Members of the landscape industry are now having to face up to whether they are generalists or specialists in the services they provide.

By Marius Ois

Some may argue that only the foolhardy draw general conclusions from unclear evidence, but in Ontario and in the rest of the country today, the position of the landscape industry seems evermore intriguingly fluid and changing. Many of the traditional links have faded and in their place have arisen new challenges and quite varied opportunities.

     Furthermore, one seems to be less and less certain about the terminology such as "landscaping," "landscape design," "landscape and site construction," "green construction," etc. In fact, what we mean is Landscape Management, i.e. the management of the existing, natural landscape, as well as the altered or built landscape. This involves the planning and taking care of the land, respecting the long-term requirements of the land, its inhabitants and users, with the objective of promoting the longevity and extended life spans of the existing and built landscapes.

     The process of comprehensive landscape management involves a wide range of requirements. In order to understand all aspects of landscape management, one must be aware of the full scope and extent of this domain. This includes the need to know more about the environmental database of the region and the site. From this database, the design evolves and construction follows. The subsequent maintenance phase is, at the present time, somewhat undervalued and must be taken more seriously if we, under the terms of true landscape management, want to see the landscape thrive and last. This, of course, is only possible if we and the owners recognize the need to know about the site's original environmental uniqueness, its problems and environmental protection requirements. Furthermore, true landscape maintenance also means to promote the longevity of a landscape, to follow the design intent, to protect the landscape, and to initiate and manage any needed changes. The 80s was a period of impulsive architectural and landscape design - remember post-modernism - driven largely by exuberant market forces. Office complexes, industrial developments and condominium construction, demanding immediate results, tended to be the guiding force of the day. A new set of parameters became apparent in the tighter economic context of the 90s. Planners and contractors had to adjust to a very different workload and, to a lesser degree, to a different ethical environment.

     With the introduction of computers for design and landscape software available to anyone, including architects, engineers and planners, the landscape architectural profession and landscape designers not only gained new opportunities and access to new technology, but also had to face new competition. We know that true landscape management can not be achieved by simply popping a disk into a computer, however, the uninformed public tends to believe this technology has saved them from the "high" cost of landscape consultants and landscape experts. This is a dangerous development and a challenge for the landscape industry to prove otherwise. A challenge for us is also to deal with the ever-increasing tendency of associated disciplines that claim territory of landscape management. Specialist expertise of biologists, arborists, turf experts, the above mentioned architects, engineers and planners, and others have successfully encroached on areas which were, at one time, the sole realm of landscape architects and landscape professionals. There is a serious dilemma facing the landscape industry. As its established base evolves irreversibly, new opportunities are shared with an influx of complementary expertise. Somewhat disturbing is also a worldwide trend of decreasing government spending, resulting on the local government level in amalgamation and takeovers of municipal parks departments by public works departments, "culture" departments and the like. Landscape professionals are now having to face up to whether they are generalists or specialists in the services they offer to clients. Can we claim to provide all the necessary skills at a time when clients are demanding comprehensive services? Apart from straining plausibility, this has significant implications for the training of landscape architects and landscape trades professionals. Also, a long-standing murmur that grows louder as pressure and competition squeeze conventional approaches to practice is the perception that graduate landscape architects and trades people are ill equipped for the real world. Training that fails to keep pace (too far behind or ahead in certain aspects) with what is required or expected leads to frustration and dissatisfaction.

     So what are the landscape professions doing about the changes they face? Some are certainly not sitting on their hands. Some landscape architects and contractors have moved into design-build, project management, or appear under a different name (many landscape contractors in the U.S. have adopted the term 'landscape management' as their primary service). Essentially, they are carrying forward the pioneering spirit that shaped the profession 30 years ago. The professional and trade associations have also done their part. The Ontario Association of Landscape Architects (OALA) has challenged, in some cases successfully, the limitation of landscape architectural services imposed by municipal engineering departments, in the area of site grading and drainage. Landscape architects have also been busy taking part in political issues, such as providing input in Toronto's Gardiner Lakeshore Taskforce, and the OALA has begun a serious and effective media campaign. On behalf of the landscape trades in Ontario, Landscape Ontario (LO) has its own on-going program of media information, maintains access to the public through the very successful Canada Blooms Flower and Garden Show, and its current Professional Development Certification Program recognizes the need for and importance of continuing education.

     Universities and colleges must also do their part. Budgetary constraints do have side benefits as they force faculty to look for changes and improvements, be it through joining forces with related disciplines or changing their course outlines. The Department of Architectural Science and Landscape Architecture of Toronto's Ryerson Polytechnic University has changed its Diploma Program to a four-year Degree Program in Architectural Technology, Landscape Architecture option. Was it a good move? Time will tell. Other changes in the direction of course offerings reflect the needs of the time, such as the introduction of a required Landscape Management course. Reorganization of the Ryerson Continuing Education Program in Landscape Technology resulted in name changes, adjustment of the curriculum, and in an aggressive marketing of the programs.

     In the public eye, aesthetics, chlorophyll and environment are undisputed merits. Nevertheless, they do not figure among the most urgent needs of society. Every public dispute about landscape issues is, therefore, a ray of hope for the landscape industry. That is, only if it is prepared to argue its point with vehemence. The field is not to be left to the art historians, hobby gardeners or conservationists. Creators of contemporary landscapes and "landscape managers" should leave no stone unturned to publicize their work and services in local news, financial pages and miscellaneous news, or take part in discussion groups, committees and task forces. All in all, positive tendencies seem to override negative ones - a good sign.