I'm a recent graduate (B.Arch) from the School of Planning and Architecture Delhi, and have been working in a small but well-established architecture firm in Delhi for the last one year. I am considering going for my Masters next fall (2015). I have an interest in urban and real estate development. I completely subscribe to the 'architect as developer' model and would like to be doing that kind of work within the next 5-10 years.
In India, what one sees are builders, but not really developers. Very few actually have a long term vision of how they are contributing to the city's development. Its quick money versus value addition. Obviously, design takes a beating. It might be idealistic to try and bridge this schism, but I am keen to look at pursuing my masters in subjects that would give me a broader understanding of urbanism, development models and value addition through design while equipping me with practical tools and skills to juggle between the multiple hats that an architect-developer needs to wear, especially with regards to understanding the economic/finance side of it. Also important here, is that I plan to eventually, practice in India.
Some of the courses I'm looking at:
MCP (specialization in CDD) at MIT with Electives from the Center for Real Estate(CRE)
MUP (specialization in Real Estate and Development) at Harvard GSD with electives at the CRE
MSRED at the CRE at MIT (unsure because it doesn't seem to be giving much emphasis on design and value addition as such)
These are the courses that I am finding most promising, but I'd really like to get more opinions, not just on these courses and schools, but also on other possible subject combinations (UD for instance) that could make my masters more useful, with a certain goal in mind. I am a little concerned planning might mean digressing a little too much from my focus.
I believe Jonathan Segal has pioneered this course at Woodbury University in California, but while the course intent and content seem to be perfect, I am worried that it might be too LA centric and at the same time, not well known enough. Are there any other courses or schools with a similar direction? I'm open to looking at Europe as well.
Sorry for the loooong post! Looking forward to some great suggestions,
Thanks!
batman
Jul 13, 14 2:13 pm
go to columbia MSRED
VB21
Jul 14, 14 12:55 am
Hi Batman,
From what I gathered, after speaking to an alumnus of the same program at Columbia , the course is extremely finance heavy, with hardly any emphasis on the role of design. Also, I believe the main advantage of Columbia is its location and the opportunities for networking. The person I spoke to seemed quite convinced that development for profit and development for good design were absolutely different things and that they don't overlap. I can't help but think that this reflects the school's approach towards development. One can only hope not. Then again this just one person's opinion, and I might be completely wrong. I'll definitely have another look at it, thanks!
I haven't found a whole lot more than what has already been identified here. The only school not mentioned here to my knowledge that has an actual combined MArch/MRED program is the University of Maryland. I can't vouch for the school's strength in design compared to the aforementioned schools, but it does explicitly offer this paring.
Because of this seemingly narrow selection of schools that offer real estate and architecture under the same roof, I've been expanding my searches to include schools that are accredited by the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB). Schools that offer a pairing of Architecture and Urban Planning may provide a good background in business and entitlement processes without losing sight of good design (or at the least not forgetting about it all together). This list is much longer and includes schools such as Cal Berkeley, UVA, UPenn, Michigan, and many more. My concern with PAB accredited schools is the same as yours about real estate development at Columbia however; just because the program is offered does not guarantee that it is integrated with the architecture program in any way. I would love to hear from the greater community if they have any experience with a successful pairing of architecture and planning.
My final comment comes from some recent suggestion I got from a former professor. Stick to the MArch. Go to a highly regarded program that lets you focus on some of the issues you're interested in through personal study, and get the real estate development experience through work in a firm. The logic is that--unlike a professional degree in architecture from a highly regarded school--knowledge and recognition in the development world might be better attained through experience in the field than at any school. Plus those classes will be boring as hell for a design-minded person.
I can't say I'm pivoting my search away from development completely...but I am feeling like it would be a missed opportunity to pass up acceptance at (or lose focus from) a highly regarded design program to spend countless hours learning how to make a proforma. I'd love to hear any thoughts about the validity of this logic.
Thanks everyone!
batman
Jul 14, 14 5:06 pm
Hi Batman,
From what I gathered, after speaking to an alumnus of the same program at Columbia , the course is extremely finance heavy, with hardly any emphasis on the role of design.
well first off all MSRED programs are going to be in heavy finance. developing is all about investing and creating a successful proforma (as the above poster said)
second, i dont know the other programs you mentioned and their relationship with design. I can only speak about GSAPP which design does influence and play a role in the program.
keep in mind, the MSRED program is WITHIN the architecture, planning, and preservation department. Theres a lot of collaborations between ms.red and other programs here for you to explore what and how design can play a role in development.
Also, I believe the main advantage of Columbia is its location and the opportunities for networking.
yes, and it is the best advantage you can get if you're all for development. all the top development firms are here in NY.
The person I spoke to seemed quite convinced that development for profit and development for good design were absolutely different things and that they don't overlap.
you need good design to get profit. thats a no brainer.
I can't help but think that this reflects the school's approach towards development. One can only hope not. Then again this just one person's opinion, and I might be completely wrong. I'll definitely have another look at it, thanks!
im doing a dual m.arch/ms.red in gsapp right now and i dont share the same sentiment as your buddy.
also i had a hard time trying to answer some of your questions. youre kind of all of the place. what exactly do you want to do professionally?
batman
Jul 14, 14 5:08 pm
I haven't found a whole lot more than what has already been identified here. The only school not mentioned here to my knowledge that has an actual combined MArch/MRED program is the University of Maryland. I can't vouch for the school's strength in design compared to the aforementioned schools, but it does explicitly offer this paring.
nope.
columbia has a dual
woodbury has a dual.
just to name a few
batman
Jul 14, 14 5:12 pm
My final comment comes from some recent suggestion I got from a former professor. Stick to the MArch. Go to a highly regarded program that lets you focus on some of the issues you're interested in through personal study, and get the real estate development experience through work in a firm. The logic is that--unlike a professional degree in architecture from a highly regarded school--knowledge and recognition in the development world might be better attained through experience in the field than at any school. Plus those classes will be boring as hell for a design-minded person.
if someone's going to find finance/real estate/development classes to be boring, why do development?
kpbs4041
Jul 14, 14 8:50 pm
columbia has a dual
woodbury has a dual.
just to name a few
Help us out and name a few more if you got 'em.
if someone's going to find finance/real estate/development classes to be boring, why do development?
You're probably right; I'm looking at it from the perspective of an architect who coordinates frequently with a developer in pre-design, not the 'architect as developer' model that VB mentioned. From what I've observed, even the highest level partners (at my firm, at least) who are working with developers to make a project pencil have gotten their finance savvy through years of work experience, not through classes. If a person wanted to identify as a developer themselves, they obviously benefit enormously from going to school for development/finance. And certainly, anyone who intends on coordinating with developers from the architectural side (as I do) would benefit from classes like this would benefit as well. I'm just not convinced its a necessity to have the degree.
With that said, I'm still in the research phase for my education path so I'd like to hear any thoughts on this reasoning.
batman
Jul 14, 14 9:10 pm
as i asked before,
what exactly do you want to do professionally?
kpbs4041
Jul 16, 14 8:51 pm
I thought you were asking OP that question. I plan on working for an architecture firm in a planning role.
VB21
Jul 20, 14 3:05 am
Hi Batman, Kpbs4041,
I have an interest in the following areas:
Public space
Retail spaces
Hospitality
Cultural spaces
Low cost housing
I imagine my self working towards a project with such components, of this scale and complexity in the next 5-10 years. I realize that such a project is not something that just happens. And I am not in a hurry. One has to start small and build from there on. But what I am sure of, is that I would like to work independently and for my myself, as a designer. I would rather be doing projects that I have some stake in. This is primarily because I want to work in an efficient setting where the dialogue between investor, client, architect and contractor is more rigorous and regular, and I feel like this can happen best if atleast 2 of these players, if not all, are under one roof.
So to put it simply, As of now, I see myself working as the chief architect, but having a much bigger stake in the project, in terms of my overall involvement. Realistically speaking, being the investor and the architect, while hiring the right contractors and renting/ selling to a client seems like the most plausible model to me, at the moment.
I hope that clarifies what I have in mind, professionally. Would your suggestions change?
Thanks.
faiyang
Jul 26, 14 11:39 pm
Hi all,
I pretty agree what kpbs4041 said.
Stick to the MArch. Go to a highly regarded program that lets you focus on some of the issues you're interested in through personal study, and get the real estate development experience through work in a firm.
Learning Real estate at school may only be one choice, and I am sure that GSAPP is a Good choice. I am also studying at GSAPP now.
And I hope we all got a better position in the future.
Hi,
I'm a recent graduate (B.Arch) from the School of Planning and Architecture Delhi, and have been working in a small but well-established architecture firm in Delhi for the last one year. I am considering going for my Masters next fall (2015). I have an interest in urban and real estate development. I completely subscribe to the 'architect as developer' model and would like to be doing that kind of work within the next 5-10 years.
In India, what one sees are builders, but not really developers. Very few actually have a long term vision of how they are contributing to the city's development. Its quick money versus value addition. Obviously, design takes a beating. It might be idealistic to try and bridge this schism, but I am keen to look at pursuing my masters in subjects that would give me a broader understanding of urbanism, development models and value addition through design while equipping me with practical tools and skills to juggle between the multiple hats that an architect-developer needs to wear, especially with regards to understanding the economic/finance side of it. Also important here, is that I plan to eventually, practice in India.
Some of the courses I'm looking at:
MCP (specialization in CDD) at MIT with Electives from the Center for Real Estate(CRE)
MUP (specialization in Real Estate and Development) at Harvard GSD with electives at the CRE
MSRED at the CRE at MIT (unsure because it doesn't seem to be giving much emphasis on design and value addition as such)
These are the courses that I am finding most promising, but I'd really like to get more opinions, not just on these courses and schools, but also on other possible subject combinations (UD for instance) that could make my masters more useful, with a certain goal in mind. I am a little concerned planning might mean digressing a little too much from my focus.
I believe Jonathan Segal has pioneered this course at Woodbury University in California, but while the course intent and content seem to be perfect, I am worried that it might be too LA centric and at the same time, not well known enough. Are there any other courses or schools with a similar direction? I'm open to looking at Europe as well.
Sorry for the loooong post! Looking forward to some great suggestions,
Thanks!
go to columbia MSRED
Hi Batman,
From what I gathered, after speaking to an alumnus of the same program at Columbia , the course is extremely finance heavy, with hardly any emphasis on the role of design. Also, I believe the main advantage of Columbia is its location and the opportunities for networking. The person I spoke to seemed quite convinced that development for profit and development for good design were absolutely different things and that they don't overlap. I can't help but think that this reflects the school's approach towards development. One can only hope not. Then again this just one person's opinion, and I might be completely wrong. I'll definitely have another look at it, thanks!
VB,
I saw your post on the thread I started (http://archinect.com/forum/thread/101406550/march-mup-vs-march-mred) and felt it was best to continue the conversation here since our questions seem to be aligned in many ways.
I haven't found a whole lot more than what has already been identified here. The only school not mentioned here to my knowledge that has an actual combined MArch/MRED program is the University of Maryland. I can't vouch for the school's strength in design compared to the aforementioned schools, but it does explicitly offer this paring.
Because of this seemingly narrow selection of schools that offer real estate and architecture under the same roof, I've been expanding my searches to include schools that are accredited by the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB). Schools that offer a pairing of Architecture and Urban Planning may provide a good background in business and entitlement processes without losing sight of good design (or at the least not forgetting about it all together). This list is much longer and includes schools such as Cal Berkeley, UVA, UPenn, Michigan, and many more. My concern with PAB accredited schools is the same as yours about real estate development at Columbia however; just because the program is offered does not guarantee that it is integrated with the architecture program in any way. I would love to hear from the greater community if they have any experience with a successful pairing of architecture and planning.
My final comment comes from some recent suggestion I got from a former professor. Stick to the MArch. Go to a highly regarded program that lets you focus on some of the issues you're interested in through personal study, and get the real estate development experience through work in a firm. The logic is that--unlike a professional degree in architecture from a highly regarded school--knowledge and recognition in the development world might be better attained through experience in the field than at any school. Plus those classes will be boring as hell for a design-minded person.
I can't say I'm pivoting my search away from development completely...but I am feeling like it would be a missed opportunity to pass up acceptance at (or lose focus from) a highly regarded design program to spend countless hours learning how to make a proforma. I'd love to hear any thoughts about the validity of this logic.
Thanks everyone!
Hi Batman,
From what I gathered, after speaking to an alumnus of the same program at Columbia , the course is extremely finance heavy, with hardly any emphasis on the role of design.
well first off all MSRED programs are going to be in heavy finance. developing is all about investing and creating a successful proforma (as the above poster said)
second, i dont know the other programs you mentioned and their relationship with design. I can only speak about GSAPP which design does influence and play a role in the program.
keep in mind, the MSRED program is WITHIN the architecture, planning, and preservation department. Theres a lot of collaborations between ms.red and other programs here for you to explore what and how design can play a role in development.
Also, I believe the main advantage of Columbia is its location and the opportunities for networking.
yes, and it is the best advantage you can get if you're all for development. all the top development firms are here in NY.
The person I spoke to seemed quite convinced that development for profit and development for good design were absolutely different things and that they don't overlap.
you need good design to get profit. thats a no brainer.
I can't help but think that this reflects the school's approach towards development. One can only hope not. Then again this just one person's opinion, and I might be completely wrong. I'll definitely have another look at it, thanks!
im doing a dual m.arch/ms.red in gsapp right now and i dont share the same sentiment as your buddy.
also i had a hard time trying to answer some of your questions. youre kind of all of the place. what exactly do you want to do professionally?
I haven't found a whole lot more than what has already been identified here. The only school not mentioned here to my knowledge that has an actual combined MArch/MRED program is the University of Maryland. I can't vouch for the school's strength in design compared to the aforementioned schools, but it does explicitly offer this paring.
nope.
columbia has a dual
woodbury has a dual.
just to name a few
My final comment comes from some recent suggestion I got from a former professor. Stick to the MArch. Go to a highly regarded program that lets you focus on some of the issues you're interested in through personal study, and get the real estate development experience through work in a firm. The logic is that--unlike a professional degree in architecture from a highly regarded school--knowledge and recognition in the development world might be better attained through experience in the field than at any school. Plus those classes will be boring as hell for a design-minded person.
if someone's going to find finance/real estate/development classes to be boring, why do development?
columbia has a dual
woodbury has a dual.
just to name a few
Help us out and name a few more if you got 'em.
if someone's going to find finance/real estate/development classes to be boring, why do development?
You're probably right; I'm looking at it from the perspective of an architect who coordinates frequently with a developer in pre-design, not the 'architect as developer' model that VB mentioned. From what I've observed, even the highest level partners (at my firm, at least) who are working with developers to make a project pencil have gotten their finance savvy through years of work experience, not through classes. If a person wanted to identify as a developer themselves, they obviously benefit enormously from going to school for development/finance. And certainly, anyone who intends on coordinating with developers from the architectural side (as I do) would benefit from classes like this would benefit as well. I'm just not convinced its a necessity to have the degree.
With that said, I'm still in the research phase for my education path so I'd like to hear any thoughts on this reasoning.
as i asked before,
what exactly do you want to do professionally?
I thought you were asking OP that question. I plan on working for an architecture firm in a planning role.
Hi Batman, Kpbs4041,
I have an interest in the following areas:
Public space
Retail spaces
Hospitality
Cultural spaces
Low cost housing
I imagine my self working towards a project with such components, of this scale and complexity in the next 5-10 years. I realize that such a project is not something that just happens. And I am not in a hurry. One has to start small and build from there on. But what I am sure of, is that I would like to work independently and for my myself, as a designer. I would rather be doing projects that I have some stake in. This is primarily because I want to work in an efficient setting where the dialogue between investor, client, architect and contractor is more rigorous and regular, and I feel like this can happen best if atleast 2 of these players, if not all, are under one roof.
So to put it simply, As of now, I see myself working as the chief architect, but having a much bigger stake in the project, in terms of my overall involvement. Realistically speaking, being the investor and the architect, while hiring the right contractors and renting/ selling to a client seems like the most plausible model to me, at the moment.
I hope that clarifies what I have in mind, professionally. Would your suggestions change?
Thanks.
Hi all,
I pretty agree what kpbs4041 said.
Stick to the MArch. Go to a highly regarded program that lets you focus on some of the issues you're interested in through personal study, and get the real estate development experience through work in a firm.
Learning Real estate at school may only be one choice, and I am sure that GSAPP is a Good choice. I am also studying at GSAPP now.
And I hope we all got a better position in the future.