Not twenty years ago, if you wanted to start your own firm, you could do so on a Mayline drafting board in your basement. Sharpen your lead holder, unroll a length of vellum and you were ready to go. There were no promises of your skill or success but the tools were within reach. Today, my partner and I sit on our couch as we write up a wishlist of basic softwares we might need for a fledgling practice: Revit Architecture, Autocad, Rhino, a decent rendering engine, Adobe CS, maybe Sketchup Pro. Meanwhile, a small house addition and competition briefs await on the coffee table. We click around on the internet for single-use licensing costs, tally the price tags, and the bottom line drops like an anvil: just over $15,000.
Much has been written lately, mostly about other industries, on the unequal access that unpaid internships afford. Affluent students who have the ability to spend summers working for free start out their careers with connections and experience with which their less well-off peers struggle to compete.
“While many colleges are accepting more moderate- and low-income students to increase economic mobility, many students and administrators complain that the growth in unpaid internships undercuts that effort by favoring well-to-do and well-connected students, speeding their climb up the career ladder,” Steven Greenhouse wrote for the New York Times.
This unlevel playing field, for better or for worse, transcends disciplines and manifests itself from internships to the C-suite. Budding architects, however, face a unique obstacle in starting their own firms firms in the prohibitive costs of design software. (Working for others, of course, is always “free.”)
In the vast playing field of young architects, many — while working for others or attending school — are moonlighting in their bedrooms and basements on competitions and small projects in the hopes that eventually they’ll see their names on a door as well as a stamp. Yet when it comes to purchasing software, the costs of programs like Autocad and Rhino could be resulting in a self-selecting pool of designers who are able to compete, at least initially, at a higher level. It remains unclear how the effects of high software price tags could be affecting the course of architecture at large by shaping the next generation of young design firms.
we need to develop an awareness of the fact that architecture is affected by the tools of its production at all scales
How necessary are these software programs? Digital production has, of course, garnered as much criticism for its soullessness as it has for its precision or ability to wow. Analog methods, from hand-sketching, to model making and prototype development, have been relied upon for centuries for construction. A building as complex as the Hancock Tower — wherein every floor plate was different — was drawn by hand, and its almost-poetic choice of significant details and limited number of sheets is arguably as successful as the phone-book sized CD sets of medium-sized projects today. Maya Lin won the competition for the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial with a blurry, hand-rendered sketch of a thick black line in the haze. But times have changed: the winning entries of recent widely-published architectural competitions, like eVolo, are thick with unearthly renderings. Recently issued RFPs and many contract docs, even for small projects, include BIM deliverables. LEED certification — or other more holistic methods of “sustainable design” — require energy modeling; and new advances in thermal calculations and daylighting rely on digital building data. Whether or not we continue analog methods for design and how they are integrated in an architectural process is besides the point: to be competitive, cutting-edge digital design programs are integrally necessary.
There are alternatives to paying the full cost for an armory of design programs. Open-source, free programs like DraftSight, GIMP, and others attempt to compete with the big names. Students, while enrolled in school, are able to use programs on university computers or purchase less expensive “student versions” of many software. Yet these alternatives can hamstring a small practice in a post-educational setting: consultants expect coordination with mainstream programs; and student software cannot be used legally for commercial projects. The mainstay alternative for many are “cracked” programs — using downloaded serial numbers and/or a combination of sneaky softwares to circumvent licensing. But using “cracked” programs is not an optimal choice: they are time-consuming to install, don’t play well with other programs, and, of course, illegal.
Architecture softwares, from CAD to rendering engines, are costly because of their research and development costs; their proprietary code; the ongoing profitability of “upgrade” and subscription services; and most significantly the crucial factor of optimum market price. They cost what we are willing to pay.
So what are other solutions than working in the dark on “cracked” programs? Corporate architecture firms and universities have close relationships to companies like AutoCAD because of their large subscriptions, and partner in the development of these programs over time. Schools and businesses could simultaneously invest in the best open source alternatives, or reach a fiduciary hand out to smaller developers. Its in the interest of the industry to bring up worthy competitors; new softwares bring fresh takes which allow for innovative design practices and challenge rote methods that have become the norm. Frank Gehry / Gehry Technologies is a forerunner in this type of sponsorship with CATIA and Digital Project, now used to develop the oscillating facades of complex curtain walls. Architecture schools should play hardball with the large software developers; they have leverage because the programs they teach become the programs that designers use for the rest of their lives. A new type of student license, which could stay valid for a few years post-graduation and are legally usable for commercial work, would go a long way in changing the balance of privilege for architects striking out on their own.
A more holistic solution comes from an internal shift on design methodology. Tod Williams and Billie Tsien have written a paean to slowness and their intimate awareness of the tools they use throughout their work. Hold for a minute your skepticism and look again at the corporate / meditation cliche: “How we work is as important as what we do.” I believe that we cannot wait for the cost of software to go down, likely it never will. Instead, we need to develop an awareness of the fact that architecture is affected by the tools of its production at all scales. We need to understand the finiteness of detail by choosing between drawing with a thin pen and a thick one. We need to consider the weightiness of real materials when scrolling to an infinite precision in Autocad. We need to assess our form-making and how it’s affected by the “boolean” tool in Rhino versus “solid tools” in Sketchup. We need to reevaluate how we consider the cataloging of architectural systems through the ubiquitous layer naming standards of the AIA.
A mantra of feminism is: “You can’t bring down the master’s house with the master’s tools.” Going to great lengths to crack illegal programs means trying to game the system through established means. Instead, we need to question all types of methodologies which have become core to the practice of architecture: from an awareness of the effects of costliness of design software, to the shape of formwork on concrete, the far-ranging questions of Dada who injected dreams and the subconscious in the production of art. The implications could reach beyond the cost of a single program. What would architecture be like if we replaced Revit with surrealist automatic drawing? What tools can we appropriate from other disciplines — sociology, robotics, poetry or statistics — to change our understanding of how to produce buildings? What new types of buildings would result?
This divergence in thinking about the tools of design, and using them to subvert and challenge traditional means, is more than a “work-around” for the costliness of design programs. Competition juries will flip through hundreds of entries and pause for a half second on those that sparkle those most. Clients need to be shown work that challenges their ideas of architecture while also inspiring it. It will take effort and risk to step out of the digital rat race to gain critical distance. This is the work of an entire career as an architect.
In the meantime, start saving for AutoCAD 2014.
No Comments
What would architecture be like if we replaced Revit with surrealist automatic drawing? What tools can we appropriate from other disciplines — sociology, robotics, poetry or statistics
Pretty sure all of these require high-end tech to be most successful
Great article. I would add CorelCAD as an option. It costs about $150 if you are teaching and it's pretty comparable to AutoCAD Lite.
Very interesting post. Do you need Revit? Last time I worked with a 3D compatible software was archi-cad so I may be wistling in the wind, but is being able to peal of sections etc. absolutley necessary for starting a small firm? Free downloadable sketchup goes a long way and regular cad does the rest, but we're only talking about production.
What people really hire you for (I've found) is problem solving. In other words, those programs in school that where so blithly ignored are now much more important. Your imagination trained on multiple ways to solve your clients problems is what you will be paid for, and of course the ability to represent those solutions well.
Tools are important, but I wouldn't get hung up on them now, but rather on the quality of your intellectual services. And never forget the hand drawing, there's an instinctual understanding that you know your stuff if you can reasonably think on the fly with a pencil and paper that no amount of flashy computerized drawings will supplant, unless you're shooting for starchitecture. I hope this helps, and good luck!
ya, not a problem. if you were able to bring me clients and dependable income, i would have no problem building you a cost effective infrastructure. not interested in doing it for negligible wages though.
if you're not able to build an infrastructure for your business yet, you might not be ready to start a business. maybe, the notion that all you need is a dream and a mayline is why so many architects now are competing to work for free.
Software is akin to the food processor, the blender, and anything else that shortens the processes of creation. Most people could care less how their food is prepared, which of course is one component in our obesity epidemic, just as long as it is quick and semi-palatable. The same goes with our process of creating architecture, and the means of which we document - or bake - our product; people don't care so long as...[you get it].
How do we change? Yes we can s l o w t h e p r o c e s s, but in a world of exponentially increasing speed, should we? I do agree with the sentiments above, regarding our knowledge and expertise being key to what is important to the client, but so is speed - currency fluctuations, commodities prices, etc. What can we do? Should we revert to the Ron Popeil of architecture tools - free or store bought? Should we go with Ferrari - Revit, CATIA, etc? Or, Should we slow down? I am thinking that the answer, like usual, is somewhere in between all three, and in the end, isn't this always the case anyhow?
to echo curtkram, its much tougher to start an architecture business than most other fields, because yes, the start up costs are enormous, as outlined in the article. I would argue that software package costs are not necessarily always for the benefit of design, but for liability purposes. Even if you have the perfect business plan, you may not be able to find the perfect contractor that has the ability to interpret drawings with minimal explanation. Taking multiple sections, redundant call outs, redundant details and such is a necessity in order to get the exact product you envision.
besides the cost of design software itself, many young practitioners think of architecture as an act of clicking mouse, picking components, beautifying the model with little regard to costs and material construction, which usually results in sky-rocketing prices when one doesn't have a good understanding of detailing, components and manufacturing processes that might be required to build such a piece of work.
Add to the cost of the software the learning curve and the new problem of having to outsmart or trick Revit into doing what you want. Not every Office renovation needs a Revit model but struggling with Revit and getting it to model what you want and not what is pre-defined makes design innovation on small projects difficult and costly. We went from abstract to literal and the literal has some holes in it.
We all know Revit is not perfect but is it the best tool for every job?
You could get the Revit LT suite for about $1,800 It wouldn't do everything, but it does many things, and could easily take care of the small house.
Also, Archicad has a rental model, where you can rent a license for a couple hundred a month. Not everything needs to cost as much as you think. Be creative.
Design your own software perhaps?
There is a small but growing group of open-source add-ons to the Rhinoceros platform which is as close as our industry comes to a free and open software package.
Grasshopper is still free, and it is invaluable software at the cutting edge of architectural programs. There is also a significant number of plug-ins to make Rhino and Grasshopper do everything from sheet sets to rendering, many free. Organizations like CASE, Mode Collective, and Morphocode create free programs for open distribution for a variety of platforms.
It is unfortunate that all these programs run in Rhino, which you must buy, but it is a good model of how to create an open, sharing-based community around design software.
I didn't want to focus too much on specific software, but rather modes of working pertaining to open-source software, but 18x32 is right, Rhino is awesome, and there is no reason to buy it and AutoCad. All I need to produce everything I work on is Rhino and Adobe CS.
It sounds like you had a case of technology software lust, because I don't see anything on your desired list of software that can do things that Rhino + one render engine + a few plugins + Adobe CS couldn't do.
Rhino.... $995
Grasshopper.....Free
RhinoNest (if you do production) ......$350
Geometry Gym BIM (replaces revit) $250
Maxwell/V-ray/ etc......$500
Adobe CS...$1200
That's a total of $3300, a far cry from $15000
While I appreciate this article, it's a little light on research. In the spirit of contributing more to this conversation, I offer the following.
McNeel (publishers of Rhino) is EXTREMELY flexible in their licensing agreements. They are perfectly fine with valid licenses purchased as a student or educator being used in a professional context WITHOUT buying the commercial upgrade. See the FAQs here: http://www.rhino3d.com/edu. I always strongly recommend that my students purchase a copy of Rhino before finishing school for this reason ($195).
For visualization, Blender Cycles is sick (and free): http://www.blender.org/.
Adobe CS2 Suite can be downloaded directly from Adobe... the use of this without owning it is questionable, but it's clear Adobe isn't going after people: http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/.
Also, there's free version of SketchUp: http://www.sketchup.com/ and the LT versions of AutoCAD and Revit that Jeremy mentioned above, that would probably be more than enough for the small scale practice described above.
Also, while I appreciate the idea of firms and universities pushing around the big vendors (Autodesk, not AutoCAD and Dessault) it's important for Archinect readers to understand just how big these companies are: each had over $2 billion in revenue in 2012, and both are virtually without competition in their respective industries. So, until there's real commercial competition, they do whatever they want.
While I like GeometryGym, there is no way that it replaces Revit. The key appeal of Revit is it's use as a documentation tool, which is why it has cornered the BIM market.
Also, the architecture firms that are using tools like RhinoNest for part layout are definitely going beyond their contractual (and professional liability) obligations... the only reason you should be using a tool like that is if you are getting paid for additional scope to produce fabrication/drawings and if that's the case, you should include the cost of the software in the fee.
My total based on the recommendations above with either Revit LT or AutoCAD LT: just shy of $1400. If you can't afford that, then you probably need to save more before starting a practice.
I agree, the cost of architectural tools has increased exponentially, while the profit margin for the product has either stayed the same, or decreased, though slowing the process down might not help. That will only give the competitive edge to those willing to work fast.
I think the real question needing to be asked is why our construction documents need to be phone book sized. In an increasingly litigious society, computer programs have been utilized by designers as means to reclaim ownership over the construction process, albeit at the expense of those beautifully efficient single sketches and "all-in-one" construction drawings such as the Hancock Building. Combine this with an increasingly untrained and unionized construction workforce, and architects require BIM, CAD, and other programs simply to keep up with demands on the profession from outside entities. It is not simply an internal issue of "how we design", but also an industry issue of the realization of that design. Pretty renderings/ models/ sketches account for a very very small percentage of the architects time and almost none of the billings.
While I am currently a university teacher and (legally) use educational versions, I once was an architect in practice. I started initially with the typical copy of AutoCAD, but decided early on that I wanted to be serious about it and saved up for a full license of ArchiCAD (was about $6000). It didn't come with any reduction at the time, but it was bearable with a small loan. You don't get your car, your laptop, your smartphone and other costs for free either, do you?
Please be a bit more thorough though on terminology... Open source has a very specific meaning which does not appeal to most of the examples you make (most freeware is NOT Open Source at all).
I run a blog precisely to inform architects and students about possibilities (http://cad-3d.blogspot.com). You don't need $15.000 by far.
Revit Architecture > as some already said, start with Revit LT or ArchiCAD Star(t)edition or VectorWorks Architect. (I'm a big BIM supporter, so I don't advice NOT to go the BIM route). About $1500-2000. Probably the most expensive of the things you need. subscriptions costs are not to be underestimated, though.
Talk to your reseller. E.g. we had a promotion where starting architects could buy a full ArchiCAD license with a serious reduction.
Rhino > buy it when still a student if your designs need it (do they?). $195 and it's yours to keep using, legally, even for commercial work. If you want to use Grasshopper, you need this, obviously. Even at the full $995 it is a fair price (considering they don't do updates every year).
AutoCAD > if you already use Revit or ArchiCAD, you don't need this if you know your software. There are cheaper alternatives. Check out the cheap BricsCAD (Classic = $445) or even the free ones: Draftsight, any of the TurboCAD variants, ... The Open Source alternatives are, alas, still limited and there are no Open Source DWG-libraries that support recent DWG versions.
There are several free and even Open Source rendering engines. I won't go into that.
Adobe CS > Try to learn Gimp, Scribus and Inkscape properly. They lack some/many of the features of the Adobe suite, but are usable. Free and Open Source. The Adobe CS2 download is not legally yours to use if you never bought a license for it.
SketchUp Pro > Start with the free version and maybe some add-ons.
From what I see is that you need to start small and save up as part of your business for the expensive applications. You don't start with a brand new BMW 5 either, I would guess. Probably a cheap, small, used car. Or a bike.
And considering licensing costs: they are not cheap, but they are not the biggest of your costs. Laptop, printer, internet, car, telephone, cellphone, house, clothing and all associated costs are probably even bigger, certainly with all related subscriptions and insurances and professional memberships etc.
That said, as with most schools, we also teach the typical commercial programs that architects expect: SketchUp, AutoCAD, ArchiCAD, Cinema4D, Rhino, Adobe Suite...
What the new firm should invest in depends on the jobs it has on hand that warrant the start up and short term goals of the firm. If you are starting with small jobs and working to get work through references and networking, your initial investment may not need to be that large. One may not even need any sophisticated rendering software. Most clients are happy to see sketch up models and, yes, clients are impressed with hand drawings! If your firm needs something more impressive go to the People section of Archinect. It is filled with young, willing and hungry renderers who have all the student versions of the software you covet. Check out Modative's blog on starting an architecture firm.
www.aec-apps.com just launched. You may want to check it out.
What the new firm should invest in depends on the jobs it has on hand that warrant the start up and short term goals of the firm. If you are starting with small jobs and working to get work through references and networking, your initial investment may not need to be that large. One may not even need any sophisticated rendering software. Most clients are happy to see sketch up models and, yes, clients are impressed with hand drawings!
As someone who manages small business, Vado has the best advice. What this article fails to mention is the cost of marketing— selling your business is often as expensive as running your business.
Some sectors, like AEC, don't particularly seem to benefit from mass-marketing because there's so little firms that actually advertise that it's difficult to make assumptions about the efficacy of marketing.
In reality, the absolute minimum to start many small businesses is about $20,000 in the first year alone. If you want to operate a more legitimate business with an office location and all of that, double the figure.
Essentially, that's the problem with the marketplace overall; the cost of entry is becoming prohibitively high and the rewards are relatively low for the majority of business owners.
+1 for Steve S.
Sketchup (free) does everything you need for small scale projects. You can even export to dwg for work with consultants using AutoCAD. Add a monthly Adobe CS6 subscription ($49), and you are off and running for little more than the cost of a computers. It's actually the cheapest time it's ever been (I would argue cheaper than mayliner, drafting table, pens, paper, etc) to go out on your own. Software is actually the least of your worries these days (+1 J. James R.)
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.