Landscape research faces several challenges in practice. “Gate keepers,” academic, associations, authorities in the field, base the validity of research in landscape architecture on a bouquet of subjective contextualities and perspectives related on relatively exclusive experience and criteria. Landscape architects have the responsibility to not only explicate their standards in a transparent way, but consider a more diverse aesthetic that exists outside of the experience practitioners, gate keepers, and students. Shared landscapes should be constructed by community-driven demand. Through an inclusive lens, an appropriate target for research, in the range between objective (quantitative data associated with natural sciences) and subjective (qualitative data associated with humanities and arts), would fall in the middle, recognized by the authors of Landscape Architecture Research as the “reflexive approach” and by Charles Pierce as “abductive” (6). Success seems to include approval by resource-rich clientele. For many in NYC the same renderings that hold valid for “gate keepers” in Landscape Architecture are received by contempt and even fear by the networks for people that become impacted through their implementation through displacement and social restructuring — examples include the eradication of queer communities from the Christopher Street Pier and the demolitions of hundreds of community gardens for structures more acceptable by practitioners of architecture. How can we relate to the materiality around us in a way that understands the power of its manipulation? How can the field of Landscape Research construct a common ground with those impacted by practice?