in my undergrad experience, i was (almost) always told to think about outdoor spaces by my critics. more or less in all of my projects i have attempted to resolve the outdoor spaces with the same logic as the building it surrounds. so in that sense i think that architects should be mindful of the landscape the building is situated in whether that be in a rural, suburban, or urban environment. the more in tune you are with the site, the more relevant that building is within its context.

that being said, i certainly disagree with the notion that architects should be limited to the building and structural design. however, landscaping was never taught at my school, and we don't have a landscaping program. i think what most architecture students wind up doing is designing outdoor spaces in broad brush strokes. we don't really know the details or the engineering behind it, but students should be able to conceptually understand what is happening. note that i continue to say "outdoor spaces" as opposed to "landscaping." we are also told to design the structure, but let's face it, that is usually done in broad brush strokes too. what's that quote.... "architects know nothing about everything."

So, you seem to draw a clear distinction between 'outdoor spaces' and 'landscaping.' Would you limit your definition of landscaping to planting design?

Is it possible for a landscape architect to influence built spaces (the realm of building architects)?

Should civils be permitted to practice landscape architecture just as a structural may practice building architecture?

Honestly, I love landscape, but find myself also drawn naturally to structural design. Several of my student projects included small structures such as pedestrian bridges and pavillions. Should more clear lines be drawn or just the opposite?

Larch, you open several cans of worms, some of which have been discussed previously. there are several threads on limits to disciplines/practice looking at both legal issues and knowledge.

As the the validity of interdisciplinary practice, it is become the new norm as it offers both a competitive edge, and is better able to engage complex coordination issues.

it is rare to find somebody that excels in multiple modes of design - there is a different process and knowledge base to civil, structural, architectural, landscape, systems, planning, et cetera that have great value. Urban design , and sustainable design require cross disciplinary thinking and practice to deal with the multiple scales and the interstitial interfaces between systems and places...

My personal opinion is that both architects and landscape architects are already stretched in the amount of knowledge they need in their respective fields. Rather than blurring the line between the two as professionals, I would like to see more practices employing both in order to be able to comprehensively design projects. I have seen numerous projects led by architects (mostly) or landscape architects (not so many), but in almost every case there is some element of disconnect between the two. Inevitable given that working in two different offices precludes effective communication during the design process, but there is almost always some element of "Us and Them" ("Us vs. Them" is too strong a term).

Soo ... to cut a long answer short, landscape architects are marginalised in comparison to architects in most cases. But I think the way forward is closer co-operation, not trying to widen the scope of either profession even further.

my partner was trained as an architect by aadrian geuze, a landscape architect who also builds lots of bridges and does brilliant urban design. he seems to be pretty good example of why people should be allowed to do their thing as they like, and judging by the skills of my partner also why it is great to have people from different disciplines teaching architecture school.

in our office we try to use landscape as part of design - which is more about making a particular kind of place/space than a building per se. i would love to have a landscape architect in our office but see no reason to limit that person to one field. for the moment we do that work ourselves, but another point of view would be awesome to have in the mix...