I haven't read this whole thread but this article seems relevant. It says firms are scrambling to hire architects with 5-10 years of experience.
The article uses the term "designer" and "architect" interchangeably. They refer to designers with 5-10 years experience, and architects with one year experience. No such thing, as we all know. It demonstrates one more reason why a license just doesn't mean much in the real world. Nobody knows the difference or cares.
I loved the quote from the NYC AIA chapter poobah, who comments that some of his members are aghast that people with greater skills and experience are actually demanding more money. The nerve! The audacity! Who do they think they are? Don't they know what an honor it is to suffer and starve for the mother art?
tintt, one of my favorite video games as a child was a business simulation of the aviation industry - so it can be done. I'm not sure how many people share my taste for games like that though... I think sitting through some training on business principles would be within the tolerance level of anyone who is serious about a career in any architecture firm. Certainly no less boring than revit training or (after licensure) the dreadful CE lunch and learns from product reps.
this article gives something to think about re future demand for architects.
To those who doubt supply / demand has any role in pay - look at this graph of employment. Remember that the supply of fresh graduates increased steadily during this entire period. If fresh graduates number roughly 20,000 per year (I might be mistaken about that), then these pre-architects have the potential to increase the number of architects by 25% EVERY YEAR. The number of buildings being designed do not increase 25% YoY.
^Midlander - The increase in construction is less than half of the production of architects, but as BB points out not everyone follows the path, and the recessions take care of the rest.
Jun 16, 15 10:57 pm ·
·
Even if 15,000 graduates with an increase of 5% a year or whatever the rated of increase in enrollment and graduates coming out being proportional. It would be 15,000 + (5%) x number of years. Something like that.
Considering a majority is going to be pursuing architecture over other careers outside the AEC domain.
midlander pointed out, "Architects aren't the only professionals who feel themselves to lack business savvy. Imagine if some big firm started doing something like this...
Seems like a damned fine idea whose time has come. Gee...can't imagine why being lost in a 70+ hours a week design studio fog for 5-6 years of one's most impressionable years (to the exclusion of everything else like dollars and cents...or is it sense?) has left the profession so pusillanimously vulnerable in the marketplace.
Jun 17, 15 1:36 am ·
·
Thanks for the numbers quizzical but you can double to triple the numbers when you include the non-accredited architecture programs ( maybe triple to quadruple when you include community college associates and 1yr certificates and your pre-professional Bachelor level architecture degrees as well as the ones that are NAAB accredited. That would about right on the 15K to 20K graduates. Assuming you have 2/3 of the graduates staying into the architecture side of things either taking jobs, competing on projects, etc.. You would be looking at 10K to 12K or more becoming part of the supply each year. That is assuming 1/3 attrition into other fields or what not after graduating. Even then, it is not fool proof because some of those initially attrition after graduating later deciding to take a stab at architecture.
So, you can see new supply on the order of 15K a year and incrementally growing.
thanks Quizzical - if Carrera's numbers are an accurate prediction then there might be some good potential for increased compensation in the next few years. We'll see...
Another point to consider is that qualified people who have left the industry because of low wages and poor working conditions may return if pay and conditions improve. Just hiring a warm body to sit in front of a computer all normal working day plus overtime just isn't going to work.
qualified people who have left the industry because of low wages and poor working conditions may return if pay and conditions improve.
And if they have a sudden case of spontaneous stupidity and amnesia.
As for the schools teaching the economic side of the profession, that would take a dramatic change in the mentality of both the profession and the academy, which isn't likely to happen. Architects have a starving artist complex, and it is particularly pronounced among the academics. I just don't know who would teach it.
My undergraduate degree had a mandatory design economics course with a optional 2nd part that dealt with large scale urban project economies... both taught not by academics but by working professionals. Best courses I ever took and it made sure I graduated with a realistic expectation of the working world.
What a concept to teach students how much their time is actually worth in their client's eyes.
midlander, I for one would love a business simulation game. Who cares about people who don't? It wouldn't be for them, always need people who can make the coffee and run prints in a firm, but those that want more knowledge and experience should be getting it. I have a mini-MBA of sorts, I took some classes via open coursework and read some books. I do bookkeeping and help run a business, one that is far simpler than an arch firm but there are some similarities. I have experience teaching and designing games too. The game could be simple, an app that you play on your phone perhaps. So as for where this fits in with the supply - demand curves it we would increase demand of the professionals by increasing their skills and knowledge. Crazy, I know. :)
Darn phone, that was a muddy closing sentence of mine. What I was trying to say is that if we increase the demand for architects by increasing our skills, knowledge, and abilities, it is a very good thing. Sounds better than lamenting over why nobody values us for another however many years.
I always thought archinecters should do a project together too.
geezertect said, "As for the schools teaching the economic side of the profession, that would take a dramatic change in the mentality of both the profession and the academy, which isn't likely to happen. Architects have a starving artist complex, and it is particularly pronounced among the academics..."
ONE of the reasons we are not “valued” is because we don’t do anything anymore….we’ve gone from Masterbuilders (The Architektron) to Master-Delegators….sorry to keep harping on this, but if you want more you need to do more….SHoP is the model.
Jun 17, 15 1:42 pm ·
·
Architects had value when they actually built what they drew.
What is it that architects deliver? Stacks of paper. Um.... clients don't give a f--- about paper, they want the building. He who delivers the building is going to be more valued than the person who delivers just paper.
Who gets paid better, a master builder or a paper boy.
Carrera, Richard, you are both absolutely correct! I hear it all the time..."$$$ for a piece of paper.." Psychologically paper has no value regardless of what's on it...Its a bigger problem than we realize...The medium we work in is perceived as cheap and disposable...
Jun 17, 15 3:17 pm ·
·
Paper is alot cheaper than brick and mortar and changes on paper saves alot of money than changing bricks and mortar during construction.
But yes, psychological perception but we have to be able to communicate our value is not in the paper but in the service of thinking out and planning out the design and construction of an otherwise complex project and navigation of political and bureaucratic snares and toils, etc. There is the intellectual value of our service when we work through the challenges of a project with our clients.
How do you effectively communicate that and effective connect the designing and planning to the outcome of the construction. Communicating the value of design in connection with the built outcome is important and effectively doing so is important.
Money money money
I haven't read this whole thread but this article seems relevant. It says firms are scrambling to hire architects with 5-10 years of experience.
The article uses the term "designer" and "architect" interchangeably. They refer to designers with 5-10 years experience, and architects with one year experience. No such thing, as we all know. It demonstrates one more reason why a license just doesn't mean much in the real world. Nobody knows the difference or cares.
I loved the quote from the NYC AIA chapter poobah, who comments that some of his members are aghast that people with greater skills and experience are actually demanding more money. The nerve! The audacity! Who do they think they are? Don't they know what an honor it is to suffer and starve for the mother art?
tintt, one of my favorite video games as a child was a business simulation of the aviation industry - so it can be done. I'm not sure how many people share my taste for games like that though... I think sitting through some training on business principles would be within the tolerance level of anyone who is serious about a career in any architecture firm. Certainly no less boring than revit training or (after licensure) the dreadful CE lunch and learns from product reps.
this article gives something to think about re future demand for architects.
To those who doubt supply / demand has any role in pay - look at this graph of employment. Remember that the supply of fresh graduates increased steadily during this entire period. If fresh graduates number roughly 20,000 per year (I might be mistaken about that), then these pre-architects have the potential to increase the number of architects by 25% EVERY YEAR. The number of buildings being designed do not increase 25% YoY.
Except that not all grads pursue the traditional path. But that's another thread.
^Midlander - The increase in construction is less than half of the production of architects, but as BB points out not everyone follows the path, and the recessions take care of the rest.
Even if 15,000 graduates with an increase of 5% a year or whatever the rated of increase in enrollment and graduates coming out being proportional. It would be 15,000 + (5%) x number of years. Something like that.
Considering a majority is going to be pursuing architecture over other careers outside the AEC domain.
Still not good when demand isn't doing great.
midlander: "If fresh graduates number roughly 20,000 per year (I might be mistaken about that) ......"
NAAB publishes these figures for graduates from accredited US programs (all professional degrees) by year:
2008: 5,781
2009: 6,017
2010: 6,017
2011: 6,191
2012: 6,354
2013: 6,347
2014: 5,918
Roughly, the annual number of US graduates reflect about 5-6% of the number of licensed architects in the US each year.
Source: http://www.naab.org/accreditation/Statistics - click on the various "Report on Accreditation in Architecture Education" links
midlander pointed out, "Architects aren't the only professionals who feel themselves to lack business savvy. Imagine if some big firm started doing something like this...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-16/why-a-top-law-firm-teaches-its-lawyers-to-be-more-like-mbas"
Seems like a damned fine idea whose time has come. Gee...can't imagine why being lost in a 70+ hours a week design studio fog for 5-6 years of one's most impressionable years (to the exclusion of everything else like dollars and cents...or is it sense?) has left the profession so pusillanimously vulnerable in the marketplace.
Thanks for the numbers quizzical but you can double to triple the numbers when you include the non-accredited architecture programs ( maybe triple to quadruple when you include community college associates and 1yr certificates and your pre-professional Bachelor level architecture degrees as well as the ones that are NAAB accredited. That would about right on the 15K to 20K graduates. Assuming you have 2/3 of the graduates staying into the architecture side of things either taking jobs, competing on projects, etc.. You would be looking at 10K to 12K or more becoming part of the supply each year. That is assuming 1/3 attrition into other fields or what not after graduating. Even then, it is not fool proof because some of those initially attrition after graduating later deciding to take a stab at architecture.
So, you can see new supply on the order of 15K a year and incrementally growing.
thanks Quizzical - if Carrera's numbers are an accurate prediction then there might be some good potential for increased compensation in the next few years. We'll see...
Another point to consider is that qualified people who have left the industry because of low wages and poor working conditions may return if pay and conditions improve. Just hiring a warm body to sit in front of a computer all normal working day plus overtime just isn't going to work.
qualified people who have left the industry because of low wages and poor working conditions may return if pay and conditions improve.
And if they have a sudden case of spontaneous stupidity and amnesia.
As for the schools teaching the economic side of the profession, that would take a dramatic change in the mentality of both the profession and the academy, which isn't likely to happen. Architects have a starving artist complex, and it is particularly pronounced among the academics. I just don't know who would teach it.
^ Academics don't depend on commissions and can easily afford to feign starving.
My undergraduate degree had a mandatory design economics course with a optional 2nd part that dealt with large scale urban project economies... both taught not by academics but by working professionals. Best courses I ever took and it made sure I graduated with a realistic expectation of the working world.
What a concept to teach students how much their time is actually worth in their client's eyes.
midlander, I for one would love a business simulation game. Who cares about people who don't? It wouldn't be for them, always need people who can make the coffee and run prints in a firm, but those that want more knowledge and experience should be getting it. I have a mini-MBA of sorts, I took some classes via open coursework and read some books. I do bookkeeping and help run a business, one that is far simpler than an arch firm but there are some similarities. I have experience teaching and designing games too. The game could be simple, an app that you play on your phone perhaps. So as for where this fits in with the supply - demand curves it we would increase demand of the professionals by increasing their skills and knowledge. Crazy, I know. :)
Darn phone, that was a muddy closing sentence of mine. What I was trying to say is that if we increase the demand for architects by increasing our skills, knowledge, and abilities, it is a very good thing. Sounds better than lamenting over why nobody values us for another however many years. I always thought archinecters should do a project together too.
geezertect said, "As for the schools teaching the economic side of the profession, that would take a dramatic change in the mentality of both the profession and the academy, which isn't likely to happen. Architects have a starving artist complex, and it is particularly pronounced among the academics..."
Bingo.
ONE of the reasons we are not “valued” is because we don’t do anything anymore….we’ve gone from Masterbuilders (The Architektron) to Master-Delegators….sorry to keep harping on this, but if you want more you need to do more….SHoP is the model.
Architects had value when they actually built what they drew.
What is it that architects deliver? Stacks of paper. Um.... clients don't give a f--- about paper, they want the building. He who delivers the building is going to be more valued than the person who delivers just paper.
Who gets paid better, a master builder or a paper boy.
Carrera, Richard, you are both absolutely correct! I hear it all the time..."$$$ for a piece of paper.." Psychologically paper has no value regardless of what's on it...Its a bigger problem than we realize...The medium we work in is perceived as cheap and disposable...
Paper is alot cheaper than brick and mortar and changes on paper saves alot of money than changing bricks and mortar during construction.
But yes, psychological perception but we have to be able to communicate our value is not in the paper but in the service of thinking out and planning out the design and construction of an otherwise complex project and navigation of political and bureaucratic snares and toils, etc. There is the intellectual value of our service when we work through the challenges of a project with our clients.
How do you effectively communicate that and effective connect the designing and planning to the outcome of the construction. Communicating the value of design in connection with the built outcome is important and effectively doing so is important.
All of this is compounded by the profusion of architects who don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to construction.
Want to find a good architect? Ask a good builder.
, WTF are you doing Pinteresting drawings for a project unless the client is paying for them?
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.