On the structural imbalance in the training situation for landscape architecture at German universities

By Timo Herrmann

Landscape architecture is under pressure! For years, the profession – and in particular the Federal Association, through its Training Working Group and the regional associations – has been working intensively to improve the training situation and expand university training facilities, as we – like many other engineering professions – face a glaring shortage of skilled workers.

Added to this are the current developments affecting the profession. For instance, a research study commissioned by the Federal Environment Agency in 2025 highlights the outstanding scientific significance of the discipline of landscape architecture for climate adaptation and identifies the profession of landscape architect as central to tackling pressing transformation processes.

An enormous need for training and research has arisen in the field of landscape architecture. 

Timo Herrmann

Vice-President of the bdla

As a holistic and creative discipline, it is well-placed to analyse complex spatial challenges and, through its research contributions, provide tools for the forthcoming transformation. In times of escalating climate crises, this is indispensable.

And internationally recognised too: at the 29th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 2025), the increasingly central role of landscape architecture in tackling global transformation processes was emphatically confirmed. This dynamic development makes landscape architecture a forward-looking academic benchmark.

Teaching at TU Berlin under threat

The bdla has campaigned vigorously for the establishment of new higher education programmes in North Rhine-Westphalia and Hamburg. We are all aware of what a difficult undertaking this is in times of tight budgets and scarce resources.

The fact that, almost as an afterthought, a degree programme is being lost at a university – and at one of the most renowned and time-honoured institutions at that, namely the TU Berlin – is staggering, infuriating and has dramatic consequences.

Landscape architecture has a long tradition in Berlin, tracing its roots back to educational institutions in Berlin that were innovative across Europe. In 1823, the Royal School of Gardening was founded by Peter Joseph Lenné as the first academic training programme for garden designers; in 1929, the Landscape Architecture degree programme became the second of its kind at a university in Europe and will celebrate its 100th anniversary in 2029. Famous landscape architects such as Erwin Barth, Herta Hammerbacher and Hans Loidl were, in some cases, trained at TU Berlin themselves and have taught here.

Following cuts in the 2000s, only four of the original eight specialist areas in landscape architecture remained, and these are now facing further cuts: In future, teaching in the department of ‘Construction and Material-Related Design’ (formerly Landscape Construction) is to be maintained solely through visiting professorships and honorary lecturers. Furthermore, there are plans to phase out the department of ‘Landscape Architecture Design’ by 2029. As a result of ongoing budgetary constraints, this would leave only three departments in place. Since the first round of cuts over two decades ago, these have operated in close collaboration and without structural redundancy.

Further cuts will inevitably jeopardise teaching activities and doctoral training. It will no longer be possible to guarantee a new generation of specialists for planning offices, public administration, governance and research.

It should not be forgotten that landscape architecture is also a cornerstone of teacher training at TU Berlin – particularly in the degree programme for vocational teaching in landscaping. It is already clear that, as a result of the recently agreed cutbacks at TU Berlin, the number of training places in both areas must and will fall significantly.

University education is increasingly falling by the wayside

The trend towards cost-cutting and restructuring in the training of this profession is part of a broader context of developments in higher education policy. Landscape architecture – like all design professions nowadays – is regarded as an application-oriented discipline. In the long term, these are to be taught exclusively at universities of applied sciences; this is, for example, the view of the Berlin Senate Department for Education and the stance that is gradually gaining ground in the German educational landscape. This would lead, in the long term, to the complete abolition of these university programmes.

With the structural conditions becoming increasingly stringent, we currently run the risk – at least in Berlin – of losing an important training programme at a university altogether. 

Timo Herrmann

Vice-President of the bdla

Even long-established university departments such as those at the Technical University of Munich, the Technical University of Dresden, the University of Kassel and the University of Hanover are coming under increasing financial pressure; and, of course, this also applies to universities of applied sciences throughout Germany.
Landscape architecture, more than almost any other discipline, stands at the interface between design, technology, ecology and society. Its subjects – open spaces, infrastructure, urban and rural landscapes – are not merely built architecture and the environment, but also social spaces, zones of political negotiation and ecological systems. This is precisely why its aspirations are high: to be evidence-based, interdisciplinary and, at the same time, normatively effective.

A closer look at the structure of academic funding raises an uncomfortable question: to what extent does the discipline follow its own substantive imperatives – and to what extent is it shaped by external funding logics?

Taking a stand on research and teaching in landscape architecture

A look at research funding in Germany reveals a clear hierarchy. In the grants awarded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) between 2020 and 2022, the Department of Computer Science, Systems Engineering and Electrical Engineering received around 716 million euros, whilst civil engineering and architecture – that is, the immediate institutional environment of landscape architecture – received only around 178 million euros. This disparity points to structural imbalances in academic attention and the allocation of resources. Fields with high technological and economic relevance are significantly better funded than those whose contribution is less readily apparent.

The imbalance in the importance accorded to degree programmes and their economic viability at universities is strongly influenced by the role of third-party funding. This is no longer merely a supplement, but a central prerequisite for research. It determines staffing, projects and, ultimately, the quantity and quality of teaching. Funding programmes are often technology- and economy-oriented. Projects with economically relevant applications are easier to secure funding for than those that investigate design quality, quality of life, social interaction or democratic participation in the built environment.

This is where the real dilemma for landscape architecture lies. Its central themes – the built environment, social interaction, the quality of public spaces, ecological stability and democratic negotiation processes – are highly relevant to society, but attract only limited third-party funding. 

Landscape architecture has a social and socio-political dimension and is an essential part of a democratic society that upholds democracy. This must also be strengthened through research and teaching.

It is our shared responsibility to take a stand – within professional associations, at universities, in politics and in the public sphere. We must highlight the importance of landscape architecture as a key discipline for transformation, strengthen alliances and actively engage in educational policy processes. Let’s take action!

Further information on this topic

• Marion Linke: What sets landscape architecture apart?
• Seeking the next generation – landscape architecture needs more future-shapers

Author: Timo Herrmann, landscape architect (bdla), bbz landscape architects, Vice-President of the bdla. The text appeared in the bdla association journal “Landschaftsarchitekt:innen” 2/2026.

• Latitude: 0
• Longitude: 0