Re-Positioning of the LA Profession

I refer to a controversial blog I posted a few months ago : http://www.talkinglandscape.org/profiles/blogs/oh-really-can-you-come-and-do  My main thrust was that Landsape Architecture term itself has become unhelpful to the profession and that our profession must be the "umbrella" under which all environmetal change specialists (rural and urban) should operate. This is because we are best placed to ensure that those changes are integrated and ultimately successful. Indeed, if we do not operate at this level then you could argue that we cannot meet our charter objectives. I judge that most responses fell into the "complacent" category (read for yourself).


The reason I dig up this controversial discussion is that the marketplace IS changing as I suggested. For example, a little bird told me yesterday (Feb 5, 2010) that in the UK:
- an ecologiy firm has started recruiting landscape architects
- an architecture firm has started doing the landscape work as well (as work is hard to get)
The same little bird is also thinking of ditching the LA term for "environmental design."

Now if you think that ecologists or architects are best trained and suited to managing change in the environment, than you can stop reading now. However, if you think that these specialists are not best placed to properly integrate all the elements required to make a new place successful, then what is to be done? Do you:

a) carry on regardless, because actually your practice is OK thanks?

b) copy what the little bird is doing and re-brand (to steal a march on the new competition and even maybe sign-up some associate ecologists and architects into your practice)?

c) try and act together as a profession to address the risk and reposition your profession as the umbrella under which all other specialities operate?

I think the terms of the charter suggest that approach c) has to play some part in the future.