Subject: Reason for this group - PLEASE READ!

From: [email-masked] (Michael D Gaunt)
Date: 26 May 1995 19:34:46 GMT

At the risk of being flamed here, I wanted to take a moment to step back 
and look at what the true purpose of this newsgroup is.

For those not familiar with this profession:

	Landscape Architects are not necessarily gurus when it comes to 
lawn and landscape maintenance.  Landscape Architecture in it's pure form 
is much more devoted to the spatial organization of our open spaces, 
parks, and residences than it is to general lawn maintenance and upkeep.

I understand your frustration regarding weeds, bug sprays and all that 
stuff that constitutes the maintenance of your landscaping.  I don't 
think this is probably the best place to look for answers.  

There is another group called rec.gardens that has a much wider expanse 
of knowledge in this area.  These are the people that have dedicated a 
tremendous amount of their time to their lawns and landscaping... not 
just their vegetables.

SO WHAT IS THIS GROUP SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT?

	Perhaps we should be more concerned about the profession of 
landscape architecture itself.  Where do you turn for inspiration when 
developing a site?  Who are some of the authors that you have read 
recently that would be of benefit to all?  What advances in construction 
and design can be shared with other l.a.'s?  These are just a few of the 
topics that I've been looking for, yet have never found.

I'm sure that with a little effort we could develop more profession 
related discussions here.  Not to say that any of the questions I've seen 
are invalid or silly... it's just that there are better places to get the 
information you are seeking.

I look forward to reading your responses on this no matter what opinion 
you might have.  

Thanks!

Michael D. Gaunt
[email-masked]

---

From: Darby Watson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 14:27:25 -0700

I am interested in starting a non-profit agency for landscape architects 
to donate time/materials for community based projects.  Has anyone heard 
of someone doing this? I have lots of documentation on Dan Donnelly's 
work in Florida and am looking for more along those same lines.
Thanks,
Darby ([email-masked])

---

From: Brion Henault <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 02:20:37 -0700

> I look forward to reading your responses on this no matter what opinion 
Bravo!

Thank you for saying what has been going though my mind every time I 
read mail in this newsgroup.

Brion Henault ([email-masked])

---

From: [email-masked] (David LAR)
Date: 26 May 1995 20:37:27 -0400

Michael:
It used to really chap my _ss when I told people that I was a LA and they
would ask why their corn plant died.  But I came to realize that designing
a planted environment necessitated having a rudimentary knowledge of
horticulture.  While I might not be able to tell why the plant died, I
could at least offer some suggestions about lighting, watering and feeding
or refer them to someone who would know why it died.  It was also an
opportunity to educate someone about what LAs do.
This could be a very exciting forum for continuing professional education.
I'll look forward to open and frank discussion about where this profession
is headed.  Personally, most of the LAs I meet are, like me, not
practicing Landscape Architecture on a daily basis.  Any ideas as to why?

---

From: [email-masked] (Coeli)
Date: 26 May 1995 20:57:23 -0400

You are right about the scope of this group but I find that computer talk
groups are rarely focused. There is an exception: the woodworking group.
Lawns should not be a concern with this group if one has read Diana
Balmori's book.

---

From: [email-masked] (alan turner)
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 01:28:33 GMT

Reminds me of when I would come home for the holidays, and show some 
pictures if what I'd done that year, and one relative would always say "And 
then you told them where to put the bushes, right?"

There is a misconception that landscape architecture is a highbrow version 
of gardening.  "The Chlorophyll Syndrome"; a landscape requires plants.
There's the work of Barrigan and Nogouchi and Kahn as counter-examples.
Incredible landscapes, some of them, and few or no plants at all.

Even Burle Marx, plantsman that he was, used plants as just one type of 
item in his design palette when he was designing landscapes.   

L.A. is a field that crosses over a lot of disciplines: It's art, it's 
sculpture, it's civil engineering, it's urban design, it's horticulture, 
it's road design, it's ecology, it's lighting, it's architecture, it's 
psychology, it's law; it's all of those rolled into one.  

There's a wealth of things a L.A. has available to design with, colors, 
textures, scents, sounds, temperatures, privacy and exhibitionism, 
convenience and security, wildness and domestication...  and there's a host 
of invisible issues to be dealt with that also have to all work perfectly, 
to pull it off.  

And still, how many times have you heard something like "You're a landscape 
architect?! my azalea is turning yellow..."

Thanks for starting this thread.

[email-masked]

---

From: Chris Leavold <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 May 1995 17:14:06 +0100

In article: <[email-masked]>  [email-masked] (Michael 
> SO WHAT IS THIS GROUP SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am entirely in agreement with Michael Gaunt et al who have have expressed 
dissatisfaction with the content of this newsgroup.

I was about to give up on it but now that I have just about finished my 
Degree in Landscape Architecture I hope to have a little more time (a lot 
more probably as I don't yet have a job to go to !) to get involved in 
discussions about the wider aspects of the profession.

If we can perhaps steer this newsgroup back a little closer to the art and 
science of Landscape Design and away from the mundanities of yellowing lawns 
etc then I'll hang in there.

I do occasionally dip into rec.gardens myself and I agree that it's probably 
the best place for quite a number of the postings we see in this group.

Watch this space !

Chris Leavold

---

From: Darby Watson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 18:46:11 -0700

Thank you Michael! 
Perhaps a good place to start is the misconception itself. I'm sure we 
all have been exhausted trying to explain to our friends and loved ones 
exactly what we do and that only a small part of it has to do with 
maintenance. How do you define our profession? I think one of the biggest 
problems is that we are generalists, the product we sell is often 
intangible, an idea rather than a solid thing. I find myself often 
referring to the concept of a marriage of art and science but I think that 
I'm not wholly comfortable with that explanation. In my view, Landscape 
Architecture is an art form, we use science to support it but at it's 
base is the creation of space for people and that is a creative process. 
I am disturbed at the trend of LA's to delve into fields of wetland 
ecology, forest ecology and other sciences. I think that we can have a 
strong influence on the policies being made regarding these lands but 
that we may be losing touch by becoming to experts in a feild better left 
to those experts. Does anyone else see this occuring? If so do you feel 
that it is an asset or not?
-Darby: [email-masked]