go to columbia MSRED

Hi Batman,

From what  I gathered, after speaking to an alumnus of the same program at Columbia , the course is extremely finance heavy, with hardly any emphasis on the role of design. Also, I believe the main advantage of Columbia is its location and the opportunities for networking. The person I spoke to seemed quite convinced that development for profit and development for good design were absolutely different things and that they don't overlap. I can't help but think that this reflects the school's approach towards development. One can only hope not. Then again this just one person's opinion, and I might be completely wrong. I'll definitely have another look at it, thanks!

VB, 

I saw your post on the thread I started (http://archinect.com/forum/thread/101406550/march-mup-vs-march-mred) and felt it was best to continue the conversation here since our questions seem to be aligned in many ways. 

I haven't found a whole lot more than what has already been identified here. The only school not mentioned here to my knowledge that has an actual combined MArch/MRED program is the University of Maryland. I can't vouch for the school's strength in design compared to the aforementioned schools, but it does explicitly offer this paring. 

Because of this seemingly narrow selection of schools that offer real estate and architecture under the same roof, I've been expanding my searches to include schools that are accredited by the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB). Schools that offer a pairing of Architecture and Urban Planning may provide a good background in business and entitlement processes without losing sight of good design (or at the least not forgetting about it all together).  This list is much longer and includes schools such as Cal Berkeley, UVA, UPenn, Michigan, and many more. My concern with PAB accredited schools is the same as yours about real estate development at Columbia however; just because the program is offered does not guarantee that it is integrated with the architecture program in any way. I would love to hear from the greater community if they have any experience with a successful pairing of architecture and planning.

My final comment comes from some recent suggestion I got from a former professor. Stick to the MArch. Go to a highly regarded program that lets you focus on some of the issues you're interested in through personal study, and get the real estate development experience through work in a firm. The logic is that--unlike a professional degree in architecture from a highly regarded school--knowledge and recognition in the development world might be better attained through experience in the field than at any school. Plus those classes will be boring as hell for a design-minded person. 

I can't say I'm pivoting my search away from development completely...but I am feeling like it would be a missed opportunity to pass up acceptance at (or lose focus from) a highly regarded design program to spend countless hours learning how to make a proforma. I'd love to hear any thoughts about the validity of this logic. 

Thanks everyone!

Hi Batman,

From what  I gathered, after speaking to an alumnus of the same program at Columbia , the course is extremely finance heavy, with hardly any emphasis on the role of design.

well first off all MSRED programs are going to be in heavy finance. developing is all about investing and creating a successful proforma (as the above poster said)

second, i dont know the other programs you mentioned and their relationship with design. I can only speak about GSAPP which design does influence and play a role in the program.

keep in mind, the MSRED program is WITHIN the architecture, planning, and preservation department.  Theres a lot of collaborations between ms.red and other programs here for you to explore what and how design can play a role in development.

Also, I believe the main advantage of Columbia is its location and the opportunities for networking. 

yes, and it is the best advantage you can get if you're all for development. all the top development firms are here in NY.

The person I spoke to seemed quite convinced that development for profit and development for good design were absolutely different things and that they don't overlap.

you need good design to get profit. thats a no brainer.

I can't help but think that this reflects the school's approach towards development. One can only hope not. Then again this just one person's opinion, and I might be completely wrong. I'll definitely have another look at it, thanks!

im doing a dual m.arch/ms.red in gsapp right now and i dont share the same sentiment as your buddy.

also i had a hard time trying to answer some of your questions. youre kind of all of the place. what exactly do you want to do professionally?

I haven't found a whole lot more than what has already been identified here. The only school not mentioned here to my knowledge that has an actual combined MArch/MRED program is the University of Maryland. I can't vouch for the school's strength in design compared to the aforementioned schools, but it does explicitly offer this paring. 

nope.

columbia has a dual

woodbury has a dual.

 just to name a few

My final comment comes from some recent suggestion I got from a former professor. Stick to the MArch. Go to a highly regarded program that lets you focus on some of the issues you're interested in through personal study, and get the real estate development experience through work in a firm. The logic is that--unlike a professional degree in architecture from a highly regarded school--knowledge and recognition in the development world might be better attained through experience in the field than at any school. Plus those classes will be boring as hell for a design-minded person.

if someone's going to find finance/real estate/development classes to be boring, why do development?

columbia has a dual

woodbury has a dual.

 just to name a few

Help us out and name a few more if you got 'em.  

if someone's going to find finance/real estate/development classes to be boring, why do development?

You're probably right; I'm looking at it from the perspective of an architect who coordinates frequently with a developer in pre-design, not the 'architect as developer' model that VB mentioned. From what I've observed, even the highest level partners (at my firm, at least) who are working with developers to make a project pencil have gotten their finance savvy through years of work experience, not through classes. If a person wanted to identify as a developer themselves, they obviously benefit enormously from going to school for development/finance. And certainly, anyone who intends on coordinating with developers from the architectural side (as I do) would benefit from classes like this would benefit as well. I'm just not convinced its a necessity to have the degree.

With that said, I'm still in the research phase for my education path so I'd like to hear any thoughts on this reasoning. 

as i asked before,

what exactly do you want to do professionally?

Hi Batman, Kpbs4041,

I have an interest in the following areas:

Public space

Retail spaces

Hospitality

Cultural spaces

Low cost housing

I imagine my self working towards a project with such components, of this scale and complexity in the next 5-10 years. I realize that such a project is not something that just happens. And I am not in a hurry. One has to start small and build from there on. But what I am sure of, is that I would like to work independently and for my myself, as a designer. I would rather be doing projects that I have some stake in.  This is primarily because I want to work in an efficient setting where the dialogue between investor, client, architect and contractor is more rigorous and regular, and I feel like this can happen best if atleast 2 of these players, if not all, are under one roof.

So to put it simply, As of now, I see myself working as the chief architect, but having a much bigger stake in the project, in terms of my overall involvement. Realistically speaking, being the investor and the architect, while hiring the right contractors and renting/ selling to a client seems like the most plausible model to me, at the moment.

I hope that clarifies what I have in mind, professionally. Would your suggestions change?

Thanks.

Hi all,

I pretty agree what kpbs4041 said. 

Stick to the MArch. Go to a highly regarded program that lets you focus on some of the issues you're interested in through personal study, and get the real estate development experience through work in a firm.

Learning Real estate at school may only be one choice, and I am sure that GSAPP is a Good choice. I am also studying at GSAPP now.

And I hope we all got a better position in the future.