I have an m-arch but switched to landscape design a few years after graduation. I had several years of experiance working in landscape design and build prior to school. Currently I run a landscape design business. I am having much success in residential design and I have no desire to do commercial projects. I provide full CDs most of the time and a license is never required on residential projects. I would estimate that 90% of residential landscape projects are done by designers and about 10% by landscape architects. It is impossible to tell the difference between the work and clients do not seem to care at all. I have seen great work and horrible work by both. I do however want the license so that I can use the title. Since I do not have an MLA, I would need to either go back to school which is financially foolish, or I would need to give up my lucrative business that I enjoy and work under a landscape architect for several years. Do you think it is worth it?
x-jla
Sep 16, 15 12:36 pm
I am in the same boat. A LA stamp does not carry much weight. Usually if a stamp is required for anything a civil is required not a LA. Yes you need a LA license to work on public projects in most states, but you can also work under the guise of a "public artist" or a "urban designer" and team up with a LA should those opportunities ever pop up. See Robert Irwin, Maya Lin, etc... If you are not doing public works I wouldn't waste your time on a license, and I certainly wouldn't give up an established business to go work for someone else.
Other then the fascist state of CA and NV I don't know of any that prevent or limit residential work. Some states like Mass., Vermont, and Illinois allow a designer to do everything that a LA does. They do not have practice acts. Must be very dangerous there...lol
Protectionism is a joke. CA is probably the worst offender. You can provide CD's for the design of a house in CA but not for the garden. Why? Because laws are written by lobbyists.
I get the desire to have the title, and if it was just a matter of a paying a few grand and taking a few tests I would go for it...But to give up a good business to go work for someone else is not worth it...I know how much effort it takes to build up a business to the point of getting a steady work flow. Do you really want to do that over again?
Volunteer
Sep 16, 15 1:30 pm
What jla-x said, in spades (pun intended). If you are successful you probably already have licensed LAs in the hedges snapping photos of your projects.
Larchinect
Sep 16, 15 2:33 pm
I have run my own LA business for the past three and a half years or so and we are very busy. My wife is licensed and is my partner, I am not licensed though I have finished all exams. The licensure issue really hasnt presented itself still to this point. We do alot of conceptual design, renderings, sketches, signage, kind of less traditional landscape architecture stuff. We have been doing more and more residential work and havent been required to stamp anything yet. From much of the discussion Ive seen over the years LA licensure is mostly a title act as pretty much anyone can practice or find a workaround for practicing.
Otherwise, if you hav an march plus experience under a licensed la or 10 years experience you can sit for exams and apply.
3tk
Sep 16, 15 2:49 pm
Depends on the type of residential work and control you want when you need a stamp: some public agencies want to see a seal, for example wetlands regulators.
Throwing plants in is of little concern to agencies, but where there is a public health, safety and welfare concern, they will push for it as there is a minimum standard that licenses are intended to cover. While you may be able to get someone to stamp your drawings, that is not something many people will do (as they will be the ones liable for the work, and in theory, the law mandates that the work was reviewed thoroughly by the licensed individual).
Working with building architects, engineers and surveyors, it seems their attitude toward me before and after putting PLA after my name is different...
It's not that the license is the difference, it's that there is a general understanding that minimal competency is reflected in licensed individuals as opposed to anyone that 'can' do the work, so the likelihood that that individual understands the HSW issues is higher. If HSW is not a huge concern, it's a moot point...
x-jla
Sep 16, 15 4:52 pm
^true, but a good reputation goes a longer way than a license. Honestly, I want the title so that I can feel like I am part of the profession...I kind of feel like other LA's look at me with disdain...I feel a bit left out with regards to my peers... Sounds a bit pathetic, but its true...I am professionally lonely...lol
BUT, its a cost benefit thing. I would advise against giving up a successful business...as a business is a more difficult thing to build back up.
Sep 16, 15 5:18 pm
It depends on the licensed individuals. Some are so stuck up in the delusion that licensure means competence when that has been proven false time after time.
The licensure game is essentially a cartel/labor union kind of frat club thing. It isn't about HSW.
If you are going to be trusted, be good at your work and build a good reputation. I know some landscape designers that are as good if not better than many landscape architects. There is the good minority and the majority of mediocre.
Sep 16, 15 5:36 pm
I want to be clear that this is not to claim that landscape designers are better than landscape architects. That gets into that same kind of debate between building designers and architects. Skill is something only truly tested and demonstrated by actual work and skill not some prometric et al exam or a piece of paper with a number on it.
That's the point.
SneakyPete
Sep 16, 15 5:39 pm
Good job insulting both licensed professionals AND unions in the same moronic comparison.
Licensure: created to stifle competition under the guise of HSW.
No relationship to unions.
Sep 16, 15 5:59 pm
SneakyPete,
License alone does not mean competence. Knowledge & skill are what determines competence. You can be licensed and still be incompetent. This doesn't mean all licensed persons are incompetent nor does it mean all licensed persons are competent, either. This is down to individual knowledge and skills the person has.
There are those who are licensed who lives by a misconception that being licensed means they are competent. That is a fallacy they live by. They are also the ones who are most often the same people who assume all those who are not licensed are incompetent.
They live in a delusional mindset. That's wishful thinking.
Well... I'll agree that labor union might be a stretch but even labor unions like Longshoreman unions are often involved in stifling competition of those not members of their union for jobs. So it isn't a stretch. Given too much power, it is essentially a cartel where they work to legislate out competition and even stifle to control the supply of service providers (# of licensees) as much as possible.
SneakyPete
Sep 16, 15 7:00 pm
You might notice I agreed with your sentiment about licensure being instituted to stifle competition and only took issue with your flawed metaphor. I have no interest (nor is it warranted) to debate the finer points of unions.
Marc Miller
Sep 16, 15 7:13 pm
Not that it matters, but I'd say you are in the clear and proceeding properly given the type of work you are pursuing.
In the big picture, landscape lisensure has become more of thing at the state level these past 15 years or so. Part of this is advocacy, and part of it was due to the "explosion" landscape architecture as a field (and the boom in resi/urban development perhaps?), but I can think of only one state that does not have practice or title act in place to regulate landscape architecture. To jla-x's point, it doesn't hinder practice in that state. Instead the desire for high profile LA's from the coasts (primarily east) is the limiting factor of local practicioners.
So you might consider looking at how your state board defines LA as a professional practice. Not to determine what you are doing wrong, but if you can do more. Don't write an email, just look at what they post online.
x-jla
Sep 16, 15 7:24 pm
LA is also a very broad field. Most landscape designers are focused exclusively on garden design. Most landacape architects seem more focused on urban scale projects. I mostly compete against design/build guys as only a few LAs in my area do residential projects...I know this is different in CA...but they also have more hi-end areas with large properties than most states...
Carrera
Sep 16, 15 7:56 pm
If you see a project you want that requires a license chase it in a Joint venture with an engineer or a LA, not worth turning back.
Sep 16, 15 9:48 pm
SneakyPete,
Okay... Okay... I agree with your point but I wasn't going to be too politically....ummmm...... I think you know what I mean to say in this crowd.
jla-x,
Sure. Given I am a building designer, my landscape design approach might be closer in-line with landscape architecture broadness and approach than exclusive garden design.
JeromeS
Sep 16, 15 10:47 pm
^^Then you should totally use dual professional titles; Professional Landscape Designer / Professional Building Designer
Something I read as I was looking for other information.
Sep 16, 15 10:59 pm
JeromeS,
Sure. In some aspects, it is just a cost factor I weigh in with things like State and city business licenses and all.
Marc Miller
Sep 16, 15 11:08 pm
And Illinois finally jumps on the wagon.
x-jla
Sep 16, 15 11:41 pm
if licensure protects the hsw I want numbers that compare states with and without practice acts...love how these statements "licensure protects the hsw..." are thrown around with zero evidence...codes protect the hsw...licensure protects the profession...
Sep 17, 15 1:27 am
Well.... I just point to the link and had a chuckle a couple times. Um... health, safety and welfare comes from actually knowing what you are doing to safeguard the protection of people from which many aspects of the building codes address to an extent. Ultimately, it comes from understanding the problems that dangers health, safety and/or welfare of the occupant(s) and public abroad and through scientifically informed research, understanding and problem solving.
Larchinect
Sep 17, 15 2:08 am
Klaxon have you taken any exams. The process of studying opened my eyes to a lot of aspects I took for granted or thought I understood. I think I'm a better designer for it.
Sep 17, 15 3:55 am
Hmmm.... Klaxon.... hmm....
Sep 17, 15 3:58 am
Larchy,
In the course of the last....oh.... 28 years.... I taken more exams than I can possibly recollect the exact number of exams/tests.
Larchinect
Sep 17, 15 5:29 am
Autocorrect, jlax is what I typed
x-jla
Sep 17, 15 10:01 am
^ not yet, I have read through a bunch of the study material. I agree that studying makes one more competent. The actual test is just a motivation to study. I was denied access to the exams because I do not have an MLA. I was granted permission to take the ARE, but have not done so because I am 100% commited to Landscape.
3tk
Sep 17, 15 10:53 am
Jla-x : very true on reputation, but it is difficult to build that reputation early in one's career without some credentials. And yes, the insecure ones look down on the unlicensed. Quite frankly I feel like there should be a process for MArchs and BArchs to get a license as the HSW portions overlap a lot.
To the argument that it protects the profession: yes that's the point, it's a peer review of your knowledge - other professions have it too (I'm sure there are great law and medicine people out there that are unlicensed, but they don't go around practicing the field as doctors and lawyers). It's not very much time or money (2yrs of experience in written letters -there's no equivalent of an IDP- and a few thousand dollars -in the grand scheme of things that's pocket change)
IF some has a license, there is an understanding that they took the time and had the capacity to pass minimal knowledge of HSW - to a member of the general public that can be reassurance (and that they are not a convicted felon... as that seems to be a check box on those forms); without a license, it's an unknown.
Most of the larger and higher end residential work in the northeast tends to be done by LAs not designers, not sure if it's a legal stumbling block or just a preference on the part of the market (clients). Urban work often requires a license, hence the dearth of landscape designers doing the work (maybe difficulty to structure a fee proposal to add in fee to have your drawings stamped by someone else...)
x-jla
Sep 17, 15 11:50 am
^ I'm not really familiar with the way the business works in the North East. Where I am, all residential work is completely exempt. There are even some well known home designers doing unconventional large homes (rammed earth, etc.) In some situations an engineer is required, but never a LA in residential. The vast majority of landscape work here is done by design/build firms. Designers (design only) and LAs probably only do about 10% of the projects. Among the designers and LAs in my area, I have a hard time seeing the difference in quality of work. Most landscape designers have much experiance one way or another. Its not exactly easy money, and typically requires a love of the field to endure. Many have MLAs or have worked for design build firms before going out on their own. I have seen plans done by LAs that were utterly incompetent. Many LAs are used to doing large commercial projects and take a residential gig once in a blue moon. Some residential LAs that I know are great designers. Overall, it is almost impossible to tell who's who. It's a mixed bag as the op said.
x-jla
Sep 17, 15 11:52 am
we do however have very strict regulations on contractors.
Sep 17, 15 1:07 pm
jla-x,
What state is this?
I know where I am, the regulations are fairly much like you described.
3tk
Sep 17, 15 2:03 pm
Yeah, so it's not the law that has LAs here in NE or down in central VA that has LAs doing residential - I think it's more on the market end; though wetlands related agencies are more inclined to be reasonable when they see initials after a name.
The LA firms that do resi tend to stick with it, but a lot of mid-sized firms do a large chunk of resi work (even if they don't advertise it or market it) for one of 2 reasons: 1. to maintain a revenue stream as they can turn a higher margin of profit and thereby be able to do the 'cool' public projects and/or 2. as a favor to their clients (architects who have high profile clients or donors on the institutional projects). I noticed a few upper-midwest firms did the same approach. At the lower and mid-cost range LAs weren't present, mostly for the $ I suppose. In most cases the firms were offshoots from one of the more recognized firms in the area, making the immediate marketability easier.
Quality isn't contingent on a license - but the building of a practice is about gaining trust and sometimes the initials help. It also is helpful to be part of the professional community (which as you noted, can be exclusive to licensed folks).
louis80
Sep 29, 15 12:34 pm
Thanks for all of the advice! I will likely stay on my current trajectory for the time being. I have invested too much time and money into building a steady business to turn back now. Plus, I am having alot of fun! Eventually, I may consider starting a sister company with a LA partner if I ever get the urge/opportunity to do public works.
I have an m-arch but switched to landscape design a few years after graduation. I had several years of experiance working in landscape design and build prior to school. Currently I run a landscape design business. I am having much success in residential design and I have no desire to do commercial projects. I provide full CDs most of the time and a license is never required on residential projects. I would estimate that 90% of residential landscape projects are done by designers and about 10% by landscape architects. It is impossible to tell the difference between the work and clients do not seem to care at all. I have seen great work and horrible work by both. I do however want the license so that I can use the title. Since I do not have an MLA, I would need to either go back to school which is financially foolish, or I would need to give up my lucrative business that I enjoy and work under a landscape architect for several years. Do you think it is worth it?
I am in the same boat. A LA stamp does not carry much weight. Usually if a stamp is required for anything a civil is required not a LA. Yes you need a LA license to work on public projects in most states, but you can also work under the guise of a "public artist" or a "urban designer" and team up with a LA should those opportunities ever pop up. See Robert Irwin, Maya Lin, etc... If you are not doing public works I wouldn't waste your time on a license, and I certainly wouldn't give up an established business to go work for someone else.
Other then the fascist state of CA and NV I don't know of any that prevent or limit residential work. Some states like Mass., Vermont, and Illinois allow a designer to do everything that a LA does. They do not have practice acts. Must be very dangerous there...lol
Protectionism is a joke. CA is probably the worst offender. You can provide CD's for the design of a house in CA but not for the garden. Why? Because laws are written by lobbyists.
I get the desire to have the title, and if it was just a matter of a paying a few grand and taking a few tests I would go for it...But to give up a good business to go work for someone else is not worth it...I know how much effort it takes to build up a business to the point of getting a steady work flow. Do you really want to do that over again?
What jla-x said, in spades (pun intended). If you are successful you probably already have licensed LAs in the hedges snapping photos of your projects.
I have run my own LA business for the past three and a half years or so and we are very busy. My wife is licensed and is my partner, I am not licensed though I have finished all exams. The licensure issue really hasnt presented itself still to this point. We do alot of conceptual design, renderings, sketches, signage, kind of less traditional landscape architecture stuff. We have been doing more and more residential work and havent been required to stamp anything yet. From much of the discussion Ive seen over the years LA licensure is mostly a title act as pretty much anyone can practice or find a workaround for practicing.
Otherwise, if you hav an march plus experience under a licensed la or 10 years experience you can sit for exams and apply.
Depends on the type of residential work and control you want when you need a stamp: some public agencies want to see a seal, for example wetlands regulators.
Throwing plants in is of little concern to agencies, but where there is a public health, safety and welfare concern, they will push for it as there is a minimum standard that licenses are intended to cover. While you may be able to get someone to stamp your drawings, that is not something many people will do (as they will be the ones liable for the work, and in theory, the law mandates that the work was reviewed thoroughly by the licensed individual).
Working with building architects, engineers and surveyors, it seems their attitude toward me before and after putting PLA after my name is different...
It's not that the license is the difference, it's that there is a general understanding that minimal competency is reflected in licensed individuals as opposed to anyone that 'can' do the work, so the likelihood that that individual understands the HSW issues is higher. If HSW is not a huge concern, it's a moot point...
^true, but a good reputation goes a longer way than a license. Honestly, I want the title so that I can feel like I am part of the profession...I kind of feel like other LA's look at me with disdain...I feel a bit left out with regards to my peers... Sounds a bit pathetic, but its true...I am professionally lonely...lol
BUT, its a cost benefit thing. I would advise against giving up a successful business...as a business is a more difficult thing to build back up.
It depends on the licensed individuals. Some are so stuck up in the delusion that licensure means competence when that has been proven false time after time.
The licensure game is essentially a cartel/labor union kind of frat club thing. It isn't about HSW.
If you are going to be trusted, be good at your work and build a good reputation. I know some landscape designers that are as good if not better than many landscape architects. There is the good minority and the majority of mediocre.
I want to be clear that this is not to claim that landscape designers are better than landscape architects. That gets into that same kind of debate between building designers and architects. Skill is something only truly tested and demonstrated by actual work and skill not some prometric et al exam or a piece of paper with a number on it.
That's the point.
Good job insulting both licensed professionals AND unions in the same moronic comparison.
Licensure: created to stifle competition under the guise of HSW.
No relationship to unions.
SneakyPete,
License alone does not mean competence. Knowledge & skill are what determines competence. You can be licensed and still be incompetent. This doesn't mean all licensed persons are incompetent nor does it mean all licensed persons are competent, either. This is down to individual knowledge and skills the person has.
There are those who are licensed who lives by a misconception that being licensed means they are competent. That is a fallacy they live by. They are also the ones who are most often the same people who assume all those who are not licensed are incompetent.
They live in a delusional mindset. That's wishful thinking.
Well... I'll agree that labor union might be a stretch but even labor unions like Longshoreman unions are often involved in stifling competition of those not members of their union for jobs. So it isn't a stretch. Given too much power, it is essentially a cartel where they work to legislate out competition and even stifle to control the supply of service providers (# of licensees) as much as possible.
You might notice I agreed with your sentiment about licensure being instituted to stifle competition and only took issue with your flawed metaphor. I have no interest (nor is it warranted) to debate the finer points of unions.
Not that it matters, but I'd say you are in the clear and proceeding properly given the type of work you are pursuing.
In the big picture, landscape lisensure has become more of thing at the state level these past 15 years or so. Part of this is advocacy, and part of it was due to the "explosion" landscape architecture as a field (and the boom in resi/urban development perhaps?), but I can think of only one state that does not have practice or title act in place to regulate landscape architecture. To jla-x's point, it doesn't hinder practice in that state. Instead the desire for high profile LA's from the coasts (primarily east) is the limiting factor of local practicioners.
So you might consider looking at how your state board defines LA as a professional practice. Not to determine what you are doing wrong, but if you can do more. Don't write an email, just look at what they post online.
LA is also a very broad field. Most landscape designers are focused exclusively on garden design. Most landacape architects seem more focused on urban scale projects. I mostly compete against design/build guys as only a few LAs in my area do residential projects...I know this is different in CA...but they also have more hi-end areas with large properties than most states...
If you see a project you want that requires a license chase it in a Joint venture with an engineer or a LA, not worth turning back.
SneakyPete,
Okay... Okay... I agree with your point but I wasn't going to be too politically....ummmm...... I think you know what I mean to say in this crowd.
jla-x,
Sure. Given I am a building designer, my landscape design approach might be closer in-line with landscape architecture broadness and approach than exclusive garden design.
^^Then you should totally use dual professional titles; Professional Landscape Designer / Professional Building Designer
http://www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Government_Affairs/Licensure_Onesheet_2013.pdf
Hmmm....
Something I read as I was looking for other information.
JeromeS,
Sure. In some aspects, it is just a cost factor I weigh in with things like State and city business licenses and all.
And Illinois finally jumps on the wagon.
if licensure protects the hsw I want numbers that compare states with and without practice acts...love how these statements "licensure protects the hsw..." are thrown around with zero evidence...codes protect the hsw...licensure protects the profession...
Well.... I just point to the link and had a chuckle a couple times. Um... health, safety and welfare comes from actually knowing what you are doing to safeguard the protection of people from which many aspects of the building codes address to an extent. Ultimately, it comes from understanding the problems that dangers health, safety and/or welfare of the occupant(s) and public abroad and through scientifically informed research, understanding and problem solving.
Klaxon have you taken any exams. The process of studying opened my eyes to a lot of aspects I took for granted or thought I understood. I think I'm a better designer for it.
Hmmm.... Klaxon.... hmm....
Larchy,
In the course of the last....oh.... 28 years.... I taken more exams than I can possibly recollect the exact number of exams/tests.
Autocorrect, jlax is what I typed
^ not yet, I have read through a bunch of the study material. I agree that studying makes one more competent. The actual test is just a motivation to study. I was denied access to the exams because I do not have an MLA. I was granted permission to take the ARE, but have not done so because I am 100% commited to Landscape.
Jla-x : very true on reputation, but it is difficult to build that reputation early in one's career without some credentials. And yes, the insecure ones look down on the unlicensed. Quite frankly I feel like there should be a process for MArchs and BArchs to get a license as the HSW portions overlap a lot.
To the argument that it protects the profession: yes that's the point, it's a peer review of your knowledge - other professions have it too (I'm sure there are great law and medicine people out there that are unlicensed, but they don't go around practicing the field as doctors and lawyers). It's not very much time or money (2yrs of experience in written letters -there's no equivalent of an IDP- and a few thousand dollars -in the grand scheme of things that's pocket change)
IF some has a license, there is an understanding that they took the time and had the capacity to pass minimal knowledge of HSW - to a member of the general public that can be reassurance (and that they are not a convicted felon... as that seems to be a check box on those forms); without a license, it's an unknown.
Most of the larger and higher end residential work in the northeast tends to be done by LAs not designers, not sure if it's a legal stumbling block or just a preference on the part of the market (clients). Urban work often requires a license, hence the dearth of landscape designers doing the work (maybe difficulty to structure a fee proposal to add in fee to have your drawings stamped by someone else...)
^ I'm not really familiar with the way the business works in the North East. Where I am, all residential work is completely exempt. There are even some well known home designers doing unconventional large homes (rammed earth, etc.) In some situations an engineer is required, but never a LA in residential. The vast majority of landscape work here is done by design/build firms. Designers (design only) and LAs probably only do about 10% of the projects. Among the designers and LAs in my area, I have a hard time seeing the difference in quality of work. Most landscape designers have much experiance one way or another. Its not exactly easy money, and typically requires a love of the field to endure. Many have MLAs or have worked for design build firms before going out on their own. I have seen plans done by LAs that were utterly incompetent. Many LAs are used to doing large commercial projects and take a residential gig once in a blue moon. Some residential LAs that I know are great designers. Overall, it is almost impossible to tell who's who. It's a mixed bag as the op said.
we do however have very strict regulations on contractors.
jla-x,
What state is this?
I know where I am, the regulations are fairly much like you described.
Yeah, so it's not the law that has LAs here in NE or down in central VA that has LAs doing residential - I think it's more on the market end; though wetlands related agencies are more inclined to be reasonable when they see initials after a name.
The LA firms that do resi tend to stick with it, but a lot of mid-sized firms do a large chunk of resi work (even if they don't advertise it or market it) for one of 2 reasons: 1. to maintain a revenue stream as they can turn a higher margin of profit and thereby be able to do the 'cool' public projects and/or 2. as a favor to their clients (architects who have high profile clients or donors on the institutional projects). I noticed a few upper-midwest firms did the same approach. At the lower and mid-cost range LAs weren't present, mostly for the $ I suppose. In most cases the firms were offshoots from one of the more recognized firms in the area, making the immediate marketability easier.
Quality isn't contingent on a license - but the building of a practice is about gaining trust and sometimes the initials help. It also is helpful to be part of the professional community (which as you noted, can be exclusive to licensed folks).
Thanks for all of the advice! I will likely stay on my current trajectory for the time being. I have invested too much time and money into building a steady business to turn back now. Plus, I am having alot of fun! Eventually, I may consider starting a sister company with a LA partner if I ever get the urge/opportunity to do public works.