In the past, you can consider yourself a real architect when you where past 50 and have a few buildings built. As the saying goes; architecture is an old men profession.
Nowadays, the opposite seems to be the case. Starting your own firm at 45 is self-destructive. It's like trying to make the Olympic gymnastic team at age 25.
Firms nowadays promote themselves as being young and having a staff that is under 30. That seems to bring in work. Therefore many firms, only take people under 30. Young firms seem to only young people too. I know a 40 year old who left the profession, because he was too old. He had a mortgage and a family which puts him at risk to start a firm. Yet he was too old to work for the more progressive firms.
The younger, sexier firms tend to get more press. I told my ProPractice class - tongue only partly in cheek - that the first step in starting a firm is taking a cool-looking picture of yourselves in a some cool-looking space wearing cool-looking clothes and with earnest yet excited looks on your faces.
It's natural for the field to have young up and comers doing more and more work. It will continue when today's young firms are older, too. And software literacy is certainly changing practice, across the board. But for every young firm using their youth to get work, there are three established firms touting their young employees AND their experience to get work, too.
Yeah, i third the b.s. I am 30 and can recognize that I still don't have the experience really necessary to get complex buildings built. Those firms have someone else working with them to guide them through the process of constructing that fancy rendering. There is just so much too know to learn it all in a few years. It really does take many years to perfect it. There's also too much time that makes you stuck in your ways, but those young firms go to experienced architects to get buildings built, if they in are building real buildings at all.
Aren't we ALL old by the time we finish school/internship/ARE's anyway now? It is a relative term. True ARCHITECTS are pretty old, and in fact are getting older, statistically. People are waiting longer to get their licenses and/or not getting them at all. If they don't have those stamps, they are just art school kids making fancy renderings, right? I can do those too, but I can stamp them as well...
I would suggest that if the youth angle is what is selling the profession, it will ultimately result in a further erosion of the profession's credibility.
When I was 25 I was sure I knew it all. When I turned 30 I realized that I was looking at design too much as an additive, linear process: concept, concept develops, figure out how to incorporate structure/systems, etc.
It is only after a couple of decades of practice that feel like I am thinking about design as a synthetic process, where systems, structure, etc. are an organic part of how I think about Architecture, and more importantly, I am comfortable enough with these systems to push on them to the benefit of an Architectural idea. The conversations I have with consultants now have an entirely different tone than the ones I had with them when I was 30.
there was an article a couple of years ago about this issue that highlighted some extreme examples --- one was a small firm with 3-4 principles, no older than early thirties, with offices in two or three countries (wherever they had teaching positions), and yet when looking at the firm's portfolio, it was mostly competition entries and studies and the only thing actually built was a corporate lobby renovation --- albeit a very nice one --- and maybe a house
though to be fair, i think people engaging in these games are responding to market pressures and (i assume) are smart enough to get proper consultation for DD/CD and CA if they do get a bigger project
with 6 years of experience, but bouncing around, so not in one project type, i feel pretty confident in guiding smaller, general projects independently, but definitely feel like i need another 3-10 years at the least now focused in just one or two project types to be legitimately capable of guiding medium to large sized projects in said project types --- i don't think i'll really consider myself an architect until late 30's early 40's, license or not, b/c in my case, i do prefer to work on larger projects for technically rigorous/complex project types and to date, i don't count my experience as sufficient to claim that capacity in a professional sense
Age usually = experience, which most clients appreciate.
Then again, I recently met with a new client that expressly asked that someone "under 40" lead the project.
Their concern was that older Architect's have more conservative design ideas. From my professional experience, I'd say their concern has some validity.
Aqua, I would suggest that imagination, talent, and courage have little to do with age. If their is a preponderance of "conservative" designers over 40, I think that has more to do with the economic realities of the profession and a lack of conviction than their chronological age. Not an excuse mind you: there is no more institutionally gutless profession than Architecture so it's our own fault.
If we stick with the "under 40" logic, then I guess we can tell the '30-somethings to get it while they can, because the magic imagination killer infects your brain at 40.
I propose we start a list of architects we are familar with whose work has progressed as thay have gotten older.
I'm inspired by the case of DeBartolo Architects. Jack DeBartolo Jr quit a successful large and fairly conservative firm (Anderson DeBartolo Pan) at roughly age 56 to set up a new firm with his newly-minted architect son. They do beautiful work, and the idea of shifting professional gears so profoundly in one's 5th decade, to do highly crafted personal work, is inspiring.
You know, I am certain that the younger architects are out there telling the general population that only younger architects have vision or that older architects lack vision and creativity. Once those younger architects reach their 40's and 50's the story shifts to experience equates to vision and they have honed theor creativity.
I think those who do push the younger BS only hurt this profession in the long run in order to pick up a quick buck. I don't blame them though. They are just short sighted.
"Nowadays, the opposite seems to be the case. Starting your own firm at 45 is self-destructive. It's like trying to make the Olympic gymnastic team at age 25."
One of my favorite sports, on Archinect and elsewhere: observing someone with not much experience or knowledge of a complex phenomenon (e.g., architectural practice) make a simplistic, sweeping, and often erroneous generalization, based on ONE article or website they read.
i'll call b.s. as well. being a 'hot' designer in your thirties may get you in wallpaper, but so few genuinely 'original' designers bloom that young. some do, for sure (hey, mackintosh was only 35 when he began the glasgow school of art). however, i'd wager that a preponderance bloom later in life.
numerous studies have been done on the subjectivity of creativity relative to age - i don't have any right offhand. i did like daniel pink's take on creativity in the 21st century.
While I commend most of the younger designers going out on their own and creating "firms", many of these so called offices are not managed like responsible businesses. Many of them are ran like start-ups. One argument is that they are challenging the notion of what an architectural office is today and how it should be managed, which I think is great.
However, if you inquire with of few of these younger firms, several of them probably don't have or offer health benefits/bonuses/expenses, etc. for their small staff. Additionally, many of these small offices pay their employees very little if at all. The way I see it, if you, as an employer, are paying your employees, offering them benefits, vacation time, project and leadership experience, etc. you are running a business. Otherwise it's just fantasyland.
The reason why many of these young offices hire young designers is because they can't afford to hire 5-10+ year experienced architects (that have families, kids, mortgages, etc.) who require/demand larger salaries. It's just not in their budget. However, at the same time, many of these small younger offices don't need the expertise or experience of older architects. Many will be resourceful and figure it out themselves, or collaborate with an associate architecture office if needed.
Not all, but many founders of these small offices teach architecture studios /seminars at their alma mater (hence network/connections and additional income for the office) where they can "hire" student-interns to do competitions or self-initiated research projects, which is mainly the type of work these offices do when they are starting out. Occasionally they will get the random interior job or house from a relative or friend. Or, if they are lucky, their previous boss/employer might recommend them to a client.
Anyways, the turn over rate of these offices are usually pretty high, since many of these young designers (or practically anyone for that matter) don't enjoy working 70+ hour weeks for minimum wage or no benefits, no matter how much responsibility you are given.
At the end of the day, you need to choose what is best for you financially and in terms of acquiring knowledge and experience. Otherwise they will choose for you.
@ jmanganelli I am not sure but it sounds like you are talking about that office called SERVO. Not sure whatever happened to them.
It seems we constantly look for patterns or trends that reveal the 'truth' about the future of the profession.
I think the profession's way more straightforward than that. IMO, there is - and always has been - opportunity for firms of any age that know how to deliver strong design and solid service. It's not so much about 'aura' as it is about competence.
"It's like trying to make the Olympic gymnastic team at age 25."
Most male gymnasts are actually quite old unlike their female counterparts. In fact, gymnastics is like skiing or fencing where most of the competitors tend to be in their early-to-late 20s.
And if we look at the long list of Men's champion winners, the bulk of them won most of their medals between the ages of 23-28.
As for the age comment, I really believe anyone can be exceptionally skilled at any age... but I think that skill can often be fleeting. Someone can be really hot in their 20-30s and spend the rest of their life until their 60s, 70s or 80s being bland.
In fact, I think really young designers and really older designers often have an air of bravado, naivete et cetera. They try new things because they really have nothing left to lose or gain.
As for young, hot firms... I think a lot of them are developing because of two reasons:
1)Younger people often band together because there's nowhere else for them to go. A few people who have the money or skill will start a firm and then hire people similar to them (young, disenfranchised).
2) Part of Gen X and part of Gen Y seem more apt to work in groups and share. Perhaps it is the change in culture, the format of modern education or realizing that shared responsibility often means less responsibility... many younger people rely on egalitarianism where everyone in a group is fairly equal in terms of responsibility, job function and pay.
About age we can't anything, We all age, but Youth is a quality and if you have it you don't lose it. -FLW
Harold, the fact is that the profession is saturated with very young people from generations y & x. So are you surprised that they are banning together? to form their own offices?
In these hard times Architecture is being threatened with oblivion from outside and from inside, that should be your main concern right now the survival of the profession quite frankly, not this petty discussion.
Aaaah… the fruits of programming. What school did you go to? Was it top 10?
I think that you are talking about the marketed version of architecture not the intelligent one. Do you remember when fashionable men and women with i-phones appeared on the cover of architecture magazines? I do and it wasn’t that long ago. Architecture magazines can be peddled like Maxim or any commercial for that matter. The reality of architecture is that it’s the Rem Koolhaas’ and William Alsops of the world that make architecture an enduring profession, not the flashy, substance-less youth you are talking about. Try to make a building or idea that is as enduring as the Center Pompidou or the opening pages of S, M, L, XL. Go out of your way to listen to someone like Peter Eisenman who has the ability to put the history of architecture in a bottle and serve it to you for lunch.
Sure you can change the image of architecture by printing it in some glossy magazine and selling it at a Barnes and Noble to people who’s daily satisfaction comes in the form of a venti Starbucks.
Architecture as a profession is just as interested in marketing its image as any other product competing for people’s attention. When your Average Joe is caught up in all kinds of buying dilemmas - new plasma TV, ikea furniture, lifetime supply of Viagra, new stainless steel kitchen appliances and granite counter tops, ski trip to Aspen, new Camaro, boob job for aging wife – architects must compete in this world of consumerism with all the rest of the products and services. Architecture and architects are after all caught up in a market that is affected by too many factors outside the profession - and they need to pay the bills just like any other adult.
After WWII architecture naturally followed the trend of consumerism to the point that architectural qualities were superseded by the marketable qualities of a project or development. Architectural quality has been morphed into marketing and image-based design. That is what the system tried to program us to do in school... design - presentation - flash. Substance alone will not get you your A. Are you really a product of that form of thinking?
When a firm promotes themselves with a staff under 30 it is just that - promotion. Remember when British Petroleum changed its name to BP and its image by promoting itself as a "green" company? Now take a look at the reality - major oil spill in the Gulf. Is image everything?
Young architects are way cheaper. In many starchitects they work literally for nothing. Plus they usually know the latest software, so it gives the firm a contemporary edge.
They don't demand anything because architecture is their "dream" and their life. So, in addition to work for almost nothing, they are willing to spend 80 hours a week in an office and they are not going to think about "banal" things as retirement plans, paid holidays, etc.... they are architects, artists who are going to change the world :), not bored 9-to-5 office workers.
Obviously that works only for a few years until they realize they want to have a real life and not being anyone's architecture slave.
rem a former journalist, eisenman an academic, zaha is just crazy, and a host of all other contemporary practitioners of aesthetic speculators will not even be a side note, in the history pages of architecture.
history will show that all the best architects with enduring ideas were well in their forties when they made a name for themselves.
I agree wit hawkin and purpurina, a few handful of architects and other great thinkers died in their 40's and it was considered a great loss, who knows what they could have done if they lived another 30 or 40 years.
What are you talking about? Why do you all delve so deeply into what others say? you should have been a lawyer ward. I simply agree with what hawkin says about young people being exploited and what purpurina said in her last comment.
anyway, the idea that rem is a footnote seems unlikely, but never know. history doesn't always make sense.
40 is probably not a good age to start studying architecture, but seems to be the turning point of maturity for many. if you are lucky you get to grow up earlier. not sure that is a trend. it would be totally cool if it were.
somehow i am hearing pete townsend singing, totally without irony, about dieing before he gets old...
"40 is probably not a good age to start studying architecture, but seems to be the turning point of maturity for many. if you are lucky you get to grow up earlier. not sure that is a trend. it would be totally cool if it were."
40 is probably not a good age to start studying architecture, but seems to be the turning point of maturity for many. if you are lucky you get to grow up earlier. not sure that is a trend. it would be totally cool if it were."
Lets see, I started architecture school at 50, graduated with an M.arch at 54, went to work for SOM San Francisco using BIM on large commercial projects, Got laid off in '08 and did not get another job for a year, then temp jobs at architecture firms in SF from Dec. 09 to present. I have been on the job as a designer/BIM modeler at a small office in SF for 2 months so far and did I say that I also turn 60 next year.
So according to Jump, I made the biggest mistake in my life -
I once read a bumper sticker that said " never allow those who gave up on their dreams to discourage you from your dreams"
BTW I did not just do this as some kind of midlife crisis thing – no way – I planned it out 30 years ago, when I was working as a 3D computer graphics designer for Singer – Link flight simulator company. I saw the potential then for 3D Design as a vehicle for both video games and architecture. I also knew it would take along time to achieve. In order to get what was then $4,000,000 technology to evolve to a $200.00 3D Nvidia Chip. So I prepared 1. Health: Run 35 miles/week. Caloric restriction, and no red meat, also Meditation(a good way to stop time). At age 44, changed careers from flight simulation to video games, worked as a 3D artist for Rockstar games to develop skills in 3D urban and architecture design using Maya, then in architecture school, learned Form-Z and Rhino, then Revit.
So did I just goof?
Most people I run into try and discourage me – it just adds to my determination –
sorry rethinkit. i don't believe i wrote anywhere that it was a mistake to do anything at 40, but if that was what you took from the comment then my bad. it was certainly not my intent.
there are no age limits either way in my opinion for most things. neither too young nor too old.
i do still believe it takes about 20 years of study and practice to become really good at architecture, perhaps even longer. though, again, some do it faster.
myself i am quite looking forward to seeing what BIG and JDS do when they hit their 40's. my gods but they are so good already, it is hard to imagine how much better they will be in the next decades...
BIG is also one of my faves too I suspect though, since Bjarke used to work for OMA, that he may become like more Rem like as he gets older - Bjarke said that Rem is the LeCorbusier of our times. I only hope that he doesn't lose his sense of adventure and humor as many have in this recession. I believe Bjarke needs to get out from under the shadow of Rem and become his own beacon - BIG is more about designing for people -
there is no expiration date on when you can start a firm and jump out on your own. Its not the age, it's the state of mind, the openness to embracing technology, new design methods and a younger staff with fresh ideas. A great example of this is Ken Shuttleworth from Foster + Partners who started Make Architects when he was in his 40's. He was a partner a Foster's office for a number of years and reached the experience level needed to take off quickly when starting up Make. I think they went from 3 employees to 40 in two years and won multiple competitions...back when the economy is better though. Economic timing is important too.
I sort of subscribe to Malcom Gladwell's 10,000 hour rule. i.e. 10,000 hours of practice to become really good at something. It's just that some of us had earlier starts than others, and some of us got their hours in faster than others...
I think architecture requires a lot more time than just 10,000 hours, though... only because there's a lot of other things beyond design to learn (like how to schmooze, or how to administer a contract), and you don't really get that stuff in school and during your first few years of working.
"the first step in starting a firm is taking a cool-looking picture of yourselves in a some cool-looking space wearing cool-looking clothes and with earnest yet excited looks on your faces. "
LOL Donna - gonna save this nugget for my class this fall...
all I am saying is that the best way to protest the irrelevance of a conversation is through silence
That may indeed be the best way, msmit106, but it's not the Archinect way, which is more like make a smart-ass comment and punctuate it with a gif of David Hasselhoff.
I'm 35 almost 36 and I am just starting architecture school in September. So that means I will be 40 ish when I graduate and become an intern. I would like to think think that my age and maturity will be an asset to my future career rather than a hindrance. Personally I would rather a forward thinking 50+ architect designing something for me, than any of the self absorbed 20 somethings that seem to be in this world these days. I have worked the past ten years in an artistic/hands on trade I had to teach and work with many people.. I will take maturity and humility any day over youthful arrogance and cool clothing.
Architecture cut-off age
In the past, you can consider yourself a real architect when you where past 50 and have a few buildings built. As the saying goes; architecture is an old men profession.
Nowadays, the opposite seems to be the case. Starting your own firm at 45 is self-destructive. It's like trying to make the Olympic gymnastic team at age 25.
Firms nowadays promote themselves as being young and having a staff that is under 30. That seems to bring in work. Therefore many firms, only take people under 30. Young firms seem to only young people too. I know a 40 year old who left the profession, because he was too old. He had a mortgage and a family which puts him at risk to start a firm. Yet he was too old to work for the more progressive firms.
Just check out the average age of this firm http://www.dosarchitects.com/
Now, I must day that this mostly applies for European firms. With the many traditional firms in the US, i seams it is different there.
b.s. (says the 'old' guy).
this firm reminds me of the breakfast club.
I second Steven's b.s.
The younger, sexier firms tend to get more press. I told my ProPractice class - tongue only partly in cheek - that the first step in starting a firm is taking a cool-looking picture of yourselves in a some cool-looking space wearing cool-looking clothes and with earnest yet excited looks on your faces.
It's natural for the field to have young up and comers doing more and more work. It will continue when today's young firms are older, too. And software literacy is certainly changing practice, across the board. But for every young firm using their youth to get work, there are three established firms touting their young employees AND their experience to get work, too.
b.s. says another old guy!!!....;-)))
Yeah, i third the b.s. I am 30 and can recognize that I still don't have the experience really necessary to get complex buildings built. Those firms have someone else working with them to guide them through the process of constructing that fancy rendering. There is just so much too know to learn it all in a few years. It really does take many years to perfect it. There's also too much time that makes you stuck in your ways, but those young firms go to experienced architects to get buildings built, if they in are building real buildings at all.
Aren't we ALL old by the time we finish school/internship/ARE's anyway now? It is a relative term. True ARCHITECTS are pretty old, and in fact are getting older, statistically. People are waiting longer to get their licenses and/or not getting them at all. If they don't have those stamps, they are just art school kids making fancy renderings, right? I can do those too, but I can stamp them as well...
I would suggest that if the youth angle is what is selling the profession, it will ultimately result in a further erosion of the profession's credibility.
When I was 25 I was sure I knew it all. When I turned 30 I realized that I was looking at design too much as an additive, linear process: concept, concept develops, figure out how to incorporate structure/systems, etc.
It is only after a couple of decades of practice that feel like I am thinking about design as a synthetic process, where systems, structure, etc. are an organic part of how I think about Architecture, and more importantly, I am comfortable enough with these systems to push on them to the benefit of an Architectural idea. The conversations I have with consultants now have an entirely different tone than the ones I had with them when I was 30.
I can stamp too, I can stamp all kinds of things...smiley faces.....hearts...animals...great jobs! Betcha my stamps were a lot cheaper than yours!
there was an article a couple of years ago about this issue that highlighted some extreme examples --- one was a small firm with 3-4 principles, no older than early thirties, with offices in two or three countries (wherever they had teaching positions), and yet when looking at the firm's portfolio, it was mostly competition entries and studies and the only thing actually built was a corporate lobby renovation --- albeit a very nice one --- and maybe a house
though to be fair, i think people engaging in these games are responding to market pressures and (i assume) are smart enough to get proper consultation for DD/CD and CA if they do get a bigger project
with 6 years of experience, but bouncing around, so not in one project type, i feel pretty confident in guiding smaller, general projects independently, but definitely feel like i need another 3-10 years at the least now focused in just one or two project types to be legitimately capable of guiding medium to large sized projects in said project types --- i don't think i'll really consider myself an architect until late 30's early 40's, license or not, b/c in my case, i do prefer to work on larger projects for technically rigorous/complex project types and to date, i don't count my experience as sufficient to claim that capacity in a professional sense
I seriously wouldn't hire these people to design a building for me.
Maybe allow them to pick some finishes though.
Age usually = experience, which most clients appreciate.
Then again, I recently met with a new client that expressly asked that someone "under 40" lead the project.
Their concern was that older Architect's have more conservative design ideas. From my professional experience, I'd say their concern has some validity.
Aqua, I would suggest that imagination, talent, and courage have little to do with age. If their is a preponderance of "conservative" designers over 40, I think that has more to do with the economic realities of the profession and a lack of conviction than their chronological age. Not an excuse mind you: there is no more institutionally gutless profession than Architecture so it's our own fault.
If we stick with the "under 40" logic, then I guess we can tell the '30-somethings to get it while they can, because the magic imagination killer infects your brain at 40.
I propose we start a list of architects we are familar with whose work has progressed as thay have gotten older.
I'm inspired by the case of DeBartolo Architects. Jack DeBartolo Jr quit a successful large and fairly conservative firm (Anderson DeBartolo Pan) at roughly age 56 to set up a new firm with his newly-minted architect son. They do beautiful work, and the idea of shifting professional gears so profoundly in one's 5th decade, to do highly crafted personal work, is inspiring.
You know, I am certain that the younger architects are out there telling the general population that only younger architects have vision or that older architects lack vision and creativity. Once those younger architects reach their 40's and 50's the story shifts to experience equates to vision and they have honed theor creativity.
I think those who do push the younger BS only hurt this profession in the long run in order to pick up a quick buck. I don't blame them though. They are just short sighted.
"Nowadays, the opposite seems to be the case. Starting your own firm at 45 is self-destructive. It's like trying to make the Olympic gymnastic team at age 25."
One of my favorite sports, on Archinect and elsewhere: observing someone with not much experience or knowledge of a complex phenomenon (e.g., architectural practice) make a simplistic, sweeping, and often erroneous generalization, based on ONE article or website they read.
Dude, seriously.
i'll call b.s. as well. being a 'hot' designer in your thirties may get you in wallpaper, but so few genuinely 'original' designers bloom that young. some do, for sure (hey, mackintosh was only 35 when he began the glasgow school of art). however, i'd wager that a preponderance bloom later in life.
numerous studies have been done on the subjectivity of creativity relative to age - i don't have any right offhand. i did like daniel pink's take on creativity in the 21st century.
http://blogs.hbr.org/video/2010/06/daniel-pink-on-how-the-the-21s.html
Harold, my two cents
While I commend most of the younger designers going out on their own and creating "firms", many of these so called offices are not managed like responsible businesses. Many of them are ran like start-ups. One argument is that they are challenging the notion of what an architectural office is today and how it should be managed, which I think is great.
However, if you inquire with of few of these younger firms, several of them probably don't have or offer health benefits/bonuses/expenses, etc. for their small staff. Additionally, many of these small offices pay their employees very little if at all. The way I see it, if you, as an employer, are paying your employees, offering them benefits, vacation time, project and leadership experience, etc. you are running a business. Otherwise it's just fantasyland.
The reason why many of these young offices hire young designers is because they can't afford to hire 5-10+ year experienced architects (that have families, kids, mortgages, etc.) who require/demand larger salaries. It's just not in their budget. However, at the same time, many of these small younger offices don't need the expertise or experience of older architects. Many will be resourceful and figure it out themselves, or collaborate with an associate architecture office if needed.
Not all, but many founders of these small offices teach architecture studios /seminars at their alma mater (hence network/connections and additional income for the office) where they can "hire" student-interns to do competitions or self-initiated research projects, which is mainly the type of work these offices do when they are starting out. Occasionally they will get the random interior job or house from a relative or friend. Or, if they are lucky, their previous boss/employer might recommend them to a client.
Anyways, the turn over rate of these offices are usually pretty high, since many of these young designers (or practically anyone for that matter) don't enjoy working 70+ hour weeks for minimum wage or no benefits, no matter how much responsibility you are given.
At the end of the day, you need to choose what is best for you financially and in terms of acquiring knowledge and experience. Otherwise they will choose for you.
@ jmanganelli I am not sure but it sounds like you are talking about that office called SERVO. Not sure whatever happened to them.
It seems we constantly look for patterns or trends that reveal the 'truth' about the future of the profession.
I think the profession's way more straightforward than that. IMO, there is - and always has been - opportunity for firms of any age that know how to deliver strong design and solid service. It's not so much about 'aura' as it is about competence.
Harold, I think you're full of BS.
"It's like trying to make the Olympic gymnastic team at age 25."
Most male gymnasts are actually quite old unlike their female counterparts. In fact, gymnastics is like skiing or fencing where most of the competitors tend to be in their early-to-late 20s.
And if we look at the long list of Men's champion winners, the bulk of them won most of their medals between the ages of 23-28.
As for the age comment, I really believe anyone can be exceptionally skilled at any age... but I think that skill can often be fleeting. Someone can be really hot in their 20-30s and spend the rest of their life until their 60s, 70s or 80s being bland.
In fact, I think really young designers and really older designers often have an air of bravado, naivete et cetera. They try new things because they really have nothing left to lose or gain.
As for young, hot firms... I think a lot of them are developing because of two reasons:
1)Younger people often band together because there's nowhere else for them to go. A few people who have the money or skill will start a firm and then hire people similar to them (young, disenfranchised).
2) Part of Gen X and part of Gen Y seem more apt to work in groups and share. Perhaps it is the change in culture, the format of modern education or realizing that shared responsibility often means less responsibility... many younger people rely on egalitarianism where everyone in a group is fairly equal in terms of responsibility, job function and pay.
About age we can't anything, We all age, but Youth is a quality and if you have it you don't lose it. -FLW
Harold, the fact is that the profession is saturated with very young people from generations y & x. So are you surprised that they are banning together? to form their own offices?
In these hard times Architecture is being threatened with oblivion from outside and from inside, that should be your main concern right now the survival of the profession quite frankly, not this petty discussion.
If the conversation is so petty why are you participating in it?
WWFLWD?
Our profession is under severe attack, need i say more?
ms mit, F.L.W. = Frank L. Wright, what college did u go to?
Msmit, sorry for insulting you, i just think we as architects have much bigger problems to tackle at the moment thats all i am saying just a thought.
WWFLWD = What Would Frank Lloyd Wright Do
I am not quite sure how you insulted me?
all I am saying is that the best way to protest the irrelevance of a conversation is through silence
no harm done.
Aaaah… the fruits of programming. What school did you go to? Was it top 10?
I think that you are talking about the marketed version of architecture not the intelligent one. Do you remember when fashionable men and women with i-phones appeared on the cover of architecture magazines? I do and it wasn’t that long ago. Architecture magazines can be peddled like Maxim or any commercial for that matter. The reality of architecture is that it’s the Rem Koolhaas’ and William Alsops of the world that make architecture an enduring profession, not the flashy, substance-less youth you are talking about. Try to make a building or idea that is as enduring as the Center Pompidou or the opening pages of S, M, L, XL. Go out of your way to listen to someone like Peter Eisenman who has the ability to put the history of architecture in a bottle and serve it to you for lunch.
Sure you can change the image of architecture by printing it in some glossy magazine and selling it at a Barnes and Noble to people who’s daily satisfaction comes in the form of a venti Starbucks.
Architecture as a profession is just as interested in marketing its image as any other product competing for people’s attention. When your Average Joe is caught up in all kinds of buying dilemmas - new plasma TV, ikea furniture, lifetime supply of Viagra, new stainless steel kitchen appliances and granite counter tops, ski trip to Aspen, new Camaro, boob job for aging wife – architects must compete in this world of consumerism with all the rest of the products and services. Architecture and architects are after all caught up in a market that is affected by too many factors outside the profession - and they need to pay the bills just like any other adult.
After WWII architecture naturally followed the trend of consumerism to the point that architectural qualities were superseded by the marketable qualities of a project or development. Architectural quality has been morphed into marketing and image-based design. That is what the system tried to program us to do in school... design - presentation - flash. Substance alone will not get you your A. Are you really a product of that form of thinking?
When a firm promotes themselves with a staff under 30 it is just that - promotion. Remember when British Petroleum changed its name to BP and its image by promoting itself as a "green" company? Now take a look at the reality - major oil spill in the Gulf. Is image everything?
Young architects are way cheaper. In many starchitects they work literally for nothing. Plus they usually know the latest software, so it gives the firm a contemporary edge.
They don't demand anything because architecture is their "dream" and their life. So, in addition to work for almost nothing, they are willing to spend 80 hours a week in an office and they are not going to think about "banal" things as retirement plans, paid holidays, etc.... they are architects, artists who are going to change the world :), not bored 9-to-5 office workers.
Obviously that works only for a few years until they realize they want to have a real life and not being anyone's architecture slave.
I think 40's is not old... at least for a creative individual.
rem a former journalist, eisenman an academic, zaha is just crazy, and a host of all other contemporary practitioners of aesthetic speculators will not even be a side note, in the history pages of architecture.
history will show that all the best architects with enduring ideas were well in their forties when they made a name for themselves.
I agree wit hawkin and purpurina, a few handful of architects and other great thinkers died in their 40's and it was considered a great loss, who knows what they could have done if they lived another 30 or 40 years.
did your last two posts contradict each other, DA?
What are you talking about? Why do you all delve so deeply into what others say? you should have been a lawyer ward. I simply agree with what hawkin says about young people being exploited and what purpurina said in her last comment.
why do you take every comment as an attack?
it was a simple question, without malice.
anyway, the idea that rem is a footnote seems unlikely, but never know. history doesn't always make sense.
40 is probably not a good age to start studying architecture, but seems to be the turning point of maturity for many. if you are lucky you get to grow up earlier. not sure that is a trend. it would be totally cool if it were.
somehow i am hearing pete townsend singing, totally without irony, about dieing before he gets old...
you assume too much jump.
jump
"40 is probably not a good age to start studying architecture, but seems to be the turning point of maturity for many. if you are lucky you get to grow up earlier. not sure that is a trend. it would be totally cool if it were."
40 is probably not a good age to start studying architecture, but seems to be the turning point of maturity for many. if you are lucky you get to grow up earlier. not sure that is a trend. it would be totally cool if it were."
Lets see, I started architecture school at 50, graduated with an M.arch at 54, went to work for SOM San Francisco using BIM on large commercial projects, Got laid off in '08 and did not get another job for a year, then temp jobs at architecture firms in SF from Dec. 09 to present. I have been on the job as a designer/BIM modeler at a small office in SF for 2 months so far and did I say that I also turn 60 next year.
So according to Jump, I made the biggest mistake in my life -
I once read a bumper sticker that said " never allow those who gave up on their dreams to discourage you from your dreams"
BTW I did not just do this as some kind of midlife crisis thing – no way – I planned it out 30 years ago, when I was working as a 3D computer graphics designer for Singer – Link flight simulator company. I saw the potential then for 3D Design as a vehicle for both video games and architecture. I also knew it would take along time to achieve. In order to get what was then $4,000,000 technology to evolve to a $200.00 3D Nvidia Chip. So I prepared 1. Health: Run 35 miles/week. Caloric restriction, and no red meat, also Meditation(a good way to stop time). At age 44, changed careers from flight simulation to video games, worked as a 3D artist for Rockstar games to develop skills in 3D urban and architecture design using Maya, then in architecture school, learned Form-Z and Rhino, then Revit.
So did I just goof?
Most people I run into try and discourage me – it just adds to my determination –
sorry rethinkit. i don't believe i wrote anywhere that it was a mistake to do anything at 40, but if that was what you took from the comment then my bad. it was certainly not my intent.
there are no age limits either way in my opinion for most things. neither too young nor too old.
i do still believe it takes about 20 years of study and practice to become really good at architecture, perhaps even longer. though, again, some do it faster.
myself i am quite looking forward to seeing what BIG and JDS do when they hit their 40's. my gods but they are so good already, it is hard to imagine how much better they will be in the next decades...
jump
No problem
BIG is also one of my faves too I suspect though, since Bjarke used to work for OMA, that he may become like more Rem like as he gets older - Bjarke said that Rem is the LeCorbusier of our times. I only hope that he doesn't lose his sense of adventure and humor as many have in this recession. I believe Bjarke needs to get out from under the shadow of Rem and become his own beacon - BIG is more about designing for people -
there is no expiration date on when you can start a firm and jump out on your own. Its not the age, it's the state of mind, the openness to embracing technology, new design methods and a younger staff with fresh ideas. A great example of this is Ken Shuttleworth from Foster + Partners who started Make Architects when he was in his 40's. He was a partner a Foster's office for a number of years and reached the experience level needed to take off quickly when starting up Make. I think they went from 3 employees to 40 in two years and won multiple competitions...back when the economy is better though. Economic timing is important too.
I sort of subscribe to Malcom Gladwell's 10,000 hour rule. i.e. 10,000 hours of practice to become really good at something. It's just that some of us had earlier starts than others, and some of us got their hours in faster than others...
I think architecture requires a lot more time than just 10,000 hours, though... only because there's a lot of other things beyond design to learn (like how to schmooze, or how to administer a contract), and you don't really get that stuff in school and during your first few years of working.
Anyone else out there go through International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme?
"the first step in starting a firm is taking a cool-looking picture of yourselves in a some cool-looking space wearing cool-looking clothes and with earnest yet excited looks on your faces. "
LOL Donna - gonna save this nugget for my class this fall...
So many truths... The only thing I can add is "stop whining; start doing"
That may indeed be the best way, msmit106, but it's not the Archinect way, which is more like make a smart-ass comment and punctuate it with a gif of David Hasselhoff.
Oh, Donna! Not all of us are that clichéd!
DOT JAY PEG
I'm 35 almost 36 and I am just starting architecture school in September. So that means I will be 40 ish when I graduate and become an intern. I would like to think think that my age and maturity will be an asset to my future career rather than a hindrance. Personally I would rather a forward thinking 50+ architect designing something for me, than any of the self absorbed 20 somethings that seem to be in this world these days. I have worked the past ten years in an artistic/hands on trade I had to teach and work with many people.. I will take maturity and humility any day over youthful arrogance and cool clothing.
You do realize that in addition to federal laws, most state laws, the District of Columbia and in addition to the laws of many municipalities...
that your post constitutes a 'hate crime,' right?
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html
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.