Recent Conversations About Value . . .

By George Schmok

I was talking to a Landscape Architect the other day who was also a professor at a major university with a very successful landscape architectural program . . . He commented that there are serious issues with the landscape architectural programs that need to be addressed.

One was that the schools seem to be teaching prospective LAs more about preserving open space against development than about developing usable landscapes around developments.

He cited that in the past, a 100-acre development would get about 10% open space and 90% would be developed, but now the new crop of graduates look at these projects as 90% unusable land that needs to be preserved. He went on to say that because of this seemingly ?EUR??,,????'?????<

Please don?EUR??,,????'?????<

Part and parcel to the conversation was that overall enrollment in LA programs is declining. Of course, these days, almost everything that costs money is in less demand, and higher education costs money. So natural attrition plays a role here. However, as Architects, Engineers, Landscape Designers et al. become more involved with designing open spaces for developers, municipalities, and commercial facilities, Landscape Architects could lose work unless they enhance their value by designing landscapes that get used and not just looked at.

The less value to the developer, the less demand there will be for your services. The less demand for services, the less demand for new LAs. The less demand for new LAs, the less demand for educational programs. The less people graduating into the profession, the less the profession will be able to compete when the economy begins to improve . . .

Speaking of value and demand . . . I was e-conversing with the executive director of a major national landscape-based association the other day . . . He implied that to recommend a national water policy (as I did last month) was as dumb as thinking actual Americans would be willing to work in the landscape trade. (I thought that a bit odd, since I can name many, very successful people who started their own landscape careers and businesses with back-breaking hard work.) However, he went on to imply that the true way to influence the public so they allow landscapes in drought-restricted areas was to teach the politicians the true value of plant material. That way they wouldn?EUR??,,????'?????<

Interestingly enough, LASN was speaking with an owner of a major nursery the other day . . . It appears that nurseries across the country need to sell their plant materials at the lowest possible cost to the buyer. So while the associations talk value, the nursery industry as a whole is afraid that domestic labor will price them out of the landscape.

Then again, I was talking to a member of the Landscape Architectural Foundation (LAF) the other day . . . She was in my office to talk about how they have put together what they call the ?EUR??,,????'?????<https://www.treebenefits.com/calculator) that can help you determine the annual value/benefit of specific plant material related to its caliper and location in the project. She showed me the ?EUR??,,????'?????<

So . . . While it is hard to say whether your value is perceived, real, cost effective, appreciating, long-lived or in demand, I am sure there is value in having these conversations . . . What do you think?

George Schmok, Publisher

God Bless . . .