Like everyone else, I've heard horror stories of long hours, low pay, and burn-out, but there's certainly still a draw to these 'name' firms. Part of that just may be that their work gets so much press, but, generally, they are doing very interesting and innovative work. Not only that, but they have the opportunity of doing it for varied clients in locations all over the world.
Despite the (possible) harsh conditions, is there any personal value to working at this type of firm? Is there the real potential to learn from the design process, experience, and structure that they have, or are employees treated as purely labor? Does this depend on where you are in your career (i.e. just out of school vs. licensed)?
A little deeper - would it be worth it for a newly licensed architect if there's the opportunity? Someone with 3-5 years experience at a smallish firm and actual built work?
Depends on the firm. I've worked at a few "name" firms, and I look back on those times as tremendous periods of professional growth in my career. There's something incredibly satisfying about being able to share the news on Facebook that your firm won an AIA award for a cool project (especially if it's a project you worked on), and knowing that your colleagues are among the best in the business.
Are there sometimes long hours, difficult personalities, and low pay? Yes, but that's hardly unique to the "name" firms, and a at least a couple of the "name" firms I've worked for have had remarkably positive corporate cultures with a healthy respect for work-life balance. On the flip side, some of my worst employment experiences and longest hours have been at highly-dysfunctional offices who couldn't design their way out of a paper bag.
Having a few more pretty pictures in your portfolio isn't worth being miserable all the time, but working at a well-regarded firm and being able to live like a normal human aren't mutually-exclusive ideas.
Sure is - I started out at a big name firm when I graduated - then the recession hit, and if it wasn't for the name on my resume my career would have over
as noted it depends.....do you plan on taking their clients when you leave - hell yeah. do you plan on being the next Bjarke or Prince-Ramus - hell yeah. Do you plan on managing very interesting work - yes. Do you plan on becoming a better architect - depends on firm. do you plan on understanding why they are a "name" - for a short period try it out. do you want something nice on your resume - try it for a bit. do you care what others think - then no, bad decision.
I spent the better part of my first year after graduating working in a name firm, didn't learn much at all as I was given menial tasks and was going more broke working for what amounted to min wage. Left and moved to a small 5 person firm where I got to manage and run small projects, write proposals, engage with consultants and clients and generally learn the ropes. Way more practical and satisfying for my career development, not the preferred way for many, but it was the route that I am happy I chose. No regrets.
the real question is how long will the name firm be relevant. Sometimes things happen and the guy or gal with their name on the door does something foolish.
I've never worked at a "high end" design, sweat shop type firm, but I've worked at several big name, well respected companies, who were all known for being well run and producing very good projects. Many of my interviews have been something along the lines of "you worked ____, that's great."
Another advantage of working at the larger firms is building a network of professional colleges, not sure you get that as much in the boutique firms.
maybe this doesn't really answer the question, but might help someone else too.
I've worked for a well known firm with some amazing projects around the world. I never did renderings or things like that, but I was more in the manager position, I still did not like the fact that there were too many chiefs and the hierarchy was painful.
Working for a very small firm now and I still get recruiting calls all the time because of that firm in the past. Can't hurt at all, but it all depends what your position is and what you end up doing at the firm.
Not if its a sweatshop with its resultant high turn over rate - in those situations your best will never be good enough - they will just get rid of you
On average, the "name" firms are those that are well-known because they do great work, win high-profile competitions, or both.
Many "name" firms are larger than 30 people, and are often concerned with doing mid-to-large-scale projects that impact communities around the world, in turn impacting a lot of people with the goal of improving their community in a significant way.
To the most ambitions architects and their aspiring students, this is ethically more important than money. The best of us chose this profession in order to leave our mark on the world in a positive way.
I wouldn't want to work anywhere else.
A non-"name" firm might be occupying their efforts doing architecturally insignificant strip malls, townhouses, warehouses, big box stores, or custom contemporary homes. In most of those typologies, they are not impacting as large of a population as the projects that are done by "name" firms. Typically, if you make a positive design intervention to a community, the more people you can affect the better your work and recognition becomes.
BUT: the Senior Architect on my current project left Rafael Vignoly's office in NYC circa 2000-2008, and I asked him about his experience there. He said, "It was the worst job I ever had, and the owners/partners treated every employee with as little respect as humanly possible. Rafael would design a tower and have me and a few teammates work on the project delivery. We had been discussing how to integrate parking spaces to the current design and had a few schemes. We called Rafael in to review it, and during a point that he was silently staring at our work, I offered my input as, "What I felt was working best here..." and he interrupted me with a retort I'll never forget: "I dont care what you feel. I don't pay you to feel. I pay you to make it work". You know, he is a brilliant creative, but its such a shame the way he valued his staff. I recommend you never apply for a job there"
The important thing to note here is that "name" firms aren't always run by starchitects, but starchitects always run "name" firms.
What BR.TN said. My best experiences have been at mid-to-larger firms with a highly-collaborative design culture where there isn't just one single celebrity architect's name on the front door.
A friend of mine got a job at Vinoly's field office in Dubai for some huge project a few years ago. It was so terrible that after less than two weeks he walked out and paid out-of-pocket for the next flight back to the US.
Worst job I ever had was a few weeks last summer where I worked at a high-end boutique firm in NYC. The owner wasn't a starchitect per se, but he'd worked for a few over the years and certainly thought of himself as one, even though most of his "design" methodology involved having us copy custom millwork details verbatim from luxury-market magazines and product catalogs so he could pass them off to the client as his own. He once threw a full-on temper tantrum when a lighting vendor on the west coast wasn't picking up their phone at 8:30 AM New York City time. I quit that job when he defaulted on payroll and I had gotten an offer from a much better "name" firm of the type BR.TN describes above.
It wouldn't be so bad if Vinoly could design a project worth a damn. Instead he cranks out some of the most banal, inhumane, and poorly conceived buildings I have ever had the displeasure of visiting.
With the exception of the Tokyo International Forum.
i interviewed at Vinolys pre "architects give a shit about their website days".so frankly had no idea who he was......got back to school and told people the firms i had visited in NYC and nearly everyone said HELL NO - sweat shop.........one of my old bosses and i use to mock the minions in the sweatshop in the basement,i mean interns in the model shop as we walked by his building. we would say things like "i work 8 hour days and make twice your salary + benefits" just taunting the poor low self esteem monkees........vinolys office actually offered a higher than usual salary,but you supposed to divide that by 2 to get a real valuation....
So what I am hearing / reading above to a large degree, is that one's career development ( skill and technical experience ) isn't actually improved by working at a "name" architect but there is a perception to others in the industry, on the fringe of the industry and sadly other architects that one's experience isn't necessarily improved by working at a name brand firm.
There is however, a perception or a belief by others that you have "touched the hand of god" and inherited a divine level of skill and experience by working within close proximity to someone who may or may not be talented. hmmm, sad commentary on the industry sounds more like a "cult of celebrity".
Sorry, but I have to go watch "Keeping up with the Kardashians".
So what I am hearing / reading above to a large degree, is that one's career development ( skill and technical experience ) isn't actually improved by working at a "name" architect but there is a perception to others in the industry, on the fringe of the industry and sadly other architects that one's experience isn't necessarily improved by working at a name brand firm....
Um, no, I don't think that's what anybody is saying at all. Certainly not me. As others have noted on this thread, "name" firm doesn't necessarily equate to celebrity starchitect firm. The horror stories from Vinoly's office may be representative of a certain subset of "name" firm, but they certainly aren't representative of my experience at more collaborative firms like Perkins+Will, Moore Ruble Yudell, and STUDIOS -- all of which produce outstanding work.
In my experience, the "name" firms I've worked for became "name" firms because they're good at what they do, they have clients who recognize the value of good design, and they are in a position to hire the best and brightest. Working alongside such people on well-designed projects has certainly made me a much better architect than I would've been if I'd spent my career pumping out roof details for EIFS-clad strip malls.
If you think every well-regarded firm is nothing more than a cult of celebrity, then I'd argue that says far more about you than it does about the firms themselves.
Is working at a 'name' firm worth it?
Like everyone else, I've heard horror stories of long hours, low pay, and burn-out, but there's certainly still a draw to these 'name' firms. Part of that just may be that their work gets so much press, but, generally, they are doing very interesting and innovative work. Not only that, but they have the opportunity of doing it for varied clients in locations all over the world.
Despite the (possible) harsh conditions, is there any personal value to working at this type of firm? Is there the real potential to learn from the design process, experience, and structure that they have, or are employees treated as purely labor? Does this depend on where you are in your career (i.e. just out of school vs. licensed)?
A little deeper - would it be worth it for a newly licensed architect if there's the opportunity? Someone with 3-5 years experience at a smallish firm and actual built work?
Depends on the firm. I've worked at a few "name" firms, and I look back on those times as tremendous periods of professional growth in my career. There's something incredibly satisfying about being able to share the news on Facebook that your firm won an AIA award for a cool project (especially if it's a project you worked on), and knowing that your colleagues are among the best in the business.
Are there sometimes long hours, difficult personalities, and low pay? Yes, but that's hardly unique to the "name" firms, and a at least a couple of the "name" firms I've worked for have had remarkably positive corporate cultures with a healthy respect for work-life balance. On the flip side, some of my worst employment experiences and longest hours have been at highly-dysfunctional offices who couldn't design their way out of a paper bag.
Having a few more pretty pictures in your portfolio isn't worth being miserable all the time, but working at a well-regarded firm and being able to live like a normal human aren't mutually-exclusive ideas.
Sure is - I started out at a big name firm when I graduated - then the recession hit, and if it wasn't for the name on my resume my career would have over
as noted it depends.....do you plan on taking their clients when you leave - hell yeah. do you plan on being the next Bjarke or Prince-Ramus - hell yeah. Do you plan on managing very interesting work - yes. Do you plan on becoming a better architect - depends on firm. do you plan on understanding why they are a "name" - for a short period try it out. do you want something nice on your resume - try it for a bit. do you care what others think - then no, bad decision.
I spent the better part of my first year after graduating working in a name firm, didn't learn much at all as I was given menial tasks and was going more broke working for what amounted to min wage. Left and moved to a small 5 person firm where I got to manage and run small projects, write proposals, engage with consultants and clients and generally learn the ropes. Way more practical and satisfying for my career development, not the preferred way for many, but it was the route that I am happy I chose. No regrets.
the real question is how long will the name firm be relevant. Sometimes things happen and the guy or gal with their name on the door does something foolish.
I've never worked at a "high end" design, sweat shop type firm, but I've worked at several big name, well respected companies, who were all known for being well run and producing very good projects. Many of my interviews have been something along the lines of "you worked ____, that's great."
Another advantage of working at the larger firms is building a network of professional colleges, not sure you get that as much in the boutique firms.
maybe this doesn't really answer the question, but might help someone else too.
I've worked for a well known firm with some amazing projects around the world. I never did renderings or things like that, but I was more in the manager position, I still did not like the fact that there were too many chiefs and the hierarchy was painful.
Working for a very small firm now and I still get recruiting calls all the time because of that firm in the past. Can't hurt at all, but it all depends what your position is and what you end up doing at the firm.
Not if its a sweatshop with its resultant high turn over rate - in those situations your best will never be good enough - they will just get rid of you
Yes, OP. It is worth it - almost everytime.
On average, the "name" firms are those that are well-known because they do great work, win high-profile competitions, or both.
Many "name" firms are larger than 30 people, and are often concerned with doing mid-to-large-scale projects that impact communities around the world, in turn impacting a lot of people with the goal of improving their community in a significant way.
To the most ambitions architects and their aspiring students, this is ethically more important than money. The best of us chose this profession in order to leave our mark on the world in a positive way.
I wouldn't want to work anywhere else.
A non-"name" firm might be occupying their efforts doing architecturally insignificant strip malls, townhouses, warehouses, big box stores, or custom contemporary homes. In most of those typologies, they are not impacting as large of a population as the projects that are done by "name" firms. Typically, if you make a positive design intervention to a community, the more people you can affect the better your work and recognition becomes.
BUT: the Senior Architect on my current project left Rafael Vignoly's office in NYC circa 2000-2008, and I asked him about his experience there. He said, "It was the worst job I ever had, and the owners/partners treated every employee with as little respect as humanly possible. Rafael would design a tower and have me and a few teammates work on the project delivery. We had been discussing how to integrate parking spaces to the current design and had a few schemes. We called Rafael in to review it, and during a point that he was silently staring at our work, I offered my input as, "What I felt was working best here..." and he interrupted me with a retort I'll never forget: "I dont care what you feel. I don't pay you to feel. I pay you to make it work". You know, he is a brilliant creative, but its such a shame the way he valued his staff. I recommend you never apply for a job there"
The important thing to note here is that "name" firms aren't always run by starchitects, but starchitects always run "name" firms.
Vinoly is known for being a shit-hole-grinder.
I've never met a single person who left that firm without a horror story.
"I dont care what you feel. I don't pay you to feel. I pay you to make it work".
He should pay them more. Most of his buildings don't work.
What BR.TN said. My best experiences have been at mid-to-larger firms with a highly-collaborative design culture where there isn't just one single celebrity architect's name on the front door.
A friend of mine got a job at Vinoly's field office in Dubai for some huge project a few years ago. It was so terrible that after less than two weeks he walked out and paid out-of-pocket for the next flight back to the US.
Worst job I ever had was a few weeks last summer where I worked at a high-end boutique firm in NYC. The owner wasn't a starchitect per se, but he'd worked for a few over the years and certainly thought of himself as one, even though most of his "design" methodology involved having us copy custom millwork details verbatim from luxury-market magazines and product catalogs so he could pass them off to the client as his own. He once threw a full-on temper tantrum when a lighting vendor on the west coast wasn't picking up their phone at 8:30 AM New York City time. I quit that job when he defaulted on payroll and I had gotten an offer from a much better "name" firm of the type BR.TN describes above.
It wouldn't be so bad if Vinoly could design a project worth a damn. Instead he cranks out some of the most banal, inhumane, and poorly conceived buildings I have ever had the displeasure of visiting.
With the exception of the Tokyo International Forum.
i interviewed at Vinolys pre "architects give a shit about their website days".so frankly had no idea who he was......got back to school and told people the firms i had visited in NYC and nearly everyone said HELL NO - sweat shop.........one of my old bosses and i use to mock the minions in the sweatshop in the basement,i mean interns in the model shop as we walked by his building. we would say things like "i work 8 hour days and make twice your salary + benefits" just taunting the poor low self esteem monkees........vinolys office actually offered a higher than usual salary,but you supposed to divide that by 2 to get a real valuation....
A recruiter wanted to send my resume to Vinoly to do Revit CA at one of their projects in the Bay Area
So what I am hearing / reading above to a large degree, is that one's career development ( skill and technical experience ) isn't actually improved by working at a "name" architect but there is a perception to others in the industry, on the fringe of the industry and sadly other architects that one's experience isn't necessarily improved by working at a name brand firm.
There is however, a perception or a belief by others that you have "touched the hand of god" and inherited a divine level of skill and experience by working within close proximity to someone who may or may not be talented. hmmm, sad commentary on the industry sounds more like a "cult of celebrity".
Sorry, but I have to go watch "Keeping up with the Kardashians".
Mr. Vinoly's website sucks for navagation and his houses look like concert halls and convention centers. Wheres the warmth Rafael?
You gotta have a soul to have warmth.
So what I am hearing / reading above to a large degree, is that one's career development ( skill and technical experience ) isn't actually improved by working at a "name" architect but there is a perception to others in the industry, on the fringe of the industry and sadly other architects that one's experience isn't necessarily improved by working at a name brand firm....
Um, no, I don't think that's what anybody is saying at all. Certainly not me. As others have noted on this thread, "name" firm doesn't necessarily equate to celebrity starchitect firm. The horror stories from Vinoly's office may be representative of a certain subset of "name" firm, but they certainly aren't representative of my experience at more collaborative firms like Perkins+Will, Moore Ruble Yudell, and STUDIOS -- all of which produce outstanding work.
In my experience, the "name" firms I've worked for became "name" firms because they're good at what they do, they have clients who recognize the value of good design, and they are in a position to hire the best and brightest. Working alongside such people on well-designed projects has certainly made me a much better architect than I would've been if I'd spent my career pumping out roof details for EIFS-clad strip malls.
If you think every well-regarded firm is nothing more than a cult of celebrity, then I'd argue that says far more about you than it does about the firms themselves.
Something to be said for a career designing complicated buildings, that experience transfers well. Not so much a career in 1 story eifs projects
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.