I worked for 2 developers for around 3.5 years total. Each one was completely different. My work at each was completely different. One was really good - had a good ethos, good values and good work. The other was a typical mongrel cowboy in which I had to fight for every design decision.

I leant alot, earned way more than as an architect [like 100% more], and thought it was a decent way to spend those years. I could actually scarcely believe that there were jobs that I was more than capable of doing paying that kind of money.

However, that was 5 years ago when the market was booming.

In the end, a developer is no different from an architecture practice. Some are good, some arent. The key difference is that when you are working for a developer, you are on the client side, which in my opinion is quite refreshing.

Move beyond the stereotype.

Well judging by the ilk of developers (planners, analysts, economists and construction workers), the unemployment rates in those respective slices of the AEC industry are equal to if not higher than architecture.

In addition, the prospect of continued budget shortages in most municipalities in the US means that unemployment figure will likely to grow-- no one needs $55-185k a year city planners, architects or Section 8 developers if their respective economies are contracting.




Right now, there is literally about 50 planning jobs on the American Planning Association job board across all job levels.

There's like 200 on Archinect just alone for all things architecture.

Grass is always greener on the other side. Blah, blah, blah.

Judging by my funemployment... I'm on neither side. More like across the street, behind the Safeway, in the alley and dying of an overdose on a moldy mattress smeared with rat feces and hobo urine.

I agree in respect to the severe unlikeliness of getting well paid, fruitful emplyment at a developer during these times.

It is simplistic to think 'gee, can't get an arch job, I will just switch to development - I'll make sh*tloads!'.

Won't happen. I happened to get those jobs, during good times, not just because I was an architect. You have to be craftier than the average bear. But that applies in any situation.

y'all do realize that all of us work for developers (whether public or private sector ones) irrespective of who issues our paychecks don't you? If the economy is week is financing unavailable, the entire supply chain suffers... not just one chink in it.

My room-mate is studying to become a developer. I see the sickness growing inside her. Each day she grows weaker and IT grows stronger.

Just kidding, I always knew she would go into real estate and not design. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you have strong values, and care about what you produce.

I like the situation over at SHOP where the architecture firm invests directly in it's own projects. "Once you have skin in the game too, the developer is less likely to question your design decisions etc."

Unfortunately most firms don't really have the financial capital to invest right now anyway. I still think their firm [shop] has a unique take on things as an architecture firm that acts like a developer and tries to think like a manufacturer/fabricator.

testing the waters, craftier than the average bear, and moving beyond the stereotype... I start Monday.

This is by far the most interesting question I have ever encountered on Archinect. And it took me a few minutes and a cigarette to formulate [what I may think is] an adequate response. And therefore, you should indulge me:


I think you're asking the wrong question. Doesn't it stand to reason that a better building entails a higher price tag? IE doesnt that mean that the more design intelligence involved in a project, it should [and does] entail a higher design price tag? Likewise, shouldn't it also mean that a higher construction quality also entail a higher price tag?

Now, based on the fact that both of those are true, why is it logical that architects and GCs are on opposing sides? Is it not more logical that a good design and a good product mutually support each other? And therefore garner more work for both parties? Isn't the idea that GCs and architects are enemies a fallacy?

Now, if this is true, then what is actually stopping the two from having a very close symbiotic relationship? [UG please weigh in here] What is stopping the profession of architecture from pursuing a SHoP model? [design and cm in one firm, = a higher fee, less chance of miscommunication, less chance of conflicting agendas]

My guess is liability. Architects are scared to death of liability, and they don't want to be legally and financially responsible if a building fails. Likewise, GCs [through years of practice] are quite confident to accept responsibilty [and the legal apparatus that that entails] in favour of higher margins.

This is ridiculous. Why shouldn't architects strive to make better buildings, and why shouldn't developers or GC's strive to garner a profit. And why are these interests seen as opposing?

- Tuesday afternoon: You ask whether is a good idea to work for a developer.

- Friday morning: You sent your resumes, you made an interview, you got a job and you resigned from you current job.

- Monday: You begin your new job.

You are definitely my hero.

"Now, if this is true, then what is actually stopping the two from having a very close symbiotic relationship? [UG please weigh in here] What is stopping the profession of architecture from pursuing a SHoP model? [design and cm in one firm, = a higher fee, less chance of miscommunication, less chance of conflicting agendas]"

Frankly? Definition of quality.

It took me two cigarettes and a cup of coffee.

I'd rather answer this with pictures rather than a lengthy diatribe. But I will combine both.

In terms of construction quality, you have these groups:

People who equate construction quality with both design and technology:


These people tend to be more science or business related types who appreciate the more mechanical and technical nature of architecture.


People who equate construction quality with design and detail:


OR



Typical art and culture snobs -- theater, history, fine arts, old money et cetera.

People who equate construction quality with ONLY design:


Designers and design-oriented people from the above two groups.

People who equate construction quality with ONLY detail:


General population.

As much as I find your 'diatribe' hilarious, I noticed it did not include one project from SHoP [or a similar firm, in terms of this discussion].


You're drawing a parallel between aesthetics and what those aesthetics mean culturally and economically.


While I think this is a super accurate portrayal of the status quo [aesthtics do carry cultural and economic signifiers, hello mcmansions! or David Adjaye, for that manner], I do think it's reductive and cynical.

It's ridiculously easy to point to problems. Its a bit harder to point to answers, no?

Perhaps you care to expound, ug?

Is the point that, based on aesthetic taste, architects and developers/GCs can never see that they can actually be best friends? Cause I think that's ultimately UnicornShit.

That being said... most people really don't care about construction quality until they have to pay to fix poor construction quality.

The separation here is that many, but not necessarily all or even a majority of, architects will often choose to use materials in an unspecified manner (not necessarily positive or negative) or build to non-standard specifications.

While the ultimate goal is to provide a dynamic, high-quality product-- general contractors may not like using prescriptions outside of their intended specifications.

That's really where the divorce and animosity comes from in my opinion:

Many contractors want to decorate east to bake cakes. They want to take a CMU/wood frame house, slap on some stone here or there, drop in a few nice fixtures and paint it the color de jure.

Architects, even working within banal regiments, may want to approach each project in a more cerebral, thinking manner. While the added time maybe negligible in the course of the construction of the project-- a week or two out of 3 months for a house-- to contractors, that is a significant amount of time in construction.

Time is money.

And money is the second point--

If someone hires both a contractor and an architect, they pay twice.
If someone hires an architecture firm like SHoP, they pay 1.5 times.
If someone hires a contractor, they pay the contractor.

Of course, someone can just hire an architect for ideas or guidance... but architecture doesn't like doing this because once the drawings leave the office, it is a liability. If you want to remove that liability, lawyers are involved and it is a pain.

Money feeds into a third point--

Cost of the project in general.

If the client has enough money, they'll choose the tech/design, detail/design or just design options. If the client doesn't have money, they choose whatever they can get and hope to God someone slaps some EIFS, faux stone and nice paint on it for next to nothing.

However, two confounding options that are interrelated-- location. If the land is cheap enough, people will build a more expensive building. If the land is terribly expensive, they will generally build the best (maybe smaller) building they can afford.

But there's no point in building Versailles next to the turnpike.

Generally, you do see a lot more architects involved when the projects are very rural or very urban because those clients, even if poor, want the most they can get.

If architects want to see more SHoP, they're going to have to figure out how to build Peter Zumtor, Thom Mayne or [INSERT GENERIC DWELL HOUSE] at a price point of less than $125 a square foot not including land.

Despite that most of my focus applies to residential architecture, the price point and quality points can equally apply to commercial architecture.

I.e,

Don't build me this for $450 a square foot:


When I could have this or this for $475 a square foot:




Or I could settle for this for $200:

So, to summarize, if I may: the real divorce isnt between designers and producers of architectural content. Rather it is between designers/producers and consumers. Is that correct?


If so, that's incredibly cynical [and simply untrue amoung an educated public] and I think your talents would be better served in London or Brussels, rather than Tampa.

Yes.

If you really price out the specified architectural components, many of them aren't really more expensive than your typical finishes that you'd find at Home Depot or your local construction supplier.

I.e., a big portion of the cost of something like SWISSPEARL panels has to do more with location and labor than the actual price of the panels. I'm sure there's more 'local' options. But SWISSPEARL is like nike, brand and aesthetics matter to a certain extent.

SWISSPEARL, out the factory door, runs what about $200 for a 4' by 8' sheet? That's like less than $7.00 a square foot. Faux stone costs more than that. And I'm sure most people would love to have a nearly indestructible maintenance-free, low-energy cladding like SWISSPEARL.

In order for more design options, architects would have to pool enough resources and design styles together to necessitate a development of a supply chain that could either license or create dynamic, flexible materials at local or regional levels.

Otherwise, all your smart and saavy specifications will double in price when it comes to transport and labor.

I mean, if you watch Home & Garden/DIY/et cetera on TV... 99% of the time all they talk about is your more traditional, contractor-oriented architecture and finishes.

When it comes to architects, it's always some Discovery Channel guy-yelling-in-monotone-voice "Megastructures" T.V. show about "HOW ARCHITECTURE COSTS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND REQUIRES A CRANE FUCKING A TANK FUCKING A SHIP TO ASSEMBLE."

Because of familiarity, regularity and accessibility... people, from banks to contractors to customers, do whatever is easiest even if it is plain-and-boring.

And many people tend to have this image that architecture, both new and old, is some complex overbearing pursuit that only the wealthy can really afford.

Get there... its not about the materials themselves. Why is it that [in the US] people always want the newest gadgets and the oldest houses?

New gadgets are a status symbol, and old houses are a status symbol.

So put a pv panel on the roof, but don't change the pitch to something that doesnt evoke 1600.

It's both simpler and more complex than you're getting at. Yes, I agree that [when you talk about banks to contractors to customers] people are unwilling to take economic risks. However, in some geographies, to be 'old' is to take an economic risk. The key is to divorce client's minds from what the architecture ''means'' [does architecture mean anything, really? I thought space was inert..] and get them focused on what it DOES, or doesnt do.

The materiality was in part a response to:

"Doesn't it stand to reason that a better building entails a higher price tag? IE doesnt that mean that the more design intelligence involved in a project, it should [and does] entail a higher design price tag? Likewise, shouldn't it also mean that a higher construction quality also entail a higher price tag?"

I think materialism here plays into more of building construction quality than actual structural or assembled quality. With advancements in building codes and governments being the "negative nancies" that they are, I would say that the majority of buildings are not unsafe but that doesn't make them entirely safe either.

That said, as far as regulatory and planning side is concerned-- well, planners could really not give two shits about who puts up buildings as long as they don't fall down, burn down or mold over.

That being said, governments will intervene when they perceived that the quality of the environment is being overrun with cancerous style fads. So, as far as legal and regulatory barriers, well... none really exist for a firm to be a SHoP firm.

But I would be say as foolish as it is to be reductive and cynical about consumer habits and potential markets.., it would also be foolish to not accept that as a partial truth about the modus operandi of consumers.

So, yes, I will stand by my point that consumer preferences shape the division between contractors and architects.

There's also little things too-- like, people don't get architects to install bathtubs. Handymen are a variety of contractors too!




What is stopping the profession of architecture from pursuing a SHoP model?

I really wanted to answer this! So, ignore everything else if you want. To really pull this off... I'd imagine you'd need the following things:

-- Clear company plan and policy
-- Boat loads of cash (not necessarily that hard to get if you know the right people)
-- Able staff

Your business should entail:

-- market research (planners and economists)
-- concept designers (a mix between planners and schematic designers)
-- Schematic design
-- Graphic design
-- Project management
-- Architects
-- CAD draftsmen
-- Account representatives (for rentals, leases and clients)
-- Construction managers
-- Real Estate agents
-- Assistants
-- Technical assistants/IT
-- Managers
-- Board members (I'd avoid direct leadership)

Your business should sell/rent:

-- Rental homes
-- Rental apartments
-- Rental properties to sell to rental agencies
-- Commercial Rental Real Estate
-- Homes, Townhomes, Single Family
-- Condos (low to medium rise)
-- Light industrial
-- Light Residential

I'd basically avoid any major project unless being paid to only design, but not finance, it

The reason for rentals is they add value to your assets (you can borrow against them) which extends your line of credit while giving you flexibility with having guaranteed monthly income.

And because you employ people like real estate agents, brokers and account managers... you can manage or sell properties that belong to other people giving you extra added income.

With constant income flow, you should have enough money to turn over 20,000-30,000 square feet of space a month.

And back to my point about materiality, if you can build that square footage for $100-125 a square foot... at 30,000 square feet, that's 3.75 million cost, 6 mil revenue (if you sell it for 200) and gross profit of 2.25 million. Spread amongst 50 employees, that's $45,000 a month per employee.

Even if best case scenario, a multiservice property company (a developer) with an architectural focus can definitely work!

Reminds me of a lecture Joshua Prince Ramus of REX gave a few years ago [think it was 2006] at Yale that was about liability and power in the design and construction field. He ended by saying, somewhat facetiously, that we should really just collaspe the roles of Owner, GC, Project Manager into Architect [or to extend his professional 'ontology' ''Master Builder'' so to speak].

Beyond the ethical issues presented with an entity assuming so much power [Hello, Forest City Ratner! or Robert Moses, even], there's a huge gigantic wealth of knowledge that is necessary to achieve that. As evidenced in your lists of personell and types of buildings/economic constructs. IE, yes the firm has to have an incredibly wide range of roles, which leads one to the common saying - 'Jack of all trades, Master of none.' Meaning of course, if you try to do everything, whether it's in one project architecturally, or as a methodological business model applied across the board, it becomes incredibly difficult to achieve anything beyond the mediocre.

I don't think SHoP is actually into ownership or developing [I might be out of date with this], last I heard, they were marrying traditional architectural design practice, with project management and construction management. [A true return to 'Master Builder' in my opinion - Brunelleschi didn't OWN the Duomo, he merely designed AND built it.]

In short, in my opinion, ownership and construction and design in one office presents an immediate conflict of interest. Doesn't it mean that one's not really thinking about the users [constituency] except in how to make money from them? IE architects sometimes fight for design ideas they think would benefit the general public, nevermind even the tenants. If the architect is the owner, and the GC, who's the public's advocate?

However, that said, if the architect is also managing the GC, but does not personify the owner or the GC as well, then the architect doesn't really have an interest in taking advantage of anybody, and also takes on more responsibility and liability along with garnering a [deservably] higher fee, whilst being able to focus energies into a narrower field, engendering a higher quality product [meaning function as well, not just in terms of material quality].

Admittedly, this is a bit 'blue sky day', and probably much more complex than I'm able to fathom. Thoughts?