Given that architecture offices are increasingly competing for projects outside the US, can it be long before we start outsourcing the grunt work to other countries? It's already not uncommon to have a 'Design Architect' and an 'Architect of Record' which essentially is farming out the CD set, but this is mostly for projects that are done outside of the Design Architects state(s) of registration. But could you send the Licensed Architect to India to run a CD drafting house (at a fraction of the cost), review and stamp the drawings and ship them back to the US?
My former firm tried this, but the drawings were so terrible, it took more time to try to explain, mark up, I usually ended up saying F*ck It..I'll fix it myself.
It was difficult to get any continuity, because we never seemed to get the same people working on something twice, so would have to try to explain to the local rep. over and over.
They worked very cheap, and it was cool having your "completed" work waiting for you in the morning. But the quality was so poor that we gave up on the idea.
It sounds like an obvious, less expensive solution, but unless you have the resources of Gensler, you won't get the efficiency needed.
And as OF notes, this was started ages and ages ago. We'll see more blurring of boundaries, but the management and quality control are the valuable pieces to the puzzle, not cheap labor.
Farming out specific portions of labor is part of the commercial economic process. The case above is just an (elaborated) extension of the case where a licensed architect hires a drafter to complete the time-consuming task of drawing production.
It sounds like an obvious, less expensive solution, but unless you have the resources of Gensler, you won't get the efficiency needed.
That seems counter-intuitive to the idea of outsourcing. Isn't the point that you use the massive (cheap) resources of another country to do tasks that would require a higher quantity of more expensive labor in the US?
I'm not arguing in favor of this shift BTW, esp. when the US needs to retain just about all the jobs it can.
...but the management and quality control are the valuable pieces to the puzzle, not cheap labor.
Right, which is exactly why that is the aspect that you retain and you outsource the rest.
there's a very small MEP office here in albuquerque run by a filipino guy - he often sends a bunch of his drafting to the philippines at night.
because there's no language barrier for him, and because he's in direct control of what he wants, as far as quality control i can't tell that he's outsourcing.
It is just a piece of business. It is there, has been for ages. Works for some, but not others. Just look at car production - it was all overseas, then some manufacturing came back here. The value changes and businesses adapt.
There is not 'one' right way to do things, just as there is not one business model that works for all companies.
It sounds like you are trying to reduce things into something much simpler than it really is...?
As with all business, that truly hard part is getting the clients and keeping them happy.
It sounds like you are trying to reduce things into something much simpler than it really is...?
More of just opening a discussion about the implications this could have on the A/E industry, if it was a viable option and using the visual effects industry as an example. Would we see fewer offices? Less graduates? Harder barriers to entry because entry-level tasks have been outsourced? What potential benefits would exist by shipping out production work and just doing the front end and managing work here in the US?
I use Visual Effects as an example, because I feel like there is a similar structure/hierarchy of consultants. The way I understand their industry to work is that there usually is one primary visual effects studio that manages all of the work being done. Some of the work is done in-house and the rest is done by consultant studios who become responsible for discrete tasks, say a specific character or scene or just rendering. It's not much of a stretch to see any architectural project following the same division of labor.
mdler, it is already happening. A rather large chinese firm (CCDI) opened their US office in New York few years back. They occupy a whole floor of the Empire state building, and are very very busy.
CC - the vfx industries are a little different. For Hollywood pictures, it isn't uncommon for an entire office to move somewhere overseas (taxes, incentives, etc.). Because there are short time frames (for a movie), this doesn't have to be something permanent (unlike architecture).
So there are some similarities, but I'd think more differences than things in common.
pretty soon China will be sending their CADs to the US to have some out-of-work architect draft them for $4 a day
Haha! True. Seriously, though, keep an eye on currencies. There are reasons things are manipulated/devalued/etc. Someday, sometime, there will be a tipping point.
I think what you are saying though is that it's really from a lack of training. It's not like people in India immediately grasped visual effects (or the people in the US for that matter)... I am sure there was some degree of training, feedback, etc involved. Each party made the effort because it was of some benefit to them. I mean, I didn't know how to detail a simple building when I started working and I live and went to school in the US.
I actually interviewed at a firm recently that operates pretty close to this... they only do design work in 3D, select the finish materials and some really basic SD level drawings and then ship everything off to another office somewhere in Eastern Europe or Asia (although a US office, they have zero built work in the US) to figure out how to make ti work and then never see, touch, or talk about the project again until it is finished and they fly someone out to take photos of the building.
OF - I agree with CC, one is certainly not simpler to produce, if anything I'd say the high end visual effects (in movies) is much more complexity than just about all architecture.
Also, when you are directing someone creatively, whether it be in your office, down the street or across the world, there is quite a bit more to the process than "put a lens flare over there, a little vignetting here...". It is a collaborative process (far more than architecture and requires efficient communication).
You can't just hand it off and get a file back.
It is about the training. There is easy access to vfx techniques, technologies, and it is boundless - grab a hard drive and go. Also, you are encouraged to teach yourself and the best are promoted to the top of the profession (and paid accordingly), unlike architecture that more or less disregards talent in favor of idp and licensure.
Trace- architecture does not promote based on Idp and licensure...in todays game those mean practically nothing to most firms, especially with shipping production work to india. I laugh when firms buy a small shop in india then have the balls to call it "insourcing"....
but it does. That's what you must reach in order to call yourself an 'architect', to start a firm, etc., etc. It is a requirement for advancement.
In other creative industries, there are no barriers but talent and skills (and getting the business, of course). You can start a company in school, in high school, if you want - there are no barriers but the market place.
Architecture is not like that. There are barriers in place that prevent that entrepreneurial spirit (imho). Doesn't matter what it 'means', that is how it is setup and those are the (very) real barriers to entry.
Even when it comes to more complicated and technically challenging aspects of creative industries.
Other than a UL listing, there's no licenses, necessary certifications or really liability to design anything from milk cartons to sofas to newspapers to dishwashers. Hell, you don't need a license to design a car. Whether or not your design gets approved is entirely different.
In these industries, competent technically skill is really not even a necessity to get a job entry to mid level. Rather the innate ability to grow as a design or to be moldable does.
It's also a field where experience does not matter. You could have thirty years experience and still get your ass handed to you by a 17 year old.
In that sense of the word you are right about advancement. But to advance within a firm or be in a leadership role does not require lisensure nor is that always the main reason for that advancement. Remove our Idp and license restrictions and the field of architecture goes from" professional" to "artist" and we lose the last bit of negotiating power we have. Heck, even accountants need a CPA licence to work on their own and their decisions don't even have the ability to put someones health/safety at risk.
We don't need more design architects (schools spit out enough of those every june)....we need architects who can get things done and run a business. If we remove the licence/Idp restrictions we will all become" designers" and all of our documentation work will get outsourced.
But to advance within a firm or be in a leadership role does not require lisensure nor is that always the main reason for that advancement.
Partially true. That really depends on the office you are working for. Many offices will not promote someone to a Project Manager or Associate level unless they are licensed, for a number of reasons. Also, I think the point that Uxbridge was making is that other creative professions can open shop without much more than a business license (if that), while it would be near impossible to open your own architectural practice without a license, or someone licensed on staff.
But the overall point of the last 2 posts was essentially the lack of reward for young, entrepreneurial designers in Architecture; the barriers to entry for recognition and anonymity in the profession are too steep to hurdle (both in time and cost). An original and creative film thesis project could land you a feature film deal. An original and creative architecture thesis project may get you a job, but it's going to be the same job that all of the other thesis students in your class got as well.
Right, but along those lines bookkeepers don't need a license. You don't need a license to file your taxes.
I'd also disagree with you about the design architects. We need to promote more talent, not cad monkeys spitting out the same ugly stuff that surrounds us. Safety really isn't an issue - how many architects do any calculations themselves?
I think Ux's comments were spot on. You don't need a license to design a car, which has far greater impacts on every aspect of the world than an architect. Engineers, on the other hand, are crucial in both professions.
I say let the free market reign! Let anyone design a building with a professional degree, market themselves, etc., the minute they graduate. The buildings will still have the same requirements as they do now, licensure or not. They will be just as 'safe' and 'healthy', perhaps more so.
I like free markets (maybe I watch too much CNBC ;-) ), I like letting the consumer decide who and what is worth more money, I like thinking that the most talented, regardless of age, moves to the top and is compensated as such. I like thinking architecture can retain and promote talented individuals, not encourage them to find other professions.
Actually, you can practice a wide range of "accounting" without being a CPA.
The only things you really can't do is file someone else's taxes (although up until next year, you can still do this), write checks on their behalf (although there are work arounds-- this is not entirely a law but most banks hate it), file certain kinds of reports for SEC, FDIC and offer your services to the general public.
Also, non-CPAs can't refer to themselves as accountants or auditors. But there's little in licensing laws that says a bookkeeper cannot provide basic financial services and record keeping.
Architecture is getting so severe that state boards have now pretty much outlawed that use of the word "architecture," any variety or permutation of the word 'architecture' or any words relating to architecture.
While some of these prohibitions are not actual laws, they're spelled out pretty distinctly in the "procedural" or "notes" sections of these laws.
And some of these have blanket type wordings. Like "an architect is any person who provides any assistance, advice or documentation to the placement, construction, design or engineering of any structure used or accessible by the general public."
That basically means that the architectural blackout could also be extended to visualization, real estate consultation or even environmental consultants. Also, there's been a lot of inclusions of the word "planner" and "planning" into these laws of the last 3 years.
No one in their right mind-- will, ought or should--double masters' degrees in Arch and Urban Planning. The expense of having two degrees-- plus licensing and AICP certification-- is not worth the expense of the possible benefit one might get over the course of the next 20 years. While I am in favor of the majority of protectionist laws for architecture, they don't really help more than they hurt.
Any motivated and clever person-- educated, self-educated or naturally talented-- cannot become 'successful' nearly instantaneously. By successful, I mean self-reliant. And by instantaneously, I mean within 5 years of graduation.
Car vs building.....car is a disposable consumer product that is mass produced buildings are not. The" idea" of the car has a larger effect on the world but not the design.
You say anyone with a professional degree should be able to design a building....why a professional degree? Like you said.....I can do my own taxes, without a degree
Take away the Idp and licence process and the profession will be flooded with freelance" designers" working for even less than what we make now - example web and graphic designers.. And there is no way a fresh grad can design a efficient building, integrate building systems, produce documents, market themself, and get projects built to code, on time, and under budget. If you want to do this then go into fresidential design where no licence is required.
car is a disposable consumer product that is mass produced buildings are not
Clearly you have not been out to the suburbs. Look at the miles upon miles of big box retail and developer homes and tell me those are not disposable, mass produced items. Very little architecture (in the US) is actually built with the consideration that it will last forever, or if it is, it's usually then rendered as generic as possible (strip malls, retail) so to allow any number of future tenants to occupy. I've watched big box retail locations become schools and hospitals - functions I am sure the original architect/developer/tenant never dreamed would reside there.
And there is no way a fresh grad can design a efficient building, integrate building systems, produce documents, market themself, and get projects built to code, on time, and under budget.
I think it's possible, but it would require a huge shift in how we educate architects, a discussion which has been made on this forum too often to reproduce here.
A house that will last 50-100 years is far from what I would consider disposable no matter how brutal and cookie cutter they might be.
And to the comments of others that we need to promote more "design talent, not cad monkeys"....well I dont see many cad monkeys making significant moves up the ladder or running too many architectural firms. Take a look back at the architectural styles from different periods and you will see that they all reflect the society that surrounded them....but for some reason, today "good design" is perceived as something that looks cool in a rendering, and unbuilt work by an architect who doesnt pay employees, or one of the thousands of laser cut plywood installations we see every school produce? Maybe its just me but I dont see how those types of designs reflect our society at all....and if thats the type of work that is being promoted in school than we better be damn grateful that we have the IDP process and that people are required to pass a series of exams before being able to sign off on the drawings.
I can see it now, a fresh graduate that has no real world experience on building construction or project budget who thinks the cool looking renderings from Asympote are the way all buildings should be designed....yea thats really going to make our services more valuable and keep our jobs at home in the us....
today "good design" is perceived as something that looks cool in a rendering, and unbuilt work by an architect who doesn't pay employees, or one of the thousands of laser cut plywood installations we see every school produce?
This is, honestly, a very small faction of the architectural world, and one that is primarily only to the interest of a small number of students and academic faculty. Show most of this work to the average architectural patron (i.e. the people who are actually going to pay to have work done) and you will probably get asked 'what's with the garishly colored melted milk carton picture', not 'oh wow that is an amazing rendering of a cool building.'
A 'free' market will quickly decide who moves up and who doesn't.
Obviously no one is going to fund something that doesn't work (well, you could argue that is happening as we speak anyway), so that's not really a valid argument. Nothing gets built just because it 'looks good'.
Cars - a great car can last 100 years, so again, not really a great argument. How 'disposable' it is is up to the owner. You get what you pay for, just as with most industries.
Automotive and many industrial designs are what architecture has hoped to be - great designs, efficient funtionality and superior construction.
Good design has always been good design. The details change (ergonomics, functionalily, technology, etc.), but the premise is always the same. Does the Eiffel Tower or Falling Water look cool? If those were 'rendered' today, would you dismiss them? Great design is great design, doesn't matter who/what/why/when.
A punk in high school can design a house and build it, can design a website and build it, but both will, most likely suck, in all possible definitions. BUT, if he can design something great, then more power to him. I'll take something well designed over something poorly designed, regardless of the title on the door.
Let's focus more on that, on design, than 'controlling' something that doesn't offer anything positive in return.
You want to be taken seriously in this profession then get your licence. If not feel free to be a designer. 90% of professional degrees require some sort of work experience and licensure to become a" professional". The more designers we have out there the worse this industry will get. Every firm has designers capable of doing great design but the business leadership at most firms in not capable to pitch and sell the reason why great design is important. By getting rid of the formal structure of the profession you run the risk of extreme undercutting and lack of technical/business skills.
but the business leadership at most firms in not capable to pitch and sell the reason why great design is important
That's funny you should say that. I think, in general, most architects, license or not, are pretty lacking in basic business skills. It's probably my biggest complaint about the whole education/license process is that it doesn't really cover business skills whatsoever.
say goodbye to hollywood
Given that architecture offices are increasingly competing for projects outside the US, can it be long before we start outsourcing the grunt work to other countries? It's already not uncommon to have a 'Design Architect' and an 'Architect of Record' which essentially is farming out the CD set, but this is mostly for projects that are done outside of the Design Architects state(s) of registration. But could you send the Licensed Architect to India to run a CD drafting house (at a fraction of the cost), review and stamp the drawings and ship them back to the US?
My former firm tried this, but the drawings were so terrible, it took more time to try to explain, mark up, I usually ended up saying F*ck It..I'll fix it myself.
It was difficult to get any continuity, because we never seemed to get the same people working on something twice, so would have to try to explain to the local rep. over and over.
They worked very cheap, and it was cool having your "completed" work waiting for you in the morning. But the quality was so poor that we gave up on the idea.
It sounds like an obvious, less expensive solution, but unless you have the resources of Gensler, you won't get the efficiency needed.
And as OF notes, this was started ages and ages ago. We'll see more blurring of boundaries, but the management and quality control are the valuable pieces to the puzzle, not cheap labor.
Farming out specific portions of labor is part of the commercial economic process. The case above is just an (elaborated) extension of the case where a licensed architect hires a drafter to complete the time-consuming task of drawing production.
That seems counter-intuitive to the idea of outsourcing. Isn't the point that you use the massive (cheap) resources of another country to do tasks that would require a higher quantity of more expensive labor in the US?
I'm not arguing in favor of this shift BTW, esp. when the US needs to retain just about all the jobs it can.
...but the management and quality control are the valuable pieces to the puzzle, not cheap labor.
Right, which is exactly why that is the aspect that you retain and you outsource the rest.
there's a very small MEP office here in albuquerque run by a filipino guy - he often sends a bunch of his drafting to the philippines at night.
because there's no language barrier for him, and because he's in direct control of what he wants, as far as quality control i can't tell that he's outsourcing.
it helps that he's a good engineer too.
It is just a piece of business. It is there, has been for ages. Works for some, but not others. Just look at car production - it was all overseas, then some manufacturing came back here. The value changes and businesses adapt.
There is not 'one' right way to do things, just as there is not one business model that works for all companies.
It sounds like you are trying to reduce things into something much simpler than it really is...?
As with all business, that truly hard part is getting the clients and keeping them happy.
pretty soon China will be sending their CADs to the US to have some out-of-work architect draft them for $4 a day
More of just opening a discussion about the implications this could have on the A/E industry, if it was a viable option and using the visual effects industry as an example. Would we see fewer offices? Less graduates? Harder barriers to entry because entry-level tasks have been outsourced? What potential benefits would exist by shipping out production work and just doing the front end and managing work here in the US?
I use Visual Effects as an example, because I feel like there is a similar structure/hierarchy of consultants. The way I understand their industry to work is that there usually is one primary visual effects studio that manages all of the work being done. Some of the work is done in-house and the rest is done by consultant studios who become responsible for discrete tasks, say a specific character or scene or just rendering. It's not much of a stretch to see any architectural project following the same division of labor.
Pretty soon corporations will be outsourcing their head quarters to places where people have jobs and some disposable income.
mdler, it is already happening. A rather large chinese firm (CCDI) opened their US office in New York few years back. They occupy a whole floor of the Empire state building, and are very very busy.
CC - the vfx industries are a little different. For Hollywood pictures, it isn't uncommon for an entire office to move somewhere overseas (taxes, incentives, etc.). Because there are short time frames (for a movie), this doesn't have to be something permanent (unlike architecture).
So there are some similarities, but I'd think more differences than things in common.
pretty soon China will be sending their CADs to the US to have some out-of-work architect draft them for $4 a day
Haha! True. Seriously, though, keep an eye on currencies. There are reasons things are manipulated/devalued/etc. Someday, sometime, there will be a tipping point.
i just saw a bunch of white dudes doing construction work on one of the Mexican restaurants here in Seattle...
I think what you are saying though is that it's really from a lack of training. It's not like people in India immediately grasped visual effects (or the people in the US for that matter)... I am sure there was some degree of training, feedback, etc involved. Each party made the effort because it was of some benefit to them. I mean, I didn't know how to detail a simple building when I started working and I live and went to school in the US.
I actually interviewed at a firm recently that operates pretty close to this... they only do design work in 3D, select the finish materials and some really basic SD level drawings and then ship everything off to another office somewhere in Eastern Europe or Asia (although a US office, they have zero built work in the US) to figure out how to make ti work and then never see, touch, or talk about the project again until it is finished and they fly someone out to take photos of the building.
OF - I agree with CC, one is certainly not simpler to produce, if anything I'd say the high end visual effects (in movies) is much more complexity than just about all architecture.
Also, when you are directing someone creatively, whether it be in your office, down the street or across the world, there is quite a bit more to the process than "put a lens flare over there, a little vignetting here...". It is a collaborative process (far more than architecture and requires efficient communication).
You can't just hand it off and get a file back.
It is about the training. There is easy access to vfx techniques, technologies, and it is boundless - grab a hard drive and go. Also, you are encouraged to teach yourself and the best are promoted to the top of the profession (and paid accordingly), unlike architecture that more or less disregards talent in favor of idp and licensure.
Trace- architecture does not promote based on Idp and licensure...in todays game those mean practically nothing to most firms, especially with shipping production work to india. I laugh when firms buy a small shop in india then have the balls to call it "insourcing"....
but it does. That's what you must reach in order to call yourself an 'architect', to start a firm, etc., etc. It is a requirement for advancement.
In other creative industries, there are no barriers but talent and skills (and getting the business, of course). You can start a company in school, in high school, if you want - there are no barriers but the market place.
Architecture is not like that. There are barriers in place that prevent that entrepreneurial spirit (imho). Doesn't matter what it 'means', that is how it is setup and those are the (very) real barriers to entry.
I agree with trace.
Even when it comes to more complicated and technically challenging aspects of creative industries.
Other than a UL listing, there's no licenses, necessary certifications or really liability to design anything from milk cartons to sofas to newspapers to dishwashers. Hell, you don't need a license to design a car. Whether or not your design gets approved is entirely different.
In these industries, competent technically skill is really not even a necessity to get a job entry to mid level. Rather the innate ability to grow as a design or to be moldable does.
It's also a field where experience does not matter. You could have thirty years experience and still get your ass handed to you by a 17 year old.
In that sense of the word you are right about advancement. But to advance within a firm or be in a leadership role does not require lisensure nor is that always the main reason for that advancement. Remove our Idp and license restrictions and the field of architecture goes from" professional" to "artist" and we lose the last bit of negotiating power we have. Heck, even accountants need a CPA licence to work on their own and their decisions don't even have the ability to put someones health/safety at risk.
We don't need more design architects (schools spit out enough of those every june)....we need architects who can get things done and run a business. If we remove the licence/Idp restrictions we will all become" designers" and all of our documentation work will get outsourced.
Partially true. That really depends on the office you are working for. Many offices will not promote someone to a Project Manager or Associate level unless they are licensed, for a number of reasons. Also, I think the point that Uxbridge was making is that other creative professions can open shop without much more than a business license (if that), while it would be near impossible to open your own architectural practice without a license, or someone licensed on staff.
But the overall point of the last 2 posts was essentially the lack of reward for young, entrepreneurial designers in Architecture; the barriers to entry for recognition and anonymity in the profession are too steep to hurdle (both in time and cost). An original and creative film thesis project could land you a feature film deal. An original and creative architecture thesis project may get you a job, but it's going to be the same job that all of the other thesis students in your class got as well.
Right, but along those lines bookkeepers don't need a license. You don't need a license to file your taxes.
I'd also disagree with you about the design architects. We need to promote more talent, not cad monkeys spitting out the same ugly stuff that surrounds us. Safety really isn't an issue - how many architects do any calculations themselves?
I think Ux's comments were spot on. You don't need a license to design a car, which has far greater impacts on every aspect of the world than an architect. Engineers, on the other hand, are crucial in both professions.
I say let the free market reign! Let anyone design a building with a professional degree, market themselves, etc., the minute they graduate. The buildings will still have the same requirements as they do now, licensure or not. They will be just as 'safe' and 'healthy', perhaps more so.
I like free markets (maybe I watch too much CNBC ;-) ), I like letting the consumer decide who and what is worth more money, I like thinking that the most talented, regardless of age, moves to the top and is compensated as such. I like thinking architecture can retain and promote talented individuals, not encourage them to find other professions.
Actually, you can practice a wide range of "accounting" without being a CPA.
The only things you really can't do is file someone else's taxes (although up until next year, you can still do this), write checks on their behalf (although there are work arounds-- this is not entirely a law but most banks hate it), file certain kinds of reports for SEC, FDIC and offer your services to the general public.
Also, non-CPAs can't refer to themselves as accountants or auditors. But there's little in licensing laws that says a bookkeeper cannot provide basic financial services and record keeping.
Architecture is getting so severe that state boards have now pretty much outlawed that use of the word "architecture," any variety or permutation of the word 'architecture' or any words relating to architecture.
While some of these prohibitions are not actual laws, they're spelled out pretty distinctly in the "procedural" or "notes" sections of these laws.
And some of these have blanket type wordings. Like "an architect is any person who provides any assistance, advice or documentation to the placement, construction, design or engineering of any structure used or accessible by the general public."
That basically means that the architectural blackout could also be extended to visualization, real estate consultation or even environmental consultants. Also, there's been a lot of inclusions of the word "planner" and "planning" into these laws of the last 3 years.
No one in their right mind-- will, ought or should--double masters' degrees in Arch and Urban Planning. The expense of having two degrees-- plus licensing and AICP certification-- is not worth the expense of the possible benefit one might get over the course of the next 20 years. While I am in favor of the majority of protectionist laws for architecture, they don't really help more than they hurt.
Any motivated and clever person-- educated, self-educated or naturally talented-- cannot become 'successful' nearly instantaneously. By successful, I mean self-reliant. And by instantaneously, I mean within 5 years of graduation.
Few things.....
Car vs building.....car is a disposable consumer product that is mass produced buildings are not. The" idea" of the car has a larger effect on the world but not the design.
You say anyone with a professional degree should be able to design a building....why a professional degree? Like you said.....I can do my own taxes, without a degree
Take away the Idp and licence process and the profession will be flooded with freelance" designers" working for even less than what we make now - example web and graphic designers.. And there is no way a fresh grad can design a efficient building, integrate building systems, produce documents, market themself, and get projects built to code, on time, and under budget. If you want to do this then go into fresidential design where no licence is required.
Clearly you have not been out to the suburbs. Look at the miles upon miles of big box retail and developer homes and tell me those are not disposable, mass produced items. Very little architecture (in the US) is actually built with the consideration that it will last forever, or if it is, it's usually then rendered as generic as possible (strip malls, retail) so to allow any number of future tenants to occupy. I've watched big box retail locations become schools and hospitals - functions I am sure the original architect/developer/tenant never dreamed would reside there.
And there is no way a fresh grad can design a efficient building, integrate building systems, produce documents, market themself, and get projects built to code, on time, and under budget.
I think it's possible, but it would require a huge shift in how we educate architects, a discussion which has been made on this forum too often to reproduce here.
A house that will last 50-100 years is far from what I would consider disposable no matter how brutal and cookie cutter they might be.
And to the comments of others that we need to promote more "design talent, not cad monkeys"....well I dont see many cad monkeys making significant moves up the ladder or running too many architectural firms. Take a look back at the architectural styles from different periods and you will see that they all reflect the society that surrounded them....but for some reason, today "good design" is perceived as something that looks cool in a rendering, and unbuilt work by an architect who doesnt pay employees, or one of the thousands of laser cut plywood installations we see every school produce? Maybe its just me but I dont see how those types of designs reflect our society at all....and if thats the type of work that is being promoted in school than we better be damn grateful that we have the IDP process and that people are required to pass a series of exams before being able to sign off on the drawings.
I can see it now, a fresh graduate that has no real world experience on building construction or project budget who thinks the cool looking renderings from Asympote are the way all buildings should be designed....yea thats really going to make our services more valuable and keep our jobs at home in the us....
This is, honestly, a very small faction of the architectural world, and one that is primarily only to the interest of a small number of students and academic faculty. Show most of this work to the average architectural patron (i.e. the people who are actually going to pay to have work done) and you will probably get asked 'what's with the garishly colored melted milk carton picture', not 'oh wow that is an amazing rendering of a cool building.'
A 'free' market will quickly decide who moves up and who doesn't.
Obviously no one is going to fund something that doesn't work (well, you could argue that is happening as we speak anyway), so that's not really a valid argument. Nothing gets built just because it 'looks good'.
Cars - a great car can last 100 years, so again, not really a great argument. How 'disposable' it is is up to the owner. You get what you pay for, just as with most industries.
Automotive and many industrial designs are what architecture has hoped to be - great designs, efficient funtionality and superior construction.
Good design has always been good design. The details change (ergonomics, functionalily, technology, etc.), but the premise is always the same. Does the Eiffel Tower or Falling Water look cool? If those were 'rendered' today, would you dismiss them? Great design is great design, doesn't matter who/what/why/when.
A punk in high school can design a house and build it, can design a website and build it, but both will, most likely suck, in all possible definitions. BUT, if he can design something great, then more power to him. I'll take something well designed over something poorly designed, regardless of the title on the door.
Let's focus more on that, on design, than 'controlling' something that doesn't offer anything positive in return.
automotive and many industrial designs are what architecture has hoped to be - great designs, efficient funtionality and superior construction.
Fixed that for you, Trace. ;)
lol! Thanks
I have high hopes for the Cadillac CTS-V Coupe! :-)
You want to be taken seriously in this profession then get your licence. If not feel free to be a designer. 90% of professional degrees require some sort of work experience and licensure to become a" professional". The more designers we have out there the worse this industry will get. Every firm has designers capable of doing great design but the business leadership at most firms in not capable to pitch and sell the reason why great design is important. By getting rid of the formal structure of the profession you run the risk of extreme undercutting and lack of technical/business skills.
That's funny you should say that. I think, in general, most architects, license or not, are pretty lacking in basic business skills. It's probably my biggest complaint about the whole education/license process is that it doesn't really cover business skills whatsoever.
do you think that the fact that America is one of the least educated countries in the world has anything to do with anything?
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.