<p>My sense from talking to the landscape architecture firms we work with is that they are pretty much in the same condition as the architecture firms. Much of the business that LA firms do is master planning for large housing/retail/mixed use projects, and these opportunities have certainly slowed down in the U.S.</p>
<p>The difference between architecture and landscape architecture is one of technical/professional requirements. Despite the image of architects as artists, the field is highly technical, involving the coordination of multiple engineering fields as well as primary responsibility for code and zoning compliance. Mistakes made by architects can have significant life and death consequences for the building users, which is why the field is tightly regulated. Thus the ratio of conceptual designers to more technical staff may be up to 1 to 10 in large firms.</p>
<p>Landscape architecture is not nearly as technically complex, and has much higher ratio of designers to technical staff. The technical knowledge required revolves around plant life and natural materials, much more enjoyable than fire codes. The place where architects and LA’s overlap is in master planning where both fields can operate as equals. The downside to LA is that in many cases you will be operating under the architect who has overall control of the project and will often dictate the landscape design, relegating the LA to picking the plants. However talented architects and LA’s working as equals can create some wonderfully integrated environments. You just have to find the right situation.</p>
<p>I have worked with some really talented LA’s and they have added a quality to the spaces that I could not have come close to achieving.</p>
<p>rick</p>