1. Would you prefer to work as a government architect or private architect if you had the choice? Considering that private = potentially higher pay, more interesting projects but less job security.
2. Why don't we (in the West- the US and UK in particular) have architects employed by central and local government?
3. Is working under the rule of the state worse than working under the rule of corporations?
I suppose most people would answer yes to the first question considering the current levels of unemployment in the profession, but do you think overall it is a good idea to have government architects? Personally I would love the opportunity to do this but apart from relocating to China it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Why can't we have government architects to carry out social housing, libraries etc and private architects to carry out supermarkets, malls etc. I know this means effectively inflating the state (increasing public spending) but this could easily be offset by committing to the use of local energy, workers, businesses etc. Further, Government architects could also work closely with local property owners to ensure that properties are not lying vacant whilst there is a housing shortage, and could speed up the design and planning process.
Ultimately the role of the architect would change from making profit (for a developer) to providing basic human needs (shelter, education etc). Surely this can only be a good thing?
why not have government architects do everything? it would eliminate all that bureaucracy of the private sector architects going through that messy permit process and would greatly streamline the building process. we could put people back to work building the nation's infrastructure and a chicken would be in every pot. surely this can only be a good thing?
The Federal Government hires lots of architects. Not only do they get better job security, but they tend to get better pay and benefits (at least compared to where I'm at right now). The down side is that there is a lot of paperwork and various government standards. Seriously, a lot. You can search on usajobs.gov. Architecture should be series 0808.
Local governments probably don't hire architects as often buy I've met a lot of people on local planning departments that think they're architects and say things like "4-sided architecture" and crap like that.
For me, I would take the jump and work for the state. The job responsibilities probably wouldn't be all that different from what I do now, and the pay and benefits would be nice. Plus government workers tend to be redundant and (I hope not to offend) perhaps a little bit lazy or at least slow to get moving.
I think it would be fun to work for the state for a while; public service is nice, and you could probably do a lot with the position once you overcame the bureaucracy.
However - and I'm not sure this is universal, it might be a peculiarity of where I am - your constituents will hate you for being paid on their tax dollars. They will publish your salary and ask 'why am I paying this guy $28,000 a year to regulate me?' The great irony is that you could go into private consulting, sell your services to the government for five to ten times this amount, and people will like you for being an independent businessman.
2. Why don't we (in the West- the US and UK in particular) have architects employed by central and local government?
we do - but often their primary role are things like facility management, programming, and planning - and with facilities management, the "design" is often restricted to more utilitarian structures.
NYC has several (city) agencies that employ architects--the department of design and construction (ddc) the parks department, the housing authority, even sanitation. i'm sure most other major american cities do, as well.
San Francisco has a full-time staff of architects and engineers who work on and design all city owned properties like libraries, hospitals, parks, city buildings, fire stations, etc:
plenty of architects who do government and public work projects... trust me.. its hella boring. Imagine working on a storage facility to store public equipment or store salt for winter. I say leave those to the engineers xD
What do you think of the idea of a government architect?
1. Would you prefer to work as a government architect or private architect if you had the choice? Considering that private = potentially higher pay, more interesting projects but less job security.
2. Why don't we (in the West- the US and UK in particular) have architects employed by central and local government?
3. Is working under the rule of the state worse than working under the rule of corporations?
I suppose most people would answer yes to the first question considering the current levels of unemployment in the profession, but do you think overall it is a good idea to have government architects? Personally I would love the opportunity to do this but apart from relocating to China it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Why can't we have government architects to carry out social housing, libraries etc and private architects to carry out supermarkets, malls etc. I know this means effectively inflating the state (increasing public spending) but this could easily be offset by committing to the use of local energy, workers, businesses etc. Further, Government architects could also work closely with local property owners to ensure that properties are not lying vacant whilst there is a housing shortage, and could speed up the design and planning process.
Ultimately the role of the architect would change from making profit (for a developer) to providing basic human needs (shelter, education etc). Surely this can only be a good thing?
why not have government architects do everything? it would eliminate all that bureaucracy of the private sector architects going through that messy permit process and would greatly streamline the building process. we could put people back to work building the nation's infrastructure and a chicken would be in every pot. surely this can only be a good thing?
The Federal Government hires lots of architects. Not only do they get better job security, but they tend to get better pay and benefits (at least compared to where I'm at right now). The down side is that there is a lot of paperwork and various government standards. Seriously, a lot. You can search on usajobs.gov. Architecture should be series 0808.
Local governments probably don't hire architects as often buy I've met a lot of people on local planning departments that think they're architects and say things like "4-sided architecture" and crap like that.
For me, I would take the jump and work for the state. The job responsibilities probably wouldn't be all that different from what I do now, and the pay and benefits would be nice. Plus government workers tend to be redundant and (I hope not to offend) perhaps a little bit lazy or at least slow to get moving.
I would work for the state in a heart beat. They will at least take care of ya!
I think it would be fun to work for the state for a while; public service is nice, and you could probably do a lot with the position once you overcame the bureaucracy.
However - and I'm not sure this is universal, it might be a peculiarity of where I am - your constituents will hate you for being paid on their tax dollars. They will publish your salary and ask 'why am I paying this guy $28,000 a year to regulate me?' The great irony is that you could go into private consulting, sell your services to the government for five to ten times this amount, and people will like you for being an independent businessman.
Hilarity ensues!
2. Why don't we (in the West- the US and UK in particular) have architects employed by central and local government?
we do - but often their primary role are things like facility management, programming, and planning - and with facilities management, the "design" is often restricted to more utilitarian structures.
2. Why don't we (in the West- the US and UK in particular) have architects employed by central and local government?
Not what you were thinking?
NYC has several (city) agencies that employ architects--the department of design and construction (ddc) the parks department, the housing authority, even sanitation. i'm sure most other major american cities do, as well.
Oh Mixmaster you just hit on a majorly stupid aspect of our current MBA-brainwashed society. Hilarity indeed.
San Francisco has a full-time staff of architects and engineers who work on and design all city owned properties like libraries, hospitals, parks, city buildings, fire stations, etc:
http://www.sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=1505
plenty of architects who do government and public work projects... trust me.. its hella boring. Imagine working on a storage facility to store public equipment or store salt for winter. I say leave those to the engineers xD
Socialism!
Where is Saint in the City when you need him? Oh, I forgot, he had his ass handed to him back in March.
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.