I'm not normally a big fan of articles on Vice, but I found this one to be quite good. I feel like my peers (and myself for that matter) often get frustrated when working under senior architects. It helps to maintain perspective, something I don't see alot of and certainly is not taught/ encouraged in schools.
"Looking at the restaurant industry today, it’s a dramatically different climate than the era when you were in the kitchen because we now have celebrity chefs. In the book, you mention that kitchen culture was designed as an “anonymous and well-oiled machine,” one in which you had an incredible array of chefs around you, but no one was the focus. What is your impression of the industry now?
Well, it is quite different, as you mentioned, and there’s certainly a lot more pressure on the chefs now, and as I said before, the idea back then was to conform. If I work with Thomas Keller, one of the greatest chefs in the country, you’re not there to teach him. You’re there to look, listen, and to try to understand his vision of taste and aesthetic and try to replicate it. You’re not there to give him a lesson, but there to learn from him.
You try to do that with one chef for a couple of years, and then another chef for a couple of years, and you do it a couple of times, and by then, you have an enormous amount of knowledge you’ve just absorbed, whether or not you agree with those chefs and their sense of taste or aesthetic. By the time you have done it for a number of years, you’re now going to give it back, but filter it through your sense of taste. That’s when you start doing your own cooking. It’s not after two months that you’ve been in the kitchen. I’ve see a lot of young chefs who say things like “I’ve got a great idea for a book” or “I’ve got an idea for a television show,” because of the chefs who are greatly celebrated. It puts a great deal of pressure on them to be different. Before at the Plaza Athénée in Paris, when we made that lobster soufflé, you couldn’t tell who had made it amongst the 45 chefs or so who were in the kitchen. That was the whole idea: to conform your taste to that place. Nowadays, young chefs want to sign their dishes and make sure that it’s different. We didn’t have that kind of pressure before because it didn’t exist."
Pressure to innovate exists in every creative profession. It's in our nature as artists and designers. The problem is that innovation has been reduced to the most shallow formal qualities. Innovation shouldn't have to be sexy. The problem is also linked to the false idea that fame = success. It doesn't. Success is personal.
i think you guys completely missed the point of everything pepin said in the article.
the point is not to innovate. the point is to learn. you work under a chef who already knows how to do a good job, you pay attention to what that chef is doing, and you cook the dish that they are cooking. if you try to innovate because you think you're special snowflake or whatever, then you aren't creating the taste of the restaurant you are working for.
the idea back then was to conform. If I work with Thomas Keller, one of the greatest chefs in the country, you’re not there to teach him. You’re there to look, listen, and to try to understand his vision of taste and aesthetic and try to replicate it. You’re not there to give him a lesson, but there to learn from him.
by then, you have an enormous amount of knowledge you’ve just absorbed, whether or not you agree with those chefs and their sense of taste or aesthetic
"It's also easier to be innovative with a lobster souflé than a $200 million office building."
In the short term, yes, but if an office building is crappy, the users just have to deal with it (too expensive to tear down), but if the souffle is no good, it will be taken off the menu rather quickly!
+1 you have to have the ability to learn and want to learn as much as you can from wherever you are.
One former boss told me during the interview "you won't learn fancy design from me, but you will learn about permitting, working through government agency approvals, public meetings and running a business. All of these things are critical for your success and I hope you'll find it worth your time." So I spent the time to go to meetings with him after work, read up on law and regulations - and when I felt like I had a good grasp, went elsewhere. I hear about frustration from people who come in late (every day), often hung over, and leave promptly at end of the day because "I have plans" and tell me "I'm going to need a couple more days because it's just taking long". Put in the effort to be able to do what your office does well and ahead of schedule, then use the extra time to help them be innovative (understanding what the liability risks and costs are).
apprenticeship instead of internship. saying "I am an apprentice of Lou Kahn" is better than "I am interning at Lou Kahn's". you could take pride in what you are learning.
"Learn the rules like a pro so you can break them like an artist" Picasso
davinci said its the duty of every student to surpass his teacher.
we can go our entire lives learning and innovating and we can just as easily go our whole lives making excuses not to innovate because we are learning. Theres an idea out there that we have to reach some pinnacle of knowledge before we can be creative. Sometimes i think thats just bs, but what do i know. Im a guy that went out on my own pretty quick, doing well, but always wondering if i should have stayed an employee longer.
The idea that we need to shadow someone to learn is just plain false. I completely disagree that apprenticeship is the only and/or best way to learn. Jumping in the water is the best way to learn imo. I guess it depends heavily on the type of learner you are, but for me, I learned far more far quicker tying to figuring it out on my own than I ever did working for someone. It's also false imo that knowledge precedes innovation. The two evolve hand in hand. Any artist worth a shit couldn't possibly sit by passively and not be creative....
jla-x, this is architecture not art. i am not complaining, much of my work is for Designers who have no clue, fine with me, I can bill for it or laugh at their attempts to google things you only learn with experience.......with that said - innnovation can happen anytime and anywhere, but innovation is not the end all and usually is inappropriate for most clients
it depends on what you do right jla? you don't need as much time 'apprenticing' if you're building decks or flipping houses, but surely you understand how much more complex a 5 story multi-family residential unit is? at some point it has to sink in that what architects do is often actually difficult, and requires a certain level of competence to be done right.
that doesn't mean everyone with a license can do it, and it doesn't mean you won't be able to do it without a license, but it does mean that you will not be able to competently complete a complex project on your own without having had reasonable experience in the field. maybe circumstances are such that you can find someone competent, who has the experience to complete the project, and then take credit for the work they do, but that isn't the same as being able to do the work.
Curt, a more technically complex project naturally requires more knowledge. I agree. Just don't think that apprenticeship is the only means to acquire that knowledge. and, the ability to use knowledge creatively to solve a problem does not come from anywhere but practice. Practice is what makes for a good designer.
knowledge has been handed down from one generation to the next since the beginning of generations. this generation is no different than every other.
if you want to start over with a clean slate, without building on what was done before you, that's fine. go ahead and start over. but the lack of knowledge and competence you have compared to someone who did learn how to do it right puts you at a significant disadvantage. not knowing how to do something doesn't make you better at doing it.
michael phelps had a coach. probably many coaches. people spent time with him to teach him and show him what previous people have learned about how to be a good swimmer. you aren't going be michael phelps by simply jumping in a pool.
^ that's not what I said. Having a coach is important, but Michael phelps didn't learn to swim by mopping the men's room... He learned by swimming. Architecture is not learned unless one is allowed to get wet. By that I mean designing architecture asap. Obviously starting with small and simple projects.
so you need to gain experience in more of an 'apprenticeship' role where you work with someone who is willing to help you instead of an 'internship' where you aren't able to learn anything useful. i agree with that.
but, keep in mind you learn by doing what you're taught, not by trying teach your teacher because you think you're an 'innovative' special snowflake. too much ego makes people stupid.
Not necessarily good to innovate and learn by being dragged to court because you insisted on an innovative solution that ends up killing a people... there's a reason why it's good to learn from others - you get to learn from their mistakes.
we keep mixing metaphors BUT - an apprentice isn't mopping floors.
When people talk about apprenticeship I think of a education path separate from the current University model. Think FLW, never graduated HS, took a couple of semester of college, BUT he definitely served as an apprentice. I also don't think it hampered his ability to innovate or create.
And shadowing someone is not the same as having a mentor. I'm talking specifically about the idea that working for a great designer is going to make you one. It won't. It may make you a competent designer, but it will not alone be enough to become a great designer. That takes practice and raw talent. That must be self learned. Competence/knowledge can be gained by experience, and that experience can be gained on your own or under the guidance of someone else...or a bit of both. And you build something dangerous or above your ability then that is just stupid. No cure for stupid.
About half the time I'm thinking, "Wow, this guy is just making all this up as he goes along."
the other half I'm thinking, "Wow, I never would have learned that on my own."
I was just putting this out there because I feel like most young architects I talk with lean towards frustration with apprenticeship/ internship... not that it isn't frustrating, but if you get with a good mentor, there is alot to learn.
It is important (yet difficult) to remember that architects in their 40's frequently win "Young Architect" awards.
Not at all. Primarily, I don't agree with jxla position on the matter, or at least how he's presenting his ideas. I love apprenticeship. I think it should be a legitimate path to full fledged licensure/accreditation. I am who I am because of many years learning how to practice via an older architect.
archanonymous - often the older architect is making it up as they go, but the manner in which they do it, assuming they often have success at it, is worth learning from.........when i was 20 something I thought nearly all architects I met or worked for were bullshitting and had no clue. some were but others knew when they did not know enough at that moment but managed to maintain clients trust and confidence and contractors respect...........once you witness how that works you understand what Charles Moore meant when he said " Architecture is a performance art."
None of us will ever have all the knowledge we need to go it alone. If and when you do go out on your own, you will question whether you have learned all that you could have, whether you have the experience, skills, talent. If you are not comfortable with the idea of making it up as you go, bullshit, improvisation, or whatever we want to call it, you will not be comfortbale being an entrepreneuer. There is nothing comfortable or safe about being in business for yourself, at least as far as my experience goes.
I dont laugh at other business owners or designers work anymore because I appreciate how hard it is just to be going for it, putting yourself out there, and understanding that we are all getting better.
Sure, there is some minimal degree of competency. Some might say its passing the ARE/LARE, licensure, a certain number of years of experience. I'd bet there are some great architects/designers out there that have less of that stuff than we think. Inevitably, you're going to run into situations in which you have no experience. You're going to have to do your homework, think, and waltz your way through it like you've done it a million times or you're going to stay an employee. Either is fine.
Occassionally, you can learn from others without having to work for them.
When we hear the tales and learn from the tales of others, we learn things. We have to embrace multiple modes of learning. If you plan to do something complex using complex structural systems, you may sometimes be in your best interest to learn from a good S.E. or you may learn the structural engineering science. Learn the math and how they are applied. Then you can build the foundation of that knowledge and apply it.
You need to understand what you are doing with each decision and the consequences of the decisions before committing them to the final construction documents. Anyone can be fancy with form and draw them. (Maybe not 100% true but the essence is relatively true)
The idea is competence is known when you understand what you are doing and can apply it without imposing harm that compromises the HSW of the occupants. We have regulated standards to meet and that has been singularly the most important and most successful safeguard we have implemented. Licensing laws maybe argued as obsolete and ineffective.
However, people find themselves in front of problem. People nonetheless has to learn from their mistake so what do you do and how you get back up is more important than some special 'snowflake' (source: curtkram) who manages to do really well on exams like the ARE but the ARE is not the real world either. It might be closer to that than college or some's experience of AXP (soon to be formerly called IDP). The ARE isn't enough to cover all what you will invariably find.
The most important skills is knowing when to have consultants and how to coordinate because damn.... no one lives long enough to know everything or to be immediately competent with everything you may possibly come across in your career. You'd be a long time resident of a pine box six feet under before you'll learn all that.
Personally, I have learned way more on my own then I ever did working for someone. There have been many instances where I didn't know something and I had to ask or find out. That's the nature of design professions. The idea of an apprenticeship is nice, but Mr Miagi doesn't pay...In reality we end up working jobs...
Feb 1, 16 1:56 am ·
·
jla-x,
Yep. But you learned it to a level that you understood it before applying it to a project.
You know that I am not arguing against what you said. I think everyone has valid points and that is why I wish architecture licensure process was as flexible as the diversity of valid modes of learning.
Practice is learning, too. The journey teaches.
Feb 1, 16 2:00 am ·
·
Jobs are a form of apprenticeship when you are learning as you go. Technically, Wright's apprenticeship with Sullivan is a job. I can't imagine Sullivan having the time to invest a Mr. Miagi level of apprenticeship as it is romanticized. He may have done more than most but it was Wright's apprenticeship style that I think people inadvertently attributed to Sullivan but I think Sullivan was more practical of his time because if he spent too much time trying to hand hold and personally tutor his entire staff like a teacher may a class, nothing gets done, professionally. Sullivan gave feedback to help his staff become the best they can be but he's running a firm and you can't imagine the firm's managing principal being able to personally tutor and mentor each of the entire staff as apprentices to him like "Mr. Miagi".
Sullivan was a boss... an employer. Somehow, it had been romanticized elaborately.
Don't get me wrong, Sullivan was probably exceptional with what would have been considered an exceptional on the job training today that would be considered one of the best or better ones but it is basically a form of on the job training... before the OJT term became popular and the term apprenticeship was used in similar manner as it was used in construction. You were a paid employee. You worked and you learned. As your skills are demonstrated to get better, you moved up to new challenges. They had a system of training in place. It was an investment on the employer to invest in the career growth of their staff. Human resource in that regard was an investment and Sullivan was doing that in his time.
After all, there wasn't any uniform education system where that role was all outsourced to.
The value of work experience is a bit overstated in this profession. The truth is that most people spend 90% of their time doing repetitive tasks. It takes a very long time at a job to become well rounded enough to go off on your own. When you take that leap, the learning curve is very fast paced and steep.
Feb 2, 16 12:15 pm ·
·
louis80,
There is a difference between being a pigeon-holed 'CAD monkey' (or BIM Chimp) experience and experience you gain from doing entire projects such as a building designer or home designer or as an architect or other substantial roles you would gain. You learn the most about how to do projects by doing them then you would by doing door or window details. It's important to do some of that and gain proficiency but if you want to ever actually design a building, you need the experience being diversified and part of a singular holistic picture like an actual building design project so you connect these individual facets together in your mind.
Add to that, you work with clients and learn to communicate with the client.
Large firm = large, potentially awesome projects, takes a very long time to be exposed to all facets of the practice.
small firm = small, often crappy projects, exposure to everything fairly quickly
The thing is that the wide variety of experience you might gain in a small firm is of limited relevance to larger firms because the projects are so different. A wood framed house or a small strip mall is completely different from large hospital, office tower, or stadium projects.
If you haven't worked on a 300 million dollar project don't even bother trying to explain to me how this is incorrect!
The key to getting broad exposure in a large firm: Find the weakest partner, avoid at all costs being poached by the rainmakers within the firm, gain the partner's trust. This takes months, not years; you just have to have the social skills (slightly sociopathic tendencies?) to pull it off. I pulled it off multiple times before striking off on my own.
Feb 2, 16 4:39 pm ·
·
shuellmi,
Sure.
Doing a large stadium would be different than a house would likely be because structural systems would be different in order to deal with the different conditions. The infrastructural systems would be different depending on the entire design. The architectural decisions effects your structural and infrastructural system options. Remember, this is stuff that you would be involving engineers at this scale.
$300 Million project is just a price tag. The architectural program, the spatial plan, etc. are the relevant stuff not the price tag. I can design a $3 Billion (construction cost) single family residence so don't get high and mighty and egotistical about price tag. We aren't in business for the price tag. We are in business for solving design problems or challenges, clients needs, etc. There is more to that then we are looking at.
I agree with jla-x that typically, a large project is going to be a different kind of animal than is typically for a smaller project. I understand that the architectural spatial/function program will also be more complex than a typical house.
If you haven't worked on a 300 million dollar project don't even bother trying to explain to me how this is incorrect!
no need to inject additional commentary.
null, i've never heard that you should avoid the rainmakers. i've always worked at small firms so i know my experience has been different, but it seems your advice is counter-intuitive
the people who are best at keeping things running are the most likely to pigeon-hole you rather than helping you do better (or helping them do better for that matter)?
construction methods - big steel/concrete vs. wood sticks
professional contractors are generally bright guys vs idiots running a business out of their truck.
materials - expensive and complicated wall sections both on the exterior and interior. Generally when the budgets get big owners don't want a giant EIFS box, the facades are pretty interesting and materials correlate to that investment.
consultants - just because you have them doesn't mean that you don't need to know anything.
building codes - residential is comparatively simple, there is a reason code consultant exist.
zoning - same thing
life safety - same thing again, requirements for all of these get more stringent as buildings get taller, have more occupants, and if they have "helpless" occupants. Again, for most small buildings none of these are issues to even worry about.
No wonder architects can't seem to get any respect . Large projects are usually more technically complex but less compositionally/artistically complex. Most "great" architecture is smaller than a Walmart.
Besides, the "systems" we are now integrating into high end residential are just nuts.
Another good exposure we are getting now is to Geothermal, an expensive up front cost, but incredible savings over the life of a building, and NO combustion in your mechanical rooms
Question for you.... A good friend recently bought a house with geothermal and hates it, the house never really gets about 65 ish in the winter, is that a poorly sized unit or is supplemental heat common?
Feb 2, 16 7:21 pm ·
·
curtkram
Personally, I don't give a shit if the project construction cost is $1000 to $100 Trillion.
I can design a $100 Trillion house but damn it would be expensive, large and elaborate all hell. The dollar amount is irrelevant. The scope of the project and what is involved is what matters.
Rick perhaps you can, but you won't. You absolutely never do one single thing you say you "can" or "could" or "will" do. Which reminds me: January is up - where is that game you said you were going to write by the 31st?
How to be a young architect
I'm not normally a big fan of articles on Vice, but I found this one to be quite good. I feel like my peers (and myself for that matter) often get frustrated when working under senior architects. It helps to maintain perspective, something I don't see alot of and certainly is not taught/ encouraged in schools.
"Looking at the restaurant industry today, it’s a dramatically different climate than the era when you were in the kitchen because we now have celebrity chefs. In the book, you mention that kitchen culture was designed as an “anonymous and well-oiled machine,” one in which you had an incredible array of chefs around you, but no one was the focus. What is your impression of the industry now?
Well, it is quite different, as you mentioned, and there’s certainly a lot more pressure on the chefs now, and as I said before, the idea back then was to conform. If I work with Thomas Keller, one of the greatest chefs in the country, you’re not there to teach him. You’re there to look, listen, and to try to understand his vision of taste and aesthetic and try to replicate it. You’re not there to give him a lesson, but there to learn from him.
You try to do that with one chef for a couple of years, and then another chef for a couple of years, and you do it a couple of times, and by then, you have an enormous amount of knowledge you’ve just absorbed, whether or not you agree with those chefs and their sense of taste or aesthetic. By the time you have done it for a number of years, you’re now going to give it back, but filter it through your sense of taste. That’s when you start doing your own cooking. It’s not after two months that you’ve been in the kitchen. I’ve see a lot of young chefs who say things like “I’ve got a great idea for a book” or “I’ve got an idea for a television show,” because of the chefs who are greatly celebrated. It puts a great deal of pressure on them to be different. Before at the Plaza Athénée in Paris, when we made that lobster soufflé, you couldn’t tell who had made it amongst the 45 chefs or so who were in the kitchen. That was the whole idea: to conform your taste to that place. Nowadays, young chefs want to sign their dishes and make sure that it’s different. We didn’t have that kind of pressure before because it didn’t exist."
Pressure to innovate exists in every creative profession. It's in our nature as artists and designers. The problem is that innovation has been reduced to the most shallow formal qualities. Innovation shouldn't have to be sexy. The problem is also linked to the false idea that fame = success. It doesn't. Success is personal.
It's also easier to be innovative with a lobster souflé than a $200 million office building.
i think you guys completely missed the point of everything pepin said in the article.
the point is not to innovate. the point is to learn. you work under a chef who already knows how to do a good job, you pay attention to what that chef is doing, and you cook the dish that they are cooking. if you try to innovate because you think you're special snowflake or whatever, then you aren't creating the taste of the restaurant you are working for.
the idea back then was to conform. If I work with Thomas Keller, one of the greatest chefs in the country, you’re not there to teach him. You’re there to look, listen, and to try to understand his vision of taste and aesthetic and try to replicate it. You’re not there to give him a lesson, but there to learn from him.
^^ second that
by then, you have an enormous amount of knowledge you’ve just absorbed, whether or not you agree with those chefs and their sense of taste or aesthetic
"It's also easier to be innovative with a lobster souflé than a $200 million office building."
In the short term, yes, but if an office building is crappy, the users just have to deal with it (too expensive to tear down), but if the souffle is no good, it will be taken off the menu rather quickly!
I forget who said it, but "you have to be competent before you can be innovative."
+1 you have to have the ability to learn and want to learn as much as you can from wherever you are.
One former boss told me during the interview "you won't learn fancy design from me, but you will learn about permitting, working through government agency approvals, public meetings and running a business. All of these things are critical for your success and I hope you'll find it worth your time." So I spent the time to go to meetings with him after work, read up on law and regulations - and when I felt like I had a good grasp, went elsewhere. I hear about frustration from people who come in late (every day), often hung over, and leave promptly at end of the day because "I have plans" and tell me "I'm going to need a couple more days because it's just taking long". Put in the effort to be able to do what your office does well and ahead of schedule, then use the extra time to help them be innovative (understanding what the liability risks and costs are).
apprenticeship instead of internship. saying "I am an apprentice of Lou Kahn" is better than "I am interning at Lou Kahn's". you could take pride in what you are learning.
"Learn the rules like a pro so you can break them like an artist" Picasso
davinci said its the duty of every student to surpass his teacher.
we can go our entire lives learning and innovating and we can just as easily go our whole lives making excuses not to innovate because we are learning. Theres an idea out there that we have to reach some pinnacle of knowledge before we can be creative. Sometimes i think thats just bs, but what do i know. Im a guy that went out on my own pretty quick, doing well, but always wondering if i should have stayed an employee longer.
^ well said
The idea that we need to shadow someone to learn is just plain false. I completely disagree that apprenticeship is the only and/or best way to learn. Jumping in the water is the best way to learn imo. I guess it depends heavily on the type of learner you are, but for me, I learned far more far quicker tying to figuring it out on my own than I ever did working for someone. It's also false imo that knowledge precedes innovation. The two evolve hand in hand. Any artist worth a shit couldn't possibly sit by passively and not be creative....
jla-x, this is architecture not art. i am not complaining, much of my work is for Designers who have no clue, fine with me, I can bill for it or laugh at their attempts to google things you only learn with experience.......with that said - innnovation can happen anytime and anywhere, but innovation is not the end all and usually is inappropriate for most clients
it depends on what you do right jla? you don't need as much time 'apprenticing' if you're building decks or flipping houses, but surely you understand how much more complex a 5 story multi-family residential unit is? at some point it has to sink in that what architects do is often actually difficult, and requires a certain level of competence to be done right.
that doesn't mean everyone with a license can do it, and it doesn't mean you won't be able to do it without a license, but it does mean that you will not be able to competently complete a complex project on your own without having had reasonable experience in the field. maybe circumstances are such that you can find someone competent, who has the experience to complete the project, and then take credit for the work they do, but that isn't the same as being able to do the work.
Curt, a more technically complex project naturally requires more knowledge. I agree. Just don't think that apprenticeship is the only means to acquire that knowledge. and, the ability to use knowledge creatively to solve a problem does not come from anywhere but practice. Practice is what makes for a good designer.
You won't learn to swim by watching Michael phelps. You have to get in the water. The fear of going out there too soon stunts one growth.
knowledge has been handed down from one generation to the next since the beginning of generations. this generation is no different than every other.
if you want to start over with a clean slate, without building on what was done before you, that's fine. go ahead and start over. but the lack of knowledge and competence you have compared to someone who did learn how to do it right puts you at a significant disadvantage. not knowing how to do something doesn't make you better at doing it.
michael phelps had a coach. probably many coaches. people spent time with him to teach him and show him what previous people have learned about how to be a good swimmer. you aren't going be michael phelps by simply jumping in a pool.
^ that's not what I said. Having a coach is important, but Michael phelps didn't learn to swim by mopping the men's room... He learned by swimming. Architecture is not learned unless one is allowed to get wet. By that I mean designing architecture asap. Obviously starting with small and simple projects.
so you need to gain experience in more of an 'apprenticeship' role where you work with someone who is willing to help you instead of an 'internship' where you aren't able to learn anything useful. i agree with that.
but, keep in mind you learn by doing what you're taught, not by trying teach your teacher because you think you're an 'innovative' special snowflake. too much ego makes people stupid.
Not necessarily good to innovate and learn by being dragged to court because you insisted on an innovative solution that ends up killing a people... there's a reason why it's good to learn from others - you get to learn from their mistakes.
we keep mixing metaphors BUT - an apprentice isn't mopping floors.
When people talk about apprenticeship I think of a education path separate from the current University model. Think FLW, never graduated HS, took a couple of semester of college, BUT he definitely served as an apprentice. I also don't think it hampered his ability to innovate or create.
Didn't say it hampers creativity. I said that it is not the only way to learn.
And shadowing someone is not the same as having a mentor. I'm talking specifically about the idea that working for a great designer is going to make you one. It won't. It may make you a competent designer, but it will not alone be enough to become a great designer. That takes practice and raw talent. That must be self learned. Competence/knowledge can be gained by experience, and that experience can be gained on your own or under the guidance of someone else...or a bit of both. And you build something dangerous or above your ability then that is just stupid. No cure for stupid.
But if you sit around until you are 50 and try to become flawlessly competent before designing....Good luck
jla-x, I agree with you on some points.
About half the time I'm thinking, "Wow, this guy is just making all this up as he goes along."
the other half I'm thinking, "Wow, I never would have learned that on my own."
I was just putting this out there because I feel like most young architects I talk with lean towards frustration with apprenticeship/ internship... not that it isn't frustrating, but if you get with a good mentor, there is alot to learn.
It is important (yet difficult) to remember that architects in their 40's frequently win "Young Architect" awards.
internship, as its structured today IS NOT apprenticeship.
and that's all you took away from my post?
Not at all. Primarily, I don't agree with jxla position on the matter, or at least how he's presenting his ideas. I love apprenticeship. I think it should be a legitimate path to full fledged licensure/accreditation. I am who I am because of many years learning how to practice via an older architect.
archanonymous - often the older architect is making it up as they go, but the manner in which they do it, assuming they often have success at it, is worth learning from.........when i was 20 something I thought nearly all architects I met or worked for were bullshitting and had no clue. some were but others knew when they did not know enough at that moment but managed to maintain clients trust and confidence and contractors respect...........once you witness how that works you understand what Charles Moore meant when he said " Architecture is a performance art."
being "innovative" in the process
None of us will ever have all the knowledge we need to go it alone. If and when you do go out on your own, you will question whether you have learned all that you could have, whether you have the experience, skills, talent. If you are not comfortable with the idea of making it up as you go, bullshit, improvisation, or whatever we want to call it, you will not be comfortbale being an entrepreneuer. There is nothing comfortable or safe about being in business for yourself, at least as far as my experience goes.
I dont laugh at other business owners or designers work anymore because I appreciate how hard it is just to be going for it, putting yourself out there, and understanding that we are all getting better.
Sure, there is some minimal degree of competency. Some might say its passing the ARE/LARE, licensure, a certain number of years of experience. I'd bet there are some great architects/designers out there that have less of that stuff than we think. Inevitably, you're going to run into situations in which you have no experience. You're going to have to do your homework, think, and waltz your way through it like you've done it a million times or you're going to stay an employee. Either is fine.
^well said
Occassionally, you can learn from others without having to work for them.
When we hear the tales and learn from the tales of others, we learn things. We have to embrace multiple modes of learning. If you plan to do something complex using complex structural systems, you may sometimes be in your best interest to learn from a good S.E. or you may learn the structural engineering science. Learn the math and how they are applied. Then you can build the foundation of that knowledge and apply it.
You need to understand what you are doing with each decision and the consequences of the decisions before committing them to the final construction documents. Anyone can be fancy with form and draw them. (Maybe not 100% true but the essence is relatively true)
The idea is competence is known when you understand what you are doing and can apply it without imposing harm that compromises the HSW of the occupants. We have regulated standards to meet and that has been singularly the most important and most successful safeguard we have implemented. Licensing laws maybe argued as obsolete and ineffective.
However, people find themselves in front of problem. People nonetheless has to learn from their mistake so what do you do and how you get back up is more important than some special 'snowflake' (source: curtkram) who manages to do really well on exams like the ARE but the ARE is not the real world either. It might be closer to that than college or some's experience of AXP (soon to be formerly called IDP). The ARE isn't enough to cover all what you will invariably find.
The most important skills is knowing when to have consultants and how to coordinate because damn.... no one lives long enough to know everything or to be immediately competent with everything you may possibly come across in your career. You'd be a long time resident of a pine box six feet under before you'll learn all that.
Personally, I have learned way more on my own then I ever did working for someone. There have been many instances where I didn't know something and I had to ask or find out. That's the nature of design professions. The idea of an apprenticeship is nice, but Mr Miagi doesn't pay...In reality we end up working jobs...
jla-x,
Yep. But you learned it to a level that you understood it before applying it to a project.
You know that I am not arguing against what you said. I think everyone has valid points and that is why I wish architecture licensure process was as flexible as the diversity of valid modes of learning.
Practice is learning, too. The journey teaches.
Jobs are a form of apprenticeship when you are learning as you go. Technically, Wright's apprenticeship with Sullivan is a job. I can't imagine Sullivan having the time to invest a Mr. Miagi level of apprenticeship as it is romanticized. He may have done more than most but it was Wright's apprenticeship style that I think people inadvertently attributed to Sullivan but I think Sullivan was more practical of his time because if he spent too much time trying to hand hold and personally tutor his entire staff like a teacher may a class, nothing gets done, professionally. Sullivan gave feedback to help his staff become the best they can be but he's running a firm and you can't imagine the firm's managing principal being able to personally tutor and mentor each of the entire staff as apprentices to him like "Mr. Miagi".
Sullivan was a boss... an employer. Somehow, it had been romanticized elaborately.
Don't get me wrong, Sullivan was probably exceptional with what would have been considered an exceptional on the job training today that would be considered one of the best or better ones but it is basically a form of on the job training... before the OJT term became popular and the term apprenticeship was used in similar manner as it was used in construction. You were a paid employee. You worked and you learned. As your skills are demonstrated to get better, you moved up to new challenges. They had a system of training in place. It was an investment on the employer to invest in the career growth of their staff. Human resource in that regard was an investment and Sullivan was doing that in his time.
After all, there wasn't any uniform education system where that role was all outsourced to.
The value of work experience is a bit overstated in this profession. The truth is that most people spend 90% of their time doing repetitive tasks. It takes a very long time at a job to become well rounded enough to go off on your own. When you take that leap, the learning curve is very fast paced and steep.
louis80,
There is a difference between being a pigeon-holed 'CAD monkey' (or BIM Chimp) experience and experience you gain from doing entire projects such as a building designer or home designer or as an architect or other substantial roles you would gain. You learn the most about how to do projects by doing them then you would by doing door or window details. It's important to do some of that and gain proficiency but if you want to ever actually design a building, you need the experience being diversified and part of a singular holistic picture like an actual building design project so you connect these individual facets together in your mind.
Add to that, you work with clients and learn to communicate with the client.
Large firm = large, potentially awesome projects, takes a very long time to be exposed to all facets of the practice.
small firm = small, often crappy projects, exposure to everything fairly quickly
The thing is that the wide variety of experience you might gain in a small firm is of limited relevance to larger firms because the projects are so different. A wood framed house or a small strip mall is completely different from large hospital, office tower, or stadium projects.
If you haven't worked on a 300 million dollar project don't even bother trying to explain to me how this is incorrect!
Good point^. Large projects are a different animal all together.
The key to getting broad exposure in a large firm: Find the weakest partner, avoid at all costs being poached by the rainmakers within the firm, gain the partner's trust. This takes months, not years; you just have to have the social skills (slightly sociopathic tendencies?) to pull it off. I pulled it off multiple times before striking off on my own.
shuellmi,
Sure.
Doing a large stadium would be different than a house would likely be because structural systems would be different in order to deal with the different conditions. The infrastructural systems would be different depending on the entire design. The architectural decisions effects your structural and infrastructural system options. Remember, this is stuff that you would be involving engineers at this scale.
$300 Million project is just a price tag. The architectural program, the spatial plan, etc. are the relevant stuff not the price tag. I can design a $3 Billion (construction cost) single family residence so don't get high and mighty and egotistical about price tag. We aren't in business for the price tag. We are in business for solving design problems or challenges, clients needs, etc. There is more to that then we are looking at.
I agree with jla-x that typically, a large project is going to be a different kind of animal than is typically for a smaller project. I understand that the architectural spatial/function program will also be more complex than a typical house.
RB, he said:
If you haven't worked on a 300 million dollar project don't even bother trying to explain to me how this is incorrect!
no need to inject additional commentary.
null, i've never heard that you should avoid the rainmakers. i've always worked at small firms so i know my experience has been different, but it seems your advice is counter-intuitive
the people who are best at keeping things running are the most likely to pigeon-hole you rather than helping you do better (or helping them do better for that matter)?
differences:
construction methods - big steel/concrete vs. wood sticks
professional contractors are generally bright guys vs idiots running a business out of their truck.
materials - expensive and complicated wall sections both on the exterior and interior. Generally when the budgets get big owners don't want a giant EIFS box, the facades are pretty interesting and materials correlate to that investment.
consultants - just because you have them doesn't mean that you don't need to know anything.
building codes - residential is comparatively simple, there is a reason code consultant exist.
zoning - same thing
life safety - same thing again, requirements for all of these get more stringent as buildings get taller, have more occupants, and if they have "helpless" occupants. Again, for most small buildings none of these are issues to even worry about.
"Idiots running a business out of their truck"
No wonder architects can't seem to get any respect . Large projects are usually more technically complex but less compositionally/artistically complex. Most "great" architecture is smaller than a Walmart.
shuellmi
all those differences are just not significant in 5-15M homes
I don't doubt that, it's a very broad generalization. 200 mil is almost completely arbitrary
Besides, the "systems" we are now integrating into high end residential are just nuts.
Another good exposure we are getting now is to Geothermal, an expensive up front cost, but incredible savings over the life of a building, and NO combustion in your mechanical rooms
Question for you.... A good friend recently bought a house with geothermal and hates it, the house never really gets about 65 ish in the winter, is that a poorly sized unit or is supplemental heat common?
curtkram
Personally, I don't give a shit if the project construction cost is $1000 to $100 Trillion.
I can design a $100 Trillion house but damn it would be expensive, large and elaborate all hell. The dollar amount is irrelevant. The scope of the project and what is involved is what matters.
Rick perhaps you can, but you won't. You absolutely never do one single thing you say you "can" or "could" or "will" do. Which reminds me: January is up - where is that game you said you were going to write by the 31st?
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.