I am asking this question because when you research about famous architects. Most of them are older than 50 years old. So I want to know why this is happening in architecture. In my opinion, I think that this is happening because people want to contract architects with a lot of experience. Well, tell me what your opinion is. Thank you very much.
how about this - it takes a loooong time to figure this shit out to develop a coherent and successful practice such that you can get the big projects that are widely published?
In Unpacking prior experience: how career history affects job performance (Organization Science, Vol. 20, No. 1, January-February 2009), Dokko et al finds "that prior occupational experience has a positive effect via knowledge and skill but a negative direct effect that diminishes the overall relationship, and we provide preliminary evidence that the negative effect is driven by behavioral and cognitive rigidities."
In short, it is an unwavering and seemingly false belief that age and experience is tied to performance and value. As long as people continue to believe that age equals valuable wisdom, we will always have disproportionately higher level of "old people" in charge.
Also interesting to point out, the longer an individual has been at a single firm correlates to higher negative performance ratings. Tenure and promoting from within are apparently organizational poison.
"Fame" for an architect is generally going to come from a body of work. Hard to find a "famous" architect with just one project. Projects take a loooooooong time from design to construction to "fame". If you say for an average project it takes 3 years to go through this process and you do 1 or 2 significant projects per year (required for the famous part). It will probably take you 10 years to get a portfolio of 20 significant projects.
Then again, what does "fame" mean for an Architect. I am not familiar with an Architect since FLW that has become a household name outside of design circles. In the states anyways.
why this tiring aggressive opposing position against older architects? anyway, probably there are more so called 'famous young architects' than 'famous old architects.'
a lot of old' architects who are famous now, were famous when they were young too.
what do you mean by fame anyway? should architects stop working once they are considered old or not famous? what is young? you need to understand how architecture is produced before producing statistics on old and young architects.
Also interesting to point out, the longer an individual has been at a single firm correlates to higher negative performance ratings. Tenure and promoting from within are apparently organizational poison.
It's in the studies! I couldn't make things up as delicious as that.
If we look at EVM (Earned Value Management), a worker who works for less money and quicker will pretty much gaurantee that a project will be on budget with a higher CPI [Cost Performance Index].
A slower employee who bills higher does bring more budget but not necessarily any excess earned value because their CPI ratio will always be lower but will have a higher SPI ratio [Schedule Performance Index].
That's what I was alluding too. Most of these architects are not singular entities and by themselves are probably great architects but not necessarily great workers. However, combined with having significant firm resources and skill level, they get these mega hundred-of-millions to billion dollar commissions that grab news headlines relatively easy.
Young people typically aren't thought of as valuable enough to be awarded such astronomical projects or demand such high billing rates. However, they typically are the ones most capable of nearing 1.0 on their CPIs and SPIs. And in a world of tightening belts, performance ought to really be considered a value one brings to the table.
Considering numbers and semantics, architectural fame must have an irrational element to it— familiarity, contempt, marketability.
I just have another question. Why do many architecture firms discontinue or cease working or functioning after their founders die or retire? Of course, there are exceptions, such as SOM. Please, don't take my question badly. Thank you very much for your attention.
Let me explain it simply: Wisdom relates to experience. Experience is something that doesn't magically appear. Also it takes time to obtain experience. Other factors includes that you need to obtain reputation. To gain reputation requires that you have projects. It is also false to believe that famous architects are all 50 years old or older but to be utterly blunt, it isn't something you are going to get under 25 years of age because it is damn near impossible to get licensed as an architect under age 25. You can't enroll into a university until you are essentially 18 years old. (ok 17 while still in school but would be 18 during the Fall term).
Given that it takes 5 years to get a B.Arch and you still need to have to complete IDP. Almost every job requires you to have an NAAB degree or some sort of comparable experience in building design or construction or a combination because they aren't going to hire fresh out of high school students because 99% of them wouldn't even know how to draft or do CAD because 99% of public schools discontinued drafting programs a long time ago and left it up to community colleges and universities. You still need 5 years of work experience or actual experience as a building designer with clients which by law requires you to be 18 years old in order to engage into a contract. Contract laws of this nature requires an adult of 18 years of age or older.
Considering 18+5 means you would be 23 years old. In the past, (ie. prior to about 2 years ago) you had to be in your 3rd years or completed your 3rd year. You then have to remember that IDP rarely ever is completed in 3 years. It usually takes 5 to 10 years to complete.
Also to get the fame and such, you will need to be involved with big clients and public institutions. Almost EVERY public institution project is a QBS project. This means you have to be a FIRM. Sole-Proprietors are essentially disqualified because it is generally viewed by policies that any public project that is non-exempt of a sq.ft. larger than 10,000 sq.ft. is outside the capacity of a single person. Although, history shows. But public policies of states and their respective agencies that is in the job of filtering out and providing the end institution like a city or a college or university, like a Top 10 picks and then the individual institutions will then pick from that. QBS was created essentially to support firms not individual practitioners.
This maybe besides the point. You need to have a portfolio of work and a reputation. To be gaining fame, you need to establish some level of reputation. This often takes over a decade of practice to do so. This isn't something you are going to get because frankly put - the world doesn't give a flying rip about you. You need to make a name for yourself. You need to EARN it. Until then, the world could care less if you dropped dead because it is a cruel and unfair world of everyone trying to get on top and can and will do anything to get there. You need to be tough or you WILL fail.
This isn't kindergarten so shape up and be prepared for war because this (architectureal & related profession) is business and business is WAR ! ! ! !
Why are most of famous architects too old?
I am asking this question because when you research about famous architects. Most of them are older than 50 years old. So I want to know why this is happening in architecture. In my opinion, I think that this is happening because people want to contract architects with a lot of experience. Well, tell me what your opinion is. Thank you very much.
how about this - it takes a loooong time to figure this shit out to develop a coherent and successful practice such that you can get the big projects that are widely published?
It's called 'practice' for a reason !
Too old for what?
In Unpacking prior experience: how career history affects job performance (Organization Science, Vol. 20, No. 1, January-February 2009), Dokko et al finds "that prior occupational experience has a positive effect via knowledge and skill but a negative direct effect that diminishes the overall relationship, and we provide preliminary evidence that the negative effect is driven by behavioral and cognitive rigidities."
In short, it is an unwavering and seemingly false belief that age and experience is tied to performance and value. As long as people continue to believe that age equals valuable wisdom, we will always have disproportionately higher level of "old people" in charge.
Also interesting to point out, the longer an individual has been at a single firm correlates to higher negative performance ratings. Tenure and promoting from within are apparently organizational poison.
"Fame" for an architect is generally going to come from a body of work. Hard to find a "famous" architect with just one project. Projects take a loooooooong time from design to construction to "fame". If you say for an average project it takes 3 years to go through this process and you do 1 or 2 significant projects per year (required for the famous part). It will probably take you 10 years to get a portfolio of 20 significant projects.
Then again, what does "fame" mean for an Architect. I am not familiar with an Architect since FLW that has become a household name outside of design circles. In the states anyways.
why this tiring aggressive opposing position against older architects? anyway, probably there are more so called 'famous young architects' than 'famous old architects.'
a lot of old' architects who are famous now, were famous when they were young too.
what do you mean by fame anyway? should architects stop working once they are considered old or not famous? what is young? you need to understand how architecture is produced before producing statistics on old and young architects.
retire young
Also interesting to point out, the longer an individual has been at a single firm correlates to higher negative performance ratings. Tenure and promoting from within are apparently organizational poison.
James I find that extremely hard to believe
It's in the studies! I couldn't make things up as delicious as that.
If we look at EVM (Earned Value Management), a worker who works for less money and quicker will pretty much gaurantee that a project will be on budget with a higher CPI [Cost Performance Index].
A slower employee who bills higher does bring more budget but not necessarily any excess earned value because their CPI ratio will always be lower but will have a higher SPI ratio [Schedule Performance Index].
That's what I was alluding too. Most of these architects are not singular entities and by themselves are probably great architects but not necessarily great workers. However, combined with having significant firm resources and skill level, they get these mega hundred-of-millions to billion dollar commissions that grab news headlines relatively easy.
Young people typically aren't thought of as valuable enough to be awarded such astronomical projects or demand such high billing rates. However, they typically are the ones most capable of nearing 1.0 on their CPIs and SPIs. And in a world of tightening belts, performance ought to really be considered a value one brings to the table.
Considering numbers and semantics, architectural fame must have an irrational element to it— familiarity, contempt, marketability.
aka the "peter principal"
Hi guys,
I just have another question. Why do many architecture firms discontinue or cease working or functioning after their founders die or retire? Of course, there are exceptions, such as SOM. Please, don't take my question badly. Thank you very much for your attention.
.
Pieroarguello,
Let me explain it simply: Wisdom relates to experience. Experience is something that doesn't magically appear. Also it takes time to obtain experience. Other factors includes that you need to obtain reputation. To gain reputation requires that you have projects. It is also false to believe that famous architects are all 50 years old or older but to be utterly blunt, it isn't something you are going to get under 25 years of age because it is damn near impossible to get licensed as an architect under age 25. You can't enroll into a university until you are essentially 18 years old. (ok 17 while still in school but would be 18 during the Fall term).
Given that it takes 5 years to get a B.Arch and you still need to have to complete IDP. Almost every job requires you to have an NAAB degree or some sort of comparable experience in building design or construction or a combination because they aren't going to hire fresh out of high school students because 99% of them wouldn't even know how to draft or do CAD because 99% of public schools discontinued drafting programs a long time ago and left it up to community colleges and universities. You still need 5 years of work experience or actual experience as a building designer with clients which by law requires you to be 18 years old in order to engage into a contract. Contract laws of this nature requires an adult of 18 years of age or older.
Considering 18+5 means you would be 23 years old. In the past, (ie. prior to about 2 years ago) you had to be in your 3rd years or completed your 3rd year. You then have to remember that IDP rarely ever is completed in 3 years. It usually takes 5 to 10 years to complete.
Also to get the fame and such, you will need to be involved with big clients and public institutions. Almost EVERY public institution project is a QBS project. This means you have to be a FIRM. Sole-Proprietors are essentially disqualified because it is generally viewed by policies that any public project that is non-exempt of a sq.ft. larger than 10,000 sq.ft. is outside the capacity of a single person. Although, history shows. But public policies of states and their respective agencies that is in the job of filtering out and providing the end institution like a city or a college or university, like a Top 10 picks and then the individual institutions will then pick from that. QBS was created essentially to support firms not individual practitioners.
This maybe besides the point. You need to have a portfolio of work and a reputation. To be gaining fame, you need to establish some level of reputation. This often takes over a decade of practice to do so. This isn't something you are going to get because frankly put - the world doesn't give a flying rip about you. You need to make a name for yourself. You need to EARN it. Until then, the world could care less if you dropped dead because it is a cruel and unfair world of everyone trying to get on top and can and will do anything to get there. You need to be tough or you WILL fail.
This isn't kindergarten so shape up and be prepared for war because this (architectureal & related profession) is business and business is WAR ! ! ! !
I'd add that architects tend not to retire, especially the more 'famous' ones.
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.