My attitude is the fact that, should you be a child, and came structures or layouts, or visited cinemas, for instance, simply to ogle their grandeur or layout (something Used to do), you need to choose architecture.
However, should you be a child, and marveled at parks and gardens, as well as came plans on their behalf - the pathways, water features, etc. (and that i did that, too), then you may be considered a landscape architect.
I've an M.Arch and also have been employed in landscape architecture/urban design since i have graduated this year. A few of the primary factors in succeeding as a great designer are spacial &lifier material experience. It isn't a dichotomy between 'interior versus. exterior' or 'parks versus. buildings'.
Sometimes on master-planning, urban design, interior installations, eco-friendly roofs, rainwater run-off &lifier bio-swales, urban public spaces of all types, parks, (from large city parks to small courtyards), urban furniture and lighting, play grounds, memorials, marketplaces, waterfront redevelopment, and adaptive reuse of defunct open areas (like international airports and theme parks) from private to public.
I'm not sure how you can identify trees, grass, or flowers. I did not develop inside a city which was noted for its public outside spaces. I came houseplans like a kid.
The very first firm I labored for known as themselves 'open space planners' which I discovered to be a fairly accurate description. Most structures in competitions we did were only schematically created by the designers, however the open area surrounding it needed to be detailed to an amount enabling you to see every individual plank inside a bench from the 1:5000 plan. Because that's exactly what the public &lifier municipal leaders thought about most - the particulars from the public spaces round the structures.
My estimation on selecting a direction is much more in line with the amount of impact you want to dress in your atmosphere and whether you need to focus on private (limited) use or public (limitless) use.
Structures (even excellent ones) possess a limited effect on a town - and when you do not think that's true, consider the museum in New You are able to by Tod Williams Billie Tsien. Under ten years old, an attractive contemporary building, and it is being considered for demolition since it does not match the present type of MOMA.
I done a contest for that redesign from the Hauptmarkt in Nuremberg that's been the center reason for the town since 1000 AD. All of the structures around it were bombed in 1945. The very first factor the town reconstructed was the primary market square - it had been the spirit from the city so the most significant for them like a landmark and orientation point.
What I am bothering would be that the public realm is an extremely intriguing and fertile spot for design. You might go to a fancy museum, music hall, opera house or library annually and it will impress design magazines for any couple of years. But people walk up and lower the roads, visit parks and meet at squares every single day. So when it comes to effect on how people view their communities and eventually their city, open space planning may be the much more engaging route.
For an M.Arch rather than an MLA, you'll bring a really different view for your operate in open space. But I'm not sure the number of programs you will find that will encourage you to pay attention to public space instead of creating a structure. It might rely on the backdrop and interests of the teachers, I guess. So far as working - it does not make a significant difference what your title is for those who have good design ideas.