Subject: Re: The Future of LA and Usenet

From: [email-masked] (Kevin M Lyles)
Date: 11 Feb 1995 19:18:19 GMT

My posting regarding the future of LA spurred a very interesting response by
Lance Foster, also a student here at Iowa State Univ. The reason for my
second posting <<sigh>> was my concern that the first posting was perhaps a
bit pessimistic, as I only questioned what I feel are negative trends in the
field of LA. [More on this later]. I did not receive any negative feedback
from the first posting. In fact, I haven't really received any feedback, pro
or con, to this minute. However, this in no way reduces the
pertinence of Lance's posting, for two reasons.

The first concern I have, which was evident in Lance's posting, is the
expanding rift in the field of LA. There are those [IMHO] who represent what
I see as the "traditional" view of landscape architecture, a practice which
is pretty much summed up in the common question/comment, "you're studying
landscaping? Great! I need somebody to plant some bushes around my house".
This view of the extent of LA is not held by most in the academic community,
but it is a very common view held by the general public. I think this is
evident in the huge growth of "Landscaping Services" and "Landscape
Designers" Now this is not a flame; those practicing without a strong
academic background in LA and without licensure have a very important
function. Yet, I feel this  should be distinguished from what I see as "true"
landscape architecture. This was one reason for my first posting. Now this may be a
bit of a stretch, but I think it is this conservative/traditional attitude toward
LA that  pressured Lance after his earlier posting asking feedback on the
"realities of landscape architecture". There remains [IMHO] a large conservative
ideology out there which does not wish to look at the future of LA (or the
extent of its presence today, for that matter).

I guess the preceding paragraph kind of mixes my two points. What I'm
trying to get at is, the future of LA is wide open, encompassing much more
than the traditional (in the sense of the public's view) role of LA. Thus,
my original posting asking for input on the issue. The second point is that
this needed dialogue for the most part just isn't happening. (It certainly
isn't on the Internet!). There is in fact a force opposing this discussion,
as attested to by Lance. This is not just an issue concerning Iowa State. It
is a problem across the country. Landscape Architects are doing amazing
things today, and it depresses me that 1) few people even have a clue of this
and 2) there is very little discussion about these projects (outside select
circles).

Now, if nobody wishes to comment on the profession of LA and its future,
that is fine. But let's see some continued discussion about SOMETHING.
Otherwise, what is the use of this newsgroup?

May the future of alt.landscape.architecture be bright and meaningful.

Respectfully,

Kevin M. Lyles
Junior, Landscape Architecture, Environmental Studies
Iowa State University

-- 
Kevin M Lyles
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (CowboyRik)
Date: 13 Feb 1995 11:14:59 -0500

<Now, if nobody wishes to comment on the profession of LA and its future,
that is fine. But let's see some continued discussion about SOMETHING.
Otherwise, what is the use of this newsgroup?>

LA-itis - a debilitating apathy bred by frustration felt in the Landscape
Architect profession (a Rodney Dangerfield complex)

Welcome to a world that does exist for many.  It is ironic that in a large
group of LAs the question of professional identity goes begging but in
small groups or one on one there does appear to be this "I get no respect"
complex.  I have been also trying, Kevin, to get some dialog going in
AOL's "P.L.A.C.E.S." special interest group about the issue of
professional identity with equally little satisfaction.  I believe first
of all that there isn't a large representative group of LA's in cyberspace
to stimulate an active dialog and also I believe that many LA's are
ostriches.  Your concerns are felt and understood by me, but I no longer
have a clue to the answer.

I am beginning to sincerely feel that the profession will be eclipsed by
other professions and that landscape architects will be either changing
their professional titles or scratching the soil for a living.

---

From: [email-masked] (David K Dean)
Date: 17 Feb 95 20:37:13 GMT

>landscape architecture.

	I understand what you are saying. The general public does the
same sort of association with electrical engineers -- i.e. "you can wire
up this thing in my house for me..." In fact, most people graduating
from a 4-year institution would not be able to do it, although I suspect
some EEs who specialized in Power Systems might have a better
understanding than those who opted for microelectronics.

	I believe the same sort of thing happens in LA. By no means
would I claim to be a LA, however I did work for a landscaping firm (my
boss was an ISU LA graduate) for 6 years and I can see that a lot of LA
graduates or students are severely lacking when it comes to hands-on
practical knowledge. (No flame intended here, just a fact.) At least for
the LA students I've met at Iowa State, they can do designs fine, but
when it comes to really knowing their plants or how to actually start
building a retaining wall, they don't even know where to begin.

	This is also true in other majors, maybe I just noticed it more
since I know how to do these things. I find it real handy to be able to
do these kind of things to my own yard.

								Dave