7 years of very diffcult mentally taxing, financially draining school, MArch = 35K a year job if your lucky even when times were realtively "good" a few years ago.
Internships last an average of 10.5 years after that and pay doesn't even keep up with inflation.
FInally take the A.R.E. and pass (average last time I looked was 2.5 years to pass all the divisions) and then the license isn't worth the paper its printed on to use as toilet paper thanks to the AIA's play dead approach to the lawyers and insurance companies.
Average engineer makes 57k out of school with an undergrad eng degree. Last I looked that same engineer on average in terms of time spent in their field is worth 2X what the same arch is in their field. THat means 1 engineer is worth 2 architects in the marketplace.
architects no longer solve problems that are meaningful to society and it shows. They've been to busy building vaporous credentials as "master designers" instead of "master builders".
I have no arguments against someone saying the pay isnt the best and that perhaps 7 years is a bit much school when 5 is sufficient, though an M.Arch isnt yet required
I'd say a license has a bit more worth than that, but i see your point
your point about engineers is well taken, and if a primary factor is money, then you should just become an engineer
Personally, i couldnt do what an engineer does day in and day out, so it is not appealing to me in the least bit. Career satisfaction and interest is important to me, and factors into my decision as much as salary does. I couldnt handle boring work just to get paid a little more.
but again, if money is your primary concern, i see no reason at all to continue as an architect
you've been firing in lots of directions, piggy, but 'the FAIA and AIAs who are steering this ship'? how so? is the profession one big ship that is controlled by a chosen few? hardly.
there are so many firms, of so many types and approaches, doing such a wide variety of work.
people are starting their own firms at 26, 27, etc these days, and pursuing management of those firms in new ways.
george miller (current aia pres) has nearly no control over our lives. he's an elected representative running a big club that provides information, resources, and some promotion.
the profession may or may not be in dire straits. my firm is chugging along nicely, the work improving along with the fees. we have worked hard to earn the respect of our clients - and now GET it. for some, we're now part of their decision-making process when they begin to consider a project.
we didn't get there by worrying about whether we were being treated fairly or paid enough. we were treated as people and treated them as people (it's a relationship thing; not stabbing at invisible boogeymen), and we were paid the fees we negotiated.
we steer our ship. our friends at other firms steer theirs. i don't see a profession made up of independent professionals being steered by any one entity. are all lawyers subject to a single m.o. conveyed on them by their bar assn?
a profession is, by its nature, a personal responsibility gig. if anything, the growing tendency of assigning blame to nameless faceless others is the trend more likely to be destructive to architecture.
However, at the end of your last post you said, "but again, if money is your primary concern, i see no reason at all to continue as an architect"
Please don't miss my whole point:
I'm saying that it is abundantly clear that the profession has reached the point where it is no longer solvent. It isn't simply a matter of wanting to make a living. I am saying that the profession has now reached the point overall that (even in the "good" times mind you) the average practicioner simply CAN NOT make financial end meet and will inevitably end up in perpetual servitude to debt.
i see your point, Piggy
I just dont agree with it
besides, a lot of your posts talk about salary, which is why i mentioned it
as Steven wrote
We negotiate our own fees and earn the respect of our clients
By just completing a new very large project for a developer, I am signing off on a 2nd larger project of a similar type
By working hard and developing the relationship with this client, it enabled us to basically be handed this next project, and get very fairly compensated for it as well
A large part of this job is client relations, and repeat business. That doesnt mean working for free and doing anything a client ever demands. It means working together and doing what is right for all parties involved.
The AIA has had little to no impact on my professional career up to this point. I dont understand when you say they are steering the ship. They have absolutely no input on who my clients are and the relationships built because of it.
It's a business, and not everyone is a good businessman
Architects need to take a little responsibility for how they run their own businesses and stop blaming others because they signed contracts for lower fees than is possible to pay their employees. That is not all the AIA's fault
then why does the average licensed practicioner. put AIA after their name to the exclusion of R.A.?
why does the average licensed engineer put P.E. after their name and not ASCE?
the difference is brains and the ASCE doesn't have the stranglehold on engineers that the AIA has on architects.
The boogey man is real: it is the AIA and the racket they've been running in their contracts that allows other licensed AIA architects to represent interior designers and arch graduates as veritable architects to the public.
When the average GC stops asking if you are licensed by literally stating, "do you have your AIA?" and instead asks, "so are you an R.A.?" is the day I don't think the boogey man is real.
Its only because the P.E.s are smarter and more well organized that they haven't let their position in the marketplace be devolved into the public perception equating membership in the ASCE as being qualified to practice.
It is hard to leave something behind that you once found so promising and had so much passion for. It hurts even more when you spent a lot of resources to follow that path. It takes a lot of courage to look at one's own situation objectively, to leave the comfort zone of your expectations, especially after building up years of anger and denial. How much energy are you devoting to it that can be used elsewhere? Take a minute and think, what would the 10-years-from-now you tell you now? Maybe to stop living in denial and pursue the route that best suits your needs and desires?
It just sounds like you need to switch firms, Piggy
I have not seen or experienced anything of the sort
and whenever a GC asks if i am licensed, it has always been by saying "are you licensed?" or "do you have your license?"
I have never heard it refered to as an AIA
And i dont really see the big deal with having those letters after your name either
I guess i just dont see how all of this is the downfall of architecture. Dont let the AIA do this to your business. I still dont see how they effect your business, but if they do, just dont let them. I doubt the AIA will ever step in to one of your clients and tell them to go somewhere else for an architect
Existing generation’s saying that we did hard works so young generation also should do the same way is a typical routine to justify an unsound existing situation and makes the point unclear.
The fact that architects have survived after the economic recession in the early 90’s doesn’t mean our profession becomes sound. The only reason that architects have been able to survive since early 90’s is because of the benefit of construction booms in the Middle East and China, which we cannot expect anymore. Moreover, those kinds of construct booms that derived from monetarism always have a bad side effect.
It is a time to see the situation in a more critical way beyond such naïve optimisms that we have survived so you would be able to either.
I've never had a contractor ask me that, but I have had the banker ask, "No, really, ha ha, that's funny, what's your REAL salary? You said you were an architect?" And according to the AIA salary report I was making above average.
Its only because the P.E.s are smarter and more well organized
Piggy I agree, at least somewhat, with some of your points, especially about the AIA's veritable monopoly on the nomenclature that signifies being registered - in fact, I just had this discussion with my ProPractice students. I variably call myself liberty bell AIA, or RA, or both, depending on the circumstances (I am a paying AIA member so I'm allowed to sue those letters).
But as to your quote above: this is the architect's curse. We are generalists in the design and construction process. We are responsible for vastly more decisions than is any other single player in the process. PE's are specialists, as are mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, landscape architects, acoustic specialists, plumbers, and framers. They all have a relatively small area within which they need to be "smart". Which isn't to say they aren't smart and don't have challenging and incredibly important jobs - I learn from my framers almost every day - it's just easier to point to why their knowledge is "valuable". Architects have to know a little bit about a whole lot more than any of our consultants, and why their knowledge is important - and that is why we tend to look like we're not very smart.
Being smart, in our case, is knowing where to find the answer, and knowing what to do with the answer, not knowing what the answer is.
At the end of your last post you said, "Being smart, in our case, is knowing where to find the answer, and knowing what to do with the answer, not knowing what the answer is."
I totally get your point and in more enlightened times this strategy in the marketplace might have worked however:
#1 "Being smart, in our case, is knowing where to find the answer..."
The accessiblity of information and the repeatability of mass reproducing all information cheaply has undermined this aspect of the value of the profession. In this respect, I only see information getting even cheaper and more easily accessed in my lifetime and I don't see things going backwards at all (for better or WORSE).
#2 "...knowing what to do with the answer..."
In a day and age that doesn't value expertise (because so many experts have sacrificed correct principle, truth, on the alter of expediency?) and instead subverts the empirical accumulation of wisdom and knowledge, I don't see contemporary society giving a damn about expertise and experience in the coming century. The weekend crowd at Home Depot and Wal Mart is enough evidence to support this assertion.
#3 "...not knowing what the answer is..."
Society in general has become so cynical and disbelieving that the only thing it wants is "the answer" aka "the bottom line" faster and faster without all the process (and thinking) that necessarily preceeds a quality answer.
AGAIN I totally understand what you intend to mean (and agree with you) and in more enlightened societies the profession's peculiar ways have been strengths. Unfortunately, we've entered a cynical and compulsive time period in society, generally speaking. What were strengths are now only liabilities in the current, skeptical, litigation, code driven contemporary society.
so the boogeyman isn't the aia, it's contemporary society?!
1
one element of lb's equation is that we need to know what we're looking for. you only learn from smacna if 1) you know you need smacna and 2) you understand how to use what it's telling you. if you don't fully understand the components of a wall system, you're going to be missing some things. i won't claim that all architects know all of these components because there are - like in any job type - good examples and bad examples. but it is the architect that is expected to know that flashing is needed, where it's needed, how to glean from smacna what information is needed (if it's not something known), and how to communicate its place in an assembly.
so far i haven't found a bunch of people that know how to pull together the pieces like architects do. i work with a very smart construction manager who does sav-a-lots and fast marts. sometimes he asks for our help, sometimes not. but when he actually has to build a project of some substance, he makes sure that we're involved. he has recommended us to his clients, with whom we now have relationships.
2
i don't understand your cynicism about expertise and experience at all. ever tried to get a academic job or a city, state, or federal job or a medical job without filling out all kinds of forms about your expertise?
3
we educate our clients pretty quickly that 'the answer' has to be the result of a lot of fact-finding on our part. we tell them that there can be a generic answer, but that it will serve their needs less exactly than an answer that is the result of our understanding how they work, what their possibly-unorthodox needs might be, etc. the bottom line is impt - and we let them know that it is impt to us too - but maintaining the bottom line by spending money on things they need instead of things they don't need makes more sense, doesn't it? they usually agree... if they don't, we don't 'fire' them, we follow-through per their decisions.
i get beaten on every day, no denying it. but a positive attitude is both a shield and a powerful tool in my ability to get what i need from a project (integrity, not ego-trips) and give the client what they need so they want me to do more.
last week i sucked it up and agreed to pay $2,100 for something that i didn't think was our responsibility (gray area) - a small dent in our fee for a $7m job. the next day we were authorized to start a $3m expansion of the same job. day 1:i was pissed - day 2: i got over it. didn't feel degraded, instead i felt trusted and valued because i had taken responsibility.
re: your final paragraph:
we hear lots of talk a lot about litigation. sometimes it happens. often it's because of a free-wheeling way of doing business. we have never been involved in a lawsuit - either in the company formed in 1997, nor the previous 40yo company that was our pre-cursor.
code officials are people. build relationships with them, get them to trust you, even seemingly intractable issues can be worked through. codes aren't a mystery - and there are resources for garnering alternative interpretations. if the code official trusts those, you can proceed as you believed was right; if the code official does not, you've got an answer about which you can feel confident. document it and move on.
(lest anyone wonder why i'm so verbose today: no, i'm not a dead-beat partner holed up in his office playing on the internet. i'm home today on doctor's orders - and bored, except for this defense of the profession i love.)
Steven Ward said, "so the boogeyman isn't the aia, it's contemporary society?!"
*swoosh* as the 747 passed 12 inches above your head at 600 MPH.
Not at all. My proposition is that the AIA is responding foolishly to the contemporary marketplace that society presents the profession with.
The average architect is the boogeyman as reflected by the larger AIA body. Absolutely. The average practicioner is their own worst enemy because they respond inappropriately to the contemporary problems that contemporary society presents them with.
In fact, one research publication labeled the phenomenon as the architects lack of establishing and protecting their "jurisdictional territory". The article is in the Aut 2009 issue of the Journal of Architectural and Planning Research and is titiled, the Architecture Profession, Can It Be Strengthened?" by Roger Tijerino.
In psychological terms, they would call the disconnect between architect practicioners and contemporary society: Cognitive Dissonance. A quick perusal of wikipedia is a good starting point for this one.
i'm happy to read the article, but cognitive dissonance - at first glance - suggests that i'm not giving my clients what they want and that they're not compensating our firm appropriately. neither of which i think it true.
Piggy, you have a right to feel however you feel about architecture, including wanting to leave it, but your anger in driving you to wrong generalizations and outright cliches and meaningless statements.
architects no longer solve problems that are meaningful to society and it shows. They've been to busy building vaporous credentials as "master designers" instead of "master builders".
Really? So Michelangelo's design for St. Peter's solved some problems but Meier's Jubilee Church does not? In what way? Palladio could design a working theater, but Gehry's Walt Disney Hall does not do the same for his clients? How come?
Then you generally state, over and over, that the profession is hitting the rocks, basically dying (never mind that this assertion has been made many times before). You think the problems you state for architects are new? You think Michelangelo had an easy time collecting his fee from the Pope? Do some reading on that. Architects (and artists) have historically been treated like doormats by the rich and powerful. Watch the recent PBS show on Benjamin Latrobe to see how his wonderful designs were treated by Washington's politicians. Do you know why his brilliant solution to the design of the Capital was trashed? "The bottom line" is why, and that was the early 1800s. Read up on Louis Sullivan and how his career ended, and how "healthy" the architecture profession was then.
The truth is, this profession has never been easy, and has caused many of even it's best practitioners grief (read up on Louis Kahn dying unidentified in a train station bathroom, completely broke but with international projects on the boards.) But most architects choose to continue practicing because there are also rewards that outweigh the grief. If you don't want to practice any longer, fine, that's your choice, but you're voice-of-doom assertions are huge exaggerations.
and since I've just noticed that you have a beef with Gehry above, just know that Disney Hall is now one of the most admired buildings in L.A., by all accounts is liked by the orchestra and management, and has wonderful acoustics.
Mix commerce, art, and ego and ... well, you have a mixture that is challenging in the best of situations. This is not a career for the faint hearted or mild mannered ... good girls don't get the corner office sort of thing.
This is one of the most high-comeptitive fields and only passion will help one survive. On the other hand (remember the ego part) not every will have the opportunity to create landscape altering design projects. Even the small humble church effects lives.
The business of architecture has changed and will continue to do so, but unless we just give up and let everything around us crumble, it won't die.
and sometimes i think its those people who think that if they dont get to create those landscape altering designs, that the profession is cheating them or they are getting screwed
a good way to tell if you have passion for the profession is how you react to the bad times or how you approach even the smallest or mundane projects
The theory of cognitive dissonance explains this type of behavior, which we see in architecture: "When trying to join a group, the harder they make the barriers to entry, the more you value your membership. To resolve the dissonance between the hoops you were forced to jump through, and the reality of what turns out to be a pretty average club, we convince ourselves the club is, in fact, fantastic." Denial is interpreting the world in ways that only support our view.
in that set of conditions, straw, if my experience of the club is positive, what room does that leave me to argue that i'm not in denial?
obviously some will argue that i am. those who know me (and there are a few of them here): i hope not. unless we're all in denial together. in which case we just need to build our posse so that we're the majority instead of the minority?
i meant just getting your license and all the hoopla involved with that, as people seem to love to complain about that as part of the problem with architecture
I think you are both right. The difference is age and time. As a 33 year old recently licensed architect I just happen to experience the world of the AIA and the expectations that are leveraged on me (young, stupid, unmotivated, Cad Monkey, lackadiasical beatnik of a bohemian)(which, unfortunately does indeed reflect the correct perception of my generation and younger) by those who are 50+ years old.
I see the demographics that my age is up against (forget the population pyramid...its turned upside down these days) and we are not facing the same opportunities and thats a statistical fact.
I don't think there is any legitimate leverage/reward left to justify the risks and energy and time involved with plugging away inside the bowels of the profession as currently structured.
(For my age group anyways, Generally speaking. Now there are certainly ALWAYS exceptions like the trust fund babies and/or those who happen to have rich uncles...I don't have more than a decent level of intelligence and an intense desire to make my time profitable and gain leverage in the marketplace so I don't have to work 80 hours a week when I am 80 only to die up to my eyeballs in debt in some god forsaken anonymous bathroom like Kahn or run over by a horse like Gaudi).
By the way I think Strawbeary generally does an excellent job applying the notion of cognitive dissonance to the contemporary profession, "The theory of cognitive dissonance explains this type of behavior, which we see in architecture: "When trying to join a group, the harder they make the barriers to entry, the more you value your membership. To resolve the dissonance between the hoops you were forced to jump through, and the reality of what turns out to be a pretty average club, we convince ourselves the club is, in fact, fantastic." Denial is interpreting the world in ways that only support our view."
Given what I've experienced at the hands of the AIA (Code of Ethics?? yeah...as if...), even though I could join the AIA any time I'd want to...I don't want to and don't think I could ever join in good conscience...but hey I guess that just means I still have some semblance of honor.
Piggy, when I was in school I double majored in Environmental Engineering and Architecture. I dropped ENE because I loved Architecture School so much.
I think I'm going to finish up there. Whats really hard for me is that I'm actually getting job offers in Architecture. My friends are begging for jobs and I'm turning them down which is hard as hell because I need the money.
The AIA doesn't take recent grads and licensed 33 year old seriously. Why would I want to wilingly let the AIAs at the top (who happened to be born 30 years prior to my arrival) leverage myself against me.
In fact, I'm not even an architect. "Intern" was humiliating enough...now according to them (not the law though) I'm a "young architect".
Can you imagine...go and get your MD and get the official label "young medical doctor" (connoting inexperience and incompetence) by the establishment?
Also the AIA has got to clean up the A201 contract that allows the loophole for established architects and firm owners to falsely represent interior designers and arch grads as bonafide Reg. Archs.
lanah you contradict yourself... don't worry it is a very common contemporary phenomenon within the profession:
..."My friends are begging for jobs and I'm turning them down which is hard as hell because I need the money..."
Yes you demonstrate an obvious passion and love for what you are doing but you are missing the point----> It is not a profitable love in the contemporary marketplace.
"but you are missing the point----> It is not a profitable love in the contemporary marketplace."
This is still only if making money is your primary concern by far in your career
If you ignore the other benefits of a career in architecture, or they are just not as important to you, then yes, it can be considered to be not profitable
Which really just means architecture isnt the career for you
For three people, who don't understand business, how passion- not financial incentive- will automatically make their architecture better but also their firms solvent.
"Yes you demonstrate an obvious passion and love for what you are doing but you are missing the point----> It is not a profitable love in the contemporary marketplace."
I see the demographics that my age is up against...and we are not facing the same opportunities and thats a statistical fact.
Piggy I do agree with this - what I don't know is whether this is the case for other professions as well.
Also don't let "young architect" get you down. Architecture is a slow profession, and just as an arbitrary boundary someone once decided anyone below 40 could win a Young Architect award. I'm 43 and still feel like a babe in this profession, in many ways.
Now that you're licensed, aren't you supposedly able to slide into a facilities management type job at regular hours, a decent salary, and great institutional benefits? That's what I've always heard here on the forums. I don't really know what that means, because I've always been in traditional practice.
Is Architecture degrading or is it just Me?
marmkid, its simple:
7 years of very diffcult mentally taxing, financially draining school, MArch = 35K a year job if your lucky even when times were realtively "good" a few years ago.
Internships last an average of 10.5 years after that and pay doesn't even keep up with inflation.
FInally take the A.R.E. and pass (average last time I looked was 2.5 years to pass all the divisions) and then the license isn't worth the paper its printed on to use as toilet paper thanks to the AIA's play dead approach to the lawyers and insurance companies.
Average engineer makes 57k out of school with an undergrad eng degree. Last I looked that same engineer on average in terms of time spent in their field is worth 2X what the same arch is in their field. THat means 1 engineer is worth 2 architects in the marketplace.
architects no longer solve problems that are meaningful to society and it shows. They've been to busy building vaporous credentials as "master designers" instead of "master builders".
I have no arguments against someone saying the pay isnt the best and that perhaps 7 years is a bit much school when 5 is sufficient, though an M.Arch isnt yet required
I'd say a license has a bit more worth than that, but i see your point
your point about engineers is well taken, and if a primary factor is money, then you should just become an engineer
Personally, i couldnt do what an engineer does day in and day out, so it is not appealing to me in the least bit. Career satisfaction and interest is important to me, and factors into my decision as much as salary does. I couldnt handle boring work just to get paid a little more.
but again, if money is your primary concern, i see no reason at all to continue as an architect
you've been firing in lots of directions, piggy, but 'the FAIA and AIAs who are steering this ship'? how so? is the profession one big ship that is controlled by a chosen few? hardly.
there are so many firms, of so many types and approaches, doing such a wide variety of work.
people are starting their own firms at 26, 27, etc these days, and pursuing management of those firms in new ways.
george miller (current aia pres) has nearly no control over our lives. he's an elected representative running a big club that provides information, resources, and some promotion.
the profession may or may not be in dire straits. my firm is chugging along nicely, the work improving along with the fees. we have worked hard to earn the respect of our clients - and now GET it. for some, we're now part of their decision-making process when they begin to consider a project.
we didn't get there by worrying about whether we were being treated fairly or paid enough. we were treated as people and treated them as people (it's a relationship thing; not stabbing at invisible boogeymen), and we were paid the fees we negotiated.
we steer our ship. our friends at other firms steer theirs. i don't see a profession made up of independent professionals being steered by any one entity. are all lawyers subject to a single m.o. conveyed on them by their bar assn?
a profession is, by its nature, a personal responsibility gig. if anything, the growing tendency of assigning blame to nameless faceless others is the trend more likely to be destructive to architecture.
marmkid, it sounds like you are being reasonable.
However, at the end of your last post you said, "but again, if money is your primary concern, i see no reason at all to continue as an architect"
Please don't miss my whole point:
I'm saying that it is abundantly clear that the profession has reached the point where it is no longer solvent. It isn't simply a matter of wanting to make a living. I am saying that the profession has now reached the point overall that (even in the "good" times mind you) the average practicioner simply CAN NOT make financial end meet and will inevitably end up in perpetual servitude to debt.
and i'm saying (as an average practitioner) that i doubt it.
i see your point, Piggy
I just dont agree with it
besides, a lot of your posts talk about salary, which is why i mentioned it
as Steven wrote
We negotiate our own fees and earn the respect of our clients
By just completing a new very large project for a developer, I am signing off on a 2nd larger project of a similar type
By working hard and developing the relationship with this client, it enabled us to basically be handed this next project, and get very fairly compensated for it as well
A large part of this job is client relations, and repeat business. That doesnt mean working for free and doing anything a client ever demands. It means working together and doing what is right for all parties involved.
The AIA has had little to no impact on my professional career up to this point. I dont understand when you say they are steering the ship. They have absolutely no input on who my clients are and the relationships built because of it.
It's a business, and not everyone is a good businessman
Architects need to take a little responsibility for how they run their own businesses and stop blaming others because they signed contracts for lower fees than is possible to pay their employees. That is not all the AIA's fault
Steven Ward:
then why does the average licensed practicioner. put AIA after their name to the exclusion of R.A.?
why does the average licensed engineer put P.E. after their name and not ASCE?
the difference is brains and the ASCE doesn't have the stranglehold on engineers that the AIA has on architects.
The boogey man is real: it is the AIA and the racket they've been running in their contracts that allows other licensed AIA architects to represent interior designers and arch graduates as veritable architects to the public.
When the average GC stops asking if you are licensed by literally stating, "do you have your AIA?" and instead asks, "so are you an R.A.?" is the day I don't think the boogey man is real.
Its only because the P.E.s are smarter and more well organized that they haven't let their position in the marketplace be devolved into the public perception equating membership in the ASCE as being qualified to practice.
It is hard to leave something behind that you once found so promising and had so much passion for. It hurts even more when you spent a lot of resources to follow that path. It takes a lot of courage to look at one's own situation objectively, to leave the comfort zone of your expectations, especially after building up years of anger and denial. How much energy are you devoting to it that can be used elsewhere? Take a minute and think, what would the 10-years-from-now you tell you now? Maybe to stop living in denial and pursue the route that best suits your needs and desires?
It just sounds like you need to switch firms, Piggy
I have not seen or experienced anything of the sort
and whenever a GC asks if i am licensed, it has always been by saying "are you licensed?" or "do you have your license?"
I have never heard it refered to as an AIA
And i dont really see the big deal with having those letters after your name either
I guess i just dont see how all of this is the downfall of architecture. Dont let the AIA do this to your business. I still dont see how they effect your business, but if they do, just dont let them. I doubt the AIA will ever step in to one of your clients and tell them to go somewhere else for an architect
Existing generation’s saying that we did hard works so young generation also should do the same way is a typical routine to justify an unsound existing situation and makes the point unclear.
The fact that architects have survived after the economic recession in the early 90’s doesn’t mean our profession becomes sound. The only reason that architects have been able to survive since early 90’s is because of the benefit of construction booms in the Middle East and China, which we cannot expect anymore. Moreover, those kinds of construct booms that derived from monetarism always have a bad side effect.
It is a time to see the situation in a more critical way beyond such naïve optimisms that we have survived so you would be able to either.
I've never had a contractor ask me that, but I have had the banker ask, "No, really, ha ha, that's funny, what's your REAL salary? You said you were an architect?" And according to the AIA salary report I was making above average.
Piggy I agree, at least somewhat, with some of your points, especially about the AIA's veritable monopoly on the nomenclature that signifies being registered - in fact, I just had this discussion with my ProPractice students. I variably call myself liberty bell AIA, or RA, or both, depending on the circumstances (I am a paying AIA member so I'm allowed to sue those letters).
But as to your quote above: this is the architect's curse. We are generalists in the design and construction process. We are responsible for vastly more decisions than is any other single player in the process. PE's are specialists, as are mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, landscape architects, acoustic specialists, plumbers, and framers. They all have a relatively small area within which they need to be "smart". Which isn't to say they aren't smart and don't have challenging and incredibly important jobs - I learn from my framers almost every day - it's just easier to point to why their knowledge is "valuable". Architects have to know a little bit about a whole lot more than any of our consultants, and why their knowledge is important - and that is why we tend to look like we're not very smart.
Being smart, in our case, is knowing where to find the answer, and knowing what to do with the answer, not knowing what the answer is.
"use" those letters, not "sue"
liberty bell, well stated.
At the end of your last post you said, "Being smart, in our case, is knowing where to find the answer, and knowing what to do with the answer, not knowing what the answer is."
I totally get your point and in more enlightened times this strategy in the marketplace might have worked however:
#1 "Being smart, in our case, is knowing where to find the answer..."
The accessiblity of information and the repeatability of mass reproducing all information cheaply has undermined this aspect of the value of the profession. In this respect, I only see information getting even cheaper and more easily accessed in my lifetime and I don't see things going backwards at all (for better or WORSE).
#2 "...knowing what to do with the answer..."
In a day and age that doesn't value expertise (because so many experts have sacrificed correct principle, truth, on the alter of expediency?) and instead subverts the empirical accumulation of wisdom and knowledge, I don't see contemporary society giving a damn about expertise and experience in the coming century. The weekend crowd at Home Depot and Wal Mart is enough evidence to support this assertion.
#3 "...not knowing what the answer is..."
Society in general has become so cynical and disbelieving that the only thing it wants is "the answer" aka "the bottom line" faster and faster without all the process (and thinking) that necessarily preceeds a quality answer.
AGAIN I totally understand what you intend to mean (and agree with you) and in more enlightened societies the profession's peculiar ways have been strengths. Unfortunately, we've entered a cynical and compulsive time period in society, generally speaking. What were strengths are now only liabilities in the current, skeptical, litigation, code driven contemporary society.
so the boogeyman isn't the aia, it's contemporary society?!
1
one element of lb's equation is that we need to know what we're looking for. you only learn from smacna if 1) you know you need smacna and 2) you understand how to use what it's telling you. if you don't fully understand the components of a wall system, you're going to be missing some things. i won't claim that all architects know all of these components because there are - like in any job type - good examples and bad examples. but it is the architect that is expected to know that flashing is needed, where it's needed, how to glean from smacna what information is needed (if it's not something known), and how to communicate its place in an assembly.
so far i haven't found a bunch of people that know how to pull together the pieces like architects do. i work with a very smart construction manager who does sav-a-lots and fast marts. sometimes he asks for our help, sometimes not. but when he actually has to build a project of some substance, he makes sure that we're involved. he has recommended us to his clients, with whom we now have relationships.
2
i don't understand your cynicism about expertise and experience at all. ever tried to get a academic job or a city, state, or federal job or a medical job without filling out all kinds of forms about your expertise?
3
we educate our clients pretty quickly that 'the answer' has to be the result of a lot of fact-finding on our part. we tell them that there can be a generic answer, but that it will serve their needs less exactly than an answer that is the result of our understanding how they work, what their possibly-unorthodox needs might be, etc. the bottom line is impt - and we let them know that it is impt to us too - but maintaining the bottom line by spending money on things they need instead of things they don't need makes more sense, doesn't it? they usually agree... if they don't, we don't 'fire' them, we follow-through per their decisions.
i get beaten on every day, no denying it. but a positive attitude is both a shield and a powerful tool in my ability to get what i need from a project (integrity, not ego-trips) and give the client what they need so they want me to do more.
last week i sucked it up and agreed to pay $2,100 for something that i didn't think was our responsibility (gray area) - a small dent in our fee for a $7m job. the next day we were authorized to start a $3m expansion of the same job. day 1:i was pissed - day 2: i got over it. didn't feel degraded, instead i felt trusted and valued because i had taken responsibility.
re: your final paragraph:
we hear lots of talk a lot about litigation. sometimes it happens. often it's because of a free-wheeling way of doing business. we have never been involved in a lawsuit - either in the company formed in 1997, nor the previous 40yo company that was our pre-cursor.
code officials are people. build relationships with them, get them to trust you, even seemingly intractable issues can be worked through. codes aren't a mystery - and there are resources for garnering alternative interpretations. if the code official trusts those, you can proceed as you believed was right; if the code official does not, you've got an answer about which you can feel confident. document it and move on.
(lest anyone wonder why i'm so verbose today: no, i'm not a dead-beat partner holed up in his office playing on the internet. i'm home today on doctor's orders - and bored, except for this defense of the profession i love.)
Steven Ward said, "so the boogeyman isn't the aia, it's contemporary society?!"
*swoosh* as the 747 passed 12 inches above your head at 600 MPH.
Not at all. My proposition is that the AIA is responding foolishly to the contemporary marketplace that society presents the profession with.
The average architect is the boogeyman as reflected by the larger AIA body. Absolutely. The average practicioner is their own worst enemy because they respond inappropriately to the contemporary problems that contemporary society presents them with.
In fact, one research publication labeled the phenomenon as the architects lack of establishing and protecting their "jurisdictional territory". The article is in the Aut 2009 issue of the Journal of Architectural and Planning Research and is titiled, the Architecture Profession, Can It Be Strengthened?" by Roger Tijerino.
In psychological terms, they would call the disconnect between architect practicioners and contemporary society: Cognitive Dissonance. A quick perusal of wikipedia is a good starting point for this one.
By the way I'll be happy to help anyone locate the article I mention above...email RSOarchitect@gmail.com
The problem is Gehry doesn't know smacna and the schools couldn't care less.
I agree with your premise above Steven Ward, but I think you (and most within the profession) suffer from cognitive dissonance.
So Gehry is the model for all architects?
you just sound really bitter, Piggy
And i dont quite understand what this is all about if you are leaving the profession
Do you want others to join you?
I just dont follow the point here
one would think that if the industry was full of idiots who are that out of touch with things, one who was aware of this would be able to do well.
cognitive dissonance = denial
i'm happy to read the article, but cognitive dissonance - at first glance - suggests that i'm not giving my clients what they want and that they're not compensating our firm appropriately. neither of which i think it true.
I dont think there are any architects out there who think the profession as a whole runs as smoothly as it should
There are obvious problems everywhere, which need to be addressed if anyone wants to run a successful business
I just think the extreme view saying the profession is doomed is just a little ridiculous
Piggy, you have a right to feel however you feel about architecture, including wanting to leave it, but your anger in driving you to wrong generalizations and outright cliches and meaningless statements.
architects no longer solve problems that are meaningful to society and it shows. They've been to busy building vaporous credentials as "master designers" instead of "master builders".
Really? So Michelangelo's design for St. Peter's solved some problems but Meier's Jubilee Church does not? In what way? Palladio could design a working theater, but Gehry's Walt Disney Hall does not do the same for his clients? How come?
Then you generally state, over and over, that the profession is hitting the rocks, basically dying (never mind that this assertion has been made many times before). You think the problems you state for architects are new? You think Michelangelo had an easy time collecting his fee from the Pope? Do some reading on that. Architects (and artists) have historically been treated like doormats by the rich and powerful. Watch the recent PBS show on Benjamin Latrobe to see how his wonderful designs were treated by Washington's politicians. Do you know why his brilliant solution to the design of the Capital was trashed? "The bottom line" is why, and that was the early 1800s. Read up on Louis Sullivan and how his career ended, and how "healthy" the architecture profession was then.
The truth is, this profession has never been easy, and has caused many of even it's best practitioners grief (read up on Louis Kahn dying unidentified in a train station bathroom, completely broke but with international projects on the boards.) But most architects choose to continue practicing because there are also rewards that outweigh the grief. If you don't want to practice any longer, fine, that's your choice, but you're voice-of-doom assertions are huge exaggerations.
and since I've just noticed that you have a beef with Gehry above, just know that Disney Hall is now one of the most admired buildings in L.A., by all accounts is liked by the orchestra and management, and has wonderful acoustics.
Mix commerce, art, and ego and ... well, you have a mixture that is challenging in the best of situations. This is not a career for the faint hearted or mild mannered ... good girls don't get the corner office sort of thing.
This is one of the most high-comeptitive fields and only passion will help one survive. On the other hand (remember the ego part) not every will have the opportunity to create landscape altering design projects. Even the small humble church effects lives.
The business of architecture has changed and will continue to do so, but unless we just give up and let everything around us crumble, it won't die.
and sometimes i think its those people who think that if they dont get to create those landscape altering designs, that the profession is cheating them or they are getting screwed
a good way to tell if you have passion for the profession is how you react to the bad times or how you approach even the smallest or mundane projects
The death is one of viable economic prosperity and survival for the average practicioner.
Of course even in the most degenerate economies the title of architect will always be up for grabs.
still, neither kahn nor gehry graduated virtually buried in debt.
The theory of cognitive dissonance explains this type of behavior, which we see in architecture: "When trying to join a group, the harder they make the barriers to entry, the more you value your membership. To resolve the dissonance between the hoops you were forced to jump through, and the reality of what turns out to be a pretty average club, we convince ourselves the club is, in fact, fantastic." Denial is interpreting the world in ways that only support our view.
so are we talking about getting your license from the AIA or actually being an architect
they are 2 pretty different things
in that set of conditions, straw, if my experience of the club is positive, what room does that leave me to argue that i'm not in denial?
obviously some will argue that i am. those who know me (and there are a few of them here): i hope not. unless we're all in denial together. in which case we just need to build our posse so that we're the majority instead of the minority?
marmkid - getting your license from the aia is impossible.
haha, i saw that after i wrote it
i meant just getting your license and all the hoopla involved with that, as people seem to love to complain about that as part of the problem with architecture
SW, I don't think you are in denial. I don't think you have inconsistancies between your expectations and realities.
straw and Steven Ward,
I think you are both right. The difference is age and time. As a 33 year old recently licensed architect I just happen to experience the world of the AIA and the expectations that are leveraged on me (young, stupid, unmotivated, Cad Monkey, lackadiasical beatnik of a bohemian)(which, unfortunately does indeed reflect the correct perception of my generation and younger) by those who are 50+ years old.
I see the demographics that my age is up against (forget the population pyramid...its turned upside down these days) and we are not facing the same opportunities and thats a statistical fact.
I don't think there is any legitimate leverage/reward left to justify the risks and energy and time involved with plugging away inside the bowels of the profession as currently structured.
(For my age group anyways, Generally speaking. Now there are certainly ALWAYS exceptions like the trust fund babies and/or those who happen to have rich uncles...I don't have more than a decent level of intelligence and an intense desire to make my time profitable and gain leverage in the marketplace so I don't have to work 80 hours a week when I am 80 only to die up to my eyeballs in debt in some god forsaken anonymous bathroom like Kahn or run over by a horse like Gaudi).
By the way I think Strawbeary generally does an excellent job applying the notion of cognitive dissonance to the contemporary profession, "The theory of cognitive dissonance explains this type of behavior, which we see in architecture: "When trying to join a group, the harder they make the barriers to entry, the more you value your membership. To resolve the dissonance between the hoops you were forced to jump through, and the reality of what turns out to be a pretty average club, we convince ourselves the club is, in fact, fantastic." Denial is interpreting the world in ways that only support our view."
Given what I've experienced at the hands of the AIA (Code of Ethics?? yeah...as if...), even though I could join the AIA any time I'd want to...I don't want to and don't think I could ever join in good conscience...but hey I guess that just means I still have some semblance of honor.
Just out of curiousity...what would be the point of joining the AIA if you are leaving the profession?
What would be the point of joining the AIA if I was staying?
ah, touché!
Piggy, when I was in school I double majored in Environmental Engineering and Architecture. I dropped ENE because I loved Architecture School so much.
I think I'm going to finish up there. Whats really hard for me is that I'm actually getting job offers in Architecture. My friends are begging for jobs and I'm turning them down which is hard as hell because I need the money.
But to be honest I can't give it another year!
The AIA doesn't take recent grads and licensed 33 year old seriously. Why would I want to wilingly let the AIAs at the top (who happened to be born 30 years prior to my arrival) leverage myself against me.
In fact, I'm not even an architect. "Intern" was humiliating enough...now according to them (not the law though) I'm a "young architect".
Can you imagine...go and get your MD and get the official label "young medical doctor" (connoting inexperience and incompetence) by the establishment?
Also the AIA has got to clean up the A201 contract that allows the loophole for established architects and firm owners to falsely represent interior designers and arch grads as bonafide Reg. Archs.
lanah you contradict yourself... don't worry it is a very common contemporary phenomenon within the profession:
..."My friends are begging for jobs and I'm turning them down which is hard as hell because I need the money..."
Yes you demonstrate an obvious passion and love for what you are doing but you are missing the point----> It is not a profitable love in the contemporary marketplace.
its also a common contemporary phenomenon to have a healthy ego within this profession as well
I know It's not profitable but Enterprise leasing isn't knocking my door down right now,,lol
"but you are missing the point----> It is not a profitable love in the contemporary marketplace."
This is still only if making money is your primary concern by far in your career
If you ignore the other benefits of a career in architecture, or they are just not as important to you, then yes, it can be considered to be not profitable
Which really just means architecture isnt the career for you
What was the point of this thread again?
For three people, who don't understand business, how passion- not financial incentive- will automatically make their architecture better but also their firms solvent.
Because having passion makes everything better.
"Yes you demonstrate an obvious passion and love for what you are doing but you are missing the point----> It is not a profitable love in the contemporary marketplace."
well, boo-fucking-hoo...
Piggy I do agree with this - what I don't know is whether this is the case for other professions as well.
Also don't let "young architect" get you down. Architecture is a slow profession, and just as an arbitrary boundary someone once decided anyone below 40 could win a Young Architect award. I'm 43 and still feel like a babe in this profession, in many ways.
Now that you're licensed, aren't you supposedly able to slide into a facilities management type job at regular hours, a decent salary, and great institutional benefits? That's what I've always heard here on the forums. I don't really know what that means, because I've always been in traditional practice.
sorry, that last comment was a gut reaction to reading this, posted by Steven Ward on another thread.
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.