-Non Sequitur- That's' actually what I was wondering.
How the job market compares in Canada to that of the states. Since most of the posters here come from the US with a different economic situation, perhaps the view is a bit skewed? or are Canadians' salary progression just as depressing?
What city do you practice in btw? currently attending grad school in Toronto. kind of nervous about graduating and the chances of getting a job. Ideally I'd like to stay here (although I come from another province). Sadly, currently second guessing my decision in choosing architecture...
Anyone caring to share their experience in Canadian context would be much appreciated
WilsonWu,
If you go the structures route you may find yourself working with architects, landscape architects, and interior architects on a variety of interesting projects. You may have a broader breadth of design experiences than if you did not change. Congrats and Godspeed!
50-some posts and only about 10 actually answered the question. Instead we get mostly name calling. This could be pretty valuable and interesting, but I guess it is damaging to their pride to post numbers?
out of curiosity, for all of you who express wages in hourly rates:
is this because you prefer to think of it that way, or were you actually hourly paid employees (and presumably therefore without benefits, vacation etc)? a $55/hr freelance rate is very different to a $55/hr permanent contract w benefits...
1) wage in architecture has declined over past 2-3 decades (note Miles Jaffe comment above). My dad made 10k more money starting as a parole officer in 1975 - inflation adjusted. WE need to compare our profession apples to apples (like with engineers and construction managers). We've proved here we make less than our counterparts until year 15. We compare with social workers, graphic designers, insurance agents, general business majors until then. With my fellow graduates of 2008; I make avg. arch pay 55k and make less than my friends: social worker, auto claims examiner, carpet layer, college recruiter, chiropractor, dietitian, tech sales. Going into school, I expected architects to be in the ...top 20% ??
*I remember my engineering adviser showing me starting pay for mechanical engineer in 2002 ($43k) ... this is $54k in 2013; HOWEVER; starting pay for mechanical engineers is $63k today. Look at that... some how engineer starting pay has beat inflation - even thru the great recession. Architect starting pay has remained stagnated since 2008 and was low then...sad stuff... what are the engineers doing differently???
(I never received starting pay and salary charts from my architecture advisers btw)
2) Great recession moved us backwards considerably (probably more than the average industry). See previous comment by cajunarch
21st year raise to $120K $30K bonus (included profit sharing)
layoff/economic downturn
22nd year new job $90K $1K bonus
---- that's a huge drop in pay. Cajunarch was on a respectable path of pay. But most of those on here complaining about pay are obviously those coming out of school just before the profession and getting in afterwards... (I graduated spring 2008). I also saw the same step backwards in pay going from 48k to 40k .. so year 1 and year 4 of my career were the same pay. Again, why is my arch pay reducing and scaled back while the engineers has moved on from the recession??
3) So what..?.. well; considering the continual over-hiring and no-incentive-to-make-money economics structure in arch firms .. and low barrier of entry (art vs. science)... with low pay still hanging around from the recession... how do firm leaders and the industry as a whole move forward ??? It seems to me we're still injured from 2008-09 and offering low compensation - but it's an excuse in my opinion to make up for poor practice in making money - by paying labor poorly. This is what worries me... because another downturn is in the making and will be here in 3-4 years. Will I see the same backwards momentum? 2018; starting pay architect: $48k?... Starting pay engineer: $75k ?
Mercifully, this digger clown is a dying breed of anachronisms that the architecture industry will gladly forget forever. Other posters are right, if his only argument that he stands by is that “those who have qualms about pay in the profession should start their own firm” – you already know not to take such a person seriously at all. Digger – we have sat here over the last decade and have embarrassingly witnessed you ancient Neanderthals giving our profession away - pitifully agreeing to well below-average fees simply at the danger that other more desperate firms can take on that work. And simply agreeing to such low fees have cheapened our profession significantly to the point where you are now going after “5-year experienced” interns to work for chump-change at best while even being so bold as to send your work overseas – hoping that some 4-fingered Burmese slave tied to a computer chair in a dungeon will provide you with decent renderings and REVIT models at the cost of like – what $500? All this for what? That begging and grovelling at the shoes of your clients so that they can select your team that you eventually will not be able to pay? Might as well start teaching death-row in-mates all about REVIT – something I am sure the ignorant buffoons at the AIA and NCARB will be happy to do. Most other “professions” have regulatory agencies, lobbies, and think-tanks that work in their favor to protect the profession – not work against it. That way they can put their foot down and prevent appallingly low fees, shitty architecture, and work going overseas.
So Digger - in essence, your question is fucking stupid and irrelevant. Even you already know that.
Engineering school weeds out the non engineers because they cannot handle the course load. Math, Physics, Chemistry, extremely challenging subjects. Engineering is needed in almost every aspect of development from mining and energy to architecture and product design. Engineers are the true designers because they can have a vision and also have the ability to vet the design to see if it will actually work.
Need a bridge? Hire an engineer. New soda design? Hire an engineer? New brake design for mountain bike? Hire an engineer. Want to fly to the moon? Hire an engineer. Circuitry design, Engine design, fuel design, waste water purification, MRI design, medicine. Engineers design the world. Currently, engineers are leaving the industry faster than schools can replace them. (http://www.educationnews.org/career-index/engineering-schools/) They are in high demand and the nature of the course of study keeps the student population in check. That's why they get paid better.
Great points wurdan freo: I was weeded out after 1 year of engineer: advanced physics, chem and calculus 4 -challenging stuff... and wasn't fun. I transfered to architecture because my creative side (and music background) I think had more influence on what I wanted to do with life. Granted, architecture suited me better; but I'm just now not happy with the career results (perhaps I should understand givin the more difficult nature of engineering applies to higher compensation). Coursework was a breeze in architecture - and getting in required a gpa number acquired from entry-level physics, trigonometry, design studio and some bullshit design class where we talked about product design in IKEA and ... I really don't remember.
So, maybe I shouldn't complain; and my previous comment on how we should be compared 'apples to apples' with engineers shouldn't apply. We should be compared to graphic designers and interior designers then...
in fact; what's interesting, is that my alma mater went from #6 to #18 in rankings because they decided that an exclusive architects-only pre-professional program (the year before you apply to get in) was changed to allow all disciplines of design in to arch school ... this mean t-shirt designers, interior designers, cake decorators, and artists could now all apply equally to get into the architecture program.
... that is a reflection of our fcked up non-science educational progression in a nut shell.
Lets not forget about the ridiculous hoops one has to jump through to get to call them selves an architect. Could it be that perception is reality? If grads had a title with a little dignity then maybe they would be treated like professionals and not "interns"- a term usually associated with a nervous jumbling zit face kid fetching coffee.
jla-x - the funniest thing happened when I could say I was an architect without qualifying myself as not licensed.
people, the average person, took everything I said so seriously I didn't know what to do with myself but charge more for being taken seriously.
I didn't become a better "architect" with the license, people just thought I was. something about tests I guess, which were entertaining to say the least.
med. My salary jumped 18% when I was licensed so that supports grneggandsam's point above. The increase is not by default however and one must obviously bring enough to an office to justify the extra cash. If once you are licensed you are still grunting away on sketch-up models and CDs full-time just as you were prior to license, it's rather hard to justify the increase.
Just like Jla-x's ramblings above (and he/she is not the only one), it appears complaining is the default choice instead of working.
non sequitur, i really can't help but think that your experiences may not be typical. at least not typical for people who post on architecture-related internet forums. having said that, it's great that things have worked so well for you and people you know.
you can correct me on my math if i'm off here, but if someone were making about 80,000 as an intern, and got an 18% raise upon licensure, that would put you in the neighborhood of what grneggandsam is looking at, right? i think med. might be right, whoever told him that 15-20 is 'average' is probably full of shit.
i actually got a sizable raise when i got licensed, though my salary is still more comparable to the manager at a fast food place rather than professional services or people with masters degrees. sometimes i wonder if dropping out of high school would have been a more beneficial decision for my professional development.
Curt, my point was that license does not bring in an automatic increase in income unless you acquire more responsibilities than the regular interns. I agree that location and markets play a factor but from my experience (anecdotal... I know, but so are those complaining), what I experienced is not a rare event. My 18% gave me a yearly increase between $12K and $14K. Not the 20K quoted above, but close enough to throw a wrench in the "full of shit" statement.
I've not read through this tread even-though I contributed earlier to it. The dick-measurement discussion was enough to abort whatever value could have been had in the discussion but has an intern here claimed an $80K/year?
18% of $80,000 is $14,400. just a random number to put your 18% close to g's $15,000
so, if you got a raise of 14k that was also an 18% raise, that would mean you were making in the neighborhood of $78,000 per year (x=14,000/0.18) as an intern, right?
if you got a raise of 12k that was also 18%, that would have had you at around 67. my experience, and i would think the experience of other people at the firms i worked at that were of similar age/experience, is about half that.
if i was making 40k as an intern, and got a raise of 20,000 upon licensure (to 60,000), that would be a 50% increase in pay, right?
My uncle makes 80k a year as a salesman for our family's business (a fence company my grandpa started in the 50s). This is for a job that requires no education. My grandpa would buy a new car and/or speed boat every 2 years when he was running it. Architecture is overrated.
hold on a minute curt, I've only calculated that on a whim and I would not be surprised if my math was wrong.
I went from 45K to somewhere close to 56K. a net 11K increase on paper but actually closer to 13.5K with OT (which is factored in with salary negotiations... might sound complicated, perhaps it is, dollars are based on 35hr weeks)
The way I see things: 45/56 = 20%
I don't feel like fishing out my old tax returns so I'll leave it here.
It's not complicated. it's math. there is nothing wrong with the salary you made or the raise you got.
so g has an uncle that makes 80k selling fences while you got 56k for being one of the better architects that were able to step into a position of greater responsibility once you became licensed. not that that is really a fair comparison. even an 11k bump is thousands short of the 15k g was lead to believe is lower end of average for becoming licensed. i think this all kind of supports what med. said.
indeed curt, it is not the 15 to 20, but it's also not 0. With that said, I am sure the union workers currently delaying my project by deliberately not reading my instructions in order to extend their work are each bringing home close to both yours and my combined salary...
Don't get me started on union labor. Last hospital i worked on, the ownership thought it would be a good idea to use union only labor. Well that means if I'm installing drywall and I drop my screw, someone from the screw picker upper union has to come and pick it up for me before I can continue to install my drywall.
There were 3-4 guys in the operators union, who were in charge of operating the elevator. That's right. We needed a union operator to push the button for us. When the project started getting delayed, like they all do, these guys were raking in the overtime. The button pusher told me they averaged $80k a year during that project. Why the fuck I spent any money on two architecture degrees is beyond me.
Does getting registered have immediate benefit and large bonuses ??? LOL fck no is right!!
-My approach to getting licensed was for personal achievement at most - a personal challenge - and plus I missed studying and learning.. . especially since drawing window details and revit elevations behind a computer all day loses its luster quickly... i got licensed 3 years out of college.
I got a lovely fcking $1k "bonus". This is the standard among numerous offices in my city. Of course the office paid for all my exams, but still; mygodd? Professional licensure only has negligible long-term benefits; firms would like their principals licensed. So if you're ok with not making decent money until you're 40-45 as an architect, with pursuit of becoming a leader, then I would become licensed. There are several principals and leaders in all large and small firms who are not licensed ... the OWNERS of my past 30 person firm were both unlicensed - one wasn't even an architect. Not normal; but it shows it doesn't matter.... how do you find clients and bring in work? That's what matters. Don't forget students... architecture is actually a business! ((you should ask your professors for a class on how to run a business, find clients, market yourself and manage fee... and maybe pay your employees well with incentives to be efficient and make money)....
It's hilarious how unknowledgeable young architects are of the realities of licensure .. no, the money doesn't start rolling in and your responsibilities and role remains the same at your job ... are you bringing in work? this is what will bring you more $$$ - that's about it... and you may get 3% of the design fee for your commission (pretty low).. (typically salesman get 10% and more commission)
..I'm trying to convey how frustrating it is to make strides in this carer: no rewards for Licensure really pisses you off when you see your finance friends earning significantly more with hefty bonuses upon completing BFA exams (3 tests) or software mgrs passing 5 years of experience and an exam which equates to 'senior' level positions.. $80-$100k five years out of college.
I look back and remember how I was the one studying hours and hours in college... often telling these friends to shut the f* up when they were having guests over on thursday nights... I'd come home tired from a 14 hour day at studio.
But what I realize, is that a jack-of-all trades non technical low-barrier-to-entry career like architecture does not garner the benefits these other professions have... when you are not an expert in a specific field or pass a specific exam on a certain type of finance, you do not progress into expert level positions.... drawing site plans all day and talking about proportions of windows does not lead to high wage expertise.
2001 5 years in still with same Firm - 37 k eu and bonus for 2001 of 4k eu = 41k eu ( maybe $50k at the time allowing for exchange rates )
2002 left Firm 1 for Sydney - initial position was circa 650- 700 Aud / week contract ( 900-1000$
2003 Switched Firms in Sydney - Senior Architect salary 67k Aud = circa $70 -75k USD at the time not sure ..
2004 Dublin Ireland Firm 4 - started on 50k eu ( circ 65k USD.
2008 Same Firm - salary 63k eu + paid overtime = approx 67-70k eu per annum ( 90k US)
2009 -2011 - Construction crash. Nada. applied for maybe 80 -100 positions - nothing
2009 -2012 went into Stock Trading ( had circa 8 years previous experience on an occasional basis ). timed mkt crash almost perfectly and made several hundred % on a number of stocks - gained a six figure sum. on one particular trades i made a 1500% gain . but often lost 50- 75% on others ( luckily relatively small amounts )
2012 gave about 1/3 of my gains back due to complacency and market downswings. remain invested and still trade several stocks. expect to be in it for life now as a back up. Its got me through the last few years
2013 following a few years of upskilling in software applied for maybe 30-40 positions . no responses. it may be that leaving the profession for a few years to try make some $$$ isnt viewed too kindly ! or perhaps its my imagination (:
2014 renewed job search in a new economic landscape for Architects. Irish Govt has recently sanctioned a US style intern system which supplements unemployed grads social welfare payments of 130 -170 eu by 50 euros a week ( 65$ ). There appears to be quite a number of graduates ‘earning’ circa 4-5000 $ per annum on this scheme. Which given their up to date skills in Software tends to weigh heavily on salary levels for senior positions
no. of Firms offering positions via this scheme is now approaching 50. beginnings of an upturn in Senior Arch positions listed but at circa 30-40 k per annum . Given housing purchase and rental costs in Dublin are still very high at 2005-2006 levels
so Salaries for an Architects in the 5 to 10 years experience range appear to be back where they were 10 years ago. Factoring in Housing and other Inflation, and upskilling costs amounting to multiple thousands this amounts to zero real growth in standard of living for the average salaried joe over 5 years. The 7 years of relatively good conditions employees enjoyed from 2000 to 2007 have been wiped by the 7 years from 2007 to 2014. I cant speak for sole practioners.
New Irish building regulations and technical standards have really upped the stakes in terms of potential liability . In order to compete in this new environment one must invest in significant upskilling. Actually im wary of using the word invest when it comes to Architectural education. Theres no way id advise a newcomer to go through the University system especially the USA where fees are ridiculous. At least in Europe its doable for 5-10k a year.
I do think of switching careers into investment once and for all but its hard to let go of all ive put into Architecture. There are however so many obstacles to making a decent living via the traditional Architectural business model. Its a labour intensive, low margin , non scalable business with very high upfront time input, overhead and equipment , professional development and upskilling costs ...in an highly regulated and highly technical environment thats ever expanding .
Roark, you sound like you've had quite a journey. I'd try to start a business if I were you. It sounds like you have the capital; why not start making architectural products or something? Old Kohler's made himself a billionaire making toilets. Probably not something easy to get into, but I've always wondered...
-- graduated in 2010 with Bachelor and Master of Architectural Engineering, Minor in Architectural Design --
2010 - AEC software company - $60k, benefits, bonus of 10% annual salary, shares vested after 5 years
2011 - Associate I at - engineering/ architecture consulting firm $30/hr, comprehensive benefits, bonus equal to a month's pay, and a contribution-free 401k deposit by the company equal to 15% of total direct billed value
2012 - Same, but $32/hr
2013 - Same, but $33.50/hr
2014 - Associate II - same as above, but $38/hr
later in 2014-2015 - entry to graduate program, one-time $5k disbursement from company for academic assistance
$38/hr 4 years after graduation??? I'm lucky to be making $20... and to think I almost majored in Architectural engineering.
I think most things we complain about here we bring on ourselves, really. I know I've probably sounded like a little entitled prick from time to time... I think I just need to man up and do something about it. Sorry guys.
sorry , a few mistakes in my last post ...doesnt seem to be an edit function for posts yet...
I meant to say "There appears to be quite a number of graduates ‘earning’ circa 10-12k per annum” not 4-5k - on the Govt intern scheme.
obviously 10-12k is still ridiculous for a 3rd level graduate. I should add that this intern schem named Jobbridge is intended to be a 9 month stepping stone however it appears that many Architects both established firms and a crop of one or 2 man start ups are taking advantage of this cheap labour.
so Salaries for an Architects in the 5 to 10 years + experience range appear to be back where they were 10 years ago or even worse. Factoring in Housing and other Inflation, and upskilling costs amounting to multiple thousands this amounts to negative real growth in standard of living for the average salaried joe averaged over 10 years or more .
so, if you all are really interested in the phenomena of salaries over time, look to financial resources outside architecture. really, economists do this much better than we do.
the reason for suggesting to go external: everything else is anecdotal - it's the heresay or personal histories for people inclined to post on a thread like this.
the only thing i've learned over time is this: there's lots of pockets and eddies, within any profession, where people can and do make a fair bit of money. there's people making 100k 5 years out; there's plenty of people who don't make that much after 15-20 years.
the key difference: how are you defining value (for yourself), how closely have you been able to correlate that value within the industry, and how much value are you generating for others? spend time trying to triangulate those 3 factors and you'll generally do pretty well...
if you want a more AEC centric article on value and worth - start here
in general, the crux of the salary problem in architecture is we don't capture the full value of services or options that can be gained throughout the process. we're obsessed with getting full value out of one phase (the schematic design). for the firms who are truly able to sell their unique design vision to clients, it's great (their employees may disagree but that's a different thing). but for everyone else, it's a losing cause.
Gregory: thanks for the article link - it's def worth reading (Design Intelligence article on 'value') - very smart.. also; the 2nd comment by David Hauseman is worth reading.
But I'd like to respond; you mention our salary debate and numbers is all anecdotal. Well of course it is; but I think many of us (including myself) are simply frustrated with the avg pay in this profession.. and that is $78k mid-career (40 years old +/-). That is a factual number. And considering most architects are in cities; that's shit pay. Starting pay is drastically lower compared to other careers...$40k?... as I state above in previous comments (comparing apples to apples) we should be compared to engineers and contractors. Pay for young architects is very poor.
You yourself make a anecdotal comment with "there are those making $100k 5 years out".... so I don't understand if you are trying to make a point or not. The issue is that architects make shit .. it's the truth..and that's my point... because the Design Intelligence 2014 compensation proves it (also read my previous comments on how architects have remained stagnant in compensation since 2008 vs. engineers - who have continued to rise in starting pay and avg. compensation). I'm going by numbers to base my assertions.
Lastly, reading that link you provided only strengthens my dissatisfaction and poor outlook for this profession .... it's great fire power for those arguing against our shit pay because it's all rooted in poor business practice and clueless architect leaders.
WilsonWu; some of my negativity is rooted just in the fact that I'm a product of the great recession.... graduated in 2008 and laid off summer 2009...with 40%+ of my class. Those who didn't get laid off rec'd pay cuts; and hence our pay went backgrounds for a 3 years and now back up to where we were in 2008 adjusted. I was laid off 1 year... then accepted a $12/hr position at a top awarded firm.
I can't answer your future question... noone can... but I'm worried because I started at 43k in 2008 (40k was avg) but have seen how the number is actually a bit lower than that in 2013. I was surprised to recently find out how low our 1-3year interns were getting paid. It seems like upper 30s is quite common now for starting pay. That's very pathetic.
I don't foresee much change unless architecture firms 'pivot' and make adjustment to the way they hire/fire and use technology to our economic advantage. We over draw and we over hire... equalling poor efficient use of fee and too much overhead. There are too many architects to go around and so the supply/demand curve puts our compensation at a disadvantage.
My only suggestion - if you're in school - is to minor in business - or maybe even in construction management. All I cared about was design in college, but now I wish I had an mba or a mgmt degree/minor of some sort so I could transition into working for a large contractor/architecture/developer firm. I could be on the Owner side of seeing large projects come to life...manage construction and coordinate all parties... and make significantly more money. And personally, that sounds more interesting, challenging and rewarding today for me rather than detailing metal panel or deciding where to align expansion joints...
I think Miles means we'll see another bubble or small recession in the next 5-10 years. A lot of us in urban multi-family housing would say we peaked last year with building... my city did....so give it 4 years and there may be a mild 'setback' in the housing/construction industry.
no need to say sorry WilwonWu! lol. thanks for the sympathy, but I'm not in a mess; actually quite fortunate and happy....(just not with the progression of this career).... My arguments on archinect are to add to conversation on architect pay, the practice and the business model. Hopefully some of us who are 5-10 years out of school can help deter those who are contemplating spending $150k for an architecture education... and maybe help influence all of us to have a more critical thinking foundation of finance and business practice when analyzing our office mgmt and leadership. That's why I recommend at the least... taking finance and biz classes in school... vs. just getting obsessed with design. Design is important, but 90% of our education time should not be spend on it. (10% of our job is design in practice).
I posted this link on another thread but, given the posts immediately above by pale shelter, it seems appropriate to post it again here.
The link below shows the contribution to GDP of investment in both non-residential structures and residential structures as business cycles ebb and flow:
Our profession lives, and dies, by the amount of new investment in construction - both residential and non-residential. The amount of new investment in construction is far from constant and severe swings have always occurred, with disastrous results for architectural employment. There is little we can do as a profession to moderate these swings in investment going forward.
The schools keep pumping out an unending stream of new graduates - yet, when the business cycle turns downward, the demand for architectural services can - and does - plummet. Too many architecture students don't recognize - much less understand - this risk to their careers until it rises up and bites them on the ass.
pale - hi. I do realize I was using an anecdotal illustration. it was just a counterpoint on the opposite end.
the reality is, yeah, we're not doing a good job as a profession. however, we're also watching the profession shift beneath our feet and failing to figure out a response. generally speaking. the biggest issue for me, as stated, is failing to capture where the value is. and you partly describe it - we have too many people (for a majority of the firms - again, there's exceptions on both sides) who are focused on details that ultimately won't contribute to the overall value of the building.
one interesting question for me (having known 12+ people who have all jumped to the "Owner's" side over the past 6 years): why aren't we able to do anything these owner's reps are doing? why are we either giving away the turf, fees, both or more? i tend to think most architecture firms don't hire the right people but am curious to what you think.
sometimes i'm starting to think our profession has, at it's core, an incentive to reward people for being stupid. from the moment you think you want to be an architect you're taught to think what we, as professionals, do, is to draw neat pictures of buildings we might like. i don't think it's uncommon for architects, and even architecture students who have no idea what practice is actually like, complain about clients or budgets as if these are things that prevent you from seeing your vision come to fruition.
that mindset is rewarded through peers and professors and whoever else you come across, perhaps up until the point you get a license (or a job, or a client, or somewhere pretty far down the path, where it becomes difficult to turn back). on the other side, doing things that might help your business succeed, building infrastructure, managing tools, the things outside 'making a neat picture' tend to be either ignored, or sometimes even punished through pigeon-holing or otherwise being looked down on as someone who is not the designer making the neat picture.
much like doctors, lawyers, and accountants, architects are hired to do a job. if you go to a doctor needing your appendix taken out, and they tell you they want to give you a nose job instead, since your nose isn't in the 'style' they like, you might go to a nurse to get your appendectomy instead. it's not like the nurse can do a better job, but if the doctor is such a moron that he's going to give you a nose job instead of an appendectomy, it's not like it could be much worse. i'm starting to think it's usually not about the money. it's about the results. if architects aren't listening to their clients, clients will go elsewhere. the architect should always be the owner's rep, or on the "owner's side."
we often talk about the value the architect brings to the table. what value do we bring? why would the owner want to spend their money listening to you? i honestly think that, at least in some cases, architects are being pushed out of turf and fees not so much because we're unable to add value to the process, but because we're actually harmful to the process, because too many architects think they want to be prima donnas (or prima donne as the case may be).
Salary over Time
-Non Sequitur- That's' actually what I was wondering.
How the job market compares in Canada to that of the states. Since most of the posters here come from the US with a different economic situation, perhaps the view is a bit skewed? or are Canadians' salary progression just as depressing?
What city do you practice in btw? currently attending grad school in Toronto. kind of nervous about graduating and the chances of getting a job. Ideally I'd like to stay here (although I come from another province). Sadly, currently second guessing my decision in choosing architecture...
Anyone caring to share their experience in Canadian context would be much appreciated
0 - undergrad non arch jobs 10-15hr 1 - 27k 2 - Unemployed to 10hr to 30k 3 - 35k 4- 50k 5 - grad school 6- 60k 7 - 85k 8 - 95k 9 - 95k 10 - 90k - got license 11- 140k 12 - questionable
WilsonWu, If you go the structures route you may find yourself working with architects, landscape architects, and interior architects on a variety of interesting projects. You may have a broader breadth of design experiences than if you did not change. Congrats and Godspeed!
-Jaffe- "As the rubes keep flocking here in droves to ask, "Which school ...?""
Haha! True that. I was one of those too. I think everyone thinks they'll beat the odds. Hindsight.
Just glad I don't have to pay that US price tag. Insanity.
What's the matter digger - stung by the truth?
FYI, I have my own firm. LOL
nope - amazed at the hypocrisy and double standard.
50-some posts and only about 10 actually answered the question. Instead we get mostly name calling. This could be pretty valuable and interesting, but I guess it is damaging to their pride to post numbers?
Starting wage in the mid 80's was $15, a good draftsman with experience got $20-25 (hot luxury residential market).
Adjusted for inflation that's $33 and $44-55.
out of curiosity, for all of you who express wages in hourly rates:
is this because you prefer to think of it that way, or were you actually hourly paid employees (and presumably therefore without benefits, vacation etc)? a $55/hr freelance rate is very different to a $55/hr permanent contract w benefits...
1) wage in architecture has declined over past 2-3 decades (note Miles Jaffe comment above). My dad made 10k more money starting as a parole officer in 1975 - inflation adjusted. WE need to compare our profession apples to apples (like with engineers and construction managers). We've proved here we make less than our counterparts until year 15. We compare with social workers, graphic designers, insurance agents, general business majors until then. With my fellow graduates of 2008; I make avg. arch pay 55k and make less than my friends: social worker, auto claims examiner, carpet layer, college recruiter, chiropractor, dietitian, tech sales. Going into school, I expected architects to be in the ...top 20% ??
*I remember my engineering adviser showing me starting pay for mechanical engineer in 2002 ($43k) ... this is $54k in 2013; HOWEVER; starting pay for mechanical engineers is $63k today. Look at that... some how engineer starting pay has beat inflation - even thru the great recession. Architect starting pay has remained stagnated since 2008 and was low then...sad stuff... what are the engineers doing differently???
(I never received starting pay and salary charts from my architecture advisers btw)
2) Great recession moved us backwards considerably (probably more than the average industry). See previous comment by cajunarch
21st year raise to $120K $30K bonus (included profit sharing)
layoff/economic downturn
22nd year new job $90K $1K bonus
---- that's a huge drop in pay. Cajunarch was on a respectable path of pay. But most of those on here complaining about pay are obviously those coming out of school just before the profession and getting in afterwards... (I graduated spring 2008). I also saw the same step backwards in pay going from 48k to 40k .. so year 1 and year 4 of my career were the same pay. Again, why is my arch pay reducing and scaled back while the engineers has moved on from the recession??
3) So what..?.. well; considering the continual over-hiring and no-incentive-to-make-money economics structure in arch firms .. and low barrier of entry (art vs. science)... with low pay still hanging around from the recession... how do firm leaders and the industry as a whole move forward ??? It seems to me we're still injured from 2008-09 and offering low compensation - but it's an excuse in my opinion to make up for poor practice in making money - by paying labor poorly. This is what worries me... because another downturn is in the making and will be here in 3-4 years. Will I see the same backwards momentum? 2018; starting pay architect: $48k?... Starting pay engineer: $75k ?
LOL
Mercifully, this digger clown is a dying breed of anachronisms that the architecture industry will gladly forget forever. Other posters are right, if his only argument that he stands by is that “those who have qualms about pay in the profession should start their own firm” – you already know not to take such a person seriously at all. Digger – we have sat here over the last decade and have embarrassingly witnessed you ancient Neanderthals giving our profession away - pitifully agreeing to well below-average fees simply at the danger that other more desperate firms can take on that work. And simply agreeing to such low fees have cheapened our profession significantly to the point where you are now going after “5-year experienced” interns to work for chump-change at best while even being so bold as to send your work overseas – hoping that some 4-fingered Burmese slave tied to a computer chair in a dungeon will provide you with decent renderings and REVIT models at the cost of like – what $500? All this for what? That begging and grovelling at the shoes of your clients so that they can select your team that you eventually will not be able to pay? Might as well start teaching death-row in-mates all about REVIT – something I am sure the ignorant buffoons at the AIA and NCARB will be happy to do. Most other “professions” have regulatory agencies, lobbies, and think-tanks that work in their favor to protect the profession – not work against it. That way they can put their foot down and prevent appallingly low fees, shitty architecture, and work going overseas.
So Digger - in essence, your question is fucking stupid and irrelevant. Even you already know that.
Engineering school weeds out the non engineers because they cannot handle the course load. Math, Physics, Chemistry, extremely challenging subjects. Engineering is needed in almost every aspect of development from mining and energy to architecture and product design. Engineers are the true designers because they can have a vision and also have the ability to vet the design to see if it will actually work.
Need a bridge? Hire an engineer. New soda design? Hire an engineer? New brake design for mountain bike? Hire an engineer. Want to fly to the moon? Hire an engineer. Circuitry design, Engine design, fuel design, waste water purification, MRI design, medicine. Engineers design the world. Currently, engineers are leaving the industry faster than schools can replace them. (http://www.educationnews.org/career-index/engineering-schools/) They are in high demand and the nature of the course of study keeps the student population in check. That's why they get paid better.
Great points wurdan freo: I was weeded out after 1 year of engineer: advanced physics, chem and calculus 4 -challenging stuff... and wasn't fun. I transfered to architecture because my creative side (and music background) I think had more influence on what I wanted to do with life. Granted, architecture suited me better; but I'm just now not happy with the career results (perhaps I should understand givin the more difficult nature of engineering applies to higher compensation). Coursework was a breeze in architecture - and getting in required a gpa number acquired from entry-level physics, trigonometry, design studio and some bullshit design class where we talked about product design in IKEA and ... I really don't remember.
So, maybe I shouldn't complain; and my previous comment on how we should be compared 'apples to apples' with engineers shouldn't apply. We should be compared to graphic designers and interior designers then...
in fact; what's interesting, is that my alma mater went from #6 to #18 in rankings because they decided that an exclusive architects-only pre-professional program (the year before you apply to get in) was changed to allow all disciplines of design in to arch school ... this mean t-shirt designers, interior designers, cake decorators, and artists could now all apply equally to get into the architecture program.
... that is a reflection of our fcked up non-science educational progression in a nut shell.
Ha ... well, Med ... I hope you feel better after your hysterical and childish rant.
+++Med.
Lets not forget about the ridiculous hoops one has to jump through to get to call them selves an architect. Could it be that perception is reality? If grads had a title with a little dignity then maybe they would be treated like professionals and not "interns"- a term usually associated with a nervous jumbling zit face kid fetching coffee.
jla-x - the funniest thing happened when I could say I was an architect without qualifying myself as not licensed.
people, the average person, took everything I said so seriously I didn't know what to do with myself but charge more for being taken seriously.
I didn't become a better "architect" with the license, people just thought I was. something about tests I guess, which were entertaining to say the least.
I have heard that average income jumps about 15-20k when you receive your license. Not sure how true this is...
grneggandsam - whoever told you that is full of shit. Just saying.
med. My salary jumped 18% when I was licensed so that supports grneggandsam's point above. The increase is not by default however and one must obviously bring enough to an office to justify the extra cash. If once you are licensed you are still grunting away on sketch-up models and CDs full-time just as you were prior to license, it's rather hard to justify the increase.
Just like Jla-x's ramblings above (and he/she is not the only one), it appears complaining is the default choice instead of working.
non sequitur, i really can't help but think that your experiences may not be typical. at least not typical for people who post on architecture-related internet forums. having said that, it's great that things have worked so well for you and people you know.
you can correct me on my math if i'm off here, but if someone were making about 80,000 as an intern, and got an 18% raise upon licensure, that would put you in the neighborhood of what grneggandsam is looking at, right? i think med. might be right, whoever told him that 15-20 is 'average' is probably full of shit.
i actually got a sizable raise when i got licensed, though my salary is still more comparable to the manager at a fast food place rather than professional services or people with masters degrees. sometimes i wonder if dropping out of high school would have been a more beneficial decision for my professional development.
Curt, my point was that license does not bring in an automatic increase in income unless you acquire more responsibilities than the regular interns. I agree that location and markets play a factor but from my experience (anecdotal... I know, but so are those complaining), what I experienced is not a rare event. My 18% gave me a yearly increase between $12K and $14K. Not the 20K quoted above, but close enough to throw a wrench in the "full of shit" statement.
I've not read through this tread even-though I contributed earlier to it. The dick-measurement discussion was enough to abort whatever value could have been had in the discussion but has an intern here claimed an $80K/year?
18% of $80,000 is $14,400. just a random number to put your 18% close to g's $15,000
so, if you got a raise of 14k that was also an 18% raise, that would mean you were making in the neighborhood of $78,000 per year (x=14,000/0.18) as an intern, right?
if you got a raise of 12k that was also 18%, that would have had you at around 67. my experience, and i would think the experience of other people at the firms i worked at that were of similar age/experience, is about half that.
if i was making 40k as an intern, and got a raise of 20,000 upon licensure (to 60,000), that would be a 50% increase in pay, right?
My uncle makes 80k a year as a salesman for our family's business (a fence company my grandpa started in the 50s). This is for a job that requires no education. My grandpa would buy a new car and/or speed boat every 2 years when he was running it. Architecture is overrated.
hold on a minute curt, I've only calculated that on a whim and I would not be surprised if my math was wrong.
I went from 45K to somewhere close to 56K. a net 11K increase on paper but actually closer to 13.5K with OT (which is factored in with salary negotiations... might sound complicated, perhaps it is, dollars are based on 35hr weeks)
The way I see things: 45/56 = 20%
I don't feel like fishing out my old tax returns so I'll leave it here.
It's not complicated. it's math. there is nothing wrong with the salary you made or the raise you got.
so g has an uncle that makes 80k selling fences while you got 56k for being one of the better architects that were able to step into a position of greater responsibility once you became licensed. not that that is really a fair comparison. even an 11k bump is thousands short of the 15k g was lead to believe is lower end of average for becoming licensed. i think this all kind of supports what med. said.
indeed curt, it is not the 15 to 20, but it's also not 0. With that said, I am sure the union workers currently delaying my project by deliberately not reading my instructions in order to extend their work are each bringing home close to both yours and my combined salary...
Don't get me started on union labor. Last hospital i worked on, the ownership thought it would be a good idea to use union only labor. Well that means if I'm installing drywall and I drop my screw, someone from the screw picker upper union has to come and pick it up for me before I can continue to install my drywall.
There were 3-4 guys in the operators union, who were in charge of operating the elevator. That's right. We needed a union operator to push the button for us. When the project started getting delayed, like they all do, these guys were raking in the overtime. The button pusher told me they averaged $80k a year during that project. Why the fuck I spent any money on two architecture degrees is beyond me.
Unionize the AIA!
I've been looking for a button pushing position! I had no idea they paid that well!
Does getting registered have immediate benefit and large bonuses ??? LOL fck no is right!!
-My approach to getting licensed was for personal achievement at most - a personal challenge - and plus I missed studying and learning.. . especially since drawing window details and revit elevations behind a computer all day loses its luster quickly... i got licensed 3 years out of college.
I got a lovely fcking $1k "bonus". This is the standard among numerous offices in my city. Of course the office paid for all my exams, but still; mygodd? Professional licensure only has negligible long-term benefits; firms would like their principals licensed. So if you're ok with not making decent money until you're 40-45 as an architect, with pursuit of becoming a leader, then I would become licensed. There are several principals and leaders in all large and small firms who are not licensed ... the OWNERS of my past 30 person firm were both unlicensed - one wasn't even an architect. Not normal; but it shows it doesn't matter.... how do you find clients and bring in work? That's what matters. Don't forget students... architecture is actually a business! ((you should ask your professors for a class on how to run a business, find clients, market yourself and manage fee... and maybe pay your employees well with incentives to be efficient and make money)....
It's hilarious how unknowledgeable young architects are of the realities of licensure .. no, the money doesn't start rolling in and your responsibilities and role remains the same at your job ... are you bringing in work? this is what will bring you more $$$ - that's about it... and you may get 3% of the design fee for your commission (pretty low).. (typically salesman get 10% and more commission)
..I'm trying to convey how frustrating it is to make strides in this carer: no rewards for Licensure really pisses you off when you see your finance friends earning significantly more with hefty bonuses upon completing BFA exams (3 tests) or software mgrs passing 5 years of experience and an exam which equates to 'senior' level positions.. $80-$100k five years out of college.
I look back and remember how I was the one studying hours and hours in college... often telling these friends to shut the f* up when they were having guests over on thursday nights... I'd come home tired from a 14 hour day at studio.
But what I realize, is that a jack-of-all trades non technical low-barrier-to-entry career like architecture does not garner the benefits these other professions have... when you are not an expert in a specific field or pass a specific exam on a certain type of finance, you do not progress into expert level positions.... drawing site plans all day and talking about proportions of windows does not lead to high wage expertise.
Irish Architect
1994 year out of Uni . 11k Punts ( 14k Euro )
1996 started out on 13k Punts
2001 5 years in still with same Firm - 37 k eu and bonus for 2001 of 4k eu = 41k eu ( maybe $50k at the time allowing for exchange rates )
2002 left Firm 1 for Sydney - initial position was circa 650- 700 Aud / week contract ( 900-1000$
2003 Switched Firms in Sydney - Senior Architect salary 67k Aud = circa $70 -75k USD at the time not sure ..
2004 Dublin Ireland Firm 4 - started on 50k eu ( circ 65k USD.
2008 Same Firm - salary 63k eu + paid overtime = approx 67-70k eu per annum ( 90k US)
2009 -2011 - Construction crash. Nada. applied for maybe 80 -100 positions - nothing
2009 -2012 went into Stock Trading ( had circa 8 years previous experience on an occasional basis ). timed mkt crash almost perfectly and made several hundred % on a number of stocks - gained a six figure sum. on one particular trades i made a 1500% gain . but often lost 50- 75% on others ( luckily relatively small amounts )
2012 gave about 1/3 of my gains back due to complacency and market downswings. remain invested and still trade several stocks. expect to be in it for life now as a back up. Its got me through the last few years
2013 following a few years of upskilling in software applied for maybe 30-40 positions . no responses. it may be that leaving the profession for a few years to try make some $$$ isnt viewed too kindly ! or perhaps its my imagination (:
2014 renewed job search in a new economic landscape for Architects. Irish Govt has recently sanctioned a US style intern system which supplements unemployed grads social welfare payments of 130 -170 eu by 50 euros a week ( 65$ ). There appears to be quite a number of graduates ‘earning’ circa 4-5000 $ per annum on this scheme. Which given their up to date skills in Software tends to weigh heavily on salary levels for senior positions
no. of Firms offering positions via this scheme is now approaching 50. beginnings of an upturn in Senior Arch positions listed but at circa 30-40 k per annum . Given housing purchase and rental costs in Dublin are still very high at 2005-2006 levels
so Salaries for an Architects in the 5 to 10 years experience range appear to be back where they were 10 years ago. Factoring in Housing and other Inflation, and upskilling costs amounting to multiple thousands this amounts to zero real growth in standard of living for the average salaried joe over 5 years. The 7 years of relatively good conditions employees enjoyed from 2000 to 2007 have been wiped by the 7 years from 2007 to 2014. I cant speak for sole practioners.
New Irish building regulations and technical standards have really upped the stakes in terms of potential liability . In order to compete in this new environment one must invest in significant upskilling. Actually im wary of using the word invest when it comes to Architectural education. Theres no way id advise a newcomer to go through the University system especially the USA where fees are ridiculous. At least in Europe its doable for 5-10k a year.
I do think of switching careers into investment once and for all but its hard to let go of all ive put into Architecture. There are however so many obstacles to making a decent living via the traditional Architectural business model. Its a labour intensive, low margin , non scalable business with very high upfront time input, overhead and equipment , professional development and upskilling costs ...in an highly regulated and highly technical environment thats ever expanding .
...that carries massive liability in relation to renumeration.
Roark, you sound like you've had quite a journey. I'd try to start a business if I were you. It sounds like you have the capital; why not start making architectural products or something? Old Kohler's made himself a billionaire making toilets. Probably not something easy to get into, but I've always wondered...
-- graduated in 2010 with Bachelor and Master of Architectural Engineering, Minor in Architectural Design --
$38/hr 4 years after graduation??? I'm lucky to be making $20... and to think I almost majored in Architectural engineering.
I think most things we complain about here we bring on ourselves, really. I know I've probably sounded like a little entitled prick from time to time... I think I just need to man up and do something about it. Sorry guys.
sorry , a few mistakes in my last post ...doesnt seem to be an edit function for posts yet...
I meant to say "There appears to be quite a number of graduates ‘earning’ circa 10-12k per annum” not 4-5k - on the Govt intern scheme.
obviously 10-12k is still ridiculous for a 3rd level graduate. I should add that this intern schem named Jobbridge is intended to be a 9 month stepping stone however it appears that many Architects both established firms and a crop of one or 2 man start ups are taking advantage of this cheap labour.
so Salaries for an Architects in the 5 to 10 years + experience range appear to be back where they were 10 years ago or even worse. Factoring in Housing and other Inflation, and upskilling costs amounting to multiple thousands this amounts to negative real growth in standard of living for the average salaried joe averaged over 10 years or more .
so, if you all are really interested in the phenomena of salaries over time, look to financial resources outside architecture. really, economists do this much better than we do.
census bureau is a good place to start
so is wikipedia (as an aggregator of info)
the reason for suggesting to go external: everything else is anecdotal - it's the heresay or personal histories for people inclined to post on a thread like this.
the only thing i've learned over time is this: there's lots of pockets and eddies, within any profession, where people can and do make a fair bit of money. there's people making 100k 5 years out; there's plenty of people who don't make that much after 15-20 years.
the key difference: how are you defining value (for yourself), how closely have you been able to correlate that value within the industry, and how much value are you generating for others? spend time trying to triangulate those 3 factors and you'll generally do pretty well...
if you want a more AEC centric article on value and worth - start here
in general, the crux of the salary problem in architecture is we don't capture the full value of services or options that can be gained throughout the process. we're obsessed with getting full value out of one phase (the schematic design). for the firms who are truly able to sell their unique design vision to clients, it's great (their employees may disagree but that's a different thing). but for everyone else, it's a losing cause.
Gregory: thanks for the article link - it's def worth reading (Design Intelligence article on 'value') - very smart.. also; the 2nd comment by David Hauseman is worth reading.
But I'd like to respond; you mention our salary debate and numbers is all anecdotal. Well of course it is; but I think many of us (including myself) are simply frustrated with the avg pay in this profession.. and that is $78k mid-career (40 years old +/-). That is a factual number. And considering most architects are in cities; that's shit pay. Starting pay is drastically lower compared to other careers...$40k?... as I state above in previous comments (comparing apples to apples) we should be compared to engineers and contractors. Pay for young architects is very poor.
You yourself make a anecdotal comment with "there are those making $100k 5 years out".... so I don't understand if you are trying to make a point or not. The issue is that architects make shit .. it's the truth..and that's my point... because the Design Intelligence 2014 compensation proves it (also read my previous comments on how architects have remained stagnant in compensation since 2008 vs. engineers - who have continued to rise in starting pay and avg. compensation). I'm going by numbers to base my assertions.
Lastly, reading that link you provided only strengthens my dissatisfaction and poor outlook for this profession .... it's great fire power for those arguing against our shit pay because it's all rooted in poor business practice and clueless architect leaders.
Historical evidence to the contrary ...
WilsonWu; some of my negativity is rooted just in the fact that I'm a product of the great recession.... graduated in 2008 and laid off summer 2009...with 40%+ of my class. Those who didn't get laid off rec'd pay cuts; and hence our pay went backgrounds for a 3 years and now back up to where we were in 2008 adjusted. I was laid off 1 year... then accepted a $12/hr position at a top awarded firm.
I can't answer your future question... noone can... but I'm worried because I started at 43k in 2008 (40k was avg) but have seen how the number is actually a bit lower than that in 2013. I was surprised to recently find out how low our 1-3year interns were getting paid. It seems like upper 30s is quite common now for starting pay. That's very pathetic.
I don't foresee much change unless architecture firms 'pivot' and make adjustment to the way they hire/fire and use technology to our economic advantage. We over draw and we over hire... equalling poor efficient use of fee and too much overhead. There are too many architects to go around and so the supply/demand curve puts our compensation at a disadvantage.
My only suggestion - if you're in school - is to minor in business - or maybe even in construction management. All I cared about was design in college, but now I wish I had an mba or a mgmt degree/minor of some sort so I could transition into working for a large contractor/architecture/developer firm. I could be on the Owner side of seeing large projects come to life...manage construction and coordinate all parties... and make significantly more money. And personally, that sounds more interesting, challenging and rewarding today for me rather than detailing metal panel or deciding where to align expansion joints...
I think Miles means we'll see another bubble or small recession in the next 5-10 years. A lot of us in urban multi-family housing would say we peaked last year with building... my city did....so give it 4 years and there may be a mild 'setback' in the housing/construction industry.
no need to say sorry WilwonWu! lol. thanks for the sympathy, but I'm not in a mess; actually quite fortunate and happy....(just not with the progression of this career).... My arguments on archinect are to add to conversation on architect pay, the practice and the business model. Hopefully some of us who are 5-10 years out of school can help deter those who are contemplating spending $150k for an architecture education... and maybe help influence all of us to have a more critical thinking foundation of finance and business practice when analyzing our office mgmt and leadership. That's why I recommend at the least... taking finance and biz classes in school... vs. just getting obsessed with design. Design is important, but 90% of our education time should not be spend on it. (10% of our job is design in practice).
I posted this link on another thread but, given the posts immediately above by pale shelter, it seems appropriate to post it again here.
The link below shows the contribution to GDP of investment in both non-residential structures and residential structures as business cycles ebb and flow:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AcrJr5zt4T0/TvjNH8oYvuI/AAAAAAAALso/AuiSTlJiRRA/s1600/InvestmentContributionsQ32011.jpg
Our profession lives, and dies, by the amount of new investment in construction - both residential and non-residential. The amount of new investment in construction is far from constant and severe swings have always occurred, with disastrous results for architectural employment. There is little we can do as a profession to moderate these swings in investment going forward.
The schools keep pumping out an unending stream of new graduates - yet, when the business cycle turns downward, the demand for architectural services can - and does - plummet. Too many architecture students don't recognize - much less understand - this risk to their careers until it rises up and bites them on the ass.
pale - hi. I do realize I was using an anecdotal illustration. it was just a counterpoint on the opposite end.
the reality is, yeah, we're not doing a good job as a profession. however, we're also watching the profession shift beneath our feet and failing to figure out a response. generally speaking. the biggest issue for me, as stated, is failing to capture where the value is. and you partly describe it - we have too many people (for a majority of the firms - again, there's exceptions on both sides) who are focused on details that ultimately won't contribute to the overall value of the building.
one interesting question for me (having known 12+ people who have all jumped to the "Owner's" side over the past 6 years): why aren't we able to do anything these owner's reps are doing? why are we either giving away the turf, fees, both or more? i tend to think most architecture firms don't hire the right people but am curious to what you think.
sometimes i'm starting to think our profession has, at it's core, an incentive to reward people for being stupid. from the moment you think you want to be an architect you're taught to think what we, as professionals, do, is to draw neat pictures of buildings we might like. i don't think it's uncommon for architects, and even architecture students who have no idea what practice is actually like, complain about clients or budgets as if these are things that prevent you from seeing your vision come to fruition.
that mindset is rewarded through peers and professors and whoever else you come across, perhaps up until the point you get a license (or a job, or a client, or somewhere pretty far down the path, where it becomes difficult to turn back). on the other side, doing things that might help your business succeed, building infrastructure, managing tools, the things outside 'making a neat picture' tend to be either ignored, or sometimes even punished through pigeon-holing or otherwise being looked down on as someone who is not the designer making the neat picture.
much like doctors, lawyers, and accountants, architects are hired to do a job. if you go to a doctor needing your appendix taken out, and they tell you they want to give you a nose job instead, since your nose isn't in the 'style' they like, you might go to a nurse to get your appendectomy instead. it's not like the nurse can do a better job, but if the doctor is such a moron that he's going to give you a nose job instead of an appendectomy, it's not like it could be much worse. i'm starting to think it's usually not about the money. it's about the results. if architects aren't listening to their clients, clients will go elsewhere. the architect should always be the owner's rep, or on the "owner's side."
we often talk about the value the architect brings to the table. what value do we bring? why would the owner want to spend their money listening to you? i honestly think that, at least in some cases, architects are being pushed out of turf and fees not so much because we're unable to add value to the process, but because we're actually harmful to the process, because too many architects think they want to be prima donnas (or prima donne as the case may be).
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.