Ok, I need a harsh talking to, dissuade me of my quixotic notions if you will.
I'm 38, with a family, and am attempting to go back to school in architecture. I have a an MFA and am currently teaching. My main interest in architecture seems to be residential design. How realistic is it for me to believe that a) i'll make it through 4-5 years of schooling, then internship, licensing, etc without breaking down or breaking up, and b) after all that will I be designing interesting homes for interesting people?
The road to architecture is neither linear nor well illuminated.
Ask yourself this question - is my time and money better spent on creating a project that I believe in, or is better spent on spending on gaining an architecture degree to end up in the same place later on?
To me, as an unregistered 'architect', my degree is more of a 'licence'. It allows me to do things that I wouldnt probaby be able to do, or rather, that people wouldnt normally allow me to do.
My point is, if you have a certain goal that you want to attain, and it seems like it is to create buildings with a certain viewpoint, rather than 'to be an architect', consider something less institutional.
After all, its the work that will be judged, not the piece of paper.
You don't need to be a licensed architect to design small houses. Some training and formal education will be helpful but not necessary. At a young age of 38 do you have any construction experience behind you? Have you built that dream deck or tool shed? Have you partaken in remodeling of any kind? If so, you may already know a thing or two more than a pink nosed architectural grad.
Of course, finding those "interesting" people for whom you'll built interesting homes is the tricky part. That takes decades of work, and very often luck.
hey, if you are near los angeles, where the best houses are, i'll tutor you on how to design, draw and get it build a house. hillside or flat, any height, any style, any genre, any size, any where and for any body. in school, in five years they won't teach you 1/10 of what i can teach you in 6-8 months, 3 days a week. for a very reasonable price of 3500 $ a month.;.))
the top quality relevant theory and history lessons and assignments are included in the program.
in the real world section of the training, you will be tagging along with me to various construction sites of skillful and noteworthy architects, lectured on soils, foundation work, framing and mep. we will also cover materials and applications subjects as needed. there will be limited client meeting exposure that might include builders and consultants.
since the training will take a place inside a licensed architect's office, there will be valuable exposure to agency part of practice including the exposure to legal documents such as contracts, planning and building department procedures, etc..
we will do two house designs and you'll be interning in one of my projects after i graduate you (you'll be paid at that time.) your work will be critiqued by some top talent in residential architecture.
at the end of your training you will be entry level confident enough to take on your first project and work your ass off to get it done with a reasonable number of fuck ups. at this phase of your career, i will charge you an hourly fee for consultation and holding hand.
Take Orhan up on his offer. To do single family residential you don't need a license (for the most part) which means you don't need a degree. Call yourself a designer and start designing. Your own house is a good place to test ideas.
In today's market, going to architecture school would be quite painful....unless you have several wealthy friends that would be anxious to hire you.
Come on here and ask for suggestions of books, magazines, etc. There is a lot of stuff you can learn fairly easily if you are pointed in the right direction.
Orhan is making an interesting offer. This was/is one of the worst parts of schooling - you can go to the best schools, but never come near what it takes to put up a real building (from the drawings to the financing to the client relations).
I'd suggest seriously thinking about making a creative path. Many pros would love to have you 'helping' them in exchange for their knowledge. This is a win/win, as you learn what it really takes and they educate you on what they think is important (making you more valuable to them, should you want to work for them later on).
This could be anything from an architect to a contractor to a re developer.
I love this approach. The only caveat is that you will not have a degree and never be able to call yourself an "architect" (but, like diabase, I have degrees in architecture but will never get licensed, find this to be a silly detail). Once you have one home built, it'll all be more or less irrelevant anyway.
Go for it! But be smart about it. Remember that $$ are what pays you, what pays for the construction and what the person hiring you is paying.
orhan, isn't that the FLW school of architecture?!?
i would suggest not going to school. if your desire is to only do residential projects, you can find a way to do it without dumping$50k+ on a degree you don't need. stick with teaching and build houses you've designed in the summer...
i think it's a little odd how we usually on this forum complain about the unlicensed or the uneducated designer infringing upon our profession, but then when someone comes on here who has a genuine interest in educating himself as an architect, we give him advice like:
Call yourself a designer and start designing.
this not only sounds way too hgtv, but does undercut our education and licensing system. you can't design a house, at least a good one, simply because you have read the complete flw collection and built your own deck.
and while it's hard not to appreciate orhan's wrightian, or is it roarkian, bravado, i'm not sure it practically does anything to help mr. or ms. splitflexi make what is in fact a very difficult decision.
back to the original question, if you feel confident that pursuing the field of architecture, regardless of the outcome, will make you happier than your current situation, then, yes, go for it. you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the timeframe it will take (roughly 3-4 years education; 3-5 year internship; 1-2 years of exams; license; 5-10 professional experience; open your own practice). factor in that the education will cost $50k-100k, that your starting pay will be about $32k (if you can find a job), and that your family's patience only wears so thin, and i think you should have a pretty fair sense of whether you are game for this or not.
I champion educated, but not licensed, and not all education is anywhere near equal.
There are simply too many architects out there with too much education.
Honestly, most people (including architects) can't design something great regardless of a license or degree (particularly with a license, with has nothing to do with a 'good' house).
The profession isn't doing well. There are too many people out there, not enough quality work, too broadly educated, etc.
I see no reason why someone shouldn't pursue their interest in a specific area (that does not require a license, anyway).
I agree that you can't truly learn to design without some diversity of input, but then again, I see so much crap out there going up by those that are educated/licensed, I can't see how HGTV or someone with a creative background and passion could do anything worse.
Take that $50k and do something with your house. Or even offer to do a project with someone experienced to get experience (this was a discussion a while ago - pay $50k for a brief education or pay a someone for experience.
There is no perfect answer, but I think we can all agree that paying a large sum for an education that will pay you back next to nothing is not a good idea.
The profession needs to change, and it will become more specialized, education needs to follow suit and start preparing students for the reality that awaits them.
you can't design a house, at least a good one, simply because you have read the complete flw collection and built your own deck.
won, you also can't design a house just because you own a 100 person firm that designs hospitals. Architecture is a field with many specialties, residential design being one of them. I can't design a hospital, but I sure as hell can crank out an awesome kitchen design and I didn't learn a thing about that in school. OK, yes, I learned a lot about the built world, culture, and the profession in school, but someone who has an MFA already has a lot of years of that kind of education under their belt. For this person, who wants to do residential design only, an MArch is not going to offer much in terms of practical knowledge but will be adding additional cultural/design knowledge that the MFA-holder already has.
trace, honey, I have to gently ding you again, and I know I do it all the time: having a license is not a silly detail to those of who have one and thus have accepted the liability that goes along with it. I respect your decision not to have one because for you, it's an unnecessary detail, but please don't belittle those of us who have the license to make yourself feel better about not having one.
I have to agree with won williams on this one. I'm sick and tired of this profession getting watered down by anyone and everyone thinking they can be an Architect, designer, contractor, etc.
HGTV is terrible at promoting this bastardization. Ditto stores like The Home Depot and their asinie "you can do it, we can help" ads. The reality is NOT EVERYONE CAN BE A DESIGNER BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE IT. It takes an education, be it formal or apprenticeship, and it takes years of experience.
Have any of you actually looked at private homes where homeowners DIY'd design and construction? It's freaking terrible. Almost always a train wreck.
If splitflexi wants to design homes, or whatever, he/she should follow the same path the rest of us did, which by in large is a formal education and IDP apprenticeship. Only after years...and I mean a decade or more...will you be an experienced home designer.
I agree with what aquapura is saying. And as someone who has made it through the gauntlet of school-internship-licensure, I can attest that the most difficult part is finding interesting clients who want interesting architecture.
Dear Donna, my sincere apologies, I didn't mean sound like I was trivializing licensure. I surely would pursue that if it was feasible, as I do think it is an essential part of the profession.
And I have the utmost respect for those that have pursued a more traditional path (many friends/colleagues/clients), it just isn't for everyone.
In this context, designing single family homes, it is something that can be worked around and given the time required/current state of things, it is hard to suggest as a logical path.
Any advice I would give on these boards is simply something I would have welcomed when I was starting the long, long road.
My points were simply that education and a license don't necessarily make for great architecture. There are alternative ways to get to an end goal. I am not advocating short cuts, learning to design takes a significant effort, time, sweat and pain, but I don't see why there can't be alternative approaches.
@Donna: Being registered is akin to owning an iPhone. You find that all iPhone owners are smug, self-important delusionists, until one day you go out and get one yourself! Then you wonder how you lived your life without one all these years. In a way it's best to feel that way since you'll be paying for the privilege through the nose for many moons to come.
Wait, registration is like having a trophy wife! errr... it's like being a communist and then winning lottery... like working for government after years at Goldman Sacks...
I have no interest it discussing merits of professional registration, but it's of interest to note that any exclusive club will have a simple balance: those who are enjoying the membership perks, those who are desperately trying to get in, and those dismissing the existence of the club. We are such pack animals.
if he goes to architecture school, he'll be out of place, confused, ridiculed and chances are, will not even want to design houses.
chances are he will be lectured by people who has never designed and build a house as an architect and who sees a house as an architectural manifesto of a naive kind.
my private lessons are not necessarily taliesin nor i care for the stuck up roark.
i am simply offering private lessons to someone who already educated in art and focusing on particular area of architecture like residential work. and might have an already cultivated potential client base or a project already secured, given or personally financed. i know an architect or two who had their clients design their houses working in his office under his supervision and getting paid according to owner architect contract. i think this could be a whole new market for architects and clients, turning architecture offices into mini do-it-yourself workshops in neighborhood community sense.
if the law allows people to design and build their homes, architects should create a role in that for themselves. i am confident we can be better advisers, mentors than others (ie; friend, uncle, tile vendor) when it comes to buildings such as houses.
it is either that or let's all registered architects demand for a legislation that no structure can be designed for habitation without an architect. i bet if such legislation passed, the original proposition i make here, will be even more realistic and attended. this would bring many advantages to the process, to the look of the built environment, and it would create a new avenue for architectural practice. this would also make the building officials happy and buildings would better address the public concerns like health, safety and welfare etc..
trace I totally agree with your points on this topic; the only thing I disagree with is the use of the word "silly"! ;-)
Orhan you are brilliant. This: if the law allows people to design and build their homes, architects should create a role in that for themselves. i am confident we can be better advisers, mentors than others (ie; friend, uncle, tile vendor) when it comes to buildings such as houses is exactly how we architects need to be thinking if we are going to not only stay relevant but get to enjoy the fun of doing residential work.
one the biggest parts of being a high-end residential architect is the client base. most of these types of firm owners have either been born into a wealthy social circle or are independently wealthy themselves. there are certainly a percentage of drop in's to an architecture office but most offices generate work based on social and professional connections. it doesn't matter how talented or educated you are if you are unable to be a rainmaker.
i think it's important not to sugar-coat this profession too much. i've seen SO many talented professors (and classmates) very deep in debt b/c they just couldn't make it. and it wasn't for lack of trying or ability.
for this reason, you'll find that most professors stay in or return to academia b/c they can't make what they teach to be profitable or have the connections to make it work. there are always exceptions to this of course but it's rare.
and on that subject, does anyone else think it ironic that most european work is generated through competitions (democratic IMO) and most american projects are generated on the good ol' boys network??
most european work is generated through competitions
wb,
i don't think this is actually true... but it seems that way because a significantly larger number of private and public projects are derived via the competition process.
when i worked abroad, we participated in a lot of competitions, but most of our work was clients coming back for more work or wanting a certain kind of house.
there are competitions here in the US, but they're usually really limited, really awful and don't result in better projects. the entire RFP/RFQ could be seen as a competition process, albeit a slightly retarded one (yeah, i just said that...)
Thanks everyone, all of this has been very helpful.
If I told you that fundamentally I see myself as a maker, would that seal the deal? Maybe it's my background as a visual artist, and also, I do have substantial experience in construction (MFA afterall...), but I've never really been a fluent designer, more of a maker of things. I'm not saying I don't want to perhaps change that, though... but, I still want to make things.
Trace and Donna Sink mostly agreeing....and me agreeing (for the most part) with Trace (Like DS, I am tired of the anti-license rants). All in all, a great thread with some interesting points. I would rarely be one to argue against formal education, but I have to admit that for the circumstance posed by splitflexi, some sort of apprenticeship with a talented and established residential designer (licensed or otherwise) would be a very worthwhile way to pursue his/her goal. That being said, I also find myself in alliance with aquapura. A very interesting discussion, indeed!
economists on msn, have speculated that when this recession starts go away, they will keep using it as an excuse keep people under paid and over worked not to mention a lot of architects unemployed.
Well it makes sense since this kind of catastrophic aka depression for us architects, doesn't happen too often, so the men with the money have to be asking themselves How can we make a profit from this event?
I know this is an old thread but I wanted to add another perspective. A few years ago, is hung out my shingle as a residential designer. While I have a lot of respect for the people who do make the sacrifices to get their license, for me it was never really an option. A lack of money, living in the wrong location, a wife (and later kids) were all issues. Sure, I could have made it happen, but I chose not to.
That said, I have always enjoyed architecture and wanted to be involved in designing homes and buildings. Luckily, I do have lots of hands-on experience building homes, and after years of designing them for my own pleasure, at 45, I decided I could do it for paying customers.
There were a few obstacles with this: I did not have any customers, I did not own a real CAD program, etc. etc. etc. So, I started looking for a suitable CAD app, found a good fit and spent the money. Then I started talking to people about designing homes as a service. Through friends of friends and advertising locally, I did get some customers. I also had to set up my business and register with the state, etc. I spent hundreds and hundreds of hours learning new applications, reading, learning, observing and so on.
After designing a couple of houses, I decided I needed a website. Since this is a side business, with very little resources or overhead, I had to learn to do everything myself. So, I created my website and posted some sample plans online. This brought me a few more customers.
Today, 5 years later, I know that I will never be an architect, too much time and money, and I am just unwilling to put up with a lot of crap anymore. So, I just have my little design business that allows me to be involved on the fringes of architecture. I do get some interesting clients and a few crazy ones, but that is the case with everything.
I only do a few houses a year, but my goal is to be able to design homes for the next 25 years or so. Not only as a means of income after I retire, but also as something I truly enjoy.
Good for you, modjohn. Enjoy it! While I'm really proud to be an architect, I know the registration is not necessary for the design work I do. My partner, for example, is hands down the best designer I know and he always felt the whole registration thing was crap, too! So we go merrily on doing good work for (mostly) happy clients.
I'm curious how involved you are in the construction process for your clients: do you hand over drawings and let the contractor take it form there, or do you stay involved and make decisions through the process?
If someone wants to give me just a small fortune, I would be very happy to go back to school and do the IDP, etc.
Donna,
In the past, I have simply prepared the construction drawings and turned them over to the client. But of late, I have been investigating the options of Design/Build strategy.
D/B would give me more control over seeing the design built properly as well as allow me to earn more. But, it would take much more time on a day-to-day basis which may not be a viable option at this time.
I had a 45 yr old ''graphic desinger'' in my freshman class. I have no idea what happened to him after he dropped out at the end of freshman year. I do not believe 'architecture' in the conventional sense is the way forward for those who are experiencing mid-life crisis. This is my personal opinion. I am a robot.
modjohn, if you don't want to go full design-build - and honestly, much as I love construction I don't ever, ever want that responsibility on a job, good lord - you might consider using AIA documents fro your contracts. The AIA docs clearly define the scope and responsibility of the designer, the Owner, and the Builder, and give you more control over how the thing gets built.
Before everyone laughs me off the thread, note that I recently worked with a builder who requested that the owner use the AIA Owner-Contractor contract, because he liked how comprehensive and clear it is. And, you don't have to be AIA to use them, and they only cost 20 bucks or so.
Here is my input on the matter. Given the economic realities that we face today, I would suggest to anyone thinking of a career in architecture to follow the urge only if:
a.) you are genius.
b.) you are wealthy.
c.) you are a wealthy genius.
If you are not one of the three listed above, then I would advise not pursuing architecture as a career. With the debt one must incur, the low wages, the mostly uninteresting real world experiences, the realization that the idea of the architect is mostly myth (the disappointment at learning that most architects dress poorly, don't listen to phillip glass, play golf, and wouldn't know thomas pynchon if he bit them in the ass,) it ends up not being worth it.
VADO ...AMEN BROTHER!......BECOME a DEVELOPER....AND THEN PRACTICE ARCHITECTURE... GET THE BABES AND THE GRAND HOUSE AND SECOND HOUSE AND ALL THE VACATIONS.
As I once heard James Polshek say "The world doesn't need another pornographically beautiful house."
SEA...whatever....James Polshek is a WHORE! That is only my opinion in his deceptive stealing of the Smithsonian Native American Museum, from Douglas Cardinal. It was a screwed up affair, but least Polshek could have done was let Cardinal take the lead and put the construction documents together....but NO....He wanted the whole party and as a result ended up with the Clinton Library! He bastardized the design of Cardinal, with the blessing of the Smithsonian Staff.
Carlo Scarpa was not an architect, I'd argue he had a pretty good handle on the whole thing though, even the law suits to prove it! I'd also suggest most architects would consider him to be one the "modern masters" too..... I'd say he'd be a pretty good inspiration for you.
Nov 8, 10 12:11 am ·
·
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.
shatter my illusions
Ok, I need a harsh talking to, dissuade me of my quixotic notions if you will.
I'm 38, with a family, and am attempting to go back to school in architecture. I have a an MFA and am currently teaching. My main interest in architecture seems to be residential design. How realistic is it for me to believe that a) i'll make it through 4-5 years of schooling, then internship, licensing, etc without breaking down or breaking up, and b) after all that will I be designing interesting homes for interesting people?
This never works out, right?
As I once heard James Polshek say "The world doesn't need another pornographically beautiful house."
The road to architecture is neither linear nor well illuminated.
Ask yourself this question - is my time and money better spent on creating a project that I believe in, or is better spent on spending on gaining an architecture degree to end up in the same place later on?
To me, as an unregistered 'architect', my degree is more of a 'licence'. It allows me to do things that I wouldnt probaby be able to do, or rather, that people wouldnt normally allow me to do.
My point is, if you have a certain goal that you want to attain, and it seems like it is to create buildings with a certain viewpoint, rather than 'to be an architect', consider something less institutional.
After all, its the work that will be judged, not the piece of paper.
You don't need to be a licensed architect to design small houses. Some training and formal education will be helpful but not necessary. At a young age of 38 do you have any construction experience behind you? Have you built that dream deck or tool shed? Have you partaken in remodeling of any kind? If so, you may already know a thing or two more than a pink nosed architectural grad.
Of course, finding those "interesting" people for whom you'll built interesting homes is the tricky part. That takes decades of work, and very often luck.
"The road to architecture is neither linear nor well illuminated."
Wow awesome quote!
hey, if you are near los angeles, where the best houses are, i'll tutor you on how to design, draw and get it build a house. hillside or flat, any height, any style, any genre, any size, any where and for any body. in school, in five years they won't teach you 1/10 of what i can teach you in 6-8 months, 3 days a week. for a very reasonable price of 3500 $ a month.;.))
the top quality relevant theory and history lessons and assignments are included in the program.
in the real world section of the training, you will be tagging along with me to various construction sites of skillful and noteworthy architects, lectured on soils, foundation work, framing and mep. we will also cover materials and applications subjects as needed. there will be limited client meeting exposure that might include builders and consultants.
since the training will take a place inside a licensed architect's office, there will be valuable exposure to agency part of practice including the exposure to legal documents such as contracts, planning and building department procedures, etc..
we will do two house designs and you'll be interning in one of my projects after i graduate you (you'll be paid at that time.) your work will be critiqued by some top talent in residential architecture.
at the end of your training you will be entry level confident enough to take on your first project and work your ass off to get it done with a reasonable number of fuck ups. at this phase of your career, i will charge you an hourly fee for consultation and holding hand.
hahaha.. i am not kidding you!
@Orhan:
Is continental breakfast included in tuition price? I get very hungry when I'm forced to learn stuff.
Orhan,
I think you might have stumbled on a whole new kind of education,,,
yes, breakfast, lunch and coffee are included. student makes the coffee but does not have to answer the phone.
It won't take you 4-5 years of schooling. Since you already have an undergraduate degree, you can get the professional MArch I in three years.
don't do it--the artist in you will die a painful death
Take Orhan up on his offer. To do single family residential you don't need a license (for the most part) which means you don't need a degree. Call yourself a designer and start designing. Your own house is a good place to test ideas.
Seriously.
In today's market, going to architecture school would be quite painful....unless you have several wealthy friends that would be anxious to hire you.
Come on here and ask for suggestions of books, magazines, etc. There is a lot of stuff you can learn fairly easily if you are pointed in the right direction.
Orhan is making an interesting offer. This was/is one of the worst parts of schooling - you can go to the best schools, but never come near what it takes to put up a real building (from the drawings to the financing to the client relations).
I'd suggest seriously thinking about making a creative path. Many pros would love to have you 'helping' them in exchange for their knowledge. This is a win/win, as you learn what it really takes and they educate you on what they think is important (making you more valuable to them, should you want to work for them later on).
This could be anything from an architect to a contractor to a re developer.
I love this approach. The only caveat is that you will not have a degree and never be able to call yourself an "architect" (but, like diabase, I have degrees in architecture but will never get licensed, find this to be a silly detail). Once you have one home built, it'll all be more or less irrelevant anyway.
Go for it! But be smart about it. Remember that $$ are what pays you, what pays for the construction and what the person hiring you is paying.
orhan, isn't that the FLW school of architecture?!?
i would suggest not going to school. if your desire is to only do residential projects, you can find a way to do it without dumping$50k+ on a degree you don't need. stick with teaching and build houses you've designed in the summer...
i think it's a little odd how we usually on this forum complain about the unlicensed or the uneducated designer infringing upon our profession, but then when someone comes on here who has a genuine interest in educating himself as an architect, we give him advice like:
Call yourself a designer and start designing.
this not only sounds way too hgtv, but does undercut our education and licensing system. you can't design a house, at least a good one, simply because you have read the complete flw collection and built your own deck.
and while it's hard not to appreciate orhan's wrightian, or is it roarkian, bravado, i'm not sure it practically does anything to help mr. or ms. splitflexi make what is in fact a very difficult decision.
back to the original question, if you feel confident that pursuing the field of architecture, regardless of the outcome, will make you happier than your current situation, then, yes, go for it. you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the timeframe it will take (roughly 3-4 years education; 3-5 year internship; 1-2 years of exams; license; 5-10 professional experience; open your own practice). factor in that the education will cost $50k-100k, that your starting pay will be about $32k (if you can find a job), and that your family's patience only wears so thin, and i think you should have a pretty fair sense of whether you are game for this or not.
I champion educated, but not licensed, and not all education is anywhere near equal.
There are simply too many architects out there with too much education.
Honestly, most people (including architects) can't design something great regardless of a license or degree (particularly with a license, with has nothing to do with a 'good' house).
The profession isn't doing well. There are too many people out there, not enough quality work, too broadly educated, etc.
I see no reason why someone shouldn't pursue their interest in a specific area (that does not require a license, anyway).
I agree that you can't truly learn to design without some diversity of input, but then again, I see so much crap out there going up by those that are educated/licensed, I can't see how HGTV or someone with a creative background and passion could do anything worse.
Take that $50k and do something with your house. Or even offer to do a project with someone experienced to get experience (this was a discussion a while ago - pay $50k for a brief education or pay a someone for experience.
There is no perfect answer, but I think we can all agree that paying a large sum for an education that will pay you back next to nothing is not a good idea.
The profession needs to change, and it will become more specialized, education needs to follow suit and start preparing students for the reality that awaits them.
won, you also can't design a house just because you own a 100 person firm that designs hospitals. Architecture is a field with many specialties, residential design being one of them. I can't design a hospital, but I sure as hell can crank out an awesome kitchen design and I didn't learn a thing about that in school. OK, yes, I learned a lot about the built world, culture, and the profession in school, but someone who has an MFA already has a lot of years of that kind of education under their belt. For this person, who wants to do residential design only, an MArch is not going to offer much in terms of practical knowledge but will be adding additional cultural/design knowledge that the MFA-holder already has.
trace, honey, I have to gently ding you again, and I know I do it all the time: having a license is not a silly detail to those of who have one and thus have accepted the liability that goes along with it. I respect your decision not to have one because for you, it's an unnecessary detail, but please don't belittle those of us who have the license to make yourself feel better about not having one.
thanks Donna...I am PROUD of that license.
I have to agree with won williams on this one. I'm sick and tired of this profession getting watered down by anyone and everyone thinking they can be an Architect, designer, contractor, etc.
HGTV is terrible at promoting this bastardization. Ditto stores like The Home Depot and their asinie "you can do it, we can help" ads. The reality is NOT EVERYONE CAN BE A DESIGNER BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE IT. It takes an education, be it formal or apprenticeship, and it takes years of experience.
Have any of you actually looked at private homes where homeowners DIY'd design and construction? It's freaking terrible. Almost always a train wreck.
If splitflexi wants to design homes, or whatever, he/she should follow the same path the rest of us did, which by in large is a formal education and IDP apprenticeship. Only after years...and I mean a decade or more...will you be an experienced home designer.
I agree with what aquapura is saying. And as someone who has made it through the gauntlet of school-internship-licensure, I can attest that the most difficult part is finding interesting clients who want interesting architecture.
Dear Donna, my sincere apologies, I didn't mean sound like I was trivializing licensure. I surely would pursue that if it was feasible, as I do think it is an essential part of the profession.
And I have the utmost respect for those that have pursued a more traditional path (many friends/colleagues/clients), it just isn't for everyone.
In this context, designing single family homes, it is something that can be worked around and given the time required/current state of things, it is hard to suggest as a logical path.
Any advice I would give on these boards is simply something I would have welcomed when I was starting the long, long road.
My points were simply that education and a license don't necessarily make for great architecture. There are alternative ways to get to an end goal. I am not advocating short cuts, learning to design takes a significant effort, time, sweat and pain, but I don't see why there can't be alternative approaches.
@Donna: Being registered is akin to owning an iPhone. You find that all iPhone owners are smug, self-important delusionists, until one day you go out and get one yourself! Then you wonder how you lived your life without one all these years. In a way it's best to feel that way since you'll be paying for the privilege through the nose for many moons to come.
Wait, registration is like having a trophy wife! errr... it's like being a communist and then winning lottery... like working for government after years at Goldman Sacks...
I have no interest it discussing merits of professional registration, but it's of interest to note that any exclusive club will have a simple balance: those who are enjoying the membership perks, those who are desperately trying to get in, and those dismissing the existence of the club. We are such pack animals.
Posting in a troll thread! And if this actually is a troll thread, I applaud the OP for slowly depressing hundreds to thousands of people constantly.
The results are brilliant-- more people leaving AEC, more jobs for everyone else.
If this is not a troll thread, apologize in advance.
if he goes to architecture school, he'll be out of place, confused, ridiculed and chances are, will not even want to design houses.
chances are he will be lectured by people who has never designed and build a house as an architect and who sees a house as an architectural manifesto of a naive kind.
my private lessons are not necessarily taliesin nor i care for the stuck up roark.
i am simply offering private lessons to someone who already educated in art and focusing on particular area of architecture like residential work. and might have an already cultivated potential client base or a project already secured, given or personally financed. i know an architect or two who had their clients design their houses working in his office under his supervision and getting paid according to owner architect contract. i think this could be a whole new market for architects and clients, turning architecture offices into mini do-it-yourself workshops in neighborhood community sense.
if the law allows people to design and build their homes, architects should create a role in that for themselves. i am confident we can be better advisers, mentors than others (ie; friend, uncle, tile vendor) when it comes to buildings such as houses.
it is either that or let's all registered architects demand for a legislation that no structure can be designed for habitation without an architect. i bet if such legislation passed, the original proposition i make here, will be even more realistic and attended. this would bring many advantages to the process, to the look of the built environment, and it would create a new avenue for architectural practice. this would also make the building officials happy and buildings would better address the public concerns like health, safety and welfare etc..
trace I totally agree with your points on this topic; the only thing I disagree with is the use of the word "silly"! ;-)
Orhan you are brilliant. This: if the law allows people to design and build their homes, architects should create a role in that for themselves. i am confident we can be better advisers, mentors than others (ie; friend, uncle, tile vendor) when it comes to buildings such as houses is exactly how we architects need to be thinking if we are going to not only stay relevant but get to enjoy the fun of doing residential work.
one the biggest parts of being a high-end residential architect is the client base. most of these types of firm owners have either been born into a wealthy social circle or are independently wealthy themselves. there are certainly a percentage of drop in's to an architecture office but most offices generate work based on social and professional connections. it doesn't matter how talented or educated you are if you are unable to be a rainmaker.
i think it's important not to sugar-coat this profession too much. i've seen SO many talented professors (and classmates) very deep in debt b/c they just couldn't make it. and it wasn't for lack of trying or ability.
for this reason, you'll find that most professors stay in or return to academia b/c they can't make what they teach to be profitable or have the connections to make it work. there are always exceptions to this of course but it's rare.
and on that subject, does anyone else think it ironic that most european work is generated through competitions (democratic IMO) and most american projects are generated on the good ol' boys network??
wb,
i don't think this is actually true... but it seems that way because a significantly larger number of private and public projects are derived via the competition process.
when i worked abroad, we participated in a lot of competitions, but most of our work was clients coming back for more work or wanting a certain kind of house.
there are competitions here in the US, but they're usually really limited, really awful and don't result in better projects. the entire RFP/RFQ could be seen as a competition process, albeit a slightly retarded one (yeah, i just said that...)
Actually, not a troll thread...
Thanks everyone, all of this has been very helpful.
If I told you that fundamentally I see myself as a maker, would that seal the deal? Maybe it's my background as a visual artist, and also, I do have substantial experience in construction (MFA afterall...), but I've never really been a fluent designer, more of a maker of things. I'm not saying I don't want to perhaps change that, though... but, I still want to make things.
A truly historic thread....
Trace and Donna Sink mostly agreeing....and me agreeing (for the most part) with Trace (Like DS, I am tired of the anti-license rants). All in all, a great thread with some interesting points. I would rarely be one to argue against formal education, but I have to admit that for the circumstance posed by splitflexi, some sort of apprenticeship with a talented and established residential designer (licensed or otherwise) would be a very worthwhile way to pursue his/her goal. That being said, I also find myself in alliance with aquapura. A very interesting discussion, indeed!
how about the fact that most of us are unemployed and when we were employed we were under paid but overworked!
economists on msn, have speculated that when this recession starts go away, they will keep using it as an excuse keep people under paid and over worked not to mention a lot of architects unemployed.
Well it makes sense since this kind of catastrophic aka depression for us architects, doesn't happen too often, so the men with the money have to be asking themselves How can we make a profit from this event?
ssa
I know this is an old thread but I wanted to add another perspective. A few years ago, is hung out my shingle as a residential designer. While I have a lot of respect for the people who do make the sacrifices to get their license, for me it was never really an option. A lack of money, living in the wrong location, a wife (and later kids) were all issues. Sure, I could have made it happen, but I chose not to.
That said, I have always enjoyed architecture and wanted to be involved in designing homes and buildings. Luckily, I do have lots of hands-on experience building homes, and after years of designing them for my own pleasure, at 45, I decided I could do it for paying customers.
There were a few obstacles with this: I did not have any customers, I did not own a real CAD program, etc. etc. etc. So, I started looking for a suitable CAD app, found a good fit and spent the money. Then I started talking to people about designing homes as a service. Through friends of friends and advertising locally, I did get some customers. I also had to set up my business and register with the state, etc. I spent hundreds and hundreds of hours learning new applications, reading, learning, observing and so on.
After designing a couple of houses, I decided I needed a website. Since this is a side business, with very little resources or overhead, I had to learn to do everything myself. So, I created my website and posted some sample plans online. This brought me a few more customers.
Today, 5 years later, I know that I will never be an architect, too much time and money, and I am just unwilling to put up with a lot of crap anymore. So, I just have my little design business that allows me to be involved on the fringes of architecture. I do get some interesting clients and a few crazy ones, but that is the case with everything.
I only do a few houses a year, but my goal is to be able to design homes for the next 25 years or so. Not only as a means of income after I retire, but also as something I truly enjoy.
Phillip Johnson did it at your age, but he had already inherited a fortune from his father.
Good for you, modjohn. Enjoy it! While I'm really proud to be an architect, I know the registration is not necessary for the design work I do. My partner, for example, is hands down the best designer I know and he always felt the whole registration thing was crap, too! So we go merrily on doing good work for (mostly) happy clients.
I'm curious how involved you are in the construction process for your clients: do you hand over drawings and let the contractor take it form there, or do you stay involved and make decisions through the process?
If someone wants to give me just a small fortune, I would be very happy to go back to school and do the IDP, etc.
Donna,
In the past, I have simply prepared the construction drawings and turned them over to the client. But of late, I have been investigating the options of Design/Build strategy.
D/B would give me more control over seeing the design built properly as well as allow me to earn more. But, it would take much more time on a day-to-day basis which may not be a viable option at this time.
I had a 45 yr old ''graphic desinger'' in my freshman class. I have no idea what happened to him after he dropped out at the end of freshman year. I do not believe 'architecture' in the conventional sense is the way forward for those who are experiencing mid-life crisis. This is my personal opinion. I am a robot.
modjohn, if you don't want to go full design-build - and honestly, much as I love construction I don't ever, ever want that responsibility on a job, good lord - you might consider using AIA documents fro your contracts. The AIA docs clearly define the scope and responsibility of the designer, the Owner, and the Builder, and give you more control over how the thing gets built.
Before everyone laughs me off the thread, note that I recently worked with a builder who requested that the owner use the AIA Owner-Contractor contract, because he liked how comprehensive and clear it is. And, you don't have to be AIA to use them, and they only cost 20 bucks or so.
Thank you for giving this space for me
Here is my input on the matter. Given the economic realities that we face today, I would suggest to anyone thinking of a career in architecture to follow the urge only if:
a.) you are genius.
b.) you are wealthy.
c.) you are a wealthy genius.
If you are not one of the three listed above, then I would advise not pursuing architecture as a career. With the debt one must incur, the low wages, the mostly uninteresting real world experiences, the realization that the idea of the architect is mostly myth (the disappointment at learning that most architects dress poorly, don't listen to phillip glass, play golf, and wouldn't know thomas pynchon if he bit them in the ass,) it ends up not being worth it.
VADO ...AMEN BROTHER!......BECOME a DEVELOPER....AND THEN PRACTICE ARCHITECTURE... GET THE BABES AND THE GRAND HOUSE AND SECOND HOUSE AND ALL THE VACATIONS.
As I once heard James Polshek say "The world doesn't need another pornographically beautiful house."
SEA...whatever....James Polshek is a WHORE! That is only my opinion in his deceptive stealing of the Smithsonian Native American Museum, from Douglas Cardinal. It was a screwed up affair, but least Polshek could have done was let Cardinal take the lead and put the construction documents together....but NO....He wanted the whole party and as a result ended up with the Clinton Library! He bastardized the design of Cardinal, with the blessing of the Smithsonian Staff.
Carlo Scarpa was not an architect, I'd argue he had a pretty good handle on the whole thing though, even the law suits to prove it! I'd also suggest most architects would consider him to be one the "modern masters" too..... I'd say he'd be a pretty good inspiration for you.
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.