September 2008

International Practice and Australian Landscape Architects

Catherin Bull

Dr Catherin Bull AM FAILA holds the Elisabeth Murdoch Chair of Landscape Architecture at the University of Melbourne where she, her colleagues and her doctoral students (including Yun Zhang who reports in this issue) are researching the internationalization of the design professions. Her book, Cross-cultural urban design: Global or local practice? (Co-authored with international colleagues) was published by Routledge in 2007

images  /   book   /

On July 9 2008, a group of senior practitioners gathered at the Graduate School of Design, University of Melbourne, to discuss and debate the issues relating to the internationalizations of practice by Australian landscape architects.

The discussion took the form of a Round Table using the model of those held by members of the American Society of Landscape Architects where practitioners meet in parallel with ASLA Conferences and discuss issues of relevance to professional development, focusing on practice. The internationalization of practice has been emerging at the University of Melbourne as a research and teaching priority (internationalizations of curricula, of students and of staff) and there had been discussions between Catherin Bull, Elisabeth Murdoch Professor of Landscape Architecture, Steve Calhoun, Professorial Fellow at the University and director of Tract Consultants and Geoff Sanderson, director of Green Concepts, Dubai about this topic. They considered that there would be value in generating awareness of and debate about the complex issues that surround practice in the international domain and jointly hosted the event.

Participants were asked to address the issues that they considered the most significant from the following list and to identify the strategic responses their practices had taken to the issues in terms of structure, staffing, professional and design management systems and ethics:

• Deep knowledge of culture/vernacular of place;
• Ethical practice (bidding, recruitment, competition)
• True cost
• Legalities of foreign contracts
• Specification standards
• Staff development
• Interaction/liaison with local communities, profession and client
• Home/international office relationships
• Knowledge, attitudes, expectations of Australian professional staff

Representatives of practices of a variety of size and type from across Australia attended or contributed where they couldn’t attend in person. They included small specialist firms like Green and Dale (zoos and habitats), younger landscape architecturally focused firms such as RushWright and Aspect along with the longer established landscape architectural firms such as Cloustons and Context and dual- and multi-disciplinary firms such as Tract and Hassell, and the most globally focused of all firms, EDAW. All have grown from a landscape architectural base, irrespective of current disciplinary mix.

Of note was the history of international practice, with firms such as EDAW and Cloustons having their roots elsewhere (USA and UK respectively) around 40 years ago and even local firms such as Hassell (as EBC) and Tract having practiced off-shore from the 1970s and Context and Hassell making a concerted effort for international work as a way of surviving the recession in Australia in the early 1990s. Experience is therefore substantial.

The commonality of some experience amongst practices along with a diversity of approach provided an interesting insight into the challenges of contemporary practice on- and off-shore.

The commonalities were most common on the business side. All agreed for example, that differences in legal and financial systems were the norm and that differences must be acknowledged and addressed up-front for survival in the global domain. It is simply not possible to do business off-shore as it is done on-shore and questions of ethical practice must be more regularly confronted. For example, some practices addressed such differences by having their own legal staff available to deal with contractual issues as they arose. Bitter experience had hardened all to the realities of international work, although these were countered by the positives of dealing with different cultures and places, of taking on work that was challenging in scale and complexity when compared with that locally and of the sheer fun and stimulation that all these provide. The scale of demand for Australian landscape architectural services is a tangible expression of the scarcity of landscape architects and the recognition that their skills are needed for the environmental challenges confronted across the globe, but most notably, in the Middle Eastern and Asian regions where urbanization and development are most pronounced.

While the scale of projects that practices were involved in was generally large, there is clearly room for the specialist and that given the risks, scale alone was not considered reason enough to be involved. Most agreed that at the core of any decision to be involved off-shore had to be clarity about what this practice could bring that “added value” beyond the norm and was essentially, good practice. This would vary from practice to practice depending on their particular orientation but always needed articulation to ensure that core professional and business values are protected.

There were real concerns expressed that the large scale and staffing demands that resulted from international work will erode the culture and capacity of the local or home practice unless properly managed. Home staff may not understand the complexities and challenges of international work or the potential it offers for experimentation and advancement. Internationally based staff may misunderstand the importance of the experience, cumulative skills, core values, ethical base and reputation that underpin the home office and the overall enterprise. They may require more mentoring. Practices dealt with this issue in different ways, emphasizing the need to spend time consciously building awareness of practice standards, ethics and expectations across diverse groups, wherever they are located. A number of practices discussed the techniques they use to create such awareness, whether investing in professional education programs, project briefings and reviews and the like.

Likewise, the financial and other risks associated with international work demand organizational clarity and often separation between operational units to maintain corporate viability in the long term.

Likewise, construction technology varies from place to place and drives the need for engagement with local specialists who have greater experience at the project delivery and construction phases. Some practices employ locals as sub-consultants, some employ them on staff, others merge with and acquire entire local companies to provide these skills as soon as they establish themselves in a new locale. Others work closely with local universities and students. All are ways to create deeper levels of local engagement and ownership of outcomes.

All contributors recognised the need for deep knowledge of culture and place but interestingly, did not always see that this varied fundamentally from local or home based practice, especially in Australia. Stories abound of difficulties experienced and challenges faced on-shore that were at least comparable with those off-shore. Ignorance exists in many places. In fact, it was felt by some that many (although not all) off-shore clients and communities were better educated as to the needs of their locale and able to provide positive contributions than those closer to home, although this varies from place to place. Wherever practice occurs, what appears to be most important, if not fundamental to the landscape architectural profession, are advanced skills in reading different cultures and places. These skills are particular to our profession and necessary, wherever practice occurs, since every project must, after all, be researched in order for a landscape architect to practice well.

At the end of the day, all agreed that landscape architectural practice is rooted in the particularities of place and practice in the international domain is actually very similar to practice in the home domain – organizationally, financially, ethically and creatively. What differs is that inherently, greater distances create greater challenges to such practice and therefore risks. Those risks must be explicitly acknowledged up-front and confronted operationally and ethically. The questions that should be asked professionally wherever one practices are thrown into greater relief when practice moves from home base, but they are essentially the same questions: “What value are we adding to this process?”; “What difference do we bring?”; “Are we doing more than fuelling the development machine?”; “What are we bringing to the place beyond this project?”

The group articulated its continuing concerns about the ability of the universities to educate sufficient graduates not only for the Australian market, but the international environment and sought ways to lobby educators to that end, given that demand is not just anecdotal but supported by international studies. Advocacy for the profession, by the profession both locally and internationally was articulated as a priority. Such advocacy was seen not only as increasing the profile of the profession and its work generally amongst potential clients and communities to educate the market place about the importance of landscape architectural work in confronting the challenges of globalisation including the environmental and cultural degradation consequent on urban/suburbanization, de-contextualised global commercial projects and mass tourism. It was also seen as a mechanism to increase demand from school-leavers for university places and education as landscape architects.

Globalisation is a fact of contemporary life and the consequent internationalisation of design practice an unavoidable reality that the profession must address beyond the immediate demands of the individual project. Beyond established firms, this generation of Australian landscape architects currently based and working internationally offers the profession a particular wealth of experience that can and should be tapped, not only now, but in the future when (or if) it returns. There is a role for the AILA and senior professionals such as those who contributed to the Round Table in supporting them and those international practitioners still in the making. Such support could include mentoring of internationally based landscape architects where there are significant numbers by supporting local practice groups (China, Dubai, UK), encouraging those professionals to take on advocacy in those locations, and supporting new students and young professionals to advance study, research and practice internationally using mechanisms such as scholarships, fellowships and internships.

images  /   book