There's been a cracking discussion on Linkedin centred around the LJN topic 'Ladies who lunch - can the SGD prove Tim Richardson wrong?'
The discussion has ebbed and flowed from initial anger from some (about how their profession is portrayed by Tim Richardson) to ideas from others who are keen to see the design industry change.
The conversation (inevitably) got around to accreditation and how existing industry groups could promote them [designers] to their potential clients by providing adequate publicity for their respective accreditations.
I'm very much a believer that accreditations start at home and there's no better way to promote skills than to keep a portfolio of one's success and use this to promote oneself going forward.
When looking at garden design in isolation, I believe that there is often very little one can accredit a designer for until the workability of the project is proven.
It is very often the case - I hear this time and time again - that landscapers work out the construction detail and often have to modify plans to ensure that a plan can be executed to maintain the look and feel the designer intended.
It is very clear that not all garden designers can understand construction: They can draw pretty pictures but when it comes to laying out and putting this into practice, the plan has to be changed - maybe this vision fits with the 'ladies who lunch' profile?
My view is that before any garden designer is let loose in a garden that they should have to take a year-long foundation course. This should ideally consist of a minimum of 12 months (continuous if possible) on-site construction.
I realise that the time-scale might be difficult for some and might have to be rolled out over a longer period.
This form of CPD would be easy to police because all it would take is for a signed report, together with photos, from the landscaper the designer had worked with/for and this could be presented to a course tutor for verification and recording.
Views: 107
Replies
I can see the value in this but don't think it's feasible or necessary for all. After all, architects design buildings but they don't all do time as labourers on building sites. The process of becoming qualified as MSGD (or CMLI for landscape architects) involves at least a measure of demonstrating that you can produce clear and workable construction details, and understand how structures are built, how levels on site work and so on. All designers should be capable of producing technically accurate sectional drawings at a variety of scales, as well as 'pretty pictures'. For me the problem comes back to how we educate potential clients to understand the value of employing a designer who has the skils and competence to produce designs which can be implemented on the ground without having to be interpreted and adapted by a long-suffering contractor. How does the client tell the difference between a designer who has this knowledge (and quite rightly charges accordingly) and one who does not?
I think designers should have a proven track record with both construction and maintenance before been allowed to put pencil to paper. As well as seen plans been changed by construction contractors I have also seen and implemented alterations to their workings as well. Then there are the issues with designs often having no regard for how things grow, age or how anyone is going to maintain them. Heck, how many of them use a soil testing kit?
Jamie Sessford said:
I'm sorry, I tend to disagree with this point. Being creative enough to draw 'pretty pictures', doesn't mean you can build a wall or undertake some hard landscaping. And being able to hard landscape doesn't mean you have any modicum of flair or originality to design a garden.
I am not naive to think that some designers may lack skills in certain areas, but to take a blanket assumption that the majority of designers don't posses plant knowledge, or the ability to test soil isn't supportive of one facet of the industry we work in.
I think a basic knowledge of construction is a must.. the more the better.. although things look do-able on paper in reality it could be a very different story. I'm not knocking designers as they are very creative and extremely good at what they do.. how ever i feel communication between designer and contractor of choice at design stage will make things run a lot a lot smoother
Interesting topic!
The thing to remember is that it takes 10 years to master a profession. Garden designers fresh from college might quite possibly lack experience in actual gardens.
If I was wealthy enough to be a client (!) I would almost certainly engage someone who is experienced in ALL aspects of gardening. Design. Landscaping. Maintenance. You cannot be a master at one without fully understanding the other parts of the garden Venn diagram.
Andrew Smith said:
I have came across quite a few gardens where soil testing has obviously not occurred, however I didn't mean for my post to read as the majority of designers aren't capable. I don't knock designers plant knowledge neither but maybe not all of them appreciate how it will look in 3-5 years time or how it is going to be cared for and concentrate more on the pay cheque.
Not everybody has creative side no and even fewer can imagine and translate other peoples desires, but if designers had a history of landscaping and maintenance then maybe the construction process would be a less troublesome one and garden would require less remedial attention in the future. I hope these don't come across as broad nor sweeping comments but as an opinion and observation that these things do/can occur.
I think its unfair to describe a designers role as simply drawing 'pretty pictures'. Undervaluing each others roles within the industry helps no one. We all have our place and need each other. Having said that I am a believer in getting your hands dirty and think it is necessary to understand how materials work together and on site. On site conditions can change a design and as a designer being on site means I keep control of the project as it progress's. I also love working outside and truly saying I made each and every garden. Although I can do this as we do both garden design and landscaping not every designer has this opportunity.
I have thought about how I see the business going recently and decided that if I ever take on another designer then I would expect them to do a period on site each year. Not only so they understand construction but also understand the conditions the landscapers work in.
Speaking from personal experience, you cannot underestimate the value of comprehensive construction knowledge when implementing garden designs to their full potential. Having the foresight to design whilst understanding the pitfalls of landscaping saves time, money and headaches all round. Just leaving it to the Landscaper to 'sort out' is just not acceptable and I for one would like to feel I could confidently walk into any garden and discuss issues in the garden space with the contractors positively and self-assured. I agree with Shadow hall, we should work as a team and for that to happen effectively, a little understanding of each others working processes can only be beneficial.
I've just Tweeted - the RHS course that I'm doing, on-line, begins with site surveys & things to consider if construction is involved. (RHS Garden Maintenance & Design)You also learn some construction techniques, and although I wouldn't lean towards this myself, it's still useful to know. Personally, I like the soft landscaping!
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next