What Construction Taught Faisal Al Said About Landscape Architecture

Many landscape architects begin their careers in design studios, while your early experience was rooted in construction and site delivery. Looking back, what do you think you learned first that many designers only discover much later?

Early in my career, I learned that a drawing does not arrive on site as an isolated idea. It arrives with sequencing, access constraints, materials, tolerances, available trades, approvals, and a programme. Many decisions that look minor during design can determine whether construction progresses smoothly or loses time later. That experience made me value details that are clear, coordinated, and realistic, not only visually convincing.

You spent several years working on construction and site supervision before transitioning into landscape architecture. What motivated that shift, and what were you hoping to find in the profession that you had not experienced before?

My move into landscape architecture was not a move away from construction. It was a move closer to the stage where many important decisions are made. I wanted to contribute earlier, when lessons from site experience can still improve layouts, levels, materials, and the user experience. Landscape architecture offered that opportunity because it connects architecture, infrastructure, public realm, and the way people experience a place.

Having worked on construction sites before moving into landscape architecture, do you find yourself evaluating projects differently from colleagues who followed a more traditional design path? In what ways?

Yes. I tend to look at every proposal in two directions. First, I ask whether it supports the intended experience for users. Then I ask what it will require from the team on site: how it will drain, where services will run, what needs to be built first, and whether it can be maintained properly. I do not see those questions as limitations. They are part of making the design stronger and more durable.

Was there anything about landscape architecture that surprised you once you moved from construction into a design-focused role?

I was surprised by how technical landscape architecture is. It is often viewed through planting palettes or visual images, but the final outcome depends on many less visible systems: soil, irrigation, grading, drainage, root zones, construction tolerances, and future maintenance. Landscape also changes over time. A project has to look right at handover, but it also needs to mature, survive, and perform in the years that follow.

Having experienced both the site and design side of projects, which part of the process do you find most engaging today, and why?

I enjoy the stage where a broad design idea starts becoming a buildable solution through coordination. During reviews and technical discussions, an issue can move from a concern on a drawing to a clear decision that the team can deliver. That is where design ambition, technical requirements, and construction realities come together. It is also where my site background and design experience work together best.

When you look at a landscape project today, what tends to capture your attention first: the design itself, how it will be built, or how people will ultimately use it?

The user experience usually catches my attention first. I notice movement, shade, arrival, places to pause, and whether the space feels intuitive. Very quickly after that, the construction questions follow. A public realm should be comfortable and easy to use, but it also needs the right levels, drainage, planting conditions, and details to support that experience.

How has spending years on active construction sites shaped the way you communicate and build relationships with project teams today?

Site experience taught me that good collaboration depends on precise questions and timely information. When an issue is urgent, teams need a clear reference, the decision required, and an agreed next step. It also taught me to listen to the people closest to the work. Contractors and site engineers often identify practical risks early, and the best outcomes come from addressing those risks without losing the design intent.

Looking back, is there anything from your construction years that you appreciate more now than you did at the time?

I appreciate the discipline of the site more now. It taught me to respect sequencing and the contribution of every trade, from setting out to finishing. It also showed me that small unresolved details can become major issues later. That perspective has made me more careful with coordination and more focused on closing gaps before work progresses.

If you could give one piece of advice to young architects or landscape architects at the beginning of their careers, what would it be?

Spend time on site early, even if you see yourself mainly as a designer. Watch how drawings become setting out, how materials are handled, where services clash, and how decisions affect the people doing the work. The site sharpens your judgment and makes your design conversations more useful.