I was inspired by a recent article posted by Hugh Chapman (no affiliation) about their take on the state of software for Landscape Architects, and a lovely little shout-out got my ego all juiced up. It got me thinking, as it happens, the state of software in the industry has shaped most, maybe all, of my career choices to date. Some may find that a bit dramatic, but once you experience what good software feels like, how empowering it is, using anything less feels like taking something you loved and using it to very slowly and very precisely rip your arms off.
I have certain... opinions on the software we use as an industry. I don't really see how I couldn't have them after ten years in the trenches producing countless models, plans and details. When it is something you spend a significant portion of your life interfacing with, why shouldn't I desire that our software be made with respect for me or even, at a baseline, be fit for purpose?
But through my conversations with various professionals across the industry, there is this apathy of "well, it's industry standard, so what can you do?" My completely rational reaction to this, of course, was to learn to code, build my own tools, and leave the industry altogether. I'm not sure if this is permanent or just taking time to find ourselves, but this might illustrate the extent of offense I take to that statement. If we don't take ownership of our tools, we will be given the arm-tearing implements, and we will beg for them, because it is industry standard to rip your arms off, don't you know?
Revit is the worst thing to happen to Landscape Architecture since plastic geotextile.
I am, of course, talking about Revit, a tool for Architects taken from the shelf and used to contractually bludgeon any love I had for the craft of Landscape Architecture. And I do see it as a craft, even if the traditional trajectory of seniors in the field is to wash their hands of the making part. The industry as a whole has little respect for how the sausage is made, leaving that to the future of our profession: the revolving door of fresh and soon-to-be burnt-out graduates. Herein, I think, lies the problem: an industry happy to lay the eldritch horror of the sausage on starry-eyed graduates who have yet to have their dreams of creative expression bodied by grading in Revit. Who has less perspective to call out workflows than the inexperienced? Well, I've got experience, and I'm here to say Revit is the worst thing to happen to Landscape Architecture since plastic geotextile.
Of course, Revit can be augmented through the use of paid plugins, and I'm sure their fantastic, but I judge things as they are, and I judge Revit harshly. At £2,796 a year per license, you get software that is in no way, shape or form, fit for purpose. What. A. Bargain. If that doesn't make you want to rip your arms off, its probably because you washed you hands and mind of how the sausage is made years ago and also don't happen to pay the bills. All this so that you can fulfill some contractual obligation, or fain "collaboration". You might be coming to the conclusion that I dislike Revit, and you would be correct.
This is the point where the legions of indoctrinated, Autodesk-certified Revit professionals come in and tell me, no, I am the one who is wrong, I just don't "get" it, I'm just doing it Landscape Architecture wrong. This is not a hypothetical; this is actual feedback I've received from people outside my profession, telling me that I am, with my ten years of professional experience, a Bachelor's and Master's of Landscape Architecture, the one who is wrong. Fuck me, I guess.
The Hot Take
My hot take here is that 3D BIM is overkill for Landscape Architecture. We would be much better off sticking to 2D BIM (Vectorworks does this well with objects like Planting Areas) and working in 3D for certain workflows like grading and rendering if you want to be fancy, and calling it a day. Not once in my entire career did I see any tangible benefit from having a 3D BIM model; it's peacocking to Architects and Clients, fight me. We spend all this time dreaming up ways to work more when we could be dreaming of ways to work less. Maybe that says something about the human condition.
We spend all this time dreaming up ways to work more when we could be dreaming of ways to work less.
If you made it this far through my rant, you deserve a portion of positivity to accompany your main course rant, so here are the things that don't quite make me want to rip my arms off, sorted by least rippy to most.
Rhino — Certified Holy Grail
If I set up my own studio, I would find a way for this to be the beginning and end of the production pipeline. This would require an advanced knowledge of Rhino, mind you, not advanced like you put on your graduate CV, but advanced in that you can interface with the RhinoCommon C# API. Rhino is software with so much depth you will never see the bottom. It is my muse; I love Rhino. I built my first plugin, LandArchTools, for McNeel Europe's Rhino. You can find it in the package manager—use it if you want, or don't.
Vectorworks — 2D Only
Just the 2D portion; the 3D portion is certified arm-ripping. If you're not wanting to tinker like me, Vectorworks provides everything you need to create a great 2D BIM workflow. Terrible developer experience though. The feedback I got from them when asking for help developing plugins was "don't worry about that, we already make tools for Landscape Architects!" Thanks, mate! Guess I don't have anything of value to contribute then! (See above rant, this is a recurring theme with app developers and those associated with them, which now, ironically, includes me.)
Grasshopper — Conditional Recommendation
Only interface with this if you really want to, or better yet, understand the problem you're trying to solve and know Grasshopper will solve it for you. There are a metric shit-ton of free plugins to solve most computational problems under the sun. This is the world of jank; if you expect anything more from software built for free, then honestly, shame on you. I put this at the bottom because it is both largely unnecessary and also at times arm-rippy. There does exist quite an excellent plugin being developed by Chris Landau's called Landkit. I've not gotten around to using it yet, but it is an opinionated workflow that aligns closely with fundamental patterns that I use myself, and so of course, ego in full swing, I agree with it.
The Real Problem
That's it. That is all I would recommend a studio needs for literally anything a Landscape Architect would produce. I know, I know, "But we are contractually required to use Revit." Honestly, I was going to put a snarky quip to this, but it is a massive, looming problem. It is the bludgeoning I described earlier. Revit is counterproductive for Landscape Architects; it literally reduces our productivity. But so long as we remain passive on these contractual requirements, or bullied into it by Architects, we will continue to rip our arms off.
So long as we remain passive on these contractual requirements, we will continue to rip our arms off.
If you're interested in talking to like minded Landscape nerds, I host a Discord.