If its money, you really went in the wrong line of work
Architects can make a very good living, but chances are you will not become a millionaire, and really shouldnt expect to
I dont know why people say this profession has no future
What exactly are you looking for?
One would think that if you wanted to be an architect, that means you wanted to design and build buildings
If you wanted to be rich, but wanted to have fun while doing fun designs to get rich, then you are an idiot for expecting to get rich that way
There are fun compensations for an architect as a profession that other, business type professions do not offer
They do a lot of grunt work for the high salary they make
Lawyers coming out of school with a high salary do a lot of shit work for a long time
Architects at least get to have some fun while they work
and if you dont get that at your current job, dont spend 10 years there without finding something better
Now you have your license, you should be able to go somewhere where at least the work is better, if the salary isnt
The VP of my firm called me into the office one day to discuss something, and he showed me a proposal by a CM firm for a project. Their proposal was nearly 8 figures. While its only a proposal and hasn't been accepted yet, they had the courage to propose this, and felt it could be justified. Its not only shocking that it is nearly 8 figures, it is shocking that they justified this WITHOUT TAKING LIABILITY. The architect and engineering consultants get the fall for this if there is an error/ommission AND even if it goes over budget/ not on schedule (I've done litigation investigation before as the third party).
this arrangement sucks - CMs usually try to push through the lowest quality work without doing any management work themselves. The architect is the one who ends up doing all the actual management because otherwise they'd have no f-ing clue what is going on - but still without any control over any of the subs or even the design.
and the clients have no idea they are getting a shitty product because they only see how much money they are supposedly saving.
Ah, don't want to take this into CM vs Architect conversation...
But conceptually, the CM's arrangement "works" because they position themselves as the Owner's Representatives. In other words, whether they do a good job or not, they are in the position to protect the interests of the owner (on budget, on time). There is a lot of value in that conceptually, and the owners are willing to pay for it. The way I see it (and I briefly mentioned this before), is that architects can perform well as CMs - but not for their own projects. There is a bit of conflict of interest there. But I can see how architects can perform CM work for other architects' work. This is something that architects should look into. (You may already find that some CMs start out with architectural backgrounds)
Some engineering firms, as another example, are branching into doing the shop drawings in the place of subcontractors, but as SEPARATE CONTRACTS. See how that works? You are adding a separate value further down the construction process for the same project. Now you may think "oh, but they're taking on more liability." But really, who approves the shop drawings? And who is ultimately responsible for failures in shop drawing? The subs? Think again.
Good architects (personal belief), are in many ways the Occupant's representatives. This is not an issue when we're doing most residential because the owner/client are the occupants. But there is a conflict of interests for other projects, unless you have some enlightened owner/client, which is rarely the case. But the occupants, have no stake in the project in terms of acknowledging the value of the architect. So we are not rewarded for every single thing that we try to do for the occupants/public. So you designed a great space (in your professional opinion) for the occupants, but the developer doesn't care. Its $/SF. Our profession is in a way, already in an awkward position to begin with. But that hardly makes it degrading.
The point of all my ranting, of course, is that the seeming poor conditions of our profession is due to lack of foresight in positioning ourselves to be profitable, although some of it is already built-in to what we do. There is no question to the value that we add to the project, even if it may not always be for the client/owner and for them to acknowledge. So all this "degrading" work most of us have to face, is a resultant of such conditions, some of which we have control.
I've been on Archinect for a year and keep reading about how everyone laments the profession, how we under-sell ourselves, how we have the most training for the least pay-off, etc etc.
Is anyone ever going to DO anything about this? Will there be a new architecture revolution? Or are we just going to keep kvetching about it?
Watch the Joshua Prince Ramus video. He talks about the relationships between design architects, executive architects, and project managers/construction managers.
It's about liability and a self perpetuating cycle.
Sbeth, that's why I just make poor jokes, troll and then occasionally try to talk about architecture or even... actually... *choke* do architecture recreationally.
I like REX's (Joshua Prince-Ramus) work Approach statements.
Here's one:
"We embrace responsibility in order to implement vision.
The implementation of good ideas demands as much, if not more, creativity than their conceptualization. Increasingly reluctant to assume liability, architects have retreated from the accountability (and productivity) of Master Builders to the safety (and impotence) of stylists. To execute vision and retain the insight that facilitates architectural invention, REX re-engages responsibility. Processes, including contractual relationships, project schedules, and procurement strategies, are the stuff with which we design"
About that liability - there was a plumber once I worked with. He was good plumber, family man and ran a tight business. He was getting screwed around by this General contractor and Architect who would'nt approve payout thus he could'nt get paid. The contractor let him twist in the wind for months even though his part of the project was done. His house got foreclosed and his suppliers wouldnt forward him anymore supplies. His business was failing because of a dispute between a GC and Designer that had nothing to do with him. One day he just walked into the General Contractors office and blew the guys head off.
The construction world can get crazy - a lot of money is at stake. Thats why they percieve what we do as "cartoon drawing". We look at a 1/8" line on a plan, they see $3,000. I certainly feel for the low bidders out there. Most of them barely make a profit and rarely last. I may not make a lot but I will survive with my credit intact. I cant say that about a lot of builders or even "CM's". What a racket.
I didn't actually watch the video of REX before I posted my comments. I was just venting about my own experiences with CMs. BTW, JPR's use of PM is what is to me CMs. I think CM is the correct term as that is also what the US government uses as well as they recognize them (CMa vs CMc). Its interesting that topic came up though.
Anywho, now that I watched the video of JPR, I agree with all that he says. What he doesn't mention at all is the architects' responsibility to the occupant and public, which are not always the client/owners. This is a dynamic that is of great interest to me, and a conflict I'd willingly and consciously deal with the rest of my career, be it a year or 50 years.
Going back to the point of the thread, net dude, it does seem to a bad position to be in. Although, it doesn't sound too bad the position you were in before the recession. Its possible as the economy turns around, so will your career, whether or not you're in the same firm or not. I have taken pay cuts two years consecutively due to the economy (after I was initially due for a large raise), but I try to put it all into perspective.
Sbeth, does it have to be a revolution or nothing at all? I think there are some architects expanding services and altering positioning, that could become more popular and change the profitability and outlook of our profession. While I don't think it should be a slow evolution, it is possible it will take smaller steps without some kind of mass movement.
We as architects are always looking for the perceptible, momentary, one-might-say revolutionary kind of change in the profession. It's a information media-induced fetishization of the quick fix, When in reality we all know that it takes decades to steer a sinking ship on course.
I believe alternative business models, technology and the necessary political and environmental forces will, and are already beginning to change in industry, inevitably shifting the role of each party involved and the liability associated with their services.
Trends would indicate that interdisciplinary delivery models (design-build, design-develop) are on the rise. The use of BIM will continue to grow as the economy rebounds, as will the demand for sustainable design and development (if nothing else, out of sheer economic necessity).
Anyhow, chin up. I believe these are the trends to be focused on.
i've heard that line of discussion from jpr a few times and what amazes me is that anybody listens to the position that rex's embrace of responsibility is something new. the suggestion that most of us run from responsibility is disingenuous - unless he's just talking about his bespoke-design brethren. the general professional architect lives and breathes in this environment of responsibility.
now, the comments that these challenges of dealing with "contractual relationships, project schedules, and procurement strategies" are critical elements of design is true.
now that i think about it, maybe it's good that someone of his stature is broadcasting this message to a lecture-attending public - even if he does act like these professional responsibilities are rex's discovery....
i'm not setting the terms, just using the word as jpr does. he describes follow-through with the implementation phase, basically making sure that realization is consistent with the goals of the project. he also includes liability, accountability, and productivity, (contrasted with the hands-off safety of design only). "to execute vision and retain the insight that facilitates architectural invention", etc.
Guys like him hire other firms to be the architects of record, the responsible party, for their projects. I'm glad He's saying it, but somehow I doubt He would be willing take the liability for a new paneling product not yet tested or come with me to to the Village Hall and sign off on a emergency power one line diagram for an apartment building. If someone burns, I lose everything.
i like what he is saying, but get the feeling he knows next to nothing about construction, pointing to the difficulty of engaging the design architect through construction. i have no doubt having the designer throughout a project would produce some intelligent construction solutions, but is it really worth all the hand holding for the rest of the project team? as an aside, i worked with a designer that did not own a shop drawing stamp. contractors don't take nicely to holding up a sub because the designer can't stamp the shop drawing.
it's also nice to speak of embracing liability when in fact he himself has none. at the end of the day, does jpr really want to muck around with turning radii, won-doors, and handrail strength only to get sued by the owner for errors and omissions? i kinda doubt it.
[deep breath...i'll step back from the cynicism for a moment.]
Just do like a lot of folks in your position, go to China or Dubai. Have you seen the crazy stuff being planned and executed? The Chinese have little to none creative talents so all the exciting structures there are designed by foreign architects.
we are lucky (or maybe not, depending on your point of view) that we don't need to deal with liability so much as in the usa. we share responsibilities with the contractor. it means there is more room for experimentation.
still, when we put together a new sash out of parts from the manufacturer and the rep says go ahead but you have to take responsibility for any problems that arise from being non-standard, there is definitely a moment of reflection before we go ahead and sign off. It helps that we can then go to the contractor and get his opinion and input without any holding back on either side...not sure if it works that way in the usa, but from what i hear, not the case...?
Oh god, jafidler, I have forgotten what "Won-Door" means and feel I want to keep that bit of knowledge at bay...
Steven wasn't there a quote from JPR you mentioned a few years back about how surprised he was at having to actually deal with things like - horrors!- structure and footings at the Museum Plaza?
It's funny Rex's saying "we are a liable profession!".
What kinds of professions are not liable?
Were we this desperate or non-liable or "stupid", so we have to keep reminding "we are a liable profession"?
I am sure that, constructing his project, at least a few sub-constractors were financially broked down.
I think what jpr brings to the table is somewhat antithetical to the idea of the star-architect for two reasons.
One is that he blatantly states that the amount [quantity] of intelligence that goes into 'genius sketches' [ie the inital diagram, parti, schematic] is miniscule compared to the amount fo intelligence that goes into contract drawings, specifications, schedules etc.
For example, Daniel Libeskind would take the opposite view. The two week genius sketch far outweighs the five year implementation.
The other is that he also blatantly states that REX likes to bring in consultants, project managers/construction managers, and associate architects far earlier in the process than is typical. This allows the C's, PM's CM's, and AA's to have a much more integral role in the whole design process, on a comprehensive level, which means they will believe in the vision of the building and not try to deviate for xyz reason later on in the process. He states that LMN should get equal billing by the media for Seattle Public, because they were equally involved in the total process and he laments that OMa/REX gets most of the credit.
Because the profession is so specialized now, a good project [of a certain scale] actually requires both a design architect and an executive architect. You can't separate the two, both should form a reciprocal relationship by which both relies on each other's strengths and shores up each other's weaknesses.
I mentioned CMs for one. And there are a lot more in many other industries that have less liability. But see, I can say that matter-of-factly because I don't think a profession is of lower standing because it has less liability, and I also don't believe that the value of a person is affected by their chosen profession.
But its the old cliche "high risk = high reward" thing that have stumped our profession. And as we all have complained and whined:
# of years of education + # of years of pre-licensure + liability to client/owner/public/government = high risk
And most of us are willing to take on that risk for high reward - some that might not take the form of monetary compensation. But when that reward never comes, its a bit frustrating as "net dude" has shown. We've somehow dissipated the reward along with the control and kept the risk, which is really the worst case scenario for any project/job/profession/career.
What I think will direct this profession in the right direction is not some coherent revolutionary movement, but individuals and groups that lead by example. Perhaps by expanding services, by altering contractual obligations on both sides, acting as owner's representatives, taking the lead on BIM, marketing our services and employees better, justify the value of our services better to our clients and even those that have no stake in the financial aspect of the project. And in general, bringing our big picture thinking and creativity to the business side of our profession.
In the long term, that will trickle down to those frustrated with the profession like "net dude" and on bad days, myself.
haha, jplourde, I was thinking the same thing when I read that... something along the lines of "I don't think anyone is worried about the grammar there. He/she is only generalizing and stereotyping 1/5 of the world population"
And by the way, I don't exclude people like "net dude" and myself from being those that could potentially lead by example. I meant that it would affect people that are in our CURRENT position of this seemingly uphill battle. While people are constantly annoyed by all this "bitching and moaning" I don't think the game changers were all content folks that talk about how great their lives are. I'm hoping to go back to school to be in a better position to lead by example, and hopefully with the fellowship so I can actually afford it...
The reason CMs is given limited liablities, is to give more chances to an architect to "design" their project.
They are not a designer or a builder or a lawyer, but just an adviser for a client who basically know nothing about constructions.
By the way, "liablilty"of architects should extend the concept into the responsiblity not just for legal issues but for environment and social background as material base that they design and live in.
That is the reason we are called as an architect not as a lawyer.
i like what he is saying, but get the feeling he knows next to nothing about construction, pointing to the difficulty of engaging the design architect through construction. i have no doubt having the designer throughout a project would produce some intelligent construction solutions, but is it really worth all the hand holding for the rest of the project team?
I think you just answered your own question. maybe the designer knows next to nothing about construction because they aren't engaged through construction?
I can't speak to architect of record experiences, but I worked as an in-house designer for several years, and it was incredibly frustrating to be essentially shut out from the project after it went to CDs. I know far less about construction than I should at this point in my career - which is why I recently took a job doing CA.
'Morality', 'Generalizing and Stereotyping' - that has the flavour of typical, soft North American thinking. I't s a fact North American firms are setting up shop in China. Why? Because Chinese architects can not deliver (creatively) for their country's development. Chinese education systems do not introduce art in their cirriculum. Their idea of art is piracy.
In my opinion, North America should revisit some personal issues before concerning themselves with who is being moral, general and or stereotypical.
Let's be honest, there is the larger picture to things like, 'Why are my kids learning putonghua at school?'
Its back to work and for the third year in a row no bonuses. The last two years no raises and indeed a pay cut. I cant wait for 2010, maybe will all get a tax increase to boot. Oh - I forgot to mention our boss has stopped deducting from our paychecks so Im sure tax problems will be next. After reading the MSNBC poll saying we are the worst profession and will rebound by 2018, when Im 47, I might have a shot at earning a wage respectable for someone of the age of 30. Hell I might even be able to afford a kid assuming my prick still works.
To everyone in college reading this, please help yourselves, get as far away as you can. There will be people saying the stupid shit like do what you love and such nonsense but I can tell you honestly, this is what I love and it has ruined my life. Its a terrible profession inhabited by worthless people, pseudo-artsy types with no common sense, the last people you would expect to design buildings. There is no future in it and you will end up old, broke and alone opening a vein as you drink the last of your boones wine and the cable gets turned off. Architecture is for jagoffs.
sure, architecture is hard. but if you love it, you live with it.
if you stick with it, you get to slog through research on rated construction, put together teams for proposals you have no business pursuing, argue with construction managers about the fairness of change order requests, reassure staff members with low confidence, and make seat-of-the-pants almost-informed opinions about very important things - all in the same day!
lets not pretend architects have it tougher than everyone else in the world just because we get hit hard in a bad economy
EVERYONE gets hit hard in a bad economy
That doesnt mean architecture as a profession is not worth it, unless we really think an MSNBC poll really means that much?
It is very possible to earn a good living doing something that is fun. Just because you didnt get a bonus in this economy, we all of a sudden have a terrible profession?
Unless for some reason we would all prefer to be struggling to find work doing something as exciting as typing reports or doing spreadsheets in exel or some other awesome desk job?
but honestly, if you dont think this is a fun job, then there really is no point in doing it
well, i have a few friends with 6-10 years experience and some are licensed that want to leave the profession.... but they are not sure what else to get into that would benefit themselves for the rest of their lives.... as much as i like architecture, i sort of lost hope on 'being creative and making money' on it years ago....
if you like the field and want to make money in it... become a contractor.
Architecture is a stepping stone for most. If you are loking to move up then move out. JMHO. There are of course those few exceptions that can really make architecture work. They are usually very self absorbed people willing to put in about 14-16 hour days and neglect their family, if they were fortunate enoguh to start one.
Is architecture fun? Sure as hell was. I liked playing video games for 16 hours every day too when I was 16 but for some reason moved past that. Now I'm down to about 5 hours/week at 42.
I've been working in Architecture for 10 years now and the conclusion I've come to is that being an Architect...is degrading and bad for one's mental health.
If that is what you truly believe, then you really should get out, because no one should allow themselves to be degraded and driven crazy.
And I'm not being flippant: I've come to that conclusion by going through many tough times in architecture, and have finally incorporated and act on the fact that I am not what I do, and if I'm in a situation that degrades me or drives me crazy, then I try to address it or I walk away if nothing can be done to make it better (and here I will also admit that I have put away some money to hold me over for a while and I'm licensed, so that I can walk away and do my thing by myself if I so decide).
The things that can hold one to architecture are those moments when you are working on a project you enjoy, with people you enjoy working with, making something that does not yet exist, learning many new things, and you think to yourself how nice it is to be an architect: if you don't ever have any of these moments, then by all means get yourself out, and quick.
I remember when I visited one of my professors in his workplace on a Friday to get some photocopies of LEED documents I saw an ugly reality. Well..it was ugly for me and not for him. It was around 10pm,the office was completely empty. We opened a bottle of wine and started talking about my future plans,I was planning to switch to real estate at that time and I changed my mind since got some more info about the field and I took a real estate class last semester but anyways. He told me he was probably going to work until next morning as he often did but he was so HAPPY with what he did though he was worried when he was going to get laid off given they laid off 40% of their staff that year. He enjoyed drawing building section details and sketching and I thought "you know what if I were you I'd rather be home with my wife and enjoy the Friday night in NYC". Of course I didn't tell him that but that's what I thought.
At the end it comes to what your preferences/choices are. Do you like staying late and drawing building details even though you're worried about your job or do you want to spend more time for yourself or with your family if you have one? I guess none of the two choices above is better than the other,it just depends on you and what you enjoy.
Paradox I love building but Ive pretty much concluded I like drawing for myself and my own clients. I can not afford to work anymore nor continue to finance these old guys' 3 cars, 4 vacations and massive houses anymore. I think a lot of us are going to conclude you cant make much less by walking away and you certainly arent going to make any more staying put and you absolutely wont ever meet any clients sitting behind a desk.
it sounds like you just need to start your own firm
it sounds like you like architecture, just not working for someone else
so i think going out on your own is probably the way to go for you
do you have the contacts to start up yourself?
from your original post, it seemed you didnt like the industry in general
but now it seems more just your own work situation?
and honestly, if you have your license and they still dont let you run jobs, i would get the hell out of there as fast as i could
That seems a bit absurd
Is Architecture degrading or is it just Me?
I dont understand your expectations net_dude
What is it you want out of your career?
If its money, you really went in the wrong line of work
Architects can make a very good living, but chances are you will not become a millionaire, and really shouldnt expect to
I dont know why people say this profession has no future
What exactly are you looking for?
One would think that if you wanted to be an architect, that means you wanted to design and build buildings
If you wanted to be rich, but wanted to have fun while doing fun designs to get rich, then you are an idiot for expecting to get rich that way
There are fun compensations for an architect as a profession that other, business type professions do not offer
They do a lot of grunt work for the high salary they make
Lawyers coming out of school with a high salary do a lot of shit work for a long time
Architects at least get to have some fun while they work
and if you dont get that at your current job, dont spend 10 years there without finding something better
Now you have your license, you should be able to go somewhere where at least the work is better, if the salary isnt
this arrangement sucks - CMs usually try to push through the lowest quality work without doing any management work themselves. The architect is the one who ends up doing all the actual management because otherwise they'd have no f-ing clue what is going on - but still without any control over any of the subs or even the design.
and the clients have no idea they are getting a shitty product because they only see how much money they are supposedly saving.
that sort of lecture isn't needed or wanted, marmkid. heard it all like x1000 times before on here.
Ah, don't want to take this into CM vs Architect conversation...
But conceptually, the CM's arrangement "works" because they position themselves as the Owner's Representatives. In other words, whether they do a good job or not, they are in the position to protect the interests of the owner (on budget, on time). There is a lot of value in that conceptually, and the owners are willing to pay for it. The way I see it (and I briefly mentioned this before), is that architects can perform well as CMs - but not for their own projects. There is a bit of conflict of interest there. But I can see how architects can perform CM work for other architects' work. This is something that architects should look into. (You may already find that some CMs start out with architectural backgrounds)
Some engineering firms, as another example, are branching into doing the shop drawings in the place of subcontractors, but as SEPARATE CONTRACTS. See how that works? You are adding a separate value further down the construction process for the same project. Now you may think "oh, but they're taking on more liability." But really, who approves the shop drawings? And who is ultimately responsible for failures in shop drawing? The subs? Think again.
Good architects (personal belief), are in many ways the Occupant's representatives. This is not an issue when we're doing most residential because the owner/client are the occupants. But there is a conflict of interests for other projects, unless you have some enlightened owner/client, which is rarely the case. But the occupants, have no stake in the project in terms of acknowledging the value of the architect. So we are not rewarded for every single thing that we try to do for the occupants/public. So you designed a great space (in your professional opinion) for the occupants, but the developer doesn't care. Its $/SF. Our profession is in a way, already in an awkward position to begin with. But that hardly makes it degrading.
The point of all my ranting, of course, is that the seeming poor conditions of our profession is due to lack of foresight in positioning ourselves to be profitable, although some of it is already built-in to what we do. There is no question to the value that we add to the project, even if it may not always be for the client/owner and for them to acknowledge. So all this "degrading" work most of us have to face, is a resultant of such conditions, some of which we have control.
I've been on Archinect for a year and keep reading about how everyone laments the profession, how we under-sell ourselves, how we have the most training for the least pay-off, etc etc.
Is anyone ever going to DO anything about this? Will there be a new architecture revolution? Or are we just going to keep kvetching about it?
Watch the Joshua Prince Ramus video. He talks about the relationships between design architects, executive architects, and project managers/construction managers.
It's about liability and a self perpetuating cycle.
Sbeth, that's why I just make poor jokes, troll and then occasionally try to talk about architecture or even... actually... *choke* do architecture recreationally.
where is this Joshua Prince Ramus video you speak of. the TED talks?
scroll up i posted a link.
why does no one ever pay attention to me?? lol
lol
I like REX's (Joshua Prince-Ramus) work Approach statements.
Here's one:
"We embrace responsibility in order to implement vision.
The implementation of good ideas demands as much, if not more, creativity than their conceptualization. Increasingly reluctant to assume liability, architects have retreated from the accountability (and productivity) of Master Builders to the safety (and impotence) of stylists. To execute vision and retain the insight that facilitates architectural invention, REX re-engages responsibility. Processes, including contractual relationships, project schedules, and procurement strategies, are the stuff with which we design"
SHOP's approach is pretty neat, too.
About that liability - there was a plumber once I worked with. He was good plumber, family man and ran a tight business. He was getting screwed around by this General contractor and Architect who would'nt approve payout thus he could'nt get paid. The contractor let him twist in the wind for months even though his part of the project was done. His house got foreclosed and his suppliers wouldnt forward him anymore supplies. His business was failing because of a dispute between a GC and Designer that had nothing to do with him. One day he just walked into the General Contractors office and blew the guys head off.
Thats liability.
Holy Crap!
The construction world can get crazy - a lot of money is at stake. Thats why they percieve what we do as "cartoon drawing". We look at a 1/8" line on a plan, they see $3,000. I certainly feel for the low bidders out there. Most of them barely make a profit and rarely last. I may not make a lot but I will survive with my credit intact. I cant say that about a lot of builders or even "CM's". What a racket.
I didn't actually watch the video of REX before I posted my comments. I was just venting about my own experiences with CMs. BTW, JPR's use of PM is what is to me CMs. I think CM is the correct term as that is also what the US government uses as well as they recognize them (CMa vs CMc). Its interesting that topic came up though.
Anywho, now that I watched the video of JPR, I agree with all that he says. What he doesn't mention at all is the architects' responsibility to the occupant and public, which are not always the client/owners. This is a dynamic that is of great interest to me, and a conflict I'd willingly and consciously deal with the rest of my career, be it a year or 50 years.
Going back to the point of the thread, net dude, it does seem to a bad position to be in. Although, it doesn't sound too bad the position you were in before the recession. Its possible as the economy turns around, so will your career, whether or not you're in the same firm or not. I have taken pay cuts two years consecutively due to the economy (after I was initially due for a large raise), but I try to put it all into perspective.
Sbeth, does it have to be a revolution or nothing at all? I think there are some architects expanding services and altering positioning, that could become more popular and change the profitability and outlook of our profession. While I don't think it should be a slow evolution, it is possible it will take smaller steps without some kind of mass movement.
i was talking specifically to net_dude's original post as his expectations for his career do not seem to be met where he is
it also sounds like they are a bit unrealistic for career expectations of an architect
I am not lecturing anyone, jk3hl, and definitely not you so i am not sure why you care
net_dude is in a spot where with his license and 10 years experience, he is in a better position to move jobs than many, which is a good thing for him
Slartibartfast is right.
We as architects are always looking for the perceptible, momentary, one-might-say revolutionary kind of change in the profession. It's a information media-induced fetishization of the quick fix, When in reality we all know that it takes decades to steer a sinking ship on course.
I believe alternative business models, technology and the necessary political and environmental forces will, and are already beginning to change in industry, inevitably shifting the role of each party involved and the liability associated with their services.
Trends would indicate that interdisciplinary delivery models (design-build, design-develop) are on the rise. The use of BIM will continue to grow as the economy rebounds, as will the demand for sustainable design and development (if nothing else, out of sheer economic necessity).
Anyhow, chin up. I believe these are the trends to be focused on.
i've heard that line of discussion from jpr a few times and what amazes me is that anybody listens to the position that rex's embrace of responsibility is something new. the suggestion that most of us run from responsibility is disingenuous - unless he's just talking about his bespoke-design brethren. the general professional architect lives and breathes in this environment of responsibility.
now, the comments that these challenges of dealing with "contractual relationships, project schedules, and procurement strategies" are critical elements of design is true.
now that i think about it, maybe it's good that someone of his stature is broadcasting this message to a lecture-attending public - even if he does act like these professional responsibilities are rex's discovery....
Define responsibility.
It is a big word.
i'm not setting the terms, just using the word as jpr does. he describes follow-through with the implementation phase, basically making sure that realization is consistent with the goals of the project. he also includes liability, accountability, and productivity, (contrasted with the hands-off safety of design only). "to execute vision and retain the insight that facilitates architectural invention", etc.
Guys like him hire other firms to be the architects of record, the responsible party, for their projects. I'm glad He's saying it, but somehow I doubt He would be willing take the liability for a new paneling product not yet tested or come with me to to the Village Hall and sign off on a emergency power one line diagram for an apartment building. If someone burns, I lose everything.
i like what he is saying, but get the feeling he knows next to nothing about construction, pointing to the difficulty of engaging the design architect through construction. i have no doubt having the designer throughout a project would produce some intelligent construction solutions, but is it really worth all the hand holding for the rest of the project team? as an aside, i worked with a designer that did not own a shop drawing stamp. contractors don't take nicely to holding up a sub because the designer can't stamp the shop drawing.
it's also nice to speak of embracing liability when in fact he himself has none. at the end of the day, does jpr really want to muck around with turning radii, won-doors, and handrail strength only to get sued by the owner for errors and omissions? i kinda doubt it.
[deep breath...i'll step back from the cynicism for a moment.]
Just do like a lot of folks in your position, go to China or Dubai. Have you seen the crazy stuff being planned and executed? The Chinese have little to none creative talents so all the exciting structures there are designed by foreign architects.
o_O
I was going to pick that out but I decided against it.
You'll have to bare with me, I went to art school, not grammar school.
i had some bonerific sex with your mom that ended in a glorious bananas-sized orgasm.
Tell her that titanium hip really does provide good traction in difficult angles.
Who's mom did you screw?
good point steven. and jaf too.
we are lucky (or maybe not, depending on your point of view) that we don't need to deal with liability so much as in the usa. we share responsibilities with the contractor. it means there is more room for experimentation.
still, when we put together a new sash out of parts from the manufacturer and the rep says go ahead but you have to take responsibility for any problems that arise from being non-standard, there is definitely a moment of reflection before we go ahead and sign off. It helps that we can then go to the contractor and get his opinion and input without any holding back on either side...not sure if it works that way in the usa, but from what i hear, not the case...?
Oh god, jafidler, I have forgotten what "Won-Door" means and feel I want to keep that bit of knowledge at bay...
Steven wasn't there a quote from JPR you mentioned a few years back about how surprised he was at having to actually deal with things like - horrors!- structure and footings at the Museum Plaza?
It's funny Rex's saying "we are a liable profession!".
What kinds of professions are not liable?
Were we this desperate or non-liable or "stupid", so we have to keep reminding "we are a liable profession"?
I am sure that, constructing his project, at least a few sub-constractors were financially broked down.
But I am not blaming Rex because he, unlike other stararchitects, at least admitted we should be liable.
I think what jpr brings to the table is somewhat antithetical to the idea of the star-architect for two reasons.
One is that he blatantly states that the amount [quantity] of intelligence that goes into 'genius sketches' [ie the inital diagram, parti, schematic] is miniscule compared to the amount fo intelligence that goes into contract drawings, specifications, schedules etc.
For example, Daniel Libeskind would take the opposite view. The two week genius sketch far outweighs the five year implementation.
The other is that he also blatantly states that REX likes to bring in consultants, project managers/construction managers, and associate architects far earlier in the process than is typical. This allows the C's, PM's CM's, and AA's to have a much more integral role in the whole design process, on a comprehensive level, which means they will believe in the vision of the building and not try to deviate for xyz reason later on in the process. He states that LMN should get equal billing by the media for Seattle Public, because they were equally involved in the total process and he laments that OMa/REX gets most of the credit.
Because the profession is so specialized now, a good project [of a certain scale] actually requires both a design architect and an executive architect. You can't separate the two, both should form a reciprocal relationship by which both relies on each other's strengths and shores up each other's weaknesses.
Maybe, as a new generation of star-architect, Rex's position is a good start.
Nice post, jplourde.
I love how rambling this conversation has been. It's great.
"What kind of professions are not liable?"
I mentioned CMs for one. And there are a lot more in many other industries that have less liability. But see, I can say that matter-of-factly because I don't think a profession is of lower standing because it has less liability, and I also don't believe that the value of a person is affected by their chosen profession.
But its the old cliche "high risk = high reward" thing that have stumped our profession. And as we all have complained and whined:
# of years of education + # of years of pre-licensure + liability to client/owner/public/government = high risk
And most of us are willing to take on that risk for high reward - some that might not take the form of monetary compensation. But when that reward never comes, its a bit frustrating as "net dude" has shown. We've somehow dissipated the reward along with the control and kept the risk, which is really the worst case scenario for any project/job/profession/career.
What I think will direct this profession in the right direction is not some coherent revolutionary movement, but individuals and groups that lead by example. Perhaps by expanding services, by altering contractual obligations on both sides, acting as owner's representatives, taking the lead on BIM, marketing our services and employees better, justify the value of our services better to our clients and even those that have no stake in the financial aspect of the project. And in general, bringing our big picture thinking and creativity to the business side of our profession.
In the long term, that will trickle down to those frustrated with the profession like "net dude" and on bad days, myself.
''You'll have to bare with me, I went to art school, not grammar school.''' lollerskates!
What about morality school?
haha, jplourde, I was thinking the same thing when I read that... something along the lines of "I don't think anyone is worried about the grammar there. He/she is only generalizing and stereotyping 1/5 of the world population"
And by the way, I don't exclude people like "net dude" and myself from being those that could potentially lead by example. I meant that it would affect people that are in our CURRENT position of this seemingly uphill battle. While people are constantly annoyed by all this "bitching and moaning" I don't think the game changers were all content folks that talk about how great their lives are. I'm hoping to go back to school to be in a better position to lead by example, and hopefully with the fellowship so I can actually afford it...
The reason CMs is given limited liablities, is to give more chances to an architect to "design" their project.
They are not a designer or a builder or a lawyer, but just an adviser for a client who basically know nothing about constructions.
By the way, "liablilty"of architects should extend the concept into the responsiblity not just for legal issues but for environment and social background as material base that they design and live in.
That is the reason we are called as an architect not as a lawyer.
I think you just answered your own question. maybe the designer knows next to nothing about construction because they aren't engaged through construction?
I can't speak to architect of record experiences, but I worked as an in-house designer for several years, and it was incredibly frustrating to be essentially shut out from the project after it went to CDs. I know far less about construction than I should at this point in my career - which is why I recently took a job doing CA.
'Morality', 'Generalizing and Stereotyping' - that has the flavour of typical, soft North American thinking. I't s a fact North American firms are setting up shop in China. Why? Because Chinese architects can not deliver (creatively) for their country's development. Chinese education systems do not introduce art in their cirriculum. Their idea of art is piracy.
In my opinion, North America should revisit some personal issues before concerning themselves with who is being moral, general and or stereotypical.
Let's be honest, there is the larger picture to things like, 'Why are my kids learning putonghua at school?'
Its back to work and for the third year in a row no bonuses. The last two years no raises and indeed a pay cut. I cant wait for 2010, maybe will all get a tax increase to boot. Oh - I forgot to mention our boss has stopped deducting from our paychecks so Im sure tax problems will be next. After reading the MSNBC poll saying we are the worst profession and will rebound by 2018, when Im 47, I might have a shot at earning a wage respectable for someone of the age of 30. Hell I might even be able to afford a kid assuming my prick still works.
To everyone in college reading this, please help yourselves, get as far away as you can. There will be people saying the stupid shit like do what you love and such nonsense but I can tell you honestly, this is what I love and it has ruined my life. Its a terrible profession inhabited by worthless people, pseudo-artsy types with no common sense, the last people you would expect to design buildings. There is no future in it and you will end up old, broke and alone opening a vein as you drink the last of your boones wine and the cable gets turned off. Architecture is for jagoffs.
good grief this thread needs some levity.
sure, architecture is hard. but if you love it, you live with it.
if you stick with it, you get to slog through research on rated construction, put together teams for proposals you have no business pursuing, argue with construction managers about the fairness of change order requests, reassure staff members with low confidence, and make seat-of-the-pants almost-informed opinions about very important things - all in the same day!
come on! this is fun!
yes, it certainly does, Steven
lets not pretend architects have it tougher than everyone else in the world just because we get hit hard in a bad economy
EVERYONE gets hit hard in a bad economy
That doesnt mean architecture as a profession is not worth it, unless we really think an MSNBC poll really means that much?
It is very possible to earn a good living doing something that is fun. Just because you didnt get a bonus in this economy, we all of a sudden have a terrible profession?
Unless for some reason we would all prefer to be struggling to find work doing something as exciting as typing reports or doing spreadsheets in exel or some other awesome desk job?
but honestly, if you dont think this is a fun job, then there really is no point in doing it
well, i have a few friends with 6-10 years experience and some are licensed that want to leave the profession.... but they are not sure what else to get into that would benefit themselves for the rest of their lives.... as much as i like architecture, i sort of lost hope on 'being creative and making money' on it years ago....
if you like the field and want to make money in it... become a contractor.
Architecture is a stepping stone for most. If you are loking to move up then move out. JMHO. There are of course those few exceptions that can really make architecture work. They are usually very self absorbed people willing to put in about 14-16 hour days and neglect their family, if they were fortunate enoguh to start one.
Is architecture fun? Sure as hell was. I liked playing video games for 16 hours every day too when I was 16 but for some reason moved past that. Now I'm down to about 5 hours/week at 42.
If that is what you truly believe, then you really should get out, because no one should allow themselves to be degraded and driven crazy.
And I'm not being flippant: I've come to that conclusion by going through many tough times in architecture, and have finally incorporated and act on the fact that I am not what I do, and if I'm in a situation that degrades me or drives me crazy, then I try to address it or I walk away if nothing can be done to make it better (and here I will also admit that I have put away some money to hold me over for a while and I'm licensed, so that I can walk away and do my thing by myself if I so decide).
The things that can hold one to architecture are those moments when you are working on a project you enjoy, with people you enjoy working with, making something that does not yet exist, learning many new things, and you think to yourself how nice it is to be an architect: if you don't ever have any of these moments, then by all means get yourself out, and quick.
I remember when I visited one of my professors in his workplace on a Friday to get some photocopies of LEED documents I saw an ugly reality. Well..it was ugly for me and not for him. It was around 10pm,the office was completely empty. We opened a bottle of wine and started talking about my future plans,I was planning to switch to real estate at that time and I changed my mind since got some more info about the field and I took a real estate class last semester but anyways. He told me he was probably going to work until next morning as he often did but he was so HAPPY with what he did though he was worried when he was going to get laid off given they laid off 40% of their staff that year. He enjoyed drawing building section details and sketching and I thought "you know what if I were you I'd rather be home with my wife and enjoy the Friday night in NYC". Of course I didn't tell him that but that's what I thought.
At the end it comes to what your preferences/choices are. Do you like staying late and drawing building details even though you're worried about your job or do you want to spend more time for yourself or with your family if you have one? I guess none of the two choices above is better than the other,it just depends on you and what you enjoy.
Paradox I love building but Ive pretty much concluded I like drawing for myself and my own clients. I can not afford to work anymore nor continue to finance these old guys' 3 cars, 4 vacations and massive houses anymore. I think a lot of us are going to conclude you cant make much less by walking away and you certainly arent going to make any more staying put and you absolutely wont ever meet any clients sitting behind a desk.
it sounds like you just need to start your own firm
it sounds like you like architecture, just not working for someone else
so i think going out on your own is probably the way to go for you
do you have the contacts to start up yourself?
from your original post, it seemed you didnt like the industry in general
but now it seems more just your own work situation?
and honestly, if you have your license and they still dont let you run jobs, i would get the hell out of there as fast as i could
That seems a bit absurd
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.