The whole thing is an art form in my opinion. Some art is more structured than others no matter what media is used. It is the same with architecture, landscape architecture, or garden design.

I agree with you (if this is what you are saying), one would expect that the architect is an artist by definition.

In my opinion, individuals who can combine both the engineering (mathematics, science) & artistic elements well are an uncommon group. Rarer still are those who do it brilliantly.

Therefore, if the project was large enough I would put together the following team:

Engineering: Landscape Architect & Urban Planner

Art: Landscape Designer & Artist

Plants & all other aspects practical: Horticulturalist,
Arborist & Landscape Contractor & his/her Crew Boss.

Depending on their skillset each person involved would look at this project with a different set of eyes and I would think a better end result would be achieved - one that is engineered correctly, is artistic, and practical in terms of installation & future maintenance.

Obviously, the person leading the team and with the final say so would be the Landscape Architect since they have the broadest skillset and education - that's why they go to school for 5 years and must be licensed.

I can't speak to the landscape part of the question, but as to the architects conference and the question, "should urban projects have an artist on staff?"...

Not all architects do the same thing or have the same strengths. Some architects are "designers". Others are more detail-oriented, engineering-oriented; more practical. Frank Gehry is a designer. His staff worries about how to build what he designs. In that sense, Mr. Gehry is an artist.

Different aspect: public buildings present better if they include public art. This can be sculpture, or, (I hesitate), landscape design. Not landscape design in the sense of paths, trees, borders; but landscape desing in the sense of the design of the Vietnam War Memorial, for example, or the gardens of the Getty Center. Landscape Design with capital letters.

There's a point lost in there somewhere I was trying to make...

I know what you mean cat, don't worry. What I find interesting is that Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe, trained as a painter and student of psychology and landscape architect of note once talked about "A table for eight" where a landscape architect shared his concern for the environment with a philosopher, a town and country planner, a horticulturist, an engineer, an architect, a sculptor and a painter. I don't think we were meant to think of these as eight characteristics of one person but eight different people, certainly in the gardens he designed his wife Susan did the planting design.

Teams combined of architects and graphic artists have certainly produced some nice results here (working together on all parts of the project, not as specialists). Environments created that way are more emotional than most, I would say.

So, the artist adds the emotion timbu or knows how to appeal to others emotions?

I would agree that architects and LAs are artists of a kind. On the case of landscape design the medium is hardscape and plants. I can see where a landscape artist might be very efficient at quickly producing concepts, given their experience capturing pleasing views on canvass.

As for having a artist on staff, it makes more sense to me that the municipality have an artist in the group that reviews proposals from the design firms.

When I see the subject of an artist on the design staff come up in conference, I would have to look at who put that on the agenda. It is only the large firms that could afford to have an artist on staff and I would wonder if this is a start of a power play to gain an advantage over the small firms seeking urban projects.

Ink -
I didn't ask them who was responsible for the emotions! But architects do seem to prefer physical functionality to emotional "functionality" - at least when there isn't budget for both.
I should bring a visual example of what I was talking about - here, trees that had to be removed prior to construction, were substituted thus:

Here is a link that might be useful: metal trees

To prove myself wrong, the authors of the next linked example (quite emotional too) did not claim to be artists:

Here is a link that might be useful: town square with yellow bells

But where are the Winkies in the town square? (Muchkins = blue, Winnkies = Yellow, and I cannot remember the other names of Baum's Oz counties.) Having an architectural education but working with civil engineers the statement "But architects do seem to prefer physical functionality to emotional "functionality" -gives me the giggles. P.E.'s think architects have absolutely no concept of physical funtionality.

The Winkies are all shoveling snow today :)
The "1 per cent for art" concept surely would be welcomed by underemployed artists - could even be a result of the artists' successful lobbying. A socialist might say: if the state educates artists, it should also give them work. The actual quality of the results would remain secondary with this approach, though I'm not saying they cannot turn out well.
What's expected of the artist working on an urban project? That he/she creates some focal point, a centerpiece (the old-fashioned approach) or that the artist gets involved in the whole process?
Now, an example of what happens if neither artists nor architects are asked for opinion, and politicians get their way:

Here is a link that might be useful: planned monument

During the depression the WPA (or was it the PWA?) gave artists work all over the country. Some of their murals still exist. Some of them collected folk music and preserved it for us. Since we seem to be headed down the economic slide, maybe the gov. will make work for artists once again and with good results.