Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
When I spoke with a person from the arch landscape program at the local extension school about why their program has financial aid available but not the arch ID program, she scoffed that its because they're not considered "real architecture". I thought, ouch what a slight. I thought they were peers. So what's the skinny? Is interior architecture seen as legit architecture?
The only people who look down on interior designers are architects. In reality a good interior designer is as important as the architect. You have to remember at the end of the day that the reason clients hire us is to make buildings that make their businesses better, or enhance there lives in some way. The shell of the building can be thought of as a way of keeping out the elements, but the real magic happens inside.
A well designed building does everything right. It looks good inside and out, it is built well, and it functions well. An interior architect/designer/decorator is an integral part of a well designed building.
I would suggest you think of it as "Interiors." Given that over 40-50% of buildings for the next 20 years have already been built, there is a huge need for professionals that know interiors.
I always share that architects can do interiors but interior designers cannot do architecture. Find a university that offers both interior design and architecture and do both.
Interiors is a valid discipline but learn architecture with a specialty of interiors.
int-arch is just a way for int-des to pimp themselves up a little. If you want to count furniture and waste time arguing over carpet tiles, then pick int-des, just don't call it architecture.
Snap. That was brutal. But isn't interior arch the most lucrative arch related field right now? Are you not confusing interior decorating with interior arch?
interior architecture is not a profession, some people/schools are trying to re-brand interior design as interior architecture because it sounds better. It's the same thing as Subway calling their staff sandwich artists... it doesn't matter how much glitter you add, that meatball sub is not a work of art. There is a beauty parlour near my office that claims to have "waxing architects"... no joke.
As for lucrative, that is relative to the market and client base. Interior design might make more since there is less work involved and, more often than not, less problems to deal with than real-construction but, that money comes as corporate/management profit, not salary raise to interns.
It is also important to understand that compensation is relative to skill and breath of knowledge. There is really no "base" salary in either field but good entry dollars can be had by anyone in all design fields if the applicant is competent. There are just many less-competent people complaining about an "unfair" market making it look (on these forum posts at least) like there is no money to be had.
The interior design school were I got my arch degree was #1 in the nation. The arch school was top 10. The programs were similar and I know many interior designers that are super talented. I think there is a problem with architects and their attitude about other professionals, especially professionals that we should be working with. Grow up, all of you. No more pooping in the sand box, please.
And manover, you are beyond troubling, you have no idea what you are doing. You want to work for your father-on-law? Why don't you ask if he has a job for you first, then see what you should study.
First off you ask for others to stop "pooing in the sandbox"yet you proceed to suggest that I am beyond troubled? Secondly, I already did ask my FIL and he said that I would bidding jobs and managing projects, he works for a drywall construction company, but I wouldn't just be working for him but many many of his associates in other fields of arch.
Third, I am pushing thirty and don't have time to keep jumping around and changing my mind anymore. I want to get it right the first time .I only asked about interiors because I was curious as to why the people in the Landscape Arch department were so dismissive of their peers in ID. That's all.
Because most people are little bitches. They need to smack others down to feel better about themselves. Simple as that.
Get a Civil Engineering degree and you can pretty much do it all, architecture, landscape architecture, and inferior refurbishment. You could pretty well bother the hell out of everybody.
I agree. I tend to like the more practical aspects of architecture, though I like design as well. However, I can't stand the way people in the allied professions diss on interior designers. I wouldn't pick it as a career. The scope is too limited for my taste. I feel the same way about landscape architecture. But someone has to do this work. Some interior designers are of the "do lunch" ilk, because they are married to money or come from it, but some are very serious about being on the cutting edge of their craft. For important mega hotels, high end retail, and those condo towers in South Beach, they have their work cut out for them.
Mano, you've created a lot of threads here sort of picking our brains. You are free to do so. However, you have looked at landscape architecture, interiors, architecture, urban planning, and construction management. You've also looked at degrees and certificate programs, and have mentioned both California and Texas. The question now is: What do you see yourself doing as you step out the door every morning and where would you rather live?
I went through this, in a way. It was "do I do architecture or not?" for the most part. I also entertained landscape architecture because of a 3 year MLA that required no relocation from a place I very much liked, but that wasn't a good enough reason, and a second bachelor's degree in building construction ( construction management), but an architect at the c.c. I was going to at night prior to M.Arch. dissuaded me from it. At a certain point, I realized I was at an impasse and just made the decision. We can answer questions about conditions and perceptions of certain aspects of the design professions, but the decision is ultimately yours.
Is there even a difference between interior design and interior architecture that would merit a separate masters program?
What does it even mean for an architecture school to be #1? Employment rate after graduation? Competency of the architect? (latter- competency in terms of what?) Fame of the professors who teach there? Facilities? What makes a good architecture school a good architecture school? I know plenty of architectural firms that simply won't hire someone just because they went to a certain school... then again the opposite is also true, but for very different reasons. I simply don't know what a "good architectural school" means...
Did you post in the wrong thread? I asked if there was a difference between interior design and interior architecture? It seems as though there is a difference since it merits a separate masters program.
Manoverde84, there is no practical difference between both terms except for marketing. Int-arch is just the same as int-des but some people/schools want to boost their appeal so they borrow the term architecture eventhough it's no where near it. Imagine you're a cashier at a corner-store store but call yourself a "client relation service architect". Same job and same mundane tasks.
Many int-des I've come across always carry this idea that they know how to design buildings and more often than not, better than architects. I have no problems with their profession as they do parts of projects I would not want to but I find it sad that many just cannot accept the scope of their jobs and need to borrow superficial terms to feel equal.
Wow, its a marketing ploy by schools? I had thought ID and Arch were peer fields but apparently there is a chasm of a difference.
There are several interior architects in my office and they tend to have a skill set that is much more similar to interior designer than an architect.
@ Non Sequitur
From my limited experience with the interior architecture program at RISD, it seemed that the focus was on adaptive reuse of existing buildings instead of focusing on furniture/aesthetics of the existing interiors. I don't know if this applies to other programs and the industry in general, but I certainly didn't spend my days there picking out carpet samples, color swatches or furniture options... to me it felt like an architecture program but on a smaller scale, focusing on redesigning existing interior spaces to fit a new program rather than designing the whole building as in architecture.
I'm not saying that interior architecture is comparable to architecture, but I certainly don't buy your argument that the term interior architecture is a simply a marketing ploy. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about interior architects... what gives?