In landscape architecture, the success of a project depends not only on a good design, but also on correct implementation and on being sustained over the long term through regular maintenance. Yet today, in many cities, serious breaks are visible between the links of this chain. The outcome is parks that deteriorate quickly, public spaces that lose their function, ecological mismatches, and a waste of resources.
As cities expand, the spaces where we can breathe become narrower; every doorway opening to nature becomes more valuable. For this reason, landscape architecture has become not merely an aesthetic touch, but a fundamental component that keeps urban life standing.
The fate of a landscape project is shaped from the very first line drawn. Yet, quite often:
- Decisions that are not grounded in scientific evidence,
- Repeated “typical” projects,
- Participation processes being skipped,
- Ecological impacts being pushed into the background
lead the design to be weak from the start. When the planning phase is surrendered to short-term political targets, the long-term sustainability of the project can disappear almost instantly.
Many projects that look flawless on paper become unrecognizable once they reach the construction site. The main reasons include:
- Off-plan changes made on site under the justification of “cost reduction,”
- The use of poor-quality, substandard materials,
- Specialized work being assigned to inexperienced crews,
- Incorrect plant selection, faulty planting techniques, and repetitive, copy-paste planting palettes.
Result: critical details that carry the essence of the design lose their character, and the project looks aged and “used” from day one.
Landscape does not end with implementation; in fact, the real story begins there. Yet in many projects, maintenance is assumed to be nothing more than “mowing and irrigation.” Maintenance teams often work without a system; there is no professional landscape architect oversight, and ecological rhythms are not taken into account.
When budget constraints enter the picture, things become even more complicated. Plants fall under stress, the space wears out quickly, and public perception settles on this point: “That park was poorly designed anyway.”
Yet the problem is not the design; it is that maintenance is not valued as much as design.
This invisible crisis affects urban life in many ways:
- Public spaces that go unused and lose their identity
- Declining biodiversity
- Increasing urban heat island effect
- Rising public cost due to “parks renewed every year”
When even a single link in the chain breaks, the value that landscape architecture adds to the city visibly decreases.
The solution lies in reconnecting these three phases:
- Planning: a data-driven, climate-adaptive, participatory approach
- Implementation: fidelity to the project, quality standards, expert teams
- Maintenance: a sustainable maintenance plan aligned with seasonal cycles and ecology
When this perspective is adopted, landscape architecture can be repositioned not as merely a “visible” job, but as a core component of urban life.
No matter how strong the intention at the planning stage may be, once the project reaches the implementation site, things often evolve in a different direction. Projects are reshaped under cost pressures, material quality is reduced, and critical details that carry the spirit of the design are lost in execution. One of the biggest problems is working with teams that are not specialists in the job. Low-quality plant material, incorrect planting methods, or unplanned groundworks can turn even the most careful design into an ordinary space. As a result, projects on site become fragmented and inadequate, far from the integrity they had in drawings.
This disconnect brings cities serious costs both economically and socially. Details lost between planning and implementation, combined with insufficient maintenance, shorten the lifespan of public spaces and produce expensive projects that require constant renewal. The bond users form with the place weakens, living environments become dysfunctional, and urban identity gradually fades. In the end, landscape architecture is perceived not at the center of urban life as it should be, but as a secondary “decoration” activity.
Yet the solution lies in a holistic perspective that reconnects every link in the chain. A planning approach nourished by scientific data, sensitive to climate, and participatory; an implementation process that is faithful to the project, high-quality, and transparent; and a management approach that is led by experts, sustainable, and prioritizes ecological maintenance can be the key to overcoming this invisible crisis. When landscape architecture gains this kind of wholeness, cities do not merely become more attractive; they gain a character that breathes, lives, and grows stronger over time.
