Jay –
I worked for an architecture firm for a little while, but their approach to projects was more like what I would have expected from an engineering firm. Whereas I would expect architects to develop several conceptual solutions to a problem (similar to landscape architects,) and engineers to take a purely problem-solving approach (apply best practices, period) these architects did the latter. So, I think it’s difficult to give a hard and fast idea of what working in an office of either discipline would be like; you’d have to feel out on a case-by-case basis their reasoning for having LAs on staff.
I interviewed at a civil engineering firm recently that has an actual landscape architecture department, with licensed/educated folks who could potentially lead or take on a landscape architecture project independent of the rest of the company. They seemed to be respected as equivalent professionals who could be counted on to bring in and do business for the company. Conversely, the architecture firm I worked for had (previously) one “landscape guy” who was not licensed and only ever worked on the architects’ projects, coming into the process at the same point every time and having a pretty limited role. The company could then tell their clients that they offered landscape design services in house and the client could save money by not hiring a landscape architect. But I think that these differences aren’t so much a function of being either civil or architecture firms, and more just a function of the culture.
(I realize I kind of non-answered your question, but hope you might find it helpful.)
