Excellent and intelligent detailing is more important in the long run than creative flair.  If you like CD and CA, stick to it.  New grunts will come and go and provide the inexpensive design you'll take and complete buildings.

What field? Specifications or building enveloppe consultant looks like a good direction.

Most architects are not great at creating concepts and creative works, simply look around you.

That's the way it always has been, you were supposed to learn how things get built in school, then practice with an architect to see how the ideas came to be; now it's all upside down, schools don't teach you anything about building, but "celebrate" your creation of impossible utopias than can't even be built, and you get to work with all the wrong "ideas" in your head, this is a career, you start slow, then pick-up the pace until you set the pace, can't go around it....

it's unfortunate that schools focus so much on design and virtually ignore that other 95% of what it takes to actually get a building built.

seems like "project architect" would be the next title for you to aspire to 

Completely agree with all of  the above.  You have the marketable skills, and owe no apology for that.

Shell is right about the over-emphasis on conceptual work to the exclusion of other, very critical abilities.  This is visible all over Archinect as well.  The abundance of under-thought headlines by some of the fanboy/girl bloggers linking to the latest rendering or utterance by [insert Starchitect name here] reveals much.

Some of the best content here (to me) is war stories from folks who know whereof they speak... about detailing, field conditions, entitlements, clients, office management, local culture, etcetera.

I'm not sure exactly how you came to this realization, but only 2 years in... chances are you're still going through the growing pains of figuring out how to do your job.  To echo what others have said, keep growing, keep learning, and don't let the BS get you down.  You'll be able to create some truly awesome work (and hopefully make clients very happy) if you are able to complete projects on time, on budget, and well made.

Some of the best content here (to me) is war stories from folks who know whereof they speak... about detailing, field conditions, entitlements, clients, office management, local culture, etcetera.

I had a Construction Documents class in undergrad where the lecture component was solely a project manager from a nearby bigger city firm who would come and tell his war stories.  Showed us pictures of projects where the contractor screwed up a flashing detail, interior elevation in a room, exit stair, etc., because the documents weren't clear enough.  He talked about how much money it was costing the client and how they approached fixing the issue.  It was a huge eye-opener.

Define "bad at the creative side".

There is often more creativity involved in getting something built than there is in the conception of the project.

As mentioned above, there are a whole lot of architects who think they are creative geniuses but who couldn't design their way out of a paper bag. Some of them have won the Pritzker.

Agree wholeheartedly with the others above.  Pretty picture people are a dime a dozen in this field, contrary to the impression given in most architecture schools.  If you enjoy doing the stuff downstream from design phase, stick with it.  You will be more valuable in the long run.  And if you become interested in management of construction, or in the business side of development (the client side) you can be assured that the remuneration will be much better than the would-be stararchitects you work with, most of whom will never come close to fulfilling their wildly unrealistic dreams

have you seen half the shit that gets built? I’ve feel the same way about myself... I’m not as creative as my peers, but I’m 100 percent damn sure I can design better than most of the shit out there. 

What do you mean by “bad”?

Have you wver thought that maybe the way you choose to express your creaticity does not coincide with you boss’s or your firm’s? 

Case in point: if you like modern design, but you firm is very traditional, or if your clientelle are used to symmetry and you like to design with assymetry, perhaps you need to try to work at a place that is more open to your personal preference. There are people out there who copy and paste from Pinterest all day long and if something doesn’t match that style, you will never be able to showcase your talent!

the thread thumbnail made me crack up.

It would be great if schools actually focused on design as understood for thousands of years.  Instead, those 'concepts' are actually polemics that have very little to do with how a finished building will actually be experienced.  My guess is if you have a practical bent to solving problems, you'd actually be good at aesthetics as most people appreciate them, I don't know, but I'm guessing.  Try working for a builder making their work beautiful.  It's incredibly satisfying to make people happy, while you earn your keep.  Good luck!

Become a BIM technician, or a Production manager, or a Project/Construction Manager and focus on Value Engineering, Specifications, Construction Drawings, etc. I sense you're more keen to the execution of a design or project, rather than the conceptual / creative process of it. And I agree with all the comments that it's something that's truly lacking in academe today. Also, starchitects are nothing without the people who do the rigorous work of being able to interpret and transform their designs to construction standards and feasibility. 

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that design only applies to big-picture concept stuff.

Windows, floor patterns, wall sections, waterproofing, casework, etcetera, etcetera.... are all important objects of design at various scales.

keep telling youself that doors and windows are “design” too- its therapeutic until you realize that you cant fart without running your decisions through the design director and once you do, everything changes..you’ll realize that you actually don’t have much choice at the end of the of the day- your hands are the Design Director’s prosthetics. Once “your pass” of the door and window details is approved by the Design Director, your task becomes technical- so at the end of the day- you’re no doing any design. You are just executing someone else’s design.

2 yrs is a relatively short time - but long enough to realize that the current place might not be the best fit.  Design is wide ranging, and early in a career it might be more of an indication that the fit is wrong.  That being said a large part of the profession centers on DD onward.  Being able to find construction solutions to achieve the core design intent is a large portion of a good firm's work.  It's a valuable skill set that is less obvious and takes quite some time to develop.

Don't get too hopped up on PMing - it's another ball game entirely and the good PM skill sets are (again) less obvious and come from experience.  Everyone's in a rush to say they want to be PMs without understanding the full consequences.

THAT'S GOLD JERRY, GOLD!!!

There is value in every niche of the field of building stuff...the key is to find/realize that value and meaning in what you do, and do it to your best abilities.  Too many people these days equate recognition with success.  Recognition is external...success is internal.  If you are happy with what you do, and people pay you to do it, then that’s all you need.  

Ladies and Gentlemen, please don't post on Archinect while under the influence of illicit drugs.

since I'm really bad at the creative side.

Then you might have what it takes to be an excellent project architect. The core design, in most cases, is performed by the senior staff / directors / principals anyway. If you leave that out, then there is more creativity and perhaps more insight in a telephone directory than your average run-of-the-mill architectural job.  The project needs to be completed in time, within budget, and with the least amount of snags of any nature (legal, technical, etc) so you need to be organised, able to process and manage vast amounts of tedious data, be a good communicator, have technical skills, familiarity with various fabrication or manufacturing processes, know what to do on a construction site, be good at budgeting, economics, and particularly good at construction law / contract administration, not to mention knowledge of a myriad of building regulations, codes, standards, and then some. So, yeah, creativity is perhaps overrated, and if I were you, I wouldn't worry one bit about it.

Don't sell yourself short. being 'creative' does not mean designing some bizarre pile of shit from the ground up that has no historical context, does not fit the site, does not address the climate, ignores the specified function of the building, and pays no attention to the needs of the client.