It seems that General Contractors are getting a lot of the work that once was left for architects to do.
I find this to be a shame because although a GC can adequately construct a building and perhaps even do a decent job of designing it, the benefit of hiring an architect over a GC I think are obvious.
I feel the public isn't well educated in why it may behoove them to hire an architect over a GC.
So, in this "new economy", will architects increasingly have to also be the GCs or perhaps even GCs first and architects 2nd in order to survive?
Yes a friend of mine is a contractor and she is making good money too.According to her things are very good right now in terms of getting contracts,economy etc.She didn't even study anything similar to architecture/construction though she is going to grad school for construction management now.. I talked to her recently then thought about all the miserable architecture graduates.She is doing really fine.
architects dont know how to build things. Clients dont want pretty renderings. GC's can provide the client with an actual product (building) while the architect can only provide ideas. At the end of the day, the ideas of the GC (although they may not be as great as those as an architect (completely subjective)) are adequate for 99% of clients.
Good thing is in Texas one doesn't need a builder's license to be a builder. Nor does one need a contractor's license - they don't exist here.
mdler - for one siting and placement to take advantage of solar gain/etc. and sustainable alternatives that most builders completely ignore. Also, building and designing something that people will want to preserve and not another McMansion or another builder's plan that looks just like all the rest of the houses on the block or in a neighborhood - building something unique. That's not to say that clients of builders care about these things and that is probably why they use them over architects but someone who does will use an architect over a builder.
There are many reasons other than these two small examples. But I don't want to get into an argument about why one is better than the other. I just asked if architects should BECOME builders/contractors as well in order to survive the public ignorance over the difference between the two.
I already am a contractor because I over see the construction of the structures, coordinate scheduling, etc. based on my own designs. So all I plan to do is to make it an official annex to my current duties in architecture. So it's not true that architects don't know how to build - it's far more than "pretty drawings" and cool structures. I am sure most architects could do this if they wanted to, after all if contractors can do it, architects certainly can.
What's the scope of work done by these contractors? Kitchen renos? Backyard decks? If so, a builder (be that an architect or someone with hand-on experience) would do a much better job providing a valuable service than someone only providing 'design'. It seems like a no brainer to me.
Like the previous thread on Lean Delivery Systems and Target Value Design, the concept requires a lot of forethought.
Essentially, contractors know what they can and can't do. And if they can't do it, they will have to hire someone else which means they make less money. So, they either have to known a lot of say 'enough is enough.'
In that idea, when a firm becomes an integrated practice [design-build]... they need to know their materials and their processes that 'actualize' their design.
An integrated practice also becomes its own Arup and Skanska. A medium to large sized firm will have little to no problem doing its own construction management and engineering. However, you lose the flexibility of working with monolithic sized companies and you'll lose the benefits of working with them.
Those benefits being, of course, access to certain technologies, processes and materials where the cost of those technologies and processes is prohibitive for the size and scope of most professional firms acting independently.
If you're going integrated practice [design-build], you should really look towards using a lot of orthogonal forms and lots of off-the-shelf materials. And that doesn't necessarily mean stale or unimaginative.
Hell, you can make really interesting interiors and exteriors with a bit of plywood, masking tape, stain and sandpaper.
This is what every contractor and architect in Austin seems to have become. It is a glut of "Design Build" firms...so much so that the name has become meaningless.
There is work but most of it will be building what the client designed...i.e. granite counter tops in the kitchen, etc. Not a lot of complete remodels and little to no new construction.
I would actually shy away from residential construction (albeit, client-controlled renovations are entirely more friendly).
The residential construction process has an incredibly high rate of lawsuits-- residential E&O and liability claims are at an all time time. Despite making up a smallish portion of overall billings, the value and number of claims is disproportionately high.
The issue with this is not necessarily the business model per se. But rather the cost of liability insurance and the lack of flexible insurance packages seen in larger projects means that professional liability insurance is proportionately higher for architects who have more claims against them.
Why you'd want to drastically increase your overhead by exposing yourself to rapid liabilities is beyond me.
This makes it even more troubling when you end up with a high lawsuit probability and switch over to doing larger projects once the market picks back up.
That means if a client wants to hire your firm to do a large development or building project, your insurance premiums on specialty insurance will bump up from 5-10% of project costs upwards of 15%.
I don't know very many clients that will be happy whipping out $4 million dollars in packaged liability and construction insurance on a $50 million dollar project because you got sued trying to play residential master-builder.
Can anyone from outside of the US comment on this trend? I never get the feeling European and Asian firms have this constant worry about the uselessness or slow phase out of their profession. I don't know whether its because additional complexities of design outside of the US warrant architects more often or because of soft cultural factors and views towards architecture, but this really does seem like a US issue, not an whole-architecture issue. I am from the US though, so I wonder if someone else had comment.
"I never get the feeling European and Asian firms have this constant worry about the uselessness or slow phase out of their profession."
I don't think US firms are losing big projects to contractors either. You need a professional stamp to build anything except residential crap under a certain size. We are talking here about contractors out-competing architects on smallest of renos and additions; kind of shit no architect wanted to do anyways as early as 3 years ago. These days no project is too small.
That said, keep in mind that US is very much into property rights and building most of residential stuff out of light wood frame. Why does that matter? Houses in Japan are typically done out of concrete. Masonry in most of Europe. It takes a much higher level of technical ability to build with those materials than it is with carpentry. As far as property rights: less than 20% of Swiss citizens own any property for instance. Renting is a more common approach to property in most parts of the world. With that, who wants a kitchen renovation if you don't even own the place.
I don't think US firms are losing big projects to contractors either.
are you kidding? virtually every major gc in the country is running design-build or cm as part of their services. sure, they have architects on staff, but notice whose driving the ship. architects are being terribly naive when they think that design-build is a bunch of architects running around with hammers doing kitchen renos.
"are you kidding? virtually every major gc in the country is running design-build or cm as part of their services. sure, they have architects on staff, but notice whose driving the ship."
The spirit of the original post alluded to smaller projects. The types of projects that could completely be done without an architect on board.
You want to talk about big design-build firms? Fine. Here is a list of 100 biggest design-build firms in the US . Note that the scope of services these heavy hitters have is much, much bigger than architecture. I would love to design a mine, or a suspension bridge but may not have all the skills needed.
Here is a list of top 500 architectural design firms Note that there is a lot of overlap between this list and the previous one. In fact, highest ranked office that only does architecture is Gensler at 25. Not bad.
Smaller design-build firms aspire to be like the big dogs. They will gladly offer in-house architectural services if it helps them get an edge. Integrated design solutions are very popular with certain types of clients. However, I don't see any of these companies competing to do a high profile museum or theater. Even when they do, they tend to bring in a brand-name arch. firm to do the heavy design lifting.
Face it. Most of the architectural projects out in the wild are fairly mundane. Design-build firms can often produce a superior product in terms of cost and performance. Architect driven firms tend to be better value when it comes to developing a brand as well as a building.
Original poster asked if architects also have to be GC's in order to compete. For large projects that would be impossible. You need to bring in qualified people who know all aspects of construction process. At that point you are only splitting hairs about who's 'driving the ship'. The issue boils down to 'who gets to keep the profits'. I couldn't give a rat's ass either way.
i have my builders license and took the test in 2000.. it was simple... but now i think they require you to take classes and a few other things.... took me 45 minutes to take a 4 hour test...simple
"I feel the public isn't well educated...." I keep hearing about the uneducated public. Perhaps it is time to consider that architects have gone down a path of abstract theoretical design that the general public does not like? Not that they don't understand. That they flat out dislike it.
Coke convinced women that drinking diet coke "costs nothing", no calories. Can residential architects convince clients that through siting, solar gain, reduced errors, expert advice on materials, etc. that it is less expensive to hire them than buy book plans or just let the carpenter design the addition?
A few months ago I started wondering if going forward you might have to be "architect and..." pick one:
builder
developer
owner
trust fund baby
food stamp beneficiary
Can residential architects convince clients that through siting, solar gain, reduced errors, expert advice on materials, etc. that it is less expensive to hire them than buy book plans or just let the carpenter design the addition?
Except a lousy General Contractor can do that with SketchUp. Plus, these are options that most people can't even legally use.
Plus, the majority of people who have flexible lot requirements don't have the income to hire 'real professionals.'
And the majority of people who can afford architects live in restrictive communities, New Urbanist affairs or condominiums-- all of which pretty much only allow interior renovations.
Lastly, the prize group of people who have the money, the land and the lawyers to override zoning and master plans... we'll, they all like extremes. They either want Versailles v2.0 or Mies. Unfortunately, there's a lot more money in petite versailles than there is S&M-esque minimalism.
@dallasarchitect - Maybe you could educate the starchitects on 'what architects do?'
I don't hear them talking about how buildings work, only what they look like.
'WHAT architects DO' is make them look cool. There are plenty of consultants to advise about energy conservation, landscaping, civil engineering, structural engineering, acoustics, waterproofing, MEP issues, code compliance, construction methods, traffic engineering and so on.
According to the AIA, architects are artists who draw pictures and make architecture. Architecture is completely and wholly subjective - it's religious expression - so there isn't anything to educate, except, "My work looks great!"
I was at a local planning board meeting some time back. Eric Owen Moss - he's run an accredited architecture school in Los Angeles for years and serves on some sort of AIA education committee - presented a proposal for a project on a traffic-impacted corner in Los Angeles. The project got shot down because virtually every lay person in the room could see that there were site and off-site circulation problems. The parking didn't seem to work. The architect never defended those criticisms and didn't seem to address the problems. On the other hand, some prominent local architects wrote or spoke in favor of the project, possibly because someone made some phone calls.
So we have situations where world-class architects can't seem to figure out that they might have an obligation to address the same problems that the average second or third-year student is expected to solve. At least that's the way it looks to me.
@Uxbridge - Can you explain why restrictions on architectural expression are legal? Why isn't that religious discrimination? I think it is, but architects don't seem to think so. Why not?
'WHAT architects DO' is make them look cool. There are plenty of consultants to advise about energy conservation, landscaping, civil engineering, structural engineering, acoustics, waterproofing, MEP issues, code compliance, construction methods, traffic engineering and so on.
Yes and now they all get paid more than architects too with less schooling/loans.
"Can you explain why restrictions on architectural expression are legal?"
Flimsy definitions on health and public well-being.
Also, not a stylistic concern but people do appreciate cohesive environments done all in one or two styles. It gives the impression of familiarity and culture.
Outside of some small projects in Los Angeles, I don't think I've ever encountered an entire neighborhood being done in Mid-Century or contemporary architecture.
I'm learning quite a bit about wood-framed construction by simply working part-time in the lumber and building materials department inside a Lowe's. It's a bit humbling for a licensed architect with almost 15 years of experience, but it beats becoming a "food stamp beneficiary".
The hardest part is working the 8-5 shift on a Sunday while my wife and 3-year-old daughter are home. However, until the credit starts flowing again, this is as real as it gets.
Architects must become Contractors to Survive?
It seems that General Contractors are getting a lot of the work that once was left for architects to do.
I find this to be a shame because although a GC can adequately construct a building and perhaps even do a decent job of designing it, the benefit of hiring an architect over a GC I think are obvious.
I feel the public isn't well educated in why it may behoove them to hire an architect over a GC.
So, in this "new economy", will architects increasingly have to also be the GCs or perhaps even GCs first and architects 2nd in order to survive?
Just curious on your thoughts.
Yes a friend of mine is a contractor and she is making good money too.According to her things are very good right now in terms of getting contracts,economy etc.She didn't even study anything similar to architecture/construction though she is going to grad school for construction management now.. I talked to her recently then thought about all the miserable architecture graduates.She is doing really fine.
architects dont know how to build things. Clients dont want pretty renderings. GC's can provide the client with an actual product (building) while the architect can only provide ideas. At the end of the day, the ideas of the GC (although they may not be as great as those as an architect (completely subjective)) are adequate for 99% of clients.
GCs can charge on finite products as well
dallasarchitect,
what are the benifits of hiring an architect, btw?
another reason why i have my builders license.... just saying
Good thing is in Texas one doesn't need a builder's license to be a builder. Nor does one need a contractor's license - they don't exist here.
mdler - for one siting and placement to take advantage of solar gain/etc. and sustainable alternatives that most builders completely ignore. Also, building and designing something that people will want to preserve and not another McMansion or another builder's plan that looks just like all the rest of the houses on the block or in a neighborhood - building something unique. That's not to say that clients of builders care about these things and that is probably why they use them over architects but someone who does will use an architect over a builder.
There are many reasons other than these two small examples. But I don't want to get into an argument about why one is better than the other. I just asked if architects should BECOME builders/contractors as well in order to survive the public ignorance over the difference between the two.
I already am a contractor because I over see the construction of the structures, coordinate scheduling, etc. based on my own designs. So all I plan to do is to make it an official annex to my current duties in architecture. So it's not true that architects don't know how to build - it's far more than "pretty drawings" and cool structures. I am sure most architects could do this if they wanted to, after all if contractors can do it, architects certainly can.
Yup. My contractor friends are busy. I'm not. Goin' to get that builder's license...
What's the scope of work done by these contractors? Kitchen renos? Backyard decks? If so, a builder (be that an architect or someone with hand-on experience) would do a much better job providing a valuable service than someone only providing 'design'. It seems like a no brainer to me.
Becoming contractor = Becoming design-build
It's also called integrated practice.
Like the previous thread on Lean Delivery Systems and Target Value Design, the concept requires a lot of forethought.
Essentially, contractors know what they can and can't do. And if they can't do it, they will have to hire someone else which means they make less money. So, they either have to known a lot of say 'enough is enough.'
In that idea, when a firm becomes an integrated practice [design-build]... they need to know their materials and their processes that 'actualize' their design.
An integrated practice also becomes its own Arup and Skanska. A medium to large sized firm will have little to no problem doing its own construction management and engineering. However, you lose the flexibility of working with monolithic sized companies and you'll lose the benefits of working with them.
Those benefits being, of course, access to certain technologies, processes and materials where the cost of those technologies and processes is prohibitive for the size and scope of most professional firms acting independently.
If you're going integrated practice [design-build], you should really look towards using a lot of orthogonal forms and lots of off-the-shelf materials. And that doesn't necessarily mean stale or unimaginative.
Hell, you can make really interesting interiors and exteriors with a bit of plywood, masking tape, stain and sandpaper.
There's an a good book on the subject "Integrated Practice in Architecture" by George Elvin.
"Becoming contractor = Becoming design-build"
This is what every contractor and architect in Austin seems to have become. It is a glut of "Design Build" firms...so much so that the name has become meaningless.
There is work but most of it will be building what the client designed...i.e. granite counter tops in the kitchen, etc. Not a lot of complete remodels and little to no new construction.
I would actually shy away from residential construction (albeit, client-controlled renovations are entirely more friendly).
The residential construction process has an incredibly high rate of lawsuits-- residential E&O and liability claims are at an all time time. Despite making up a smallish portion of overall billings, the value and number of claims is disproportionately high.
The issue with this is not necessarily the business model per se. But rather the cost of liability insurance and the lack of flexible insurance packages seen in larger projects means that professional liability insurance is proportionately higher for architects who have more claims against them.
Why you'd want to drastically increase your overhead by exposing yourself to rapid liabilities is beyond me.
This makes it even more troubling when you end up with a high lawsuit probability and switch over to doing larger projects once the market picks back up.
That means if a client wants to hire your firm to do a large development or building project, your insurance premiums on specialty insurance will bump up from 5-10% of project costs upwards of 15%.
I don't know very many clients that will be happy whipping out $4 million dollars in packaged liability and construction insurance on a $50 million dollar project because you got sued trying to play residential master-builder.
Can anyone from outside of the US comment on this trend? I never get the feeling European and Asian firms have this constant worry about the uselessness or slow phase out of their profession. I don't know whether its because additional complexities of design outside of the US warrant architects more often or because of soft cultural factors and views towards architecture, but this really does seem like a US issue, not an whole-architecture issue. I am from the US though, so I wonder if someone else had comment.
I don't think US firms are losing big projects to contractors either. You need a professional stamp to build anything except residential crap under a certain size. We are talking here about contractors out-competing architects on smallest of renos and additions; kind of shit no architect wanted to do anyways as early as 3 years ago. These days no project is too small.
That said, keep in mind that US is very much into property rights and building most of residential stuff out of light wood frame. Why does that matter? Houses in Japan are typically done out of concrete. Masonry in most of Europe. It takes a much higher level of technical ability to build with those materials than it is with carpentry. As far as property rights: less than 20% of Swiss citizens own any property for instance. Renting is a more common approach to property in most parts of the world. With that, who wants a kitchen renovation if you don't even own the place.
are you kidding? virtually every major gc in the country is running design-build or cm as part of their services. sure, they have architects on staff, but notice whose driving the ship. architects are being terribly naive when they think that design-build is a bunch of architects running around with hammers doing kitchen renos.
I call BS on Steelstuds too. His opinions are almost the opposite of my observations.
The spirit of the original post alluded to smaller projects. The types of projects that could completely be done without an architect on board.
You want to talk about big design-build firms? Fine. Here is a list of 100 biggest design-build firms in the US . Note that the scope of services these heavy hitters have is much, much bigger than architecture. I would love to design a mine, or a suspension bridge but may not have all the skills needed.
Here is a list of top 500 architectural design firms Note that there is a lot of overlap between this list and the previous one. In fact, highest ranked office that only does architecture is Gensler at 25. Not bad.
Smaller design-build firms aspire to be like the big dogs. They will gladly offer in-house architectural services if it helps them get an edge. Integrated design solutions are very popular with certain types of clients. However, I don't see any of these companies competing to do a high profile museum or theater. Even when they do, they tend to bring in a brand-name arch. firm to do the heavy design lifting.
Face it. Most of the architectural projects out in the wild are fairly mundane. Design-build firms can often produce a superior product in terms of cost and performance. Architect driven firms tend to be better value when it comes to developing a brand as well as a building.
Original poster asked if architects also have to be GC's in order to compete. For large projects that would be impossible. You need to bring in qualified people who know all aspects of construction process. At that point you are only splitting hairs about who's 'driving the ship'. The issue boils down to 'who gets to keep the profits'. I couldn't give a rat's ass either way.
Architects are surviving? where at?
small scale projects is where it's at right now.....pick up some tools and learn a few things....
Scary thought binary. I think most architects lack the knowledge base and skill set to get heavy into design build.
"small scale projects is where it's at right now.....pick up some tools and learn a few things...."
It's funny to hear about architects complain about their profession being overran by under-qualified associated professionals...
Yet, it is some sort of a godsend merit badge when an architect steals someone's profession even if it blue collar.
Unicorn,
Just curious... Are you licensed and/or working for yourself?
I'm a very part-time bookkeeper.
for the portion of us whose careers won't involve designing billion dollar museums - yes - and knowing a bit about real estate surely wouldn't hurt.
so any good contractor's schools??
So for those who have done it, how long does it take to get a Class A contractor license?
i have my builders license and took the test in 2000.. it was simple... but now i think they require you to take classes and a few other things.... took me 45 minutes to take a 4 hour test...simple
"I feel the public isn't well educated...." I keep hearing about the uneducated public. Perhaps it is time to consider that architects have gone down a path of abstract theoretical design that the general public does not like? Not that they don't understand. That they flat out dislike it.
Coke convinced women that drinking diet coke "costs nothing", no calories. Can residential architects convince clients that through siting, solar gain, reduced errors, expert advice on materials, etc. that it is less expensive to hire them than buy book plans or just let the carpenter design the addition?
A few months ago I started wondering if going forward you might have to be "architect and..." pick one:
builder
developer
owner
trust fund baby
food stamp beneficiary
Except a lousy General Contractor can do that with SketchUp. Plus, these are options that most people can't even legally use.
Plus, the majority of people who have flexible lot requirements don't have the income to hire 'real professionals.'
And the majority of people who can afford architects live in restrictive communities, New Urbanist affairs or condominiums-- all of which pretty much only allow interior renovations.
Lastly, the prize group of people who have the money, the land and the lawyers to override zoning and master plans... we'll, they all like extremes. They either want Versailles v2.0 or Mies. Unfortunately, there's a lot more money in petite versailles than there is S&M-esque minimalism.
When I said the public wasn't educated I meant about WHAT architects DO
@dallasarchitect - Maybe you could educate the starchitects on 'what architects do?'
I don't hear them talking about how buildings work, only what they look like.
'WHAT architects DO' is make them look cool. There are plenty of consultants to advise about energy conservation, landscaping, civil engineering, structural engineering, acoustics, waterproofing, MEP issues, code compliance, construction methods, traffic engineering and so on.
According to the AIA, architects are artists who draw pictures and make architecture. Architecture is completely and wholly subjective - it's religious expression - so there isn't anything to educate, except, "My work looks great!"
I was at a local planning board meeting some time back. Eric Owen Moss - he's run an accredited architecture school in Los Angeles for years and serves on some sort of AIA education committee - presented a proposal for a project on a traffic-impacted corner in Los Angeles. The project got shot down because virtually every lay person in the room could see that there were site and off-site circulation problems. The parking didn't seem to work. The architect never defended those criticisms and didn't seem to address the problems. On the other hand, some prominent local architects wrote or spoke in favor of the project, possibly because someone made some phone calls.
So we have situations where world-class architects can't seem to figure out that they might have an obligation to address the same problems that the average second or third-year student is expected to solve. At least that's the way it looks to me.
@Uxbridge - Can you explain why restrictions on architectural expression are legal? Why isn't that religious discrimination? I think it is, but architects don't seem to think so. Why not?
Yes and now they all get paid more than architects too with less schooling/loans.
"Can you explain why restrictions on architectural expression are legal?"
Flimsy definitions on health and public well-being.
Also, not a stylistic concern but people do appreciate cohesive environments done all in one or two styles. It gives the impression of familiarity and culture.
Outside of some small projects in Los Angeles, I don't think I've ever encountered an entire neighborhood being done in Mid-Century or contemporary architecture.
I'm learning quite a bit about wood-framed construction by simply working part-time in the lumber and building materials department inside a Lowe's. It's a bit humbling for a licensed architect with almost 15 years of experience, but it beats becoming a "food stamp beneficiary".
The hardest part is working the 8-5 shift on a Sunday while my wife and 3-year-old daughter are home. However, until the credit starts flowing again, this is as real as it gets.
92 5/8
What is "length of a standard stud"?, Alex.
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.