Putting ego ahead of client is certainly one form of incompetance, but not many are really in that position. More common I think is basic functional incompetance, i.e. delivering a design that fails functionally. Frozen pipes and other such issues have as much to do with design as construction, and a seemingly overlooked aspect of architectural education is that architects are supposed to be experts in construction. This means not only understanding how buildings are constructed but how and why they fail, which is of course how you learn proper design for construction.
The very worst incompetance combines ego with the lack of knowledge and experience.
I'm with curtkram... and it's not just that. Take me, I did forensic architecture (evaluating and repairing problem buildings). I can't find that kind of work anymore. Why? Because our industry is touting 'aesthetics'. So, sitting at a table surrounded by engineers, I happen to be the only one there who's actually had any education or experience in building shell design on this moldy wreck of a structure. I'm the only one with a broad range of all the various construction disciplines' ('master builder' / 'big picture' education). I'm the only one who knows how to coordinate the works.
But who does the client look to for guidance? The engineer because "they make stuff work" and are "practical". I'm just there to make it pretty and pick colors... Less and less people want 'pretty'... They want it to work, they want it to function, they want it to last; Those things engineers sell. They are also those things we tend to keep secret. Just look to who gets awards and for what. I often feel we are only involved because by code they need an architect of record. How long before our competition (engineers, interior designers, builders, etc.) get those taken out?
So, our own profession has cut off its legs of what a architect is and can do. We've touted ourselves as artist.... So clients pay us like them. The famous ones make bank, the rest of us hawk our wares at the flea market and pray for a benefactor.
^^that's kind of how I'm starting to view this profession, as I'm getting more and more immersed in it. Albeit I'm still very much a noob and have little to no experience in the working world related to architecture (still working on grad school). Seems analogous to trying to be an actor...or an artist. Precarious employment prospects for most, but a handful make a go of it and make the $$. I see many firm owners teach to supplement their practice. Seems like one of the few things coming close to a stable income in the field, pretty good pay 100,000 and up. although hard to come by i think.
No opinions regarding the Canadian context? anyone?
^ Canadian context, by definition, is almost always an extension of the American (I'm Canadian).
While I might have had similar thoughts in the past, mightyaa kinda hit the nail on the head. If we keep promoting ourselves as artists, we'll be compensated like them. Which may or may not work. On the other hand, "service firms" deliver like engineers, and make the bulk of the money (that's what we're talking about right? Money).
If we keep pretending we're artists, refusing to play the game of convincing our clients that what we do is valuable, then we're doomed. Having said that, I do believe there's value in beauty - and even beauty for the sake of beauty - but as a profession we've done a shit job of communicating what we do, why it's important, and why we should be paid to be part of the construction process. It might be a matter of education, but there's no quick fix. It's been a long, slow descent, and it will take just as much time to fix that problem.
The market for quality is all but gone. It is a rare client indeed that has a vested long-term interest in a house and is willing to pay to design and build for quality. Most look at it from an investment point of view: how little can I put in and how much can I squeeze out. When profit is the only measure of value you get what we have now. And it's only going to get worse.
An old family friend sold his house last year. The buyer went to huge lengths to negotiate based on condition and renegotiated a price reduction of a couple hundred (on a $4m sale) because Sandy knocked the power out and the place couldn't be cleaned before the closing. It was razed to the ground a week later. He probably spent a few thousand on lawyers to negotiate the last $250.
The buyer is a hedge fund guy who stole $500m in 2010.
miles - that attitude's been around since ancient greece was functioning. not try to be snarky - if (for example) our main concern is to end poverty, we're forgetting that poverty's always been a part of society. it won't ever 'end'. but, we can try to raise the general standard of living so that "poverty" isn't as desperate. same with quality of work - in some ways, it's far worse (because we believed that AC and sealants could absolve eons of observations) and in some ways far better. we'll always have those who can afford a higher quality, those who aspire to get that for less, and those who can't but would probably appreciate it more.
i'm going to be contrarian for a moment and argue that aesthetics are one of the primary values (monetarily) that we can bring to a project. explaining it takes effort and practice and, quite frankly, the architectural press has tended to exalt aesthetic innovation to high and more mass media outlets dumb it down to 'match this with that'. would a broader exposure to real discussions on aesthetics benefit the profession? absolutely. would it cure our woes, nope. but i personally try to educate our clients early on to help make our decisions carry more weight later on. not sure what else we can do ourselves.
Agreed. The challenge is for those of us who have different value system. And we could end poverty but there is no will to do so because there is no profit in it.
Aesthetics can be functional as well as decorative. In this economy aesthetics have largely been reduced to enhancing (re)sale value. Although that is not the kind of function I had in mind.
" and a seemingly overlooked aspect of architectural education is that architects are supposed to be experts in construction. This means not only understanding how buildings are constructed but how and why they fail, which is of course how you learn proper design for construction. "
I must say that's probably one the most frustrating things I'm finding with an M.Arch education especially coming from an unrelated degree. Can't speak much for those coming from undergrad in arch, who might've gone over the basics more. Example; the way they teach how to detail is basically figure it out yourself by looking at examples in books and magazines. All this without any knowledge of rules of proper drafting, which you also have to figure out yourself, in conjunction with studio crits, which I guess is supposed to be the teaching part of getting to know fundamentals. Also teaching yourself the tools/software of the trade. I've seen professors mock and laugh at the incredulity of final details presented in reviews. I really don't know what they expect when students are left to figure it out on their own. Maybe that's the nature of the beast in Masters program. I guess...
I really understand how some Europeans can't fathom the system of unrelated undergrad onto M.Arch especially the way Masters is taught. How can we practice something where the basics are not conveyed and tested on. I can't fathom doctors and lawyers being taught this way. I kind of envy the education of Architectural Technologist in colleges,to be honest.
I wonder if anyone is listening to this forum? The academics who became academics because reality is a challenge. The professionals who solely count on their license to guarantee work comes in. The designers who count on winning competitions like winning the lottery to start their real career. The big thinkers and critics who hide behind big concepts so that their technical incompetence isn't exposed. The Philip Johnson's who make architecture a hobby and pay their way to being over published. Between those blinded by delusions, pie in the sky opportunities, competence measured by standardized tests, and lastly inherited wealth - who is listening? A big part of the architecture world is comfortable just staying afloat in this tragedy. Don't mind the working class of a professional culture. Architecture never was about work right? Nevermind the studio all nighters, the seed of experience to come..........why would the working class of architecture complain about their unjust tidings of capital?
Olaf Ninja: i think everyone is aware that the academics side is where this incompetency in the profession begins...
My own friend and past colleague who teaches at the University architecture department is very aware of the discrepancy between the majority of faculty + administrators and those who practice + teach. He works full time and tries to teach best practices in modeling in Revit to his students...showing how large scale real world project models develop. His frustration is facing the reality of having an administrator with no real-world experience be the curator of many of these architecture courses.
I think practicing architects may escape to the academia side of things in order to get that theoretical, dreamy-state and archi-speak nonsense out of their system... but many often do it because they need the extra money (in case of my friend).
I'm really a big proponent of aesthetics/design too...but getting a good handle on the language we use, especially since it has a pragmatic function seems only rational. Can a novelist write without knowing the alphabet, proper sentence structure, etc..? I guess they say we'll be taught that in the work force? I don't know why I'm paying so much money for this.
...something I found so odd at school; you had to learn modeling skills on your own time. In studio; you always had the choice of doing hand drawings or cad / revit. Professors seems to find merit in doing hand drawings. lol. When I told my professor that I was doing my project in revit because I wanted to learn the trade... he said "well I suppose that's a smart idea".
So yeah Papre: we pay for an education where we're not even taught the TOOLS of which we use for ALL of our drawings. I'm on REVIT 75% of the day drawing my projects !!!
I think academia has it backwards in some instances. Rather than teaching "juxtaposition this, techtonics that, mental-masturbation here and there"... we should first be taught the tools and building sciences and second how to use design thinking and rational creativity to solve problems.
I didn't know what a project manual was coming out of 5 years of architecture college. lol
i also didn't realize how or why clients would hire us ... i thought clients would beg us to design them amazing works of art.
Not even that (ie Revit)....but starting with drafting fundamentals and deeper understanding of conventions would be nice. My friend in her bachelors of engineering said that's the first thing they were tested on - what each lines meant, in her drafting class, which first of all, they had, unlike architects (in my educational experience) I mean I learned it on my own but i have no clue if its the proper way everyone in the industry understand it to be. looks pretty sometimes though.
pale shelter et al., you raise a good point about technical proficiency, but the modern version of an architect is not a master builder, for the most part. This is why we have technicians.
I guarantee you that Koolhaas, Gehry, Hadid, Calatrava, or Zumthor wouldn't even know how to start Revit, let alone use it, or any other software - that's what they pay people for, and personal feelings aside, it doesn't make them lesser architects in any way.
We talk nonstop about our inability to communicate the value of what we do, and what the near future holds for our profession, meanwhile we can't even seem to agree amongst ourselves what an architect actually does.
To conclude - mastery of a software does not make you an architect any more than would the mastery of a saw. If you think that architecture is primarily about software, maybe a position as a technician is more to your liking. I work with several skilled techs who are very happy with their path - and I'm thankful for that.
pale shelter, education has been inundated with fallacies since the 1920's, like the naturalistic fallacy where the explicit learning of facts or conventions was deemed necessary and degrading and what they want to teach is how to think. Also, the teaching of abstraction and idealism over observation and reality. Sound familiar? Architecture is at the extreme end of this type of education, no other program dared to actually take out almost all of the content like arch schools have, avoiding teaching basic skills and underlying knowledge. The problem is that critical thinking cannot occur without content. In the public schools, this is the premise of the Common Core reform, it is a movement to bringing back a core of basic competencies so that kids aren't graduating high school having no idea about the branches of government for instance (hey youcan always look it up on the internet, why memorizethat?) In architecture school, they have taken out almost all of the content (construction, drafting, law, finance, engineering, and what content they do teach is belittled by studio and "process". Our content lacking education is further reinforced by the fact that you NEED a kickass portfolio and so all efforts go towards form and image making. (I went to arch school but work for an educational psychologist and do research for them, this is my opinion, but not mine alone.)
bowling ball, you're comparing the practice of architecture in general to what Koolhaas, Gehry, Hadid, Calatrava, or Zumthor do. my experience is that a fairly significant number of architects tend to work on projects of more limited scope, or perhaps with less flexibility in design discretion. are you following a track in your office where you would expect to be the architect that makes broad design decisions like they do?
there are clients out there that want beautiful buildings, and are willing to pay for them, and know that they don't really have the expertise to make a beautiful building, so they trust the discretion of the architect to help them make those decisions. there are a lot of other types of clients too, though. i would almost venture to say that most clients would fall into some other general category.
when trying to decide what an architect does, i would caution not to think of architects working with 'fun' clients, while disregarding all of the other work architects typically do. when talking about the value architects can add to the process, i would caution against saying we need to convince our clients to pay for what we think is beautiful, but rather try to understand what the client thinks is valuable. they aren't there to add value to our work; we are there to add value for them.
@Olaf; "wow this is so much more rational than the forums on similar themes say 10 years ago, I guess the old farts gave up...about time"
You got that a bit backwards. I tried this forum just before the crash. It was the younger generation, who's never seen or experienced that crash that spouted on and on about design is God. I was basically run off for being a 'hack' because I chased profitable projects that aren't exactly 'design based' (like that forensic work, also national branded chains). I did that because you need to balance your work. The design stuff with the utilitarian bread and butter work to generate revenue. A lot of those didn't survive the recession. So, my salary.
Keep in mind it's a family firm...
1992 - intern $24k raise about 10% each year. Started flipping houses too, so earned about $230k by 2000 when I got tired of living in construction debris.
1996 - licensed $42k
1999 - became principal $65k
2000- $65k base salary + bonus ($40k) first time I hit six digits
at the height, 2008, my base salary was up to $80k and I saw bonuses of $140k.
Recession 2009-2012; $80k base salary + $80k bonus... all forensic; no design projects
2013; Litigation crash (market follows 2-4 years behind construction); Losing work to engineers regularly by now. $24k total for the year, and most of that was 'perk income' like car use.
2014; no paycheck. Just little break even jobs.
Oh, and how bonuses work here. Year end profit. Cut bonus checks to employees and empty the corporate account; Comes in as bonus on my taxes. Then, Jan 1, I loan the firm operating cash to float it the next 3 months until client payments start filling the coffers again. Due to this, the firm owes me $250k as a debt. So like my father, retired, but the firm pays it's debt to him monthly so he generates some money too. Also should mention my employees always got a bonus; Sometimes in the $20k range for PM's down to the receptionist getting $2k... I share. But notice my own bonus; about half goes right back into the firm so we can write paychecks as billing/collection cycles catch up (30-60 day lag).
My compensation is basically set at a PM. So if the firm does good, I get a nice bonus. If it does 'not so good' I make less than a receptionist. Wreaks havoc on marriage btw.
The technology and school thing. My brother in law is a professor of architecture/Harvard MBA grad. We chat. The tech thing isn't that important. What is more important is training young minds to think and adapt quickly. If you can do that, picking up how to use the software isn't hard, nor is it hard to understand concepts like watershed (which leads to flashing, etc.). So what the schools teach isn't "2+2=4", its asking the question "why the hell you might want to know" and get to asking why those numbers versus say 5 or 123? If all you know is how to parrot and memorize things, you won't make it because you'll want to answer "4" to every question.
I was taught hand drafting and graduated in 1992 (not that long ago). How relevant is that today? I am grateful I was trained to think rapidly, and think in abstract. It allows me to adapt without feeling lost. The tools are just the extension of my mind's capabilities to solve complex problems fast. You have to know what to draw and why it's needed. You build this massive building in your head, then document that vision. Doesn't matter if it's sketched by pen to velum, or a 3-dimensional virtual detail.
bowling_ball: i'm simply talking about educating our students SOME of the time the tool of the trades .... more than zero time... don't you think it'd be beneficial to teach students 'tools of the trade' ??
I don't see your argument using "Koolhaas, Gehry, Hadid, Calatrava, or Zumthor" to be very strong.. first of all; they are of the 1% of the 1% ... and we should be realistic with who we try and compare the average architect to - not celebrity designers.. 2nd - these folks are olddd man - of course technology isn't their art ! lol.,,,, This discussion is talking about architects in the first 10 years of their profession or so. WE have to know the tools. I'm a project architect; I have to draw large buildings with teams but also coordinate all the engineers and work day to day with the client. I am not a revit monkey and never want to be... yes; we have 'technicians' for that but most good/top design firms (the ones I've worked for) do not hire many 'technicians' / aka 2-year drafting college grads. No offense to drafters, but they don't fit the mold in high design firms... and they're not ppl you're going to bring to client meetings..... So, the majority of architects age 25-40 use REVIT and TOOLS 75% of their work time +/-.
sorry... i just realized more people commented on your remarks already, bowling ball...
yeah I don't understand this either/or mentality with regards to education, especially the education of a future architect. Is it too much to ask to understand the rules before attempting to break them.
the educational model seems unbelievably inefficient, as well. studio profs expect of multiple all-nighters without providing students with any real professional skill set at the close of said studio.
I'm a university instructor on the side, I acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the system. But when I look back at my education (where I was taught very little software), where I benefited most was in learning to think critically.
It's an oversimplification, but if you want to learn HOW, you go to vocational school; if you want to learn WHY, you go to university.
I referenced the starchitects I did because they produce work many of us respect, if not admire - and they all started out drawing by hand. Despite this, they learned how a building (and just as importantly, a project) comes together. Is technology a huge part of the process? Absolutely. But that's not my argument.
bowling_ball: I agree with you on certain points, although not in your claim (if I understand you right) that architecture largely is a critical thinking based occupation. IMHO it is to about the same extent that it is an artistic pursuit – someone earlier in the thread estimated that 10% of the work is design, the remaining 90% therefore isn't, and I think that’s about right. The majority (80-90%) of the work as an architect is about organizing, planning, negotiating and most of all producing. While these activities certainly contain elements of both critical thinking and design, they aren't principally made up of them, only to a quite limited part.
I’d be very interested in hearing what experiences have brought you to the conclusion that critical thinking is central to contemporary architectural practice, because in my experience it’s not, particularly. In the same way I am also curious as to your claim of the big names knowing how a building comes together. They don’t, for the most part, in my experience (first hand). They’re usually where they are because they’re really good at one or more of those other things that architects need to know aside from design and critical thinking; being a good manager, a good talker, a good work winner, have a rich family with connections and therefore repeat clients, etc). This is neither to berate successful architects nor rant about the profession in general, I just think it’s a professional group suffering profoundly from false expectations, from the very start of education and way into the years in practice. Hence the escapism of so many back into the self-perpetuating micro cosmos of a largely disconnected academia that keeps preparing students for a skill set that isn't needed and a take on practice that doesn’t really exist. Again, of course this is true for a lot of academia but not all. But to take any educational model that focuses on the tools of the trade, without which you will not get any jobs anywhere, and call them "vocational" is way beyond simplifying.
empea +1 ..... I think you closed/summed up this conversation very well with that last paragraph. bravo.
regardless of how pessimistic and negative many of us sound when arguing for a profession to change, adapt and pay better ... I do have faith in our generation (Millennials) to eventually respond and foresee better outcomes to come. That may start with asking our professors to teach tools of the trade in addition to design, critical thinking and demanding business classes from the clueless administrators who create the curriculum. A recent archinect post just asked about an "entrepreneurial thesis", this is the right idea... to begin to look more at what we do as a business to provide value. Personally, I want/need more ownership..more responsibility ... to become the Owner of great buildings vs just be on the service side that is the traditional office model.
Lloyd Russel (architect-developer) :
"...we used to joke that the only way to get hired was to hire ourselves. At a time when architects are getting marginalized in the building industry, it is empowering to be in the middle of things bringing a project to realization. And, if you do it well, you get to own it. It’s also putting your money where your mouth is. Architects promote the profession with the argument that we add value. Well, why not realize that value?"
"someone earlier in the thread estimated that 10% of the work is design, the remaining 90% therefore isn't, and I think that’s about right."
Depends on your perceptions. 10% is conceptual and purest artistic sort of design. DD is also a refinement, but no less intellectually challenging. As are CD's for 'how will I do that?' so it doesn't leak,meets the code minimums, and can actually be built. Not to mention trying to balance the budget concerns in there. Even CA presents challenges and problems where you are looked to for answers.
Bowling ball has it right: It's an oversimplification, but if you want to learn HOW, you go to vocational school; if you want to learn WHY, you go to university. Architects confuse learning how to think critically, abstractly, and rapidly with learning how to design. Design is a result of that thinking ability + creativity, not visa-versa. A pure artist can't easily create architecture because unlike their trade, we have a lot of rules to work within (loads, materials, programs, budgets, goals, etc.). It's also that same intellectual ability that has architects, who change fields, generally excel there too because we can simply think in very complex ways others just can't see or think about.
Really, start paying attention to how much information you balance in your head when designing a building; It's vast and complex with an infinite amount of possibilities that were possible. Don't sell yourself short by saying 10% of what you do is design. Sort of like a writer saying 10% is thinking up a rough storyline and 90% is the typewriter doing it's thing.
Finance, marketing, legal, production, administration (etc etc) are essential aspects of design, not separate from them, and certainly require the same critical approach as the 'drawing pretty pictures' part of our jobs.
You're right, I may have given too much credit to those stars when it comes to knowing how a building comes together. But again, it's not just about building. Today's global western culture is obsessed with fame. I think Karim Rashid is a horrible, awful designer, but he's amazing at self promotion - so add one more skill to our baskets on the path to success.
One more thing - learning software is one thing. Learning WHY you'd draw one thing instead of another is a more relevant question. You can draw quickly all day, but if you don't understand how to build the thing you're drawing, what's the point?
My teenage construction labourer jobs have opened more doors for me than any specific software tool, and that's the truth. If you understand construction basics, and have a critical mind, no employer past maybe your first job, is going to care that you don't know a specific software. In fact, I've ONLY been hired at places where I HAVEN'T known the software, but I was honest about that and was still offered each job because I'm a professional and not on the technician track.
There is no there - summed it up beautifully and software is core.
Mightyaa those were old farts pretending to be young or severely indoctrinated youth.
I have nothing to add, this conversation is heading in the right direction.
EVERYTHING is a design problem. Dealing with clients often requires more creative thinking than designing buildings for them.
Unfortunately the substance of design - putting together buildings that perform programmatically, functionally, sustainably and economically - is often overlooked (or ignored entirely) in favor of absolutely nonsensical egotistical exercises in styling.
I've had a number of repeat customers. Corporate branding aside, I wonder how many the various starchitects have? Would MIT or Disney ever hire Gehry again? Who could afford to use Calatrava more than once? Would the local library that doubled in square footage but now has less shelf space and an electrical bill that went up $3,000 a month hire the same architect again?
The ability to use Revit does not make one an architect, it makes one a CAD monkey. The tools of architecture are not computers or pencils and vellum: they are space and light, materials and the connections between them. Architecture is created by the manipulation of these elements within a well-defined context.
The ones I know Olaf were recent grads, filled with ideology about our profession and how we shape culture. Those highly indoctrinated sorts fresh out of school. So, being a more 'utilitarian' type architect, I was mercilessly bashed. One 'good' thing that came out of that recession; Reality tended to temper life and that ideology. .
You really just have to look out for design possibility. Just try to give one a project that consist of mounting antennas to a building (you know, so your cell phone works) to one of those indoctrinated sorts.. it's offensive to them that it has to be done. How dare I ask them to defile a building ... lol. They couldn't even see it as a design challenge to make this necessity architecturally sympathetic. So far down that rabbit hole of what design is to them, they can't see much tougher design challenges and tackle them.
Another of my favorites where I saw design challenges. Square building. Porsche requires a semi-elliptical façade and strict ratios with 'sacred cows of corporate branding' you had to incorporate. Building already maxed out (actually over) allowable site coverage per zoning. Also woefully not up to current code. How do you take a nasty square building, make it round, not lose one square foot, and not add any... and keep it within a tight budget and satisfy the bldg. dept. as well as make it look brand new?
My solution was simple; False façade... a folly like a billboard. No addition, no 'owner downtime'. No addition (so no code issues). A couple of hours for me to knock out in sketchup. Couple pages of details... no biggy. PITA dealing with the conservative structural, but worked it out. You don't win awards or recognition for taking nearly impossible criteria and creating good solutions to those problems.
And that's what I fear for those indoctrinated sorts: They want the prestige, awards and glory. They need that external validation. I find pride in the smaller things and challenges.
Miles, we need to learn the tools necessary to communicate and study the manipulation of the architectural elements.
It's foolish not to offer full courses in the technical tools necessary for practicing architecture.
Once you've learned the tools and they are pretty well established these days - Autodesk products and Adobe products are essential, then you can move on to better things.
like thinking out of the BOX as Mightyaa did. Fake is as real as real in architecture. Fake architecture and real architecture both get built don't they? I think alternate materials not being honest might be a better description, but I'm splitting hairs...
Modern 'tools' have more potential to harm the process and degrade the result than traditional tools.
To put it in concrete (or wood) terms: you have no business using a power saw until you are adept with hand saw. It's hard(er) to make a BIG mistake with a hand tool. Each has strengths and weaknesses, it is critical to fully understand the ramifications of both. Of course that was the substance of another long and thoroughly disputed thread here.
I'll preface this by saying that my work history started WELL before I got my first job in architecture. The highest pay I attained PRE-architecture was $15/hr with overtime pay at time and a half.
So, onto the good stuff:
1st year post B.Arch (2006): $15/hr, no benefits, lots of unpaid overtime. This was a small firm doing residential work. I quit after 9 months to go to grad school on a full scholarship.
1st year post M.Arch (2008): $45,000/yr, 15 days vacation/sick combined, health, 401k. This was a large corporate firm.
2009: Pay cut after the recession brought me down to $42,500. Still kept all benefits.
2010: Got a raise and promotion to $52,000.
2010: Got a new job at $65,000 at large corporate firm where my salary has risen to $70,000 thus far.
How dare those indoctrinated sorts want to make architecture something more than engineering.
I could have easily been an engineer. My GRE scores (161v 164q) put me squarely in the middle with MIT engineering graduate programs. While I agree that things do need to get built in a utilitarian way - there is always a better integrated or more beautiful way to do it. I think its a shame that I find myself with so much downtime in this profession after detailing designs that seem purposefully restrained, dumbed down, and sometimes just ugly under the guise of being "utilitarian".
Hi donna. I recently relocated to colorado and have no existing network here. Doing some design, mostly drafting and no building. I'm working on establishing myself. The construction portion would be too risky without being able to dedicate more time towards it or finding the right partner. (although there is a great opportunity right now for subcontracting.) Most of my current work comes from repeat clients in the form of shop drawings, renderings, animations and cd's. My goal is to build capital and a network so that on my next project I'm the developer. Probably a small residential thing. Definitely took the FM gig to free up some time to start working on all this during my "free" day. Plus it's a good plan b if nothing else works out. Plus will be great to use next winter when there is some fresh powder on the slopes! Looking to have one more career change down the line.... who knows? :)
Thanks, wurdan, and good luck with it! I'm 47 and feel like I've still got at least one more career change in me, and it's all about building a network and trying to do a few things at once. Nothing is stable anymore - exciting times!
Pretty interesting thread and it so happens that I am in a critical situation of decision making and could use some guidance. I would greatly appreciate any advise in regards to my dilemma which I am about to explain.
Ok, so I am planning to attend ***** (will not disclose school) this Fall, I have officially submitted my intent to enroll. Despite 4 years of office experience + Bachelor's of Arts in Architecture degree (4 year degree) I was not offered Advance placement and to make my story a bit more dramatic, I did not receive any scholarships mainly due to submitting my application about a month late. I believe I have a decent portfolio (excepted to Berkeley, Michigan & VT..no rejections).
Now I have done the math and 3 years will come out to 80K if not more. I was still super excited to attend and mount myself this outrageous debt on my shoulders because frankly I just can't see myself doing any else for a living. So here is where it gets interesting, a friend of mine got in touch with me and asked if I would be interested to set up an interview with a nationally recognized firm (will not disclose the name of the firm). If you google top 50 architecture firms in US it makes this list. So I went ahead and scheduled an interview because I am fond of their work. And surprisingly they offered me a position as a job captain. The pay is 57k + full benefits / 401k match. So I am now torn between accepting this offer or attending a MArch (3 years). I am about 60% leaning towards accepting the offer and 40% attending the MArch. program. I have an enormous desire to get my professional degree and build my networks with professors and students not just in arch. but in other disciplines (business, future investors, engineering, ect.) and simultaneously develop my design ideology and expand my knowledge in other subjects but at what price? 80K!!!
I know there are a lot of well versed and experienced individuals that constantly give great advise which is the primary reason why I came here to seek for help. Any advise will be seriously accepted and greatly appreciated.
By accepting the firm's offer, would I be making the right choice? Having gone through years of professional practice and paying back student loans what would each of you do if you were in my shoes? Attend MArch program or accept the firm's offer?
zxy_lab: you are also considering the opportunity cost when weighing the pro's cons ...correct? 3 years of paying out while not bringing in will set you more back than $80k. Consider that you'll make say 57, 60, 65k during those 3 years of school and potentially earn some respect and job advancement in that time.
Regardless of the money, I'd say take the job. What is your number #1 reason for wanting licensure? I got licensed a bit ago when I was 28 but only for the personal challenge and 'check-list' mentality ... it doesn't really bring automatic rewards. If you want to be a partner at a firm, then being licensed isn't really much of an issue. Also check for rules in your state for achieving licensure (some states just require 10 years of experience or something...?...) You could still run your own firm some day - just hire anyone with a license. In the 6 offices I've worked at, I have seen several owners, partners and leaders in firms be either licensed or not. In fact, the last firm I worked for with 25 employees had 2 Owners - both of whom were unlicensed...the one doesn't even have a degree in architecture.
Why is developing a strong network with other students and professors important ? ..getting real experience and networking 'out there' in the real world (real clients and real business ppl) will land you jobs and more opportunities - isn't that what school is supposed to prepare you for anyways?.... just start doing rather than put it off for 3 years... my 2 cents.
Zxylab,
Take the job and don't look back. Just figure out the opportunity costs of three years foregone 401k deposits compounded over time until you retire would be an astonishing amount of money. Then the 80 thousand is not 80 thousand, is it? By the time you repay it it will easily be twice that. and there is no guarantee of a job offer at all upon graduation. Take the job.
My 2 cents - take the position and move forward with your career - if architecture is what you want to do with your life then this seems to be a great opportunity - and if its not, school can always happen. 80K of debt plus 3 years of missed salary/real world expereince is a very steep cost for another degree, especially at a school that doesnt recognize your previous degree/experience. No way would I take on that debt in our current enviroment - good luck
Tough choice - especially if you want to eventually become a registered architect. You have to go back to school at some point to get your professional degree. Therefore, you will be leaving this firm in the next 2-5 years anyway. Probably the best financial decision would be to work at this firm, saving enough money to graduate debt free when you do eventually go back to school, and socking away a little money in a retirement account that will compound over a longer period of time.
But the best financial decision isn't always the best decision. Are you really ready to go back to school now? Would you enjoy the experience at this firm and the city you would be living in or would it make you miserable? How does your decision affect your family or significant other? I think you have to balance the financial decision with your life circumstances, and while the financial implications are important, your satisfaction with your life circumstances will go further in determining your success whatever direction you decide.
Salary over Time
^ +1 -- what curtram said
Putting ego ahead of client is certainly one form of incompetance, but not many are really in that position. More common I think is basic functional incompetance, i.e. delivering a design that fails functionally. Frozen pipes and other such issues have as much to do with design as construction, and a seemingly overlooked aspect of architectural education is that architects are supposed to be experts in construction. This means not only understanding how buildings are constructed but how and why they fail, which is of course how you learn proper design for construction.
The very worst incompetance combines ego with the lack of knowledge and experience.
I'm with curtkram... and it's not just that. Take me, I did forensic architecture (evaluating and repairing problem buildings). I can't find that kind of work anymore. Why? Because our industry is touting 'aesthetics'. So, sitting at a table surrounded by engineers, I happen to be the only one there who's actually had any education or experience in building shell design on this moldy wreck of a structure. I'm the only one with a broad range of all the various construction disciplines' ('master builder' / 'big picture' education). I'm the only one who knows how to coordinate the works.
But who does the client look to for guidance? The engineer because "they make stuff work" and are "practical". I'm just there to make it pretty and pick colors... Less and less people want 'pretty'... They want it to work, they want it to function, they want it to last; Those things engineers sell. They are also those things we tend to keep secret. Just look to who gets awards and for what. I often feel we are only involved because by code they need an architect of record. How long before our competition (engineers, interior designers, builders, etc.) get those taken out?
So, our own profession has cut off its legs of what a architect is and can do. We've touted ourselves as artist.... So clients pay us like them. The famous ones make bank, the rest of us hawk our wares at the flea market and pray for a benefactor.
^^that's kind of how I'm starting to view this profession, as I'm getting more and more immersed in it. Albeit I'm still very much a noob and have little to no experience in the working world related to architecture (still working on grad school). Seems analogous to trying to be an actor...or an artist. Precarious employment prospects for most, but a handful make a go of it and make the $$. I see many firm owners teach to supplement their practice. Seems like one of the few things coming close to a stable income in the field, pretty good pay 100,000 and up. although hard to come by i think.
No opinions regarding the Canadian context? anyone?
^ Canadian context, by definition, is almost always an extension of the American (I'm Canadian).
While I might have had similar thoughts in the past, mightyaa kinda hit the nail on the head. If we keep promoting ourselves as artists, we'll be compensated like them. Which may or may not work. On the other hand, "service firms" deliver like engineers, and make the bulk of the money (that's what we're talking about right? Money).
If we keep pretending we're artists, refusing to play the game of convincing our clients that what we do is valuable, then we're doomed. Having said that, I do believe there's value in beauty - and even beauty for the sake of beauty - but as a profession we've done a shit job of communicating what we do, why it's important, and why we should be paid to be part of the construction process. It might be a matter of education, but there's no quick fix. It's been a long, slow descent, and it will take just as much time to fix that problem.
The market for quality is all but gone. It is a rare client indeed that has a vested long-term interest in a house and is willing to pay to design and build for quality. Most look at it from an investment point of view: how little can I put in and how much can I squeeze out. When profit is the only measure of value you get what we have now. And it's only going to get worse.
An old family friend sold his house last year. The buyer went to huge lengths to negotiate based on condition and renegotiated a price reduction of a couple hundred (on a $4m sale) because Sandy knocked the power out and the place couldn't be cleaned before the closing. It was razed to the ground a week later. He probably spent a few thousand on lawyers to negotiate the last $250.
The buyer is a hedge fund guy who stole $500m in 2010.
miles - that attitude's been around since ancient greece was functioning. not try to be snarky - if (for example) our main concern is to end poverty, we're forgetting that poverty's always been a part of society. it won't ever 'end'. but, we can try to raise the general standard of living so that "poverty" isn't as desperate. same with quality of work - in some ways, it's far worse (because we believed that AC and sealants could absolve eons of observations) and in some ways far better. we'll always have those who can afford a higher quality, those who aspire to get that for less, and those who can't but would probably appreciate it more.
i'm going to be contrarian for a moment and argue that aesthetics are one of the primary values (monetarily) that we can bring to a project. explaining it takes effort and practice and, quite frankly, the architectural press has tended to exalt aesthetic innovation to high and more mass media outlets dumb it down to 'match this with that'. would a broader exposure to real discussions on aesthetics benefit the profession? absolutely. would it cure our woes, nope. but i personally try to educate our clients early on to help make our decisions carry more weight later on. not sure what else we can do ourselves.
Agreed. The challenge is for those of us who have different value system. And we could end poverty but there is no will to do so because there is no profit in it.
Aesthetics can be functional as well as decorative. In this economy aesthetics have largely been reduced to enhancing (re)sale value. Although that is not the kind of function I had in mind.
" and a seemingly overlooked aspect of architectural education is that architects are supposed to be experts in construction. This means not only understanding how buildings are constructed but how and why they fail, which is of course how you learn proper design for construction. "
I must say that's probably one the most frustrating things I'm finding with an M.Arch education especially coming from an unrelated degree. Can't speak much for those coming from undergrad in arch, who might've gone over the basics more. Example; the way they teach how to detail is basically figure it out yourself by looking at examples in books and magazines. All this without any knowledge of rules of proper drafting, which you also have to figure out yourself, in conjunction with studio crits, which I guess is supposed to be the teaching part of getting to know fundamentals. Also teaching yourself the tools/software of the trade. I've seen professors mock and laugh at the incredulity of final details presented in reviews. I really don't know what they expect when students are left to figure it out on their own. Maybe that's the nature of the beast in Masters program. I guess...
I really understand how some Europeans can't fathom the system of unrelated undergrad onto M.Arch especially the way Masters is taught. How can we practice something where the basics are not conveyed and tested on. I can't fathom doctors and lawyers being taught this way. I kind of envy the education of Architectural Technologist in colleges,to be honest.
I wonder if anyone is listening to this forum? The academics who became academics because reality is a challenge. The professionals who solely count on their license to guarantee work comes in. The designers who count on winning competitions like winning the lottery to start their real career. The big thinkers and critics who hide behind big concepts so that their technical incompetence isn't exposed. The Philip Johnson's who make architecture a hobby and pay their way to being over published. Between those blinded by delusions, pie in the sky opportunities, competence measured by standardized tests, and lastly inherited wealth - who is listening? A big part of the architecture world is comfortable just staying afloat in this tragedy. Don't mind the working class of a professional culture. Architecture never was about work right? Nevermind the studio all nighters, the seed of experience to come..........why would the working class of architecture complain about their unjust tidings of capital?
Olaf Ninja: i think everyone is aware that the academics side is where this incompetency in the profession begins...
My own friend and past colleague who teaches at the University architecture department is very aware of the discrepancy between the majority of faculty + administrators and those who practice + teach. He works full time and tries to teach best practices in modeling in Revit to his students...showing how large scale real world project models develop. His frustration is facing the reality of having an administrator with no real-world experience be the curator of many of these architecture courses.
I think practicing architects may escape to the academia side of things in order to get that theoretical, dreamy-state and archi-speak nonsense out of their system... but many often do it because they need the extra money (in case of my friend).
I'm really a big proponent of aesthetics/design too...but getting a good handle on the language we use, especially since it has a pragmatic function seems only rational. Can a novelist write without knowing the alphabet, proper sentence structure, etc..? I guess they say we'll be taught that in the work force? I don't know why I'm paying so much money for this.
...something I found so odd at school; you had to learn modeling skills on your own time. In studio; you always had the choice of doing hand drawings or cad / revit. Professors seems to find merit in doing hand drawings. lol. When I told my professor that I was doing my project in revit because I wanted to learn the trade... he said "well I suppose that's a smart idea".
So yeah Papre: we pay for an education where we're not even taught the TOOLS of which we use for ALL of our drawings. I'm on REVIT 75% of the day drawing my projects !!!
I think academia has it backwards in some instances. Rather than teaching "juxtaposition this, techtonics that, mental-masturbation here and there"... we should first be taught the tools and building sciences and second how to use design thinking and rational creativity to solve problems.
I didn't know what a project manual was coming out of 5 years of architecture college. lol
i also didn't realize how or why clients would hire us ... i thought clients would beg us to design them amazing works of art.
wow this is so much more rational than the forums on similar themes say 10 years ago, I guess the old farts gave up...about time
Not even that (ie Revit)....but starting with drafting fundamentals and deeper understanding of conventions would be nice. My friend in her bachelors of engineering said that's the first thing they were tested on - what each lines meant, in her drafting class, which first of all, they had, unlike architects (in my educational experience) I mean I learned it on my own but i have no clue if its the proper way everyone in the industry understand it to be. looks pretty sometimes though.
pale shelter et al., you raise a good point about technical proficiency, but the modern version of an architect is not a master builder, for the most part. This is why we have technicians.
I guarantee you that Koolhaas, Gehry, Hadid, Calatrava, or Zumthor wouldn't even know how to start Revit, let alone use it, or any other software - that's what they pay people for, and personal feelings aside, it doesn't make them lesser architects in any way.
We talk nonstop about our inability to communicate the value of what we do, and what the near future holds for our profession, meanwhile we can't even seem to agree amongst ourselves what an architect actually does.
To conclude - mastery of a software does not make you an architect any more than would the mastery of a saw. If you think that architecture is primarily about software, maybe a position as a technician is more to your liking. I work with several skilled techs who are very happy with their path - and I'm thankful for that.
pale shelter, education has been inundated with fallacies since the 1920's, like the naturalistic fallacy where the explicit learning of facts or conventions was deemed necessary and degrading and what they want to teach is how to think. Also, the teaching of abstraction and idealism over observation and reality. Sound familiar? Architecture is at the extreme end of this type of education, no other program dared to actually take out almost all of the content like arch schools have, avoiding teaching basic skills and underlying knowledge. The problem is that critical thinking cannot occur without content. In the public schools, this is the premise of the Common Core reform, it is a movement to bringing back a core of basic competencies so that kids aren't graduating high school having no idea about the branches of government for instance (hey you can always look it up on the internet, why memorize that?) In architecture school, they have taken out almost all of the content (construction, drafting, law, finance, engineering, and what content they do teach is belittled by studio and "process". Our content lacking education is further reinforced by the fact that you NEED a kickass portfolio and so all efforts go towards form and image making. (I went to arch school but work for an educational psychologist and do research for them, this is my opinion, but not mine alone.)
bowling ball, in the united states, most architecture firms don't use technicians anymore.
bowling ball, you're comparing the practice of architecture in general to what Koolhaas, Gehry, Hadid, Calatrava, or Zumthor do. my experience is that a fairly significant number of architects tend to work on projects of more limited scope, or perhaps with less flexibility in design discretion. are you following a track in your office where you would expect to be the architect that makes broad design decisions like they do?
there are clients out there that want beautiful buildings, and are willing to pay for them, and know that they don't really have the expertise to make a beautiful building, so they trust the discretion of the architect to help them make those decisions. there are a lot of other types of clients too, though. i would almost venture to say that most clients would fall into some other general category.
when trying to decide what an architect does, i would caution not to think of architects working with 'fun' clients, while disregarding all of the other work architects typically do. when talking about the value architects can add to the process, i would caution against saying we need to convince our clients to pay for what we think is beautiful, but rather try to understand what the client thinks is valuable. they aren't there to add value to our work; we are there to add value for them.
@Olaf; "wow this is so much more rational than the forums on similar themes say 10 years ago, I guess the old farts gave up...about time"
You got that a bit backwards. I tried this forum just before the crash. It was the younger generation, who's never seen or experienced that crash that spouted on and on about design is God. I was basically run off for being a 'hack' because I chased profitable projects that aren't exactly 'design based' (like that forensic work, also national branded chains). I did that because you need to balance your work. The design stuff with the utilitarian bread and butter work to generate revenue. A lot of those didn't survive the recession. So, my salary.
Keep in mind it's a family firm...
1992 - intern $24k raise about 10% each year. Started flipping houses too, so earned about $230k by 2000 when I got tired of living in construction debris.
1996 - licensed $42k
1999 - became principal $65k
2000- $65k base salary + bonus ($40k) first time I hit six digits
at the height, 2008, my base salary was up to $80k and I saw bonuses of $140k.
Recession 2009-2012; $80k base salary + $80k bonus... all forensic; no design projects
2013; Litigation crash (market follows 2-4 years behind construction); Losing work to engineers regularly by now. $24k total for the year, and most of that was 'perk income' like car use.
2014; no paycheck. Just little break even jobs.
Oh, and how bonuses work here. Year end profit. Cut bonus checks to employees and empty the corporate account; Comes in as bonus on my taxes. Then, Jan 1, I loan the firm operating cash to float it the next 3 months until client payments start filling the coffers again. Due to this, the firm owes me $250k as a debt. So like my father, retired, but the firm pays it's debt to him monthly so he generates some money too. Also should mention my employees always got a bonus; Sometimes in the $20k range for PM's down to the receptionist getting $2k... I share. But notice my own bonus; about half goes right back into the firm so we can write paychecks as billing/collection cycles catch up (30-60 day lag).
My compensation is basically set at a PM. So if the firm does good, I get a nice bonus. If it does 'not so good' I make less than a receptionist. Wreaks havoc on marriage btw.
The technology and school thing. My brother in law is a professor of architecture/Harvard MBA grad. We chat. The tech thing isn't that important. What is more important is training young minds to think and adapt quickly. If you can do that, picking up how to use the software isn't hard, nor is it hard to understand concepts like watershed (which leads to flashing, etc.). So what the schools teach isn't "2+2=4", its asking the question "why the hell you might want to know" and get to asking why those numbers versus say 5 or 123? If all you know is how to parrot and memorize things, you won't make it because you'll want to answer "4" to every question.
I was taught hand drafting and graduated in 1992 (not that long ago). How relevant is that today? I am grateful I was trained to think rapidly, and think in abstract. It allows me to adapt without feeling lost. The tools are just the extension of my mind's capabilities to solve complex problems fast. You have to know what to draw and why it's needed. You build this massive building in your head, then document that vision. Doesn't matter if it's sketched by pen to velum, or a 3-dimensional virtual detail.
bowling_ball: i'm simply talking about educating our students SOME of the time the tool of the trades .... more than zero time... don't you think it'd be beneficial to teach students 'tools of the trade' ??
I don't see your argument using "Koolhaas, Gehry, Hadid, Calatrava, or Zumthor" to be very strong.. first of all; they are of the 1% of the 1% ... and we should be realistic with who we try and compare the average architect to - not celebrity designers.. 2nd - these folks are olddd man - of course technology isn't their art ! lol.,,,, This discussion is talking about architects in the first 10 years of their profession or so. WE have to know the tools. I'm a project architect; I have to draw large buildings with teams but also coordinate all the engineers and work day to day with the client. I am not a revit monkey and never want to be... yes; we have 'technicians' for that but most good/top design firms (the ones I've worked for) do not hire many 'technicians' / aka 2-year drafting college grads. No offense to drafters, but they don't fit the mold in high design firms... and they're not ppl you're going to bring to client meetings..... So, the majority of architects age 25-40 use REVIT and TOOLS 75% of their work time +/-.
sorry... i just realized more people commented on your remarks already, bowling ball...
+1 kudo to there is no there
yeah I don't understand this either/or mentality with regards to education, especially the education of a future architect. Is it too much to ask to understand the rules before attempting to break them.
the educational model seems unbelievably inefficient, as well. studio profs expect of multiple all-nighters without providing students with any real professional skill set at the close of said studio.
It is to weed students out.
but the same model is adopted in graduate programs, where students incur massive real costs and opportunity costs. scam-- plain and simple.
I'm a university instructor on the side, I acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the system. But when I look back at my education (where I was taught very little software), where I benefited most was in learning to think critically.
It's an oversimplification, but if you want to learn HOW, you go to vocational school; if you want to learn WHY, you go to university.
I referenced the starchitects I did because they produce work many of us respect, if not admire - and they all started out drawing by hand. Despite this, they learned how a building (and just as importantly, a project) comes together. Is technology a huge part of the process? Absolutely. But that's not my argument.
bowling_ball: I agree with you on certain points, although not in your claim (if I understand you right) that architecture largely is a critical thinking based occupation. IMHO it is to about the same extent that it is an artistic pursuit – someone earlier in the thread estimated that 10% of the work is design, the remaining 90% therefore isn't, and I think that’s about right. The majority (80-90%) of the work as an architect is about organizing, planning, negotiating and most of all producing. While these activities certainly contain elements of both critical thinking and design, they aren't principally made up of them, only to a quite limited part.
I’d be very interested in hearing what experiences have brought you to the conclusion that critical thinking is central to contemporary architectural practice, because in my experience it’s not, particularly. In the same way I am also curious as to your claim of the big names knowing how a building comes together. They don’t, for the most part, in my experience (first hand). They’re usually where they are because they’re really good at one or more of those other things that architects need to know aside from design and critical thinking; being a good manager, a good talker, a good work winner, have a rich family with connections and therefore repeat clients, etc). This is neither to berate successful architects nor rant about the profession in general, I just think it’s a professional group suffering profoundly from false expectations, from the very start of education and way into the years in practice. Hence the escapism of so many back into the self-perpetuating micro cosmos of a largely disconnected academia that keeps preparing students for a skill set that isn't needed and a take on practice that doesn’t really exist. Again, of course this is true for a lot of academia but not all. But to take any educational model that focuses on the tools of the trade, without which you will not get any jobs anywhere, and call them "vocational" is way beyond simplifying.
empea +1 ..... I think you closed/summed up this conversation very well with that last paragraph. bravo.
regardless of how pessimistic and negative many of us sound when arguing for a profession to change, adapt and pay better ... I do have faith in our generation (Millennials) to eventually respond and foresee better outcomes to come. That may start with asking our professors to teach tools of the trade in addition to design, critical thinking and demanding business classes from the clueless administrators who create the curriculum. A recent archinect post just asked about an "entrepreneurial thesis", this is the right idea... to begin to look more at what we do as a business to provide value. Personally, I want/need more ownership..more responsibility ... to become the Owner of great buildings vs just be on the service side that is the traditional office model.
Lloyd Russel (architect-developer) :
"...we used to joke that the only way to get hired was to hire ourselves. At a time when architects are getting marginalized in the building industry, it is empowering to be in the middle of things bringing a project to realization. And, if you do it well, you get to own it. It’s also putting your money where your mouth is. Architects promote the profession with the argument that we add value. Well, why not realize that value?"
"someone earlier in the thread estimated that 10% of the work is design, the remaining 90% therefore isn't, and I think that’s about right."
Depends on your perceptions. 10% is conceptual and purest artistic sort of design. DD is also a refinement, but no less intellectually challenging. As are CD's for 'how will I do that?' so it doesn't leak,meets the code minimums, and can actually be built. Not to mention trying to balance the budget concerns in there. Even CA presents challenges and problems where you are looked to for answers.
Bowling ball has it right: It's an oversimplification, but if you want to learn HOW, you go to vocational school; if you want to learn WHY, you go to university. Architects confuse learning how to think critically, abstractly, and rapidly with learning how to design. Design is a result of that thinking ability + creativity, not visa-versa. A pure artist can't easily create architecture because unlike their trade, we have a lot of rules to work within (loads, materials, programs, budgets, goals, etc.). It's also that same intellectual ability that has architects, who change fields, generally excel there too because we can simply think in very complex ways others just can't see or think about.
Really, start paying attention to how much information you balance in your head when designing a building; It's vast and complex with an infinite amount of possibilities that were possible. Don't sell yourself short by saying 10% of what you do is design. Sort of like a writer saying 10% is thinking up a rough storyline and 90% is the typewriter doing it's thing.
Finance, marketing, legal, production, administration (etc etc) are essential aspects of design, not separate from them, and certainly require the same critical approach as the 'drawing pretty pictures' part of our jobs.
You're right, I may have given too much credit to those stars when it comes to knowing how a building comes together. But again, it's not just about building. Today's global western culture is obsessed with fame. I think Karim Rashid is a horrible, awful designer, but he's amazing at self promotion - so add one more skill to our baskets on the path to success.
One more thing - learning software is one thing. Learning WHY you'd draw one thing instead of another is a more relevant question. You can draw quickly all day, but if you don't understand how to build the thing you're drawing, what's the point?
My teenage construction labourer jobs have opened more doors for me than any specific software tool, and that's the truth. If you understand construction basics, and have a critical mind, no employer past maybe your first job, is going to care that you don't know a specific software. In fact, I've ONLY been hired at places where I HAVEN'T known the software, but I was honest about that and was still offered each job because I'm a professional and not on the technician track.
There is no there - summed it up beautifully and software is core. Mightyaa those were old farts pretending to be young or severely indoctrinated youth. I have nothing to add, this conversation is heading in the right direction.
EVERYTHING is a design problem. Dealing with clients often requires more creative thinking than designing buildings for them.
Unfortunately the substance of design - putting together buildings that perform programmatically, functionally, sustainably and economically - is often overlooked (or ignored entirely) in favor of absolutely nonsensical egotistical exercises in styling.
I've had a number of repeat customers. Corporate branding aside, I wonder how many the various starchitects have? Would MIT or Disney ever hire Gehry again? Who could afford to use Calatrava more than once? Would the local library that doubled in square footage but now has less shelf space and an electrical bill that went up $3,000 a month hire the same architect again?
The ability to use Revit does not make one an architect, it makes one a CAD monkey. The tools of architecture are not computers or pencils and vellum: they are space and light, materials and the connections between them. Architecture is created by the manipulation of these elements within a well-defined context.
The ones I know Olaf were recent grads, filled with ideology about our profession and how we shape culture. Those highly indoctrinated sorts fresh out of school. So, being a more 'utilitarian' type architect, I was mercilessly bashed. One 'good' thing that came out of that recession; Reality tended to temper life and that ideology. .
You really just have to look out for design possibility. Just try to give one a project that consist of mounting antennas to a building (you know, so your cell phone works) to one of those indoctrinated sorts.. it's offensive to them that it has to be done. How dare I ask them to defile a building ... lol. They couldn't even see it as a design challenge to make this necessity architecturally sympathetic. So far down that rabbit hole of what design is to them, they can't see much tougher design challenges and tackle them.
Another of my favorites where I saw design challenges. Square building. Porsche requires a semi-elliptical façade and strict ratios with 'sacred cows of corporate branding' you had to incorporate. Building already maxed out (actually over) allowable site coverage per zoning. Also woefully not up to current code. How do you take a nasty square building, make it round, not lose one square foot, and not add any... and keep it within a tight budget and satisfy the bldg. dept. as well as make it look brand new?
My solution was simple; False façade... a folly like a billboard. No addition, no 'owner downtime'. No addition (so no code issues). A couple of hours for me to knock out in sketchup. Couple pages of details... no biggy. PITA dealing with the conservative structural, but worked it out. You don't win awards or recognition for taking nearly impossible criteria and creating good solutions to those problems.
And that's what I fear for those indoctrinated sorts: They want the prestige, awards and glory. They need that external validation. I find pride in the smaller things and challenges.
Miles, we need to learn the tools necessary to communicate and study the manipulation of the architectural elements.
It's foolish not to offer full courses in the technical tools necessary for practicing architecture.
Once you've learned the tools and they are pretty well established these days - Autodesk products and Adobe products are essential, then you can move on to better things.
like thinking out of the BOX as Mightyaa did. Fake is as real as real in architecture. Fake architecture and real architecture both get built don't they? I think alternate materials not being honest might be a better description, but I'm splitting hairs...
Modern 'tools' have more potential to harm the process and degrade the result than traditional tools.
To put it in concrete (or wood) terms: you have no business using a power saw until you are adept with hand saw. It's hard(er) to make a BIG mistake with a hand tool. Each has strengths and weaknesses, it is critical to fully understand the ramifications of both. Of course that was the substance of another long and thoroughly disputed thread here.
I'll preface this by saying that my work history started WELL before I got my first job in architecture. The highest pay I attained PRE-architecture was $15/hr with overtime pay at time and a half.
So, onto the good stuff:
1st year post B.Arch (2006): $15/hr, no benefits, lots of unpaid overtime. This was a small firm doing residential work. I quit after 9 months to go to grad school on a full scholarship.
1st year post M.Arch (2008): $45,000/yr, 15 days vacation/sick combined, health, 401k. This was a large corporate firm.
2009: Pay cut after the recession brought me down to $42,500. Still kept all benefits.
2010: Got a raise and promotion to $52,000.
2010: Got a new job at $65,000 at large corporate firm where my salary has risen to $70,000 thus far.
How dare those indoctrinated sorts want to make architecture something more than engineering.
I could have easily been an engineer. My GRE scores (161v 164q) put me squarely in the middle with MIT engineering graduate programs. While I agree that things do need to get built in a utilitarian way - there is always a better integrated or more beautiful way to do it. I think its a shame that I find myself with so much downtime in this profession after detailing designs that seem purposefully restrained, dumbed down, and sometimes just ugly under the guise of being "utilitarian".
wurdan freo: Are you still doing Facilities Management plus doing design build on the side? Is it your 4-day workweek that makes this possible?
Hi donna. I recently relocated to colorado and have no existing network here. Doing some design, mostly drafting and no building. I'm working on establishing myself. The construction portion would be too risky without being able to dedicate more time towards it or finding the right partner. (although there is a great opportunity right now for subcontracting.) Most of my current work comes from repeat clients in the form of shop drawings, renderings, animations and cd's. My goal is to build capital and a network so that on my next project I'm the developer. Probably a small residential thing. Definitely took the FM gig to free up some time to start working on all this during my "free" day. Plus it's a good plan b if nothing else works out. Plus will be great to use next winter when there is some fresh powder on the slopes! Looking to have one more career change down the line.... who knows? :)
Thanks, wurdan, and good luck with it! I'm 47 and feel like I've still got at least one more career change in me, and it's all about building a network and trying to do a few things at once. Nothing is stable anymore - exciting times!
Pretty interesting thread and it so happens that I am in a critical situation of decision making and could use some guidance. I would greatly appreciate any advise in regards to my dilemma which I am about to explain.
Ok, so I am planning to attend ***** (will not disclose school) this Fall, I have officially submitted my intent to enroll. Despite 4 years of office experience + Bachelor's of Arts in Architecture degree (4 year degree) I was not offered Advance placement and to make my story a bit more dramatic, I did not receive any scholarships mainly due to submitting my application about a month late. I believe I have a decent portfolio (excepted to Berkeley, Michigan & VT..no rejections).
Now I have done the math and 3 years will come out to 80K if not more. I was still super excited to attend and mount myself this outrageous debt on my shoulders because frankly I just can't see myself doing any else for a living. So here is where it gets interesting, a friend of mine got in touch with me and asked if I would be interested to set up an interview with a nationally recognized firm (will not disclose the name of the firm). If you google top 50 architecture firms in US it makes this list. So I went ahead and scheduled an interview because I am fond of their work. And surprisingly they offered me a position as a job captain. The pay is 57k + full benefits / 401k match. So I am now torn between accepting this offer or attending a MArch (3 years). I am about 60% leaning towards accepting the offer and 40% attending the MArch. program. I have an enormous desire to get my professional degree and build my networks with professors and students not just in arch. but in other disciplines (business, future investors, engineering, ect.) and simultaneously develop my design ideology and expand my knowledge in other subjects but at what price? 80K!!!
I know there are a lot of well versed and experienced individuals that constantly give great advise which is the primary reason why I came here to seek for help. Any advise will be seriously accepted and greatly appreciated.
Cannot thank you all enough!!
By accepting the firm's offer, would I be making the right choice? Having gone through years of professional practice and paying back student loans what would each of you do if you were in my shoes? Attend MArch program or accept the firm's offer?
zxy_lab: you are also considering the opportunity cost when weighing the pro's cons ...correct? 3 years of paying out while not bringing in will set you more back than $80k. Consider that you'll make say 57, 60, 65k during those 3 years of school and potentially earn some respect and job advancement in that time.
Regardless of the money, I'd say take the job. What is your number #1 reason for wanting licensure? I got licensed a bit ago when I was 28 but only for the personal challenge and 'check-list' mentality ... it doesn't really bring automatic rewards. If you want to be a partner at a firm, then being licensed isn't really much of an issue. Also check for rules in your state for achieving licensure (some states just require 10 years of experience or something...?...) You could still run your own firm some day - just hire anyone with a license. In the 6 offices I've worked at, I have seen several owners, partners and leaders in firms be either licensed or not. In fact, the last firm I worked for with 25 employees had 2 Owners - both of whom were unlicensed...the one doesn't even have a degree in architecture.
Why is developing a strong network with other students and professors important ? ..getting real experience and networking 'out there' in the real world (real clients and real business ppl) will land you jobs and more opportunities - isn't that what school is supposed to prepare you for anyways?.... just start doing rather than put it off for 3 years... my 2 cents.
Zxylab, Take the job and don't look back. Just figure out the opportunity costs of three years foregone 401k deposits compounded over time until you retire would be an astonishing amount of money. Then the 80 thousand is not 80 thousand, is it? By the time you repay it it will easily be twice that. and there is no guarantee of a job offer at all upon graduation. Take the job.
My 2 cents - take the position and move forward with your career - if architecture is what you want to do with your life then this seems to be a great opportunity - and if its not, school can always happen. 80K of debt plus 3 years of missed salary/real world expereince is a very steep cost for another degree, especially at a school that doesnt recognize your previous degree/experience. No way would I take on that debt in our current enviroment - good luck
Tough choice - especially if you want to eventually become a registered architect. You have to go back to school at some point to get your professional degree. Therefore, you will be leaving this firm in the next 2-5 years anyway. Probably the best financial decision would be to work at this firm, saving enough money to graduate debt free when you do eventually go back to school, and socking away a little money in a retirement account that will compound over a longer period of time.
But the best financial decision isn't always the best decision. Are you really ready to go back to school now? Would you enjoy the experience at this firm and the city you would be living in or would it make you miserable? How does your decision affect your family or significant other? I think you have to balance the financial decision with your life circumstances, and while the financial implications are important, your satisfaction with your life circumstances will go further in determining your success whatever direction you decide.
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.