my point is that we need to start pushing a view of the profession as a bit of a guild mentality. And part of that is linking industry manpower needs with school/program accreditation. Doctors do it very well.. lawyers and other professionals less so. Architects not at all.
How planners do it is interesting and worth considering. The accredition authority (PAB) and the certification/professional standards body (AICP) are both divisions of the APA. Planning seems on the surface to be completely disorganized but in this one respect the results are quite striking - completely predictable (linear) growth in Institute membership over something like 40 years (now roughly stable at just above 14,000 nationally) and only 8 new programs accredited (4 undergrad, 4 graduate) from 2000 to 2010. of a total of roughly 130 accredited programs int he country... Tufts and 7 land grant schols, half of which were actually just reinstatements of previously suspended or cancelled accreditations Loss of accreditation is routinely handed out (including, rumors have it, suspending the GSD a few years back, when they proposed to massively expand their program and change requirements).
Linking practice with professional education makes sense.
The white bars reflect licensed architects by state (resident architects). The red bars represent non-resident licensed architects for the entire US (so 2008 = 116,221 + 104,126 = 220,347) It seems to me that the growth in state-resident architects is fine - keeping up with population. If you add to that growth in non-resident architects, it gets out of control.
do you know if they take into account multiple registrations and/or inactive registrations? for example, i'm registered in 4-6 states, but there's only 'one' of me from an absolute standpoint.
also, my wife, who maintains a current registration, doesn't practice anymore. it would be hard to believe she's the only one.
quizzical.. it's an NCARB definition: Those architects using NCARB license portability/reciprocity to practice in other than the state in which they were orignially licensed.
outed: I surmise - but don't know for sure - that "non resident architects" are those individuals who might be licensed in other jurisdictions than their home state -- if that's the case, then there's a lot of multiple counting taking place if "resident" and "non resident" are combined.
this graphic - while VERY interesting - doesn't seem to take into consideration three important factors: a) the explosion, from the early 80s forward, of graduate architects in this country (many of which have not pursued, or completed, licensure); b) the impact of inflation on the value of new construction put into place; and c) the distinction between "total" population and "urban" population (*)
absent those clarifications, I think it ill-advised to draw too many conclusions from this data.
(*) the rural population tends to not have much need for architects.
In several states depending on the situation, non-resident architects may not practice within those states without getting certification within that state itself.
The rest of the states have little-to-no formal policies regarding what exactly is and what exactly can a non-resident architect actually do. So, non-resident architects would refer to those simply outside of NCARB (meaning outside of the country).
"Is an NCARB Certificate holder not registered in your jurisdiction allowed to offer services in your jurisdiction without first being registered?
Yes
AR CO DE IA MA MS MO MT NE NV NH OH PA SC WV WY
No
AL AK AZ CA CT DC FL GA GU HI ID IL IN KS KY LA ME MD MI MN NJ NM NY NC ND OK OR PR RI SD TN TX UT VT VI VA WA WI"
So, if I'm an architect in GA and I'm building a home in CO, the 'non-resident' architecture claim is bogus unless the county or municipality in CO requires state regristation.
But NCARB's position on non-resident architects seems to be more focus on licensing architects internationally than interstately (I cant believbe that's a word)?
In which case, there's a level of complexity involved in declaring architectural activity and associating with a local firm in non-resident architectural practice.
The US census is reporting close to 310 million people, dividing that number by 220,347 licensed architects gives us = 1407 Licensed architects per Million people. hope i divided correctly, juggling my one year old son on my lap here.
So we have 1407 Architects for every 1,000,000 people.
So the numbers do not support the idea that there are too many people going to architecture college, it just does not make sense to keep people out, or have professors act any more difficult than they already do.
14 hundred architects per million people? that is a very low number of options for those million people.
PS. the Census reports national participation at 72% if everyone responded there would be even less Architects per million people.
good point quizz.. I think it's more suggestive of a trend-line than definitive in any way.
The other thing it does not take into account (but another graphi n that same PDF does) is the gross drop over 5 years in construction value (and hence in fees) per architect.
I'm wouldn't be too concerned about the unlicensed folks, just because, the moment you become licensed, they become complementary to you instead of competitive.. unless you're assuming that they represent a hidden pool that will suddenly all decide to GET licensed in the future (kind of a like a giant age pyramid iceberg). Since I'm also a planner, I follow the planning profession data, and it doesn't look this is happening (the proportion between non-certified professionals working in urban planning vs certified planner has been roughly constant at around 2.8:1 for decades (now 40,000 to .I have no idea what the comparable stat for arch designers:architects is, but it might not be as bad you think.
Overall, there's a silver lining here: while real estate/construction ballooned then exploited, licensed architects really didn't.. or did so less than the rest of the industry.. Thus, the trade is bloated but less bloated than, say, real estate bankers are.
very interesting thread - I'll throw this out there, interested for feedback, figured i'd share
it seems part of the issue is that we (in the U.S.) have always been able to count on relatively high rates of growth and the production of architects is geared toward that. there's always been westward expansion, the development of urban centers in relationship to industrialization, the transition from an urban/rural dynamic to the development of vast suburbs & a concomitant restructuring of urban centers, etc, etc. At first much of this high growth was in the northeast, then the midwest, the west, and more recently the southeast, with other areas continuing to grow rapidly or not.
but at the moment, we may be in the midst of a waning of the most recent of these modes of high growth. - and it is unclear whether the new paradigm that emerges will be based on long-term limited growth, and hence a structural realignment of the profession in response, or whether a new frontier will be opened that perpetuates the existing model based on an assumption of high growth.
options for new frontiers include working mostly overseas, even if practicing from here, extending architecture's territory into other professional domains (interiors, structural, facilities management, corporate ethnography, product design, simulation, strategic planning & analysis, etc), opening up the ocean or space for development, restructuring our own infrastructure around mass transit, alternative energy, etc, or adopting a very rigorous stance with regard to the 2030 challenge.
at the moment, it is unclear whether we are moving toward an extended period of limited growth, or whether structural realignment in the broader economy and society will open up a new frontier and allow for the perpetuation of the current model. until the direction becomes clear, things will be tumultuous and the likelihood of identifying a response with robust and long-term capacity to improve industry conditions is unlikely.
if i had to bet, i would guess that we'll find a new way to sustain high growth. if we don't, we run the risk of not staying competitive technologically, as the engines of innovation tend to concentrate around critical need+resources.
so if there is to be high growth, and if we are at end of the useful life of the existing modes of generating high growth, what will be the new needs?
one thought is that, as I believe Bill Gates noted, robotics may be for the next 20-30 years what computers have been for the previous 20-30 years. In short, we are building intelligence, sensing and actuation into everything now and that trend will only accelerate. This is not just arms and humanoids. This will be true of buildings in large part, too. So, if buildings really are becoming machines to live in, what is our role in guiding their development? As importantly, how does one guide the development of a thoroughly integrated intelligent/responsive environment? In large part, we are absent from the discourse, which is dominated by folks from IEEE & ACM. We stand to lose more ground. Yet, I think this may be the frontier we come to depend on for high-growth in our industry.
I'm against the whole concept of it, but given the situation, I have contemplated on "volunteering" given that I want to get a foot in the door of the industry.
I think the there's several key 'issues'-- a variety of technocratic fantasies-- when looking at robotics as a 'way of the future.'
I'll throw this out there for starters and as a sort of 'cultural' criticism of robotics:
Robotics and the pursuit of artificial life satisfies a modern worldwide appetite for slavery-- an inexhaustible workforce with little-to-no ethical dilemmas regarding the utilization or ownership of artificial beings.
In some sense, the modern world has a sort of 'chattel' domain over many of our own machines. My relationship with my toaster in the most abstract line of reasoning is a tumultuous relationship of tawdry malevolence. I use to to the point of mechanical failure, I frequently beat it when it malfunctions or becomes filthy and I insert all sorts of alien objects into its 100-something volt viscera.
If this toaster was a conscious being, it would suffer from PTSD. But, this is a fine line. Not just for the rights of mechanical beings... but one can see a reflection in the order of our own society.
If we cannot utilize and manage our own human 'refuse,' will adding artificial beings onto the big pile of social ills do more harm than good? Will the utilization of robots produce even more human 'refuse?'
Robotics isn't entirely a benign creation either. They're expensive, they demand resources past their initial creation and their disposal has many questions both ethically and environmentally.
Point two.
Will we even have enough energy to sustain robots? One can argue that technology will close this gap eventually but current estimations suggest that we may eventually hit that peak before any substantive technological leap happens.
To veer away from energy and looking towards other resources, a major focus right now should be on other resources that are becoming increasingly scarce and finite.
1) Water-- Many areas of not just the US but worldwide are currently operating at net water deficits with some areas importing water from hundreds of miles away. Although many assume electricity is the backbone of industry and commerce, water undoubted plays a much larger role that everyone always overlooks. And waterless urinals, low flow toilets and showers every other day are a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the water use across the board.
2) Nitrogen-- Despite our atmosphere being comprised of like 72% of it and it being in literally every living thing, some parts of the world are actually experiencing nitrogen shortages. A limited nitrogen cycle can eventually lead to aridity and desertification that is seemingly irreversible. Uncontrolled and unmitigated swings in the nitrogen cycle lead to things like ecological collapse.
3) Phosphorous-- Both absolutely necessary to modern life and to life in general, there has been concern about the future availability and production capacity of this element. Lands that are becoming deplete in phosphorous are now being abandoned where as remote areas with high phosphorous contents are now being actively developed.
The presence and abundance of phosphorous is a limiting factor biologically. In previous eras, phosphorous as a fertilizer was relatively cheap but increased demand and increased consumption has pushed the affordability in favor of new development.
Point three.
There's a consensus amongst some urban planners that we have a limited timeframe for developing working cities that address many environmental issues outside of energy concerns.
The United States, for instance, has very few or any complex water storage strategies that store water from multiple sources and recycle and retain said water.
We currently have a limited nitrogen recycling and reclamation capacity. As far as phosphorous, the U.S. currently has no operational phosphorous recycling capacity.
When it comes to recycling overall, the U.S. recycling system is fundamentally broken. And when it comes to indirect recycling of energy and waste (incineration, co-generation), there are very limited and sometimes highly specific instances of any of that going on.
One primary reason is that there is no tax base for it. And areas that have the tax base for it, they're often so old or so inflexible that new infrastructural systems are prohibitively expensive or cumbersome.
Final Point
We have a lot more problems were unwilling to admit that are far more pressing than replacing the window washer with a robotic Mexican.
In anything, architecture should be addressing on how to play more friendly with connecting to and contributing to these massive treatment and recycling infrastructures that we desperately need. If we build them right and build them well, they should last us a century or more.
with respect to your point, if you had to project, and bear in mind that i have limited points of reference for what your are discussing so if i am off-base, i apologize, do you see the management of such resources assuming the McDonough model of technical and biological nutrients managed in closed and open loops respectively, or when you discuss recycling and vital resources, do you imagine it going some other way?
Also, though recycling is a focus, it seems as though you are suggesting there are some larger changes to infrastructure that have to assume a direction before architecture can develop its response. Is that accurate?
-------------------------------------------------
point of clarification on the environmental robotics issue --- the argument for why we need to engage in this area is sort of analogous to the argument advanced by Stuart Brand, Cameron Sinclair and others for why we need to engage favelas and other emerging squatter cities that currently exist outside of the institutional infrastructures of their locales --- that is, the way things are going, in the not too distant future they will be massive and powerful political, social and economic entities in their own right, if not already, with their own laws and economies, and in order to not set up conflict or power struggles at some future point, they should be integrated into the existing institutional fabric now while it is possible, even if difficult
in a similar way, you are right, machines currently are slaves --- but in 50 or 100 years that will be less true and more difficult to maintain as the status quo --- it is counter-productive to try to maintain unqualified dominion over anything that is potentially more intelligent/powerful than you --- it sets up conflict --- not making them is not an option because development currently has much inertia --- so if we're going down this road, which we are, and we are making something that will potentially rival our capacities in the not to distant future, which we are, how do we make them not a threat to us --- current guesses are that co-dependency and socialization are key --- they need us, we need them, they respect us, we respect them --- given this, and with respect to intelligent/responsive architecture, to work at all, it has to not be a slave but a partner, a brother, a friend, otherwise, we'll be in danger and should stop now, which we won't
2nd, distinctions are not clear, where does autonomous robot end and bevy of manipulator arms in an operating room guided by complex sensor network and decision making intelligence with some AI included but also responding with high fidelity to the behavior and guidance of the surgeon end? and in 20 years is all of the intelligence in that OR surgical manipulator in your bathroom or kitchen, a helpful participant in your daily activities? the continuum from autonomous agent to your toaster, and from stand-alone robot to embedded environmental agents, is complex enough that likely the sort of intelligence built into your environment will be more akin to a "domestic herd" or "flock" or your "digital livestock" --- like smart domestic animals, quasi-intelligent agents from which you benefit, you take care of them, they take care of you --- weiser & seely brown's "calm technology." It is being developed by the UbiComp, Pervasive & CHI, IEEE & ACM crowds, we just don't have much say at the moment, because not many designers are involved.
but the sort of big-picture, integrated thinking and coordination we excel at is arguably much needed so that such an intelligent domestic environment is not just an assemblage of engineered products but guided by a vision for how this integrates with daily routine and the experience of one's environment --- either we will step into the void or product designers will
but it is not fantasy and it is not optional, it is in development yet still poorly understood
Displaced, I came to the opposite conclusion as you.
"So we have 1407 Architects for every 1,000,000 people. "
I think this is way too many. In a city of, say, the size of Portland Oregon, 1400 architects is a lot, given the number of projects that people embark on.
Fewer architects would mean that smaller firms would have more of a chance, and that fees could be better per architect. Scarcity and demand.
As it is, there's always some guy around the corner who's willing to do it cheaper, then cut the wages of his employees to make it happen. Architecture graduates, desperate for a job, accept his offer of Starbucks-level wages and think it's great.
Meanwhile, their friends who are lawyers, doctors, even plumbers, make more than they do.
Well Farwest,
The first thing is that Architects have always complained that there are too many architects, that is why we have a number of barriers for people to go through before calling themselves Architect. <b>Statistics do not tell us all data about in this case licensed architects, how many are actually practicing on their own for themselves I mean? How many are working for other architects? and due to what im calling this Great Architecture Depression, how many architects are out of work? How many have had to change professions? after all we have bills to pay. If statistics took all these things into account you would find that the 1400 number is much smaller today, and remember that the census is estimating 72% participation, so in reality there are probably close to 350 Million people here today.
I have a lot of respect for smaller firms, because that is one place where you are thrown in the mix right away, of course the draw back is that they don't pay much or don't offer good benefits, and bosses are tyrannical micro managers.
You are right about people taking advantage of recent graduates, but legally speaking those graduates cant stamp the cd's, and that's why i advocate that we get together and form our own offices that are down at the neighborhood level vs being high up on a tower or far away in the middle of a pristine neighborhood.
We, I mean all of us generation x and y'rs, and all those unemployed more experienced people have to work together, we have to change the way we do business or perish.
You know farwest, that the people who are still working are not necessarily the best of the best, i can speak from personal experience, we have a lot of talented unemployed architects.
It is too bad that this web-site is no longer active...
Whenever I share with other professionals the story of architects not working for pay, the amount of uncontrollable laughter is indescribable. A recent response "...architects with all their fancy degrees, aren't smart or savy enough to get paid?" Architects continuously act as their own worst enemies...the best way to drive down fees is to not be able to justify your fees to your clients, let alone yourself. How can architects justify charging any "professional" fees if they do not value their professional staff and lack any semblance of professionalism?
Unfortunately, if we have learned anything it is that much of architecture is a luxury...and to compound that problem there are a bunch of "rich" kids that do not need to be compensated, as they can live in their BMW's and there are a bunch of "architects" that do not need to charge fees, as they already own yachts.
remember that roughly 7% of the total housing stock and 4% of the commercial/institutonal building stock need to be replaced or substantially refurbished every year for about the next decade or so. In theory, you can only defer this process for so long despite the crisis on the financing side, given population growth or even with stable population. Someone's going to be designing much of this stuff (say, half that housing and all ofthe commercial/institutional space).
the thread was already drifting, so i did not think i was threadjacking, if it came off that way, i apologize. the thread was drifting to cause, circumstance and what to do, so i threw out there:
- it seems some other things (policy/market trends) have to settle into place first before our industry knows in which direction it will be moving aggressively to rekindle opportunity and grow the market
- when considering a slow to no growth scenario vs high growth scenario, it seems the powers that be will find a way to reignite a high growth economy to stay competitive and to do so, it seems a new technological infrastructure or mode of living is required to spark high growth on a big enough scale --- some things like sustainability, renewable energy, or Mr. Gates' comment are possibilities
- lastly, with respect to discussions above about architects losing pieces of the pie to related fields, my intention was to suggest that we should be on a counter-offensive, so to speak, b/c we have skills with which we can leverage into other areas
I've been responding to the "we want highly talented labor for free" emails acting like I'm interested so that I can get the name of the offending firms.
And then report them to whichever organization tries to give a damn.
"So we have 1407 Architects for every 1,000,000 people."
hehe.. I comforted by the fact that there are 45 certified planners and 84 non-certified planners per 1,000,000 people, since I practice as a planner/urban designer ;-)
not all 1407 architects are practicing, let alone owning their own office, I like most other people am too smart to believe these numbers, kind of like Arch. college rankings, but good for you Urbanist
My point is the same - our profession must start behaving like a guild, where AIA and NCARB work together to apply pressure (by rationing accreditation) on new academic programs and program expansions, to attempt to control the number of people entering the profession. This is the one thing that the PAB actually does kind of do in planning, whether intentionally or not.
Especially since it costs absoutely nothing to live in New York City.... Rolls eyes...
Again if the"leaders" of these firms can't afford to pay people for their skills they should not be hiring in the first place. My guess is that somewhere along the lines the fucked up really badly mismanaging their money and ended up having to lay off all their paid people without getting the job done. now they need experienced production people to finish the jobs trying to convince them they are "entry level" even with 2 or 3 years of experience so that they don't have to pay them a dime....
well a always thought that the fact that a lot of colleges discontinued their City and Regional Planning department had a lot to do with the the low number of Planners, in my Alma mater, a few of those city and regional professors still thought when i was around and i have a healthy dose of respect and knowledge of city and regional planning. I believe that an architect should be as knowledgeable as he can be about everything. Granted i learned a lot more on my own.
I think that's far enough DonQuixote. lower demand is definitely a factor for them... it's less sexy. But the PAB's annoying and sometimes invasive accredition standards are another factor - frequent visitors commitees, somewhat arbitrary (and changing) course requirements and frequent threats of suspensions keep new accredited Programs to a minimum.
@urbanist: "our profession must start behaving like a guild, where AIA and NCARB work together to apply pressure (by rationing accreditation) on new academic programs and program expansions, to attempt to control the number of people entering the profession."
That appears to be the exact opposite of what should be done. I know that after jumping through a number of mindless hoops, one wishes to bask in the glory of professional exclusivity, even shrink the size of those hoops behind you to eliminate potential competition. That's exactly the shitty state of affairs we are currently in.
I don't even know why architecture (let alone urban planning) has any kind of certification at this point. It's not like the stamp has much of a meaningful power behind it. Make sure it don't leak, and you'll be lawsuit free. A job any sales rep for sheet wrapping company can accomplish.
Neither architecture nor urban planning were academic pursuits 100 years ago. Yet we somehow managed. In case of urban-planning in America, I would associate birth of Urban-planning degrees with disappearance of great American cities...
@DonQuixote: Tone it down man! You only have 20 posts on handful of threads and have already managed to come across as the most self-absorbed member on this site. We get it. You're the smartest. You went to the best school, etc.....
steel studs,
you should remember that licensing and making architecture more exclusive was not started by the USA, but it definitely has been taken to a level that is not seen in any other country in the world. Do we need it to be this hard? I think because we are all different, we can't say we are all treated equally, maybe it should be a case by case decision i don't know, but that is the way we are here in the USA, kind of like a hunter gatherer mentality, gathering degrees, killing interns, and hunting jobs.
PS. i didn't realize i had a fan club, or that I had toned it up? I will dumb down my responses to adequately tone it down. thanks ss.
With respect, your view is somewhat simplistic. The planners blame the architects of CIAM for the worst mid-century excesses and vice versa, but both fields, in their contemporary form, predate that era, if only by 3 or 4 generations.
Whether or not planners acknowledge it, the origins of their profession, in its current form, comes directly out of Ildefons Cerdà, on the social/policy/land-use & zoning side (1815-1876) and Camillo Sitte (1946-1903) on the physical design side. More or less contemporaneously, at the latter end of their active period, many of their ideas were brought ot the Americans, conflated with landscape architecture and other Romantic notions, on one hand, and tenament law reform/the settlement house movement, on the other, and got transformed into a pirated version of the same (e.g., Daniel Burnham, 1846-1912). I won't rehash architectural academic history during the same period because we all know it here, but it closely parallels these developments.
Both fields were subsequently transformed, beginning in the late 1920s and on into the 1960s and 1970s by CIAM and CIAMish notions of urban functionalism and physical segregation. But, as shoud be obvious, the roots of the two disciplines in their contemporary form, predates the CIAM era by approximately a century. Frankly, I blame the GSD, on both accounts ;-) just kidding.
I'd also add in Pierre L'Enfant into a historical consideration in American planning. That would add another 50 or so years onto the start of formal American planning as an academic/intellectual and engineer pursuit.
There needs to be an ANTI-WORK-FOR-FREE MOVEMENT. BOYCOTT NO-PAY FIRMS!!!
my point is that we need to start pushing a view of the profession as a bit of a guild mentality. And part of that is linking industry manpower needs with school/program accreditation. Doctors do it very well.. lawyers and other professionals less so. Architects not at all.
How planners do it is interesting and worth considering. The accredition authority (PAB) and the certification/professional standards body (AICP) are both divisions of the APA. Planning seems on the surface to be completely disorganized but in this one respect the results are quite striking - completely predictable (linear) growth in Institute membership over something like 40 years (now roughly stable at just above 14,000 nationally) and only 8 new programs accredited (4 undergrad, 4 graduate) from 2000 to 2010. of a total of roughly 130 accredited programs int he country... Tufts and 7 land grant schols, half of which were actually just reinstatements of previously suspended or cancelled accreditations Loss of accreditation is routinely handed out (including, rumors have it, suspending the GSD a few years back, when they proposed to massively expand their program and change requirements).
Linking practice with professional education makes sense.
Quizzical,
The article is very fit, thanks for posting it.
Source: Stairway to Architecture
The white bars reflect licensed architects by state (resident architects). The red bars represent non-resident licensed architects for the entire US (so 2008 = 116,221 + 104,126 = 220,347) It seems to me that the growth in state-resident architects is fine - keeping up with population. If you add to that growth in non-resident architects, it gets out of control.
ok, now we can read better.
Urbanist: how about reposting that image (or provide us a link) so we can see the who chart?
who = whole
ah ... thanks
In the context of the above graphic, what is a "non resident" architect, please?
very cool - thanks as well for posting it.
do you know if they take into account multiple registrations and/or inactive registrations? for example, i'm registered in 4-6 states, but there's only 'one' of me from an absolute standpoint.
also, my wife, who maintains a current registration, doesn't practice anymore. it would be hard to believe she's the only one.
quizzical.. it's an NCARB definition: Those architects using NCARB license portability/reciprocity to practice in other than the state in which they were orignially licensed.
Imports.
Non-resident architects refer to both out-of-state and out-of-country licensed architects practicing elsewhere.
I.e., Hiring a french firm to do a pool house through a NY firm when you live in Tennessee.
actually unicorn, I don't think that's it.
outed: I surmise - but don't know for sure - that "non resident architects" are those individuals who might be licensed in other jurisdictions than their home state -- if that's the case, then there's a lot of multiple counting taking place if "resident" and "non resident" are combined.
this graphic - while VERY interesting - doesn't seem to take into consideration three important factors: a) the explosion, from the early 80s forward, of graduate architects in this country (many of which have not pursued, or completed, licensure); b) the impact of inflation on the value of new construction put into place; and c) the distinction between "total" population and "urban" population (*)
absent those clarifications, I think it ill-advised to draw too many conclusions from this data.
(*) the rural population tends to not have much need for architects.
In several states depending on the situation, non-resident architects may not practice within those states without getting certification within that state itself.
The rest of the states have little-to-no formal policies regarding what exactly is and what exactly can a non-resident architect actually do. So, non-resident architects would refer to those simply outside of NCARB (meaning outside of the country).
"Is an NCARB Certificate holder not registered in your jurisdiction allowed to offer services in your jurisdiction without first being registered?
Yes
AR CO DE IA MA MS MO MT NE NV NH OH PA SC WV WY
No
AL AK AZ CA CT DC FL GA GU HI ID IL IN KS KY LA ME MD MI MN NJ NM NY NC ND OK OR PR RI SD TN TX UT VT VI VA WA WI"
So, if I'm an architect in GA and I'm building a home in CO, the 'non-resident' architecture claim is bogus unless the county or municipality in CO requires state regristation.
But NCARB's position on non-resident architects seems to be more focus on licensing architects internationally than interstately (I cant believbe that's a word)?
In which case, there's a level of complexity involved in declaring architectural activity and associating with a local firm in non-resident architectural practice.
The US census is reporting close to 310 million people, dividing that number by 220,347 licensed architects gives us = 1407 Licensed architects per Million people. hope i divided correctly, juggling my one year old son on my lap here.
So we have 1407 Architects for every 1,000,000 people.
So the numbers do not support the idea that there are too many people going to architecture college, it just does not make sense to keep people out, or have professors act any more difficult than they already do.
14 hundred architects per million people? that is a very low number of options for those million people.
PS. the Census reports national participation at 72% if everyone responded there would be even less Architects per million people.
good point quizz.. I think it's more suggestive of a trend-line than definitive in any way.
The other thing it does not take into account (but another graphi n that same PDF does) is the gross drop over 5 years in construction value (and hence in fees) per architect.
I'm wouldn't be too concerned about the unlicensed folks, just because, the moment you become licensed, they become complementary to you instead of competitive.. unless you're assuming that they represent a hidden pool that will suddenly all decide to GET licensed in the future (kind of a like a giant age pyramid iceberg). Since I'm also a planner, I follow the planning profession data, and it doesn't look this is happening (the proportion between non-certified professionals working in urban planning vs certified planner has been roughly constant at around 2.8:1 for decades (now 40,000 to .I have no idea what the comparable stat for arch designers:architects is, but it might not be as bad you think.
Overall, there's a silver lining here: while real estate/construction ballooned then exploited, licensed architects really didn't.. or did so less than the rest of the industry.. Thus, the trade is bloated but less bloated than, say, real estate bankers are.
I may not have a formal architectural education but I know NCARB regulations like the back of my hand!
sorry... 40,000 total people working in a professional capacity in urban planning to 14,000 certified planners.
very interesting thread - I'll throw this out there, interested for feedback, figured i'd share
it seems part of the issue is that we (in the U.S.) have always been able to count on relatively high rates of growth and the production of architects is geared toward that. there's always been westward expansion, the development of urban centers in relationship to industrialization, the transition from an urban/rural dynamic to the development of vast suburbs & a concomitant restructuring of urban centers, etc, etc. At first much of this high growth was in the northeast, then the midwest, the west, and more recently the southeast, with other areas continuing to grow rapidly or not.
but at the moment, we may be in the midst of a waning of the most recent of these modes of high growth. - and it is unclear whether the new paradigm that emerges will be based on long-term limited growth, and hence a structural realignment of the profession in response, or whether a new frontier will be opened that perpetuates the existing model based on an assumption of high growth.
options for new frontiers include working mostly overseas, even if practicing from here, extending architecture's territory into other professional domains (interiors, structural, facilities management, corporate ethnography, product design, simulation, strategic planning & analysis, etc), opening up the ocean or space for development, restructuring our own infrastructure around mass transit, alternative energy, etc, or adopting a very rigorous stance with regard to the 2030 challenge.
at the moment, it is unclear whether we are moving toward an extended period of limited growth, or whether structural realignment in the broader economy and society will open up a new frontier and allow for the perpetuation of the current model. until the direction becomes clear, things will be tumultuous and the likelihood of identifying a response with robust and long-term capacity to improve industry conditions is unlikely.
if i had to bet, i would guess that we'll find a new way to sustain high growth. if we don't, we run the risk of not staying competitive technologically, as the engines of innovation tend to concentrate around critical need+resources.
so if there is to be high growth, and if we are at end of the useful life of the existing modes of generating high growth, what will be the new needs?
one thought is that, as I believe Bill Gates noted, robotics may be for the next 20-30 years what computers have been for the previous 20-30 years. In short, we are building intelligence, sensing and actuation into everything now and that trend will only accelerate. This is not just arms and humanoids. This will be true of buildings in large part, too. So, if buildings really are becoming machines to live in, what is our role in guiding their development? As importantly, how does one guide the development of a thoroughly integrated intelligent/responsive environment? In large part, we are absent from the discourse, which is dominated by folks from IEEE & ACM. We stand to lose more ground. Yet, I think this may be the frontier we come to depend on for high-growth in our industry.
I'm against the whole concept of it, but given the situation, I have contemplated on "volunteering" given that I want to get a foot in the door of the industry.
I think the there's several key 'issues'-- a variety of technocratic fantasies-- when looking at robotics as a 'way of the future.'
I'll throw this out there for starters and as a sort of 'cultural' criticism of robotics:
Robotics and the pursuit of artificial life satisfies a modern worldwide appetite for slavery-- an inexhaustible workforce with little-to-no ethical dilemmas regarding the utilization or ownership of artificial beings.
In some sense, the modern world has a sort of 'chattel' domain over many of our own machines. My relationship with my toaster in the most abstract line of reasoning is a tumultuous relationship of tawdry malevolence. I use to to the point of mechanical failure, I frequently beat it when it malfunctions or becomes filthy and I insert all sorts of alien objects into its 100-something volt viscera.
If this toaster was a conscious being, it would suffer from PTSD. But, this is a fine line. Not just for the rights of mechanical beings... but one can see a reflection in the order of our own society.
If we cannot utilize and manage our own human 'refuse,' will adding artificial beings onto the big pile of social ills do more harm than good? Will the utilization of robots produce even more human 'refuse?'
Robotics isn't entirely a benign creation either. They're expensive, they demand resources past their initial creation and their disposal has many questions both ethically and environmentally.
Point two.
Will we even have enough energy to sustain robots? One can argue that technology will close this gap eventually but current estimations suggest that we may eventually hit that peak before any substantive technological leap happens.
To veer away from energy and looking towards other resources, a major focus right now should be on other resources that are becoming increasingly scarce and finite.
1) Water-- Many areas of not just the US but worldwide are currently operating at net water deficits with some areas importing water from hundreds of miles away. Although many assume electricity is the backbone of industry and commerce, water undoubted plays a much larger role that everyone always overlooks. And waterless urinals, low flow toilets and showers every other day are a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the water use across the board.
2) Nitrogen-- Despite our atmosphere being comprised of like 72% of it and it being in literally every living thing, some parts of the world are actually experiencing nitrogen shortages. A limited nitrogen cycle can eventually lead to aridity and desertification that is seemingly irreversible. Uncontrolled and unmitigated swings in the nitrogen cycle lead to things like ecological collapse.
3) Phosphorous-- Both absolutely necessary to modern life and to life in general, there has been concern about the future availability and production capacity of this element. Lands that are becoming deplete in phosphorous are now being abandoned where as remote areas with high phosphorous contents are now being actively developed.
The presence and abundance of phosphorous is a limiting factor biologically. In previous eras, phosphorous as a fertilizer was relatively cheap but increased demand and increased consumption has pushed the affordability in favor of new development.
Point three.
There's a consensus amongst some urban planners that we have a limited timeframe for developing working cities that address many environmental issues outside of energy concerns.
The United States, for instance, has very few or any complex water storage strategies that store water from multiple sources and recycle and retain said water.
We currently have a limited nitrogen recycling and reclamation capacity. As far as phosphorous, the U.S. currently has no operational phosphorous recycling capacity.
When it comes to recycling overall, the U.S. recycling system is fundamentally broken. And when it comes to indirect recycling of energy and waste (incineration, co-generation), there are very limited and sometimes highly specific instances of any of that going on.
One primary reason is that there is no tax base for it. And areas that have the tax base for it, they're often so old or so inflexible that new infrastructural systems are prohibitively expensive or cumbersome.
Final Point
We have a lot more problems were unwilling to admit that are far more pressing than replacing the window washer with a robotic Mexican.
In anything, architecture should be addressing on how to play more friendly with connecting to and contributing to these massive treatment and recycling infrastructures that we desperately need. If we build them right and build them well, they should last us a century or more.
v. interesting response, Unicorn Ghost
with respect to your point, if you had to project, and bear in mind that i have limited points of reference for what your are discussing so if i am off-base, i apologize, do you see the management of such resources assuming the McDonough model of technical and biological nutrients managed in closed and open loops respectively, or when you discuss recycling and vital resources, do you imagine it going some other way?
Also, though recycling is a focus, it seems as though you are suggesting there are some larger changes to infrastructure that have to assume a direction before architecture can develop its response. Is that accurate?
-------------------------------------------------
point of clarification on the environmental robotics issue --- the argument for why we need to engage in this area is sort of analogous to the argument advanced by Stuart Brand, Cameron Sinclair and others for why we need to engage favelas and other emerging squatter cities that currently exist outside of the institutional infrastructures of their locales --- that is, the way things are going, in the not too distant future they will be massive and powerful political, social and economic entities in their own right, if not already, with their own laws and economies, and in order to not set up conflict or power struggles at some future point, they should be integrated into the existing institutional fabric now while it is possible, even if difficult
in a similar way, you are right, machines currently are slaves --- but in 50 or 100 years that will be less true and more difficult to maintain as the status quo --- it is counter-productive to try to maintain unqualified dominion over anything that is potentially more intelligent/powerful than you --- it sets up conflict --- not making them is not an option because development currently has much inertia --- so if we're going down this road, which we are, and we are making something that will potentially rival our capacities in the not to distant future, which we are, how do we make them not a threat to us --- current guesses are that co-dependency and socialization are key --- they need us, we need them, they respect us, we respect them --- given this, and with respect to intelligent/responsive architecture, to work at all, it has to not be a slave but a partner, a brother, a friend, otherwise, we'll be in danger and should stop now, which we won't
2nd, distinctions are not clear, where does autonomous robot end and bevy of manipulator arms in an operating room guided by complex sensor network and decision making intelligence with some AI included but also responding with high fidelity to the behavior and guidance of the surgeon end? and in 20 years is all of the intelligence in that OR surgical manipulator in your bathroom or kitchen, a helpful participant in your daily activities? the continuum from autonomous agent to your toaster, and from stand-alone robot to embedded environmental agents, is complex enough that likely the sort of intelligence built into your environment will be more akin to a "domestic herd" or "flock" or your "digital livestock" --- like smart domestic animals, quasi-intelligent agents from which you benefit, you take care of them, they take care of you --- weiser & seely brown's "calm technology." It is being developed by the UbiComp, Pervasive & CHI, IEEE & ACM crowds, we just don't have much say at the moment, because not many designers are involved.
but the sort of big-picture, integrated thinking and coordination we excel at is arguably much needed so that such an intelligent domestic environment is not just an assemblage of engineered products but guided by a vision for how this integrates with daily routine and the experience of one's environment --- either we will step into the void or product designers will
but it is not fantasy and it is not optional, it is in development yet still poorly understood
meant momentum, not inertia
My god, Unicorn - do you get paid by the word?
Displaced, I came to the opposite conclusion as you.
"So we have 1407 Architects for every 1,000,000 people. "
I think this is way too many. In a city of, say, the size of Portland Oregon, 1400 architects is a lot, given the number of projects that people embark on.
Fewer architects would mean that smaller firms would have more of a chance, and that fees could be better per architect. Scarcity and demand.
As it is, there's always some guy around the corner who's willing to do it cheaper, then cut the wages of his employees to make it happen. Architecture graduates, desperate for a job, accept his offer of Starbucks-level wages and think it's great.
Meanwhile, their friends who are lawyers, doctors, even plumbers, make more than they do.
Well Farwest,
The first thing is that Architects have always complained that there are too many architects, that is why we have a number of barriers for people to go through before calling themselves Architect. <b>Statistics do not tell us all data about in this case licensed architects, how many are actually practicing on their own for themselves I mean? How many are working for other architects? and due to what im calling this Great Architecture Depression, how many architects are out of work? How many have had to change professions? after all we have bills to pay. If statistics took all these things into account you would find that the 1400 number is much smaller today, and remember that the census is estimating 72% participation, so in reality there are probably close to 350 Million people here today.
I have a lot of respect for smaller firms, because that is one place where you are thrown in the mix right away, of course the draw back is that they don't pay much or don't offer good benefits, and bosses are tyrannical micro managers.
You are right about people taking advantage of recent graduates, but legally speaking those graduates cant stamp the cd's, and that's why i advocate that we get together and form our own offices that are down at the neighborhood level vs being high up on a tower or far away in the middle of a pristine neighborhood.
We, I mean all of us generation x and y'rs, and all those unemployed more experienced people have to work together, we have to change the way we do business or perish.
You know farwest, that the people who are still working are not necessarily the best of the best, i can speak from personal experience, we have a lot of talented unemployed architects.
So why is only "Petey's" firm posted...I was hoping that this would actually become a thread to shame.
I think that shaming firms in as public a way possible would be a very effective method, but it must catch on and not be sporadic.
http://pimpingarchitects.blogspot.com/
It is too bad that this web-site is no longer active...
Whenever I share with other professionals the story of architects not working for pay, the amount of uncontrollable laughter is indescribable. A recent response "...architects with all their fancy degrees, aren't smart or savy enough to get paid?" Architects continuously act as their own worst enemies...the best way to drive down fees is to not be able to justify your fees to your clients, let alone yourself. How can architects justify charging any "professional" fees if they do not value their professional staff and lack any semblance of professionalism?
Unfortunately, if we have learned anything it is that much of architecture is a luxury...and to compound that problem there are a bunch of "rich" kids that do not need to be compensated, as they can live in their BMW's and there are a bunch of "architects" that do not need to charge fees, as they already own yachts.
whenever i see a ridiculous ad for free labor I just send them a pretty much fuck you email.
remember that roughly 7% of the total housing stock and 4% of the commercial/institutonal building stock need to be replaced or substantially refurbished every year for about the next decade or so. In theory, you can only defer this process for so long despite the crisis on the financing side, given population growth or even with stable population. Someone's going to be designing much of this stuff (say, half that housing and all ofthe commercial/institutional space).
re: the unicorn and jmanganelli tangent...
maybe robots will start designing our houses and buildings and cities and then we will really be screwed
or at least, robot draftspeople who can turn out a set of bim drawings and models off of a napkin sketch
we should start a new thread: "ANTI-ROBOT-WORKFORCE MOVEMENT. BOYCOTT ROBOT FIRMS!!!"
tangent is a good descriptor.
the thread was already drifting, so i did not think i was threadjacking, if it came off that way, i apologize. the thread was drifting to cause, circumstance and what to do, so i threw out there:
- it seems some other things (policy/market trends) have to settle into place first before our industry knows in which direction it will be moving aggressively to rekindle opportunity and grow the market
- when considering a slow to no growth scenario vs high growth scenario, it seems the powers that be will find a way to reignite a high growth economy to stay competitive and to do so, it seems a new technological infrastructure or mode of living is required to spark high growth on a big enough scale --- some things like sustainability, renewable energy, or Mr. Gates' comment are possibilities
- lastly, with respect to discussions above about architects losing pieces of the pie to related fields, my intention was to suggest that we should be on a counter-offensive, so to speak, b/c we have skills with which we can leverage into other areas
Start by flagging Craigslist ads like this one.
I have been increasingly more frustrated by this situation in the past few years. The economy is only making the situation worse.
I am in the beginning of starting a social media project about this issue and would greatly appreciate support.
I am working on a blog idea, but for now I have created a petition...
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/designisntfree
That craigslist ad position sounds awesome! Free lunch!!
Thanks for starting the petition smarchitect (I signed it and posted it on Facebook). Here's another firm for the hall of shame: Dufner Heighes
I've been responding to the "we want highly talented labor for free" emails acting like I'm interested so that I can get the name of the offending firms.
And then report them to whichever organization tries to give a damn.
"So we have 1407 Architects for every 1,000,000 people."
hehe.. I comforted by the fact that there are 45 certified planners and 84 non-certified planners per 1,000,000 people, since I practice as a planner/urban designer ;-)
not all 1407 architects are practicing, let alone owning their own office, I like most other people am too smart to believe these numbers, kind of like Arch. college rankings, but good for you Urbanist
in response to the DufnerHeighes post, we could all spam the mail server asking if the lunch is equal to 45k a year
Welp, here's another one:
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/egr/1909527106.html
It seems as though the majority of these I find are in New York City, ya know, one of the most expensive places to live?
DonQuixote,
hehe.. but nor are the 84 non-certified planners.
My point is the same - our profession must start behaving like a guild, where AIA and NCARB work together to apply pressure (by rationing accreditation) on new academic programs and program expansions, to attempt to control the number of people entering the profession. This is the one thing that the PAB actually does kind of do in planning, whether intentionally or not.
Especially since it costs absoutely nothing to live in New York City.... Rolls eyes...
Again if the"leaders" of these firms can't afford to pay people for their skills they should not be hiring in the first place. My guess is that somewhere along the lines the fucked up really badly mismanaging their money and ended up having to lay off all their paid people without getting the job done. now they need experienced production people to finish the jobs trying to convince them they are "entry level" even with 2 or 3 years of experience so that they don't have to pay them a dime....
well a always thought that the fact that a lot of colleges discontinued their City and Regional Planning department had a lot to do with the the low number of Planners, in my Alma mater, a few of those city and regional professors still thought when i was around and i have a healthy dose of respect and knowledge of city and regional planning. I believe that an architect should be as knowledgeable as he can be about everything. Granted i learned a lot more on my own.
I think that's far enough DonQuixote. lower demand is definitely a factor for them... it's less sexy. But the PAB's annoying and sometimes invasive accredition standards are another factor - frequent visitors commitees, somewhat arbitrary (and changing) course requirements and frequent threats of suspensions keep new accredited Programs to a minimum.
Here is a 'stamp request' in the ATL
http://atlanta.craigslist.org/atl/egr/1910093640.html
@urbanist: "our profession must start behaving like a guild, where AIA and NCARB work together to apply pressure (by rationing accreditation) on new academic programs and program expansions, to attempt to control the number of people entering the profession."
That appears to be the exact opposite of what should be done. I know that after jumping through a number of mindless hoops, one wishes to bask in the glory of professional exclusivity, even shrink the size of those hoops behind you to eliminate potential competition. That's exactly the shitty state of affairs we are currently in.
I don't even know why architecture (let alone urban planning) has any kind of certification at this point. It's not like the stamp has much of a meaningful power behind it. Make sure it don't leak, and you'll be lawsuit free. A job any sales rep for sheet wrapping company can accomplish.
Neither architecture nor urban planning were academic pursuits 100 years ago. Yet we somehow managed. In case of urban-planning in America, I would associate birth of Urban-planning degrees with disappearance of great American cities...
@DonQuixote: Tone it down man! You only have 20 posts on handful of threads and have already managed to come across as the most self-absorbed member on this site. We get it. You're the smartest. You went to the best school, etc.....
steel studs,
you should remember that licensing and making architecture more exclusive was not started by the USA, but it definitely has been taken to a level that is not seen in any other country in the world. Do we need it to be this hard? I think because we are all different, we can't say we are all treated equally, maybe it should be a case by case decision i don't know, but that is the way we are here in the USA, kind of like a hunter gatherer mentality, gathering degrees, killing interns, and hunting jobs.
PS. i didn't realize i had a fan club, or that I had toned it up? I will dumb down my responses to adequately tone it down. thanks ss.
steelstuds,
With respect, your view is somewhat simplistic. The planners blame the architects of CIAM for the worst mid-century excesses and vice versa, but both fields, in their contemporary form, predate that era, if only by 3 or 4 generations.
Whether or not planners acknowledge it, the origins of their profession, in its current form, comes directly out of Ildefons Cerdà, on the social/policy/land-use & zoning side (1815-1876) and Camillo Sitte (1946-1903) on the physical design side. More or less contemporaneously, at the latter end of their active period, many of their ideas were brought ot the Americans, conflated with landscape architecture and other Romantic notions, on one hand, and tenament law reform/the settlement house movement, on the other, and got transformed into a pirated version of the same (e.g., Daniel Burnham, 1846-1912). I won't rehash architectural academic history during the same period because we all know it here, but it closely parallels these developments.
Both fields were subsequently transformed, beginning in the late 1920s and on into the 1960s and 1970s by CIAM and CIAMish notions of urban functionalism and physical segregation. But, as shoud be obvious, the roots of the two disciplines in their contemporary form, predates the CIAM era by approximately a century. Frankly, I blame the GSD, on both accounts ;-) just kidding.
I'd also add in Pierre L'Enfant into a historical consideration in American planning. That would add another 50 or so years onto the start of formal American planning as an academic/intellectual and engineer pursuit.
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.