One of my two jobs right now is with a landscape architect in Providence. Its a really tiny firm but I actually really like it. Its like my place to decharge.

Answering some of your questions; we get out now and then but I wouldnt say any more often than architects do. Survey verification, picking out plants, building mock ups, thats about it. Its mostly sketching and laying things out in cad. Also theres a lot of consulting, coordination meetings can be fucking endless if people dont have their shit in order. In some ways the busywork is more menial because the details are so much simpler, but I actually find because I can bang all that shit out of the way I seem to have more time on my hands to really think and design. Like low-busywork-overhead or something.

Its hard for me to say how much demand there is. I mean the economy is fucked so I think everywhere is pretty shitty about now. I guess in 6 months it'll either be better or it'll be thunderdome god knows. We mostly do institutional projects for cities and organizations so we get a pretty raw deal money wise on most projects. Landscape is the last thing to go into place so when the money inevitably dries up halfway though the project we get the shaft harder than anyone. The parks weve done have been alot better about that though and high end residential is probably ok too, but Its probably tough tough to get your name in with that crowd.

I mean I survive but I can tell the boses are hurtin. Like I said the economy is a motherfucker.


We do get projects all over the US, some in Asia and the Caribbean but Im not sure how common that is.


I think a big one is theres actually alot of design involved. Organizing big spaces in a way thats strong can be a real challenge sometimes. I dont know how you did in undergrad but you should check out jumping into a landscape architecture masters program somewhere. If you can swing it it'll really open things up for you.



All in all, I have to say, its its a pretty nice job. Low stress, nice pace, nice rewards. Maybe not as exciting as Architecture architecture but yea its a hell of alot easier to get into.

I forgot to ask one more question that I think would be helpful to know when deciding.

Can you think of anything you know now that you wish you'd known when you were deciding to enter this field?

Thanks. I did alright on my undergrad. My overall GPA is 3.2. My last year my GPA was 4.0, and the third was 3.83. I goofed the first two years and got some 2.56 and 2.86. Thank god I got an A+ on my thesis worth 18 credits on my last year. I probably wouldn't have broken the 3.00 range for over all GPA. That thesis was so easy, just do a series of paintings for the whole year. Fine arts was a fun degree, but yeah I'm looking for a masters that will open doors for me and allow me to work and live abroad and have more options. I was thinking of doing a painting conservation masters but I find that it might be limiting. I'm interested in a wide variety of things besides painting so...

I'll try to answer each of the q's...

the horrors of landscape are as great as architecture - same professional angst, pay, and time commitment, but instead of ada bathroom cad monkey hell, you're dealing with planting lists or irrigation design hell. And LAs have to deal with bathrooms too in park pavilions.

there are aspects of being an LA that can allow for time outdoors, but most of us are desk jockeys. the folks in the field tend to be the sole practitioner garden designer/installers, the ecologists and folks doing restoration work, and durring installation if you have the pleasure of doing CA.

there are LAs that travel, but most tend to have a very local practice. folks doing high design and large scale planning have broader markets. that said, most folks in an office stay put with the principals and maybe project managers getting client/site facetime.

check out the ASLA & CLARB websites for info on the economic prospects, the demand for our services, the path to licensure, and other tidbits.

my biggest hang up with being an LA is memorizing all those plant names in latin and being able to identify them. LA is a much broader and loosely defined profession then architecture. so there are niches for almost every talent and interest that keeps it fun. another con is having to hand color plans with colored pencils, with every stroke 1" long and at a 45 degree angle.

there are a huge variety of grad programs out there. from your brief bio, look at the conway school in western MA - not accredited, but they really get their hands dirty. I'm a MLA/MArch penn grad myself.

I agree with most of oe's post, but LA can be as high stress as any profession. it all depends on the clients and office.

there are few of us on archinect. check out prior discussions:

landscape central
plant ID thread

"I'm a MLA/MArch penn grad myself. "


Really? My boss went to penn. How old are you?




And yea, the low stress atmosphere may just be a product of my bosses happening to be mega-chill.

I was the third oldest in the mla class of '05. next friday I'll be 36.

"the horrors of landscape are as great as architecture - same professional angst, pay, and time commitment, but instead of ada bathroom cad monkey hell, you're dealing with planting lists or irrigation design hell. And LAs have to deal with bathrooms too in park pavilions."

Really? I've heard that since the training is somewhat shorter and less LAs out there, that you would be responsible for designing whole spaces on your own MUCH faster than you would in architecture where your relegated to looking up codes for a VERY long time before getting to work on the meat of a project. Have I been misinformed?

your responsibilities in either profession are governed more by the size office and the attitude of your boss then anything else. I've seen both sides in all size practices...

don't make your decision on which profession only based on this trite concept. LA and arch are two distinctly different beasts - figure out first which speaks to you, not which gives you 'responsibility' first.

that said, the registration process is easier for LAs, but LAs get less pay at the entry level on average. check out salary.com for the figures.

hey if somebody calls you a viola tricolor hortensis you better smack em one...

ha.. from everyone i've met and being an LA myself we get paid more and as for the cad monkey stuff... you still do it but it is soooooooooooo less involved than architects.

some offices can be demanding but i think its more comparable to an engineers hours... i must admit we do get the bottom of the barrel when it comes to budget unless you work for a crazy good L arch.

average salary for project manager is 75,000.... which will only take 5-6 years in a landscape office(to be at a manger position).

its cool... i like arch better in the sense there is more thought in design/ most offices are hindered with budget in landscape. but the lifestyle by far is better and you make more money. I have a lot of archi and land arch friends and there is a big difference in their lives.... its all personal preference.

It all depends on the firm, the focus of the work and the clients you work for. I've been practicing Landscape Architecture for about 8 years and have worked for five firms that are all very different from one another. Currently I work in NYC for an incredibly diverse firm that provides an exciting work environment. I'm a project manager but still have a hand in design, which I love. No two days are the same and I've managed to escape the "desk jockey" role (actually years ago). Previously, I had been involved in water front, residential, master planning, street scapes, TOD's, hospitality, PUD's...you name it.

Landscape architecture can be very dynamic and provide opportunities to work on multidisciplinary teams that facilitate learning about allied professions. For example, my currents projects allow me to interact with engineers, architects, historians, preservationists, conservators, horticulturalists, transportation engineers, graphic designers and artists. I'm out of the office at least two days a week, either on site visits, meeting with clients or overseeing demolition and construction of my projects.

Principals and Senior Associates at my firm all make over $100,000/year and do not slave like architects of the same caliber do. There are very few egos and we all get along extremely well.

Landscape Architecture can be a highly rewarding experience. It is what you make it.

P.S. Landscape Architecture as a profession is outpacing the number of graduates from LA programs, which is why firms all over the US are hiring Architects and Planners to take on the work. Furthermore, ASLA.org has a link to recent salary surveys which show enormous growth over the past several years in terms of average salaries for LA's.

"don't make your decision on which profession only based on this trite concept. LA and arch are two distinctly different beasts - figure out first which speaks to you, not which gives you 'responsibility' first."

Well see there's the conundrum. I'm interested in both. But isn't part of someone's job satisfaction (especially in the creative field) based on seeing something you create in your mind come to reality? Being a "monkey" (as others say) for other people's vision for most if not all of your life, wouldn't give me job satisfaction, even if it was a passion. From what I've read this is one of the biggest dissatisfaction that graduates of architecture have. They spend most of their lives designing staircases for example instead of buildings. Maybe it's not "responsibility" per se but opportunities for creative input and control. I guess like every other thing, it is what you make of it, in either field. Just seems tougher for architects from what I gather. But what do I know.

However, I am interested in studying architecture, but practicing the profession itself doesn't seem too appealing. The reverse is true for me with landscape arch. The practice of LA appeals to me, and while I wouldn't mind studying it for grad and would probably find it interesting, I'd have to put architecture ahead of LA for interest in study. Just cause it does involve more design and I enjoy building.

So is it hard for architecture graduates to transition onto LA in practice? Do they have a lot of things to catch up on and are therefore paid less than LA grads?

I think I've decided to do architecture as a hobby but practice LA as a profession. I like plants and the outdoors. And seems like the lifestyle will afford me the chance to pursue other hobbies like woodworking, building, painting etc.. More so than architecture anyways. ego gratification/stroking was never one of my favorite pastime anyways. Thanks guys.

in many states, registered architects can 'practice' landscape architecture, or sit for the LAREs with the appropriate experience...

there is nothing that says that you must choose to work in an office. there are lots of small design/build architecture and garden practices.

bringing this good thread back up, as I'm considering a change from architecture to LA.  Is it possible to get hired by a LA firm and learn from there, or does one have to go back to school?