I guess it's time for me to go beyond a general interest in LA and decide what it is I want to do. What stirred my interest and question was the combination of outdoors work, creative work, nature, environment, and the fact that getting into LA with an engineering/geology background might easier than switching to something else "creative" that didn't involve the science/engineering side of LA. As it turns out, I am really less interested in that part though. So maybe LA is not the degree for me or at least overkill. I have since talked to two local industry professionals which has been another eye opener. It seems, the two work at opposite ends of the spectrum. One designs high-end backyard paradises, deals with planting and design. The other has a workload that consists mostly of landscaping the space around his company's architecture projects, and deals with irrigation issues, city codes, turf grass, and sprinkler systems. The latter doesn't sound nearly as much fun as the former. It sounds too much like engineering. The guy was great, almost a life saver, provided a wealth of information, and yet I came away thinking maybe I am peering down the wrong alley here. Maybe I shouldn't try to pursue LA but continue gardening at home. Anyway, I got a number of leads for additional people to talk to, and I will see what they say. I could see myself working on residential projects and even for some municipal department. 99% of the cities I see are in dire need of landscaping and protecting those small and shrinking green interstices. Maybe my green passion for nature and environment would be better spent somewhere else rather than possibly having to go to work for a company that's "landscaping" urban sprawl. I don't mean to offend anyone. I just think much of urban USA is not a nice place to live. Is LA the field for someone wanting to make a difference here, or should I look into urban planning ? Anyone ? I'm confused.

Consider creating a monarch station, maybe in a raised round or contoured bed made of the same kind of bricks that are on your house. There's an organization called monarchwatch.com. You might check it out. Maybe you could line the driveway somehow, with a garden bed or hedge. I think your yard would benefit from more curved shapes. Another thing you might do is to create a small grove of river birch. They are so pretty, and the colors of their bark would blend so attractively with your house. I've seen them in beds toward the front of the yards, along with natural-looking shrubs and flowers. Beautiful. The main thing I would recommend for your yard is to minimize the grass. Not only do lawns use a lot of water, take a lot of work and expense, but a large lawn, in my opinion, is monotonous. And replacing lawn is much better for the environment and the other plantings attract birds, squirrels, and so on.

"I agree that the tree needs pruning for shape, but I think in this case Yardvaark's drawing shows it pruned far too high for what I find attractive in that type of tree which looks like an ornamental fruit tree of some type. I would get a professional arborist (not a landscaper who may or may not have a clue about pruning) to come help you with the pruning." This position represents a fundamental, philosophical difference in our thinking. In one school of thought, the landscape is a functional artwork. In the other, it is a display for horticultural efforts. In the latter, the bottom of the canopy (how high the tree is pruned) depends on the type of tree it is. And this depends upon a somewhat arbitrary convention promoted by horticulturalists, arborists and the like.) Presumably, the criteria would have to do with plant health, function and that sort of thing. In the landscape school of thought I subscribe to, the landscape is a specialized garden. It is a combination of art and engineering that is no more than additional construction onto a building (in the case where a building is present and is the centerpiece of the work) but with different materials that are durable for the outdoors. To me a building and a yard is at the service of the human body, especially the head. It is the height of the head that regulates the placement of a ceiling. While some people are shorter and some are taller, it has been decided long ago that ceilings are much nicer when they are several feet above one's head. When money is no object, clearly, people's preference is for higher ceilings, not lower. Short people are lucky in that ceilings, for them, are always a little higher. Tall people complain when ceilings are too short. To me, landscape plants are not objects which must conform to some professional's preconceived notion of what they are supposed to be; they are materials with a built-in plastic capability with a given range of potential. If they are used in a common garden, it hardly matters (except to a professional's opinion) how the owner chooses to form and shape them. In most cases, they are left alone to "do their thing" ... which people have a tendency to accept as the "proper" potential for a given plant. But in landscape gardens, trees and plants are first doing jobs, and then looking beautiful. A primary job of a tree is to provide a ceiling. The objective in selecting landscape plants is to match their plastic potential to one's need and desire for a given size, form, shape and structure. Given that I think of trees mostly as small accessory buildings with domed roofs -- the bottom of which is a ceiling -- I find it absurd that a ceiling would be placed at the height of one's thighs (as it is above)! Or waist, chest, eyes ... or even scraping the top of their head! It is much better placed OVER one's head, with plenty of room to spare, since humans jump and wave their arms. We have not even touched on the fact that houses have faces and low ceilings generally tend to obscure them. With my viewing landscapes as essentially FUNCTIONAL spaces, SUBORDINATE to buildings, it does not seem to me that obscuring the building face (as long as it is attractive) is good idea. A little is OK and it goes a long way. The more beautiful a building is, the less it needs obfuscation from foliage. While I'll agree that landscapers sometimes don't have great ideas about pruning (even basic practices) I will argue that when it comes to the landscape garden, sometimes the so-called pros (horticulturalists, arborists) do not take into account the overall, big picture objective of a particular plant's job and how it best fits in.

Thank you everyone for your input - some great info here for me to consider. As I have been researching landscape professionals, I have been concentrating on those who seem to have significant hardscaping experience, since I know our project is going to involve a new retaining wall and section of patio at a minimum, and possibly much more. Someone to help me choose plants and design plantings is a secondary concern, although I have certainly been paying attention to people's styles in that regard as I research. Anyway, the people I have emailed thus far are all design-build firms, which I assume will be the easiest way to deal with this project, especially given Revolutionary's note about not building what other people design. That is understandable and I'm sure most of these designers have a team of masons/contractors they work with to avoid that exact issue. It sounds as though paying a designer for a buildable set of plans to shop around to contractors will just end up costing a lot more in the end, for very little benefit - that is, as long as I can find a design-build firm where both the designer and builders are equally talented! Asking whether these designers are willing to chat on the phone first is a terrific idea - I will absolutely ask! Site consultations have been offered at anywhere from $200 for one hour to $375 for three hours, and while I don't find those fees outrageous for someone's expertise, I really don't want to agree to the fee only to find that I can't stand someone the moment I meet them, LOL.