...In 2008 I needed to find a new career that would:
• Provide me with fresh air
• Leverage my management experience
• Re-kindle my love of ecology
• Allow my more creative side to blossom?
I didn’t know of such a career and no-one I knew did. So I paid to see a career counsellor...
1. My Landscape Training to Date
1.1 How I see the role of the Landscape Institute (LI) as my representative professional body
My career counsellor, who I rate highly, managed to find “Urban Planner” as a career that might meet my needs. “Landscape Architect” was not on her database. Fortunately, further research into urban design turned up Landscape Architecture (LA) as a potential suitable profession. Why had I never heard of LA and why was it not on the skills databases? Clause 5(1) of the Landscape Institute Royal Charter (rev 2008) states that:
“The objects and purposes for which the Institute is hereby constituted are to protect, conserve and enhance the natural and built environment for the benefit of the public by promoting the arts and sciences of Landscape Architecture...”
My first question is to whom are the LI promoting the profession? If the LI’s remit includes promotion to the general public, - who, after all, could be future clients or practitioners - then it is not meeting this objective. Perhaps the promotion of the profession is better to school leavers through the LI’s initiative (sponsored by CABE) “I want to be a landscape architect.’
Would LA be the right career for me? I rang the LI headquarters in London to ask for some advice. Unfortunately the people I spoke to were not Landscape Architects and so the help they could offer was limited to that of an administrative nature. They did have a list of practices, however, which I downloaded and arranged visits to one or two.
The next question was to which university should I apply for a conversion course? Clause 5 (1) continues as follows:
“...to foster and encourage the dissemination of knowledge relating to Landscape Architecture and the promotion of research and education therein, and in particular to establish, uphold and advance the standards of education, .... and to determine standards and criteria for education ...”
Logistics limited my search for a conversion course to either Gloucester or Greenwich. Greenwich insisted on a 2 year course plus a 6 month MA, but Gloucester’s MA was optional. I queried this with the LI, but the answers did not explain why both courses should receive accreditation, whilst seemingly demanding different levels of effort (and money). Should I regard Gloucester as a cheaper and an easier option – a “soft touch”? It seems that the course content necessary for accreditation is down to the lead tutor at the University. Given they are members of the LI I suppose this is how the LI executes that function?
After visiting a private practice and a council planning/LA department, I became excited and convinced that this was the career for me – a profession that I could practise outside London and which I could continue to enjoy into my old age. I signed up with Gloucester University in 2008 with only a few days to spare before term started.
Meanwhile, my friends and neighbours were convinced I was going into garden design and I had a few offers of work before I had even started!
Even I was still trying to resolve in my mind what LA actually encompassed. I attended a lecture on sustainability by a senior member of the LI who professed to not calling himself a “Landscape Architect”, because of the baggage the term contains! How could this be? I had just made a life changing decision to become something that a potential role model was shunning!
So I composed a blog on Talking Landscapes suggesting the title for the profession should be changed, that the profession had an identity crisis and that it risked losing work that it should be performing. Some responses I received sympathised with my view, but most counselled that the problems I envisaged were either just irritations or did not really exist. Some respondents liked the ambiguity of the term LA, whilst others said I should stop worrying about management jargon and simply pick up a pen and start drawing instead. This is a fair comment to a new recruit, but I was left with an impression that the LI has a culture of complacency about the security of its future role.
1.2 My view of the ethics and nature of professionalism
1.2.1 Financial Prudency
In general, I am a fan of internet social networks, forums and blogs, so long as they are not anonymous. I simply like openness and debate. Talking Landscapes is a good example, although clearly many professionals do not share my enthusiasm for the site, and even if they did, might not find time to contribute. An internet forum, however, is not (in my opinion) a suitable place for a civil war. And during my first year at Gloucester there was civil war in the LI, the aftermath of which is still rumbling on as I write (January 26, 2008 ). I do not wish to replay the various chapters of that uprising here. Nor will I take sides, nor comment on the individual decisions that may have led to the financial turmoil. My point is that to conduct such a war on a website seemed unprofessional, not least because its openness made it sorely depressing to conversion students who had made the life-changing decision to try and join the profession. I was looking for leadership, guidance and role models. Instead I saw accusation, counter-accusation and name-calling. The guerrilla warfare then spread into the printed word that arrived in the post of all LI members. My naive assumption had been that such quarrels would be conducted and resolved in an orderly and constitutional manner.
My overall view is that it is unprofessional – not to say highly embarrassing - for the LI to have put itself into such a financial hole. The LI code of conduct includes several standards to which it expects its members to adhere. For example, standard 7 states that:
“Landscape Architects should ensure that their personal and professional finances are managed prudently and shall preserve the security of monies entrusted to their care in the course of practice or business.”
Clearly, the LI has struggled to meet that standard and as a result some say the ongoing efficacy of the central library is potentially at risk. However, Brodie McAllister (FLI, VPLI) stated to me recently that:
“The LI are not in financial trouble. It is very stable currently and has strong mechanisms in place.... Past financial turmoil was not unique to the LI. Many charities and businesses went bust. The RIBA for example lost millions. A very small promotion of membership launched a rebellion and take-over and lost, democratically. Their extreme claims, in some cases, needed responding to. The membership wanted the opposing view from the LI in order to inform them....“
“Landscape Architects should maintain their professional competence in areas relevant to their professional work and shall provide such educational and training support to less experienced members or students of the profession over which they have a professional or employment responsibility...”
I currently have access at University to a wide range of contemporary and archived books and journals. To risk having that supply turned off once I graduate is a concern. However, Brodie McAllister assures me that:
“The library is NOT at risk. The library and archive will be put is being
put into Trust by the Board, thus ensuring its continued growth and
protection. The membership was informed of this.”
1.2.2 Educational Support
I completed my conversion year successfully and, along with my fellow students, presented some of my work at the end of year show. Sadly, save for the sponsors – LDA -, very few practitioners attended. It seemed that the recession was the reason, which was understandable and half-expected. But to keen students it was also deflating that the professionals had not found time to be there to provide expert words, guidance and even encouragement. It also seemed short-sighted, because the event was a missed opportunity for them to spot budding talent that would be needed once the economy picks up.
The story was not dissimilar over the summer where I tried to get work experience. The private practice had no new work – much of it tied into public finance restrictions, and the council suddenly stopped replying to emails. I called and sent my CV to a dozen practices even offering my services and my own laptop for free. To me, this raised the question of whether the profession has any real responsibility to students in general, or whether standard 6 refers only to those employees who are unchartered. Brodie McAllister confirmed that:
“The profession owe no responsibility to student graduates
automatically, because most of the profession is operating as a business.
This is the same as in architecture... and he confirmed that “many practices do mentor their employees through P2C therefore showing care and responsibility to the next LA generation.”
Still, the lack of work meant I had a lot of time to catch up on some educational reading.
1.2.2 Ethics of Participation
During that summer vacation of 2009, the planning process progressed for a new Tesco logistics mega-depot close to my home in North Hampshire and just upstream from a nature reserve encompassing the largest freshwater body in Hampshire. A local action group –SPLAT – had been created to resist the development . To cut a very long campaign story short, the Government’s inspector found against the developer, who subsequently appealed to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. In his absence, a peer up-held the appeal based upon the creation of jobs. Currently, SPLAT has lodged a challenge to this decision at the High Court.
I wonder what I would have done if I had been in the employ of the developer:
1. No matter what environmental design measures I could design (such as noise buffers and SuDS), there would still be traffic congestion and 24*7 noise affecting local residents.
2. A risk would always remain that serious pollution, such as a diesel spill, would enter the water body and affect wildlife.
3. Further, the local residents who were almost unanimously against the development could not be accused of NIMBY-ism, simply because the development is not in the national interest in the same way that a new wind-farm might be. Here we had community cohesion, only to be over-ruled by a department supposedly encouraging community empowerment.
So, would I have requested that my employer remove me from that work? Should it remain a personal decision or could I have sought advice from the LI for an appropriate course of action? And if so, who exactly would I have called?
1.3 Ways in which Landscape Architects might maximise their collective and individual contributions to the environment
I discovered during that same summer vacation, that there are many excellent books and journals on the subjects ranging from landscape planning at the regional scale, urban design, democratic involvement and sustainability. As a professional instructor and author, I appreciate that the published word is an essential way of consolidating and communicating knowledge to other interested parties. It is also an essential tool to influence or lobby other individuals or bodies who affect the ability of the LI members to execute the objectives of the charter.
Government planning policy (e.g. the PPS suite) is one obvious way of influencing the “assessment, conservation, development, creation and sustainability of landscapes with a view to promoting landscapes which are aesthetically pleasing, functional and ecologically and biologically healthy and which when required are able to accommodate the built environment in all its forms”.
I believe that policy makers are not trained Landscape Architects, but I assumed that they employ the advice of such. This was confirmed by Brodie McAllister, who informed me that “the LI does influence Government Policy. The LI is a statutory consultee on such policy, because of its Royal Charter.”
As a student, my lecturers have provided reading lists including publications from best practice groups such as CABE, English Partnerships and the TCPA. All are prolific authors and, personally, I have found the Urban Design Compendium to be a particularly useful reference for built landscapes. I appreciate that NGOs like CABE are not subscription charities and probably have a large budget and dedicated staff , which explains the volume and quality of their output. CABE do work with LA, amongst many other professionals , and suggest “how CABE can help LAs”! Shouldn’t the question be “How LAs can help the other professionals involved in built environment?” As I have argued, LAs are uniquely placed amongst the professions to integrate the many disciplines required for successful place design.
I feel that CABE have become de-facto leaders on subjects that should belong to the LI domain, for example, Green Infrastructure (GI). This might be because LAs affiliated to CABE have drafted or reviewed the documents? Although Brodie McAllister states that: “the LI did take the lead on GI with its position/policy paper and follow up seminars/conference”, I feel on balance that the LI is following not leading. This may partly be due to constraints of time and money (and apathy from potential contributors/reviewers.) At this point it is worth highlighting Standard 11:
“A Landscape Architect is also expected actively and positively to promote and further the aims and objectives of The Landscape Institute, as set down in its Charter and to contribute to the work and activities of the Institute.”
Fortunately, Peter Wilder helped me with his view of the situation:
“Yes policy papers do take a lot of work especially if they are going to have the kind of impact that government bodies are going to take notice of. However it is still important to produce them as it provides the LI a platform with which to enter the global and government policy arena. Without this we would just be another voice in the background saying 'here here' to someone else’s agenda... [T]he LI does provide feedback and comment to most policy statements or consultation papers that are produced by CABE, RTPI, RIBA, EU, DEFRA, HCA, etc. This is quite time consuming as well and the LI regularly issue communiqués to its membership requesting contribution to help formulate an LI response to policy frameworks. ... I would welcome input from engaged members such as your-self so please keep a lookout for the next opportunity to contribute to an LI response. They often make for very interesting reading and pose very challenging questions which require a good deal of thought.”
For my part, I have reviewed the draft of the LI position statement on housing and submitted my comments to the LI. Unfortunately, much of the draft wording was rehashed policy statements or GI commentary. There was precious little new material or added-value. The one significant area that could have been explained was how LAs can integrate all those disparate ideas into coherent wholes, but sadly that was missing in the draft. However, the final version does have a very useful table (pp 2 to 5) called: “The role of the landscape professional – the path from concept to completion”, which articulates the role of LAs (in both local planning authorities and in independent practice) through the planning and design process. This will be helpful for me in explaining our role to potential clients
I attended the launch of the Housing Position Statement at Eco-build in March 2010. My enthusiasm for the Eco-build launch was tempered only by the fact that the LA seminars were marketed as “fringe” meetings. How can a profession that aims to lead sustainable and ecologically sound planning and design be happy to be labelled as “fringe” at a major conference on that subject?
Regarding the LI Journal (“Landscape”), judging by the comments on the latest revamp , I do not envy the job of the editor in trying to be all things to all men. I do agree with one senior commentator - replying to those critical of the “lack of content” – when he reminded professionals that it is they who are responsible for supplying the quality content. “Landscape” is, I suspect, an inward looking journal and not designed to be sold to and influence those outside the profession. If that is true, then personally I would expect the journal to have a more scientific and challenging nature. Rather than fantastic visualisations of how the next great piece of public realm might look or be used, I would appreciate an equal dose of hard fact and evaluation about:
• What the last installation looks like now
• How it is being used (or abused) now
• How that differs from the intention and – most importantly
• Why?
Brodie McAllister informed me that “the LI as I said is conducting a reader's survey and is working on a publicity strategy, so is addressing the future of the journal and other publications.”
On a more positive note, I was the first to openly congratulate the LI, Lesley Malone, on the launch of the LI’s “Knowledge Base” - an online catalogue of reference material - which I will find invaluable when my student access gets switch off shortly. There is so much negativity about the LI that I felt an urgent need to say something positive, i.e. credit where credit’s due. I hope that positivity rubs off.
2. The Future - My Transition to Practice
2.1 Changing patterns in the role of a practicing Landscape Architect both now and in the future
So, “having almost completed [my] academic training as a Landscape Architect”, what are my next steps? Clearly, I need some practical experience and continued development.
2.1.1 Continued Professional Development
I had assumed until recently that gaining chartership was mandatory to practice as a Landscape Architect. However, I talked recently to a new graduate who has worked on a contract basis and not even started his “Pathway to Chartership” (P2C). The LI buy-laws state that licentiate members (aka non-corporate members) have the same privileges, except the right to vote. They would clearly also not be able to train or mentor others. I found at the LI’s pathway handbook, which says:
Chartered status confirms that an individual has the skills, knowledge, understanding and integrity to practice as a landscape professional in the UK. It gives formal recognition of professional standing, including rights across the EU. Most employers look for chartered status, or a commitment to achieving chartered status, as an indication of quality and professionalism when recruiting new staff, and restrict the management of larger projects and contracts to those in their practice who are fully qualified. For those who wish to develop a successful professional career, chartership is a ‘must’.
Ultimately, I want to move up the food-chain in order to have more influence. So I will probably seek a mentor and chartered status sooner rather than later.
The LI’s P2C process was explained to us on March 20, 2010. It seems a robust process and the re-focus on mentoring and quality of experience (as opposed to counting hours and box ticking) is to be applauded. It seems a time consuming process, but I believe this is necessary for remote and independent scrutiny to be possible and also to keep high the quality and value of the chartered status.
2.1.2 Choosing a practice
Ideally, I would try and select a practice whose work best suited my desires and aspirations. This also assumes I know what area I would like to work in and that the chosen area will provide an adequate amount of gainful employment in the short to medium term.
The LI website is helpful in having a recruitment site and job alerts via e-mail. The Landscape journal also includes a list of some practices. The range of work is so expansive and I have not decided where I want to specialise.
All I am sure of now (February 6, 2010) is that I want to work with:
• A leader rather than a follower
• People who are proactive, not reactive
• Professionals operating at the top of the food chain (in influential positions), not the bottom.
2.1.3 The LI’s role in sustaining the profession
Practically, in the current market, I may simply have find work in any practice that will have me, whether this is a traditional Landscape practice or in a related profession. It seems that private practices are finding work hard to find and that public practices are also making staff redundant as public finance dries-up. There is an argument that the profession is misunderstood by prospective clients and under-valued so that LA’s are first in line to receive their P45. I have no quantitative evidence to substantiate that fear.
I have also heard recently (February 5, 2010) that Ecology practices are now recruiting Landscape Architects and that Architects are doing Landscape Architecture work themselves as the work dries-up . There is a view that in the last recession (1989 to 1993) architects didn't take over from LAs, so why should they do so now?
If Landscape Architecture is to be the umbrella profession managing changes to the environment (on any scale and whether rural or built), then our brand name (“Landscape Architecture”) needs to be understood widely. In reality, it has too narrow a definition to many.
It is interesting to note that many practices are already using more precise terms. For example, a cursory glance through the suppliers’ directory in the latest Landscape shows that other terms are very prominent. Perhaps this is because they are more specific and therefore better understood by clients.
Some terms used instead of “landscape architecture” by LA practices:
• "Environmental Planning and Sustainability" (Mouchel)
• "Environmental Planning" (Allen Pyke Associates)
• "Environment" (SLR)
• "Masterplanning" (HDA)
• "Urban Design" (Whitelaw Turkington)
• "Community Planning” (Whitelaw Turkington)
• "Creating Special Places" (LDA Design)
• "Regenerating Communities" (LDA Design)
• "Architecture Urbanism Design" (Broadway Malyan)
• "Landscape Design" (Arup)
• “Ecology" (HDA)
The issue is that our professional body is left with a title that is inappropriate unless it actively rebrands and markets itself. In my view it would be beneficial to all members (not least current student members), if the LI co-ordinated this re-branding effort centrally. However, according to Brodie McAllister:
“It's the Landscape Institute [i.e. not Landscape Architecture] we use as a name so that we could be seen as an umbrella organisation. Obviously more work should be done, but no one has come up with an easy answer yet. I too feel too much is said about this. What we are is the collective of what we do. That is impressive and extensive. The public mostly are only interested in glamour and money and operate in attention spans of 30 seconds. So, they are not who we should be convincing. Who we should convince has been a success story in terms of historical growth of the profession's membership.”
2.2 The Context (socio-economic / political) within which Landscape Architects are constrained to operate
2.2.1 Socio-Economic constraints
It seems that architects and engineers take the lead on many projects that LA’s could or should be leading, such as major urban development. In theory, it is master-planners and urban designers within LA practices - trained to design places that people want to work, rest and play – who should be leading. After all, it is they who should specify the massing and orientation of buildings and the creation of flexible and robust spaces between those buildings. The architect’s job is simply to design the individual buildings. According to Bill Burford, the financial implications are that:
“...architect[s] [are] taking the lead on projects and therefore taking the lion share of the project fees. Where LA’s take the lead, the share is bigger and the projects seems to run more smoothly”
Brodie McAllister cites landscape planners EDAW (leading the Olympic Village) as a counter-example. They recently merged with AECOM, but they – not EDAW - kept their name and brand themselves primarily as architects and engineers (as well as continuing to provide EDAW’s environmental planning and design services.)
So why are architects in the lead? In reality, there are probably trained master-planners and urban designers in these architect’s practices, such as the AECOM example. And perhaps clients see the real value add of any development being in the value of the buildings - as opposed to the value of the overall environment in which the properties sit – and so feel they must go to the architects first in order best to secure a return on their investment? At individual dwelling level, we have all seen “Grand Designs” where the project overruns, the architect’s fees rise and the budget for “landscaping” gets cut at the end. Why is this and is this also the case in larger scale development?
Bill Burford believes so when he states that that “financially much LA development work is regarded as luxury”, i.e. it can be cut without fear of financial repercussions. Bill confirms this by saying that the:
“LA has in the past been relegated to [the] first fix stage [and is] third and fourth in pecking order for fees... taking about 7% (as opposed to about 13% for a lead architect.)”
Brodie McAllister qualifies this by commenting that:
“[An architect’s] fee like ours depends on the type and budget and varies much the same as ours does. Most big building projects have an architect fee of less than 7%. It's the quantum of fee that differs because they are doing more work, i.e. the building is often - but not always - the larger part of the project.”
Notwithstanding this, there seems to be growing evidence that a high quality environment does have a positive impact on property prices. Maybe our environment will eventually be viewed as being as important an investment as bricks and mortar. But if and when that time arrives, will LA’s be best placed to capitalise? Perhaps I will simply hedge my bets and join an architect’s practice – such as AECOM.
2.2.2 Political constraints – the Planning System
So how could the Landscape Institute help influence a change to this scenario? We can all see the environmental problems caused by leaving economics and the market to its own devices. The market in the UK is flawed for two reasons.
First the UK is a small island, very heavily populated (with an ever increasing number of smaller households forming) and a restrictive planning policy, i.e. demand outstrips supply. In simplistic terms this means that the supplier can produce lower quality and still find a buyer at a high price.
Second, there is market speculation on land (albeit high risk), where land bankers could multiply their investment in agricultural land by a large factor overnight simply upon planning permission being granted. Developers, who may not have been the land bankers, then complain that to make a profit they need to build very densely and maybe cut corners. Many developers see the CLG’s Code for Sustainable Homes (based on BRE research) as yet another financial burden.
I have discussed this issue on a blog on the CABE website on the back of their publication “Who should build our homes” . My political solution is described in my CABE blog, so will not be repeated here. It may be idealistic, but that is what position statements should be, i.e. they should set out a vision to strive for even though it may not be possible to meet outright for various reasons.
I reviewed the draft of the more recent LI publication – “Making it Home” - and commented that did not sufficiently address the economic aspects of development. The final version has two paragraphs on page 9 under the heading “land values and designation”, which states the problem, but offers no position on potential solutions. In summary, the paper is good, but I feel the LI has not been brave enough and kept firmly on safe and un-contentious ground. It is a shame that the Owenstown case study (p18), does not feature in the introduction for its more innovative (yet retro) co-operative financial model.
3. Summary and Conclusions
3.1 How I think the LI’s role might change with respect to its relations with all stakeholders
In summary, if I were a candidate for election to the position of President of the Landscape Institute, what would be my manifesto? My three main goals would be:
A. Become the umbrella Environment profession
B. Increase involvement in LI democracy
C. Attract and retain the best graduates
The LI already has a Development Plan (2007-12) with strategic objectives and where appropriate I will use that as a basis to stress my different emphases.
A. Become the umbrella Environment profession
The Development Plan states that the LI will: “effectively promote landscape architecture as ‘The Environment and Design Profession’ to the public, government, media, potential clients and other built environment professions and partners in the UK.”
I agree with the view that - with a reduced 15 permanent staff - the LI is now achieving a lot, but cannot achieve as much as other organisations such as RIBA and RTPI with a membership and subscription base in multiples of that. The subscription base has increased as LI membership has grown: Brodie McAllister states that, “40 years ago its membership was in the hundreds; now it’s 6,000 and rising.”
The LIs financial position and influence would be much stronger, however, if:
a) Membership was expanded dramatically through merger;
b) Income was not limited to advertising and subscriptions.
Membership: David Jarvis said recently that one thing he regretted about his term as President was that he didn’t succeed in getting the RTPI under the LI umbrella. The RTPI currently have over 100 staff and about 20,000 members. Assuming there are synergies between the two organisations, merger would increase opportunities for set and spread the LI agenda. One might make the same argument for other bodies such as the IEMA.
Funding: The LI could lobby central Government to seek central funding in addition to its current income stream. This could be achieved by defragmenting the industry and achieving efficiencies through merger with related and overlapping NGOs such as CABE. I do not see why obstacles to merging a centrally-funded NGO with a subscription charity could not be overcome. Two organisations developing independent position papers on GI in quick succession is not required by anyone.
The beauty of this approach is that: a) the current economic climate demands efficiencies and; b) the LI charter would not need to change, because it is so wide-ranging and all-encompassing. The LI would become the body for professionals involved in environment planning, design and management across rural and urban landscapes. As such it would be responsible for drafting – not simply reviewing - all Government policy in that arena. The LI would then be better able to meet to “develop clear and relevant policies that protect, conserve and enhance the natural and built environment, and respond accordingly to public consultations.”
B. Increase involvement in LI democracy
The LI has to be democratic according to its charter, but often “greater membership involvement is down to the members not the availability of mechanisms on offer to get involved.” Democratic involvement of LI members seems to mirror that of wider politics, with disillusionment with centralisation (“them” versus “us”) and an increased disconnection from central decision making. The organisation of the LI is show in the chart below.)
Until recently, I had not seen the organisation chart. Upon reviewing it, the operation of the LI seems to be more transparent and make much more sense. I believe it should be prominent on the LI website and explained to all students as a matter of course.
For example, when my branch representative next says to me, “I do not really know what they (the LI) do”, I will be able to remind him that - as a member of the Advisory Council - he has a responsibility to know or find out. And the next person that says they think the LI is lagging behind on subject [X], I will advise to serve on the Technical Committee and push the agenda there.
So why is there this apathy to get involved or to stand for election to the Advisory Council or even the Board of Trustees? Standard 11 of the LI Code of Conduct dictates that members cannot be too busy to contribute!
Perhaps too few value the influence that the LI has on the stewardship of their individual practices. If the LI were able achieve goal A and so help exert greater influence “further up the food chain” (to paraphrase David Jarvis), this would help individual practices be more successful and re-establish the connection.
A critical measure of the success of reconnection would be whether more chartered LI members were the leads on environmental planning and design projects, in either a project management and/or lead consultant role. There are complaints almost every week about the poor quality of urban design. In his recent letter in the Architect’s Journal , Paul Finch complains of the “dreadful rubbish produced by the rump-end of the industry”, and goes on to say that “the answer is that far too many planning authorities approve designs that are woefully inadequate”. My questions to both Paul and to the LI are:
• Why are developers not employing high quality LAs to design great urban spaces and;
• Why are planning authorities either not employing high quality LAs to reject inadequate designs or supporting them to execute tough decisions?
Redress could be achieved - bluntly - by making LI leadership a prerequisite of obtaining planning permission. A better and more subtle way would is a bi-product of goal A through influencing decision makers of the benefits of a landscape-led approach.
In either case, the LI needs highly qualified and rounded individuals seeded through the industry, who are both technical experts and also confident enough to stand up for what they know are the right answers.
The LI takes its education and CPD obligations seriously, but how well does it lobby to get the best graduates and also to ensure the correct people are in the right positions?
C. Attract and retain the best graduates
To sustain goals A and B in the medium to long-term, excellent graduates need to be encouraged to join and then be trained to a very high standard.
Landscape Architecture is neither as well known nor glamorous as say, architecture, law or medicine. The average LA is probably less well-paid than a counterpart in other professions. Yet Landscape Architects can also make a huge difference (both positively and negatively) on peoples’ lives and money is not always the ultimate factor in people’s career choices.
The LI Development Plan aims to “uphold and advance standards of excellence in professional education, practice and development.” Perhaps quality will increase as a result of Government cuts in University funding leading to fewer places than applicants. But the underlying issue is that many students believe that other professionals are in general richer, more influential and more highly esteemed than garden designers. While that situation remains, the better candidates will continue to shun the Landscape Architecture profession.
The LI has invested a lot of energy into recruitment and has been successful in that regard, but it would be questionable to increase that investment until progress is made on goals A and B. Retention of disillusioned recruits within the LI will prove difficult if the LI practices are simply picking at the bones of decisions and work led by other professions.
In summary, the LI has been through turbulent times and is hopefully coming out the other side leaner, better and wiser. The economic downturn should be viewed as a great opportunity for the LI to increase its footprint and influence in a controlled manner, so that when the green shoots of recovery appear, we are best place to make truly great places.
Richard Crooks Fleet, Hampshire, March 30 2010
