can manipulate line weights, extensions, colors, and so on. Typically I’ll do all my line work in these programs, then print onto bond or vellum, and render by hand with marker. On my last project (files attached) I experimented with scanning the rendered print back into VectorWorks for a full digital file, but the output from my service bureau was pretty far off from what I was seeing on screen, so there’s lots of learning to do there.

[John Black]

Obviously each site’s soil is unique, and even “native” soil is rarely native unless you’ve got a preserved site. I almost always recommend a complete analysis of soil structure, biology and fertility from a lab which can recommend amendments based on the desired vegetation (including amendments to avoid, e.g. zinc in acidic soil). But there’s only so much we can do: clay-averse plants will never “adjust to” clay, just as hydrangeas will never bloom blue in alkaline soil; so the responsibility is ours to know the facts of the site and manage our clients’ expectations accordingly re: plant selections as well as maintenance.

[John Black]

Kevin, why do you not insist on a budget as part of the design program? Your client wouldn’t buy a house or invest in stocks without a spending limit in mind, and investing in their landscape improvements is no different. Unless they have an infinite bank account, there is a number above which they’ll lose sleep at night. It’s not fair to you to have to design without that guidance, and ultimately it’s not fair to them because they’re (presumably) paying you to meet their budget after they’ve approved the design.
John

[John Black]

Kevin, I also use VectorWorks in my studio; it’s the right balance of price and functionality for the residential work I do. Their plant database and tools are the biggest liability, not impossible but not as graceful as the rest of the program. ACAD is undeniably more powerful, but for my purposes it’s just plain overkill. Although VW does 3D, Google Sketchup is faster and simpler and I often use that to explore preliminary concepts before fleshing it out in 2D.

[Author]

Posts