Should an Architect start their own firm just because he wants to be independant and make more money or there should really be purpose like innovative designs or having developed a philisophy which they want to put to practice ?
I was wondering whether it is appropriate where many architects start their own firm just with self interest of making more money relative to job. Also many do not have any philosophies to practice architecture rather architects build whatever the client demands, even if it not so good for the society. Whats your take on starting an architecture firm ?
I think the independence, freedom and money all play a major part in one starting a firm, at least for me. and I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all. Of course if you want to push some innovative ideas then by all means go for it. If its not about money and freedom then why not continue to be a CAD monkey making peanuts forever?
I think it is much more complex than that. I know a guy who started an office because he needed to be closer to his parents. I know another guy who wanted to start a firm to be more entrepreneurial with clients and innovative with services. Then they started a firm together...
I also know a woman who started a low key practice because she wanted to continue to design and build while she was teaching. It was a way for her to stay grounded in making and drawing.
"Also many do not have any philosophies to practice architecture rather architects build whatever the client demands"
I am guessing you never had your own firm or business before. We need clients to build the architecture we come up with. It is like the line from the producers we " never put your own money in the show". The philosophies you mention need to align with the client's goals. Having your own firm allows you to select (to some extent) the clients you try to land. the clientele are like guardrails on a winding road, their program budgets and individual taste keep you from wondering off into the countryside chasing "innovation" because they have hired you to solve their specific needs for a building or some other design service. Where you get to innovate is within the space between the guardrails and this often narrow space is where some truly brilliant and quality design can come from. The other thing owning your own firm allows you to control is how ethically or professionally you choose to run your firm and treat your clients, employees and subcontractors.
At some point: (1) You'll want to take all that experience working for a company or an employer's projects and be able to apply it under your own name, in your own terms, and in your own pace with the projects or opportunities that solely come your way. (2) I agree with Marc Miller that it happens or can happen on a very situational basis. I'm an example of that. Coincidentally, I had to move back to my hometown to be nearer to my parents. Another one was before I quit my job and relocated, there were side projects (and clients from my hometown) slowly coming my way. (And my job was paying us shit and we overtime like overkill so might as well give the freelance route a try). Eventually, I had to register my practice as a business since I was earning from it---hence I eventually opened a really small low key office, etc. You can never really be 100% ready for anything but there's a learning curve to it that taught or gained experience from that will take me awhile, or never, to get if I was still working at my previous job.
Now with innovation and philosophy, that varies in every practice, in every project, in every client, in every location, etc. No projects are the same, and no clients are the same. Some projects (and clients) give you the opportunity to be innovative, while some don't. In the end, picking up from Peter's comment, our job is to be able to translate the needs/demands of the client into a design that pleases and works for them. Creativity or artistry gets compromised in architecture a lot especially when budget or value engineering comes in; but that's the challenge of it and the decisions you make, and how you handle the process of arriving at an outcome that satisfies both your client and yourself the architect, is what can define your practice.
Feb 15, 18 2:18 pm ·
·
hellion
Also is it just me or do clients who (window) shop for architects rates and treat the profession as if like we're going to cock fight with each other for their project need to be called out?
Feb 15, 18 2:33 pm ·
·
hellion
A colleague of mine went through a similar experience I had years ago when two separate clients were asking me for a proposal for a residential project and I found out they tapped 2 or 3 other (same) architects for the same project. Apparently, they were like exchanging notes between who has a better portfolio, or who has this, that etc. On top of the proposal, they were also asking us a draft of the design so they can choose which amongst us had the "best" design to go with the proposal. Whoever they chose gets to design their project, etc. Anyway, none of us ended up doing the job for them because me and the other architects jointly informed them that if they want a draft they need to sign or agree with our individual proposals and conform to the pertinent payments, etc. And they were like pissed because they believed that bidding was the nature of our profession (like we always bid for a client and a project before we even get paid or profit, etc. the worse part was that they believed that design is free since profit will come from the construction part. I mean, it's a clients prerogative and right to choose his/her designer and he can ask from as many as he want, but I just found it rude or unethical that they'd attempt to pit us against other colleague (and it's not like their project was a competition or anything). /rant
Started "my company" after graduation so I would qualify for cultural subsidies and start practicing architecture instead of applying for unemployment benefits and being forced to take any kind of job.
It is a noble deed to create something for the betterment of society and invest more time, more effort and more money than the bare minimum. However, it’s far less noble when you aren’t the one investing the additional real world labor and required capital to do so. Pretty easy to just pick up a pencil and call everyone else greedy and closed minded who doesn’t agree with your “philosophy.”
That title though... I'm new here myself actually.
Anyway, you have to be practical. If your morals dictate that you starve before you make these changes to society, that's your decision. Because clients tend to be greedy, and since you're not in their shoes you can't really blame them.
I for one, am trying to learn about the market before I make any such attempts at starting up (regardless of the reasons).
Why can't a practice have purpose and make money? The original question seems like just a way to put some firms down. It's overly simplistic.
Architects get criticized for not making as much money as other professionals then also get criticized for "selling out" by starting a business that is profitable.
Feb 16, 18 9:08 am ·
·
randomised
"Architects get criticized for not making as much money as other professionals "
Just wanting to do your own thing without restriction or control by someone else on your time, at your pace, in the manner you feel is appropriate to yourself and your family circumstance.
What's wrong with that? and if you make more money and can tolerate the stress associated with slow times and staff if you are so fortunate then it sounds like a preferred situation..... at least that was my motivation.
Still is.
Feb 17, 18 12:18 am ·
·
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.
Should an Architect start their own firm just because he wants to be independant and make more money or there should really be purpose like innovative designs or having developed a philisophy which they want to put to practice ?
I was wondering whether it is appropriate where many architects start their own firm just with self interest of making more money relative to job. Also many do not have any philosophies to practice architecture rather architects build whatever the client demands, even if it not so good for the society. Whats your take on starting an architecture firm ?
I think the independence, freedom and money all play a major part in one starting a firm, at least for me. and I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all. Of course if you want to push some innovative ideas then by all means go for it. If its not about money and freedom then why not continue to be a CAD monkey making peanuts forever?
why not ask this instead; why do architects want to start their own firms? Also, what's up with the masculine pronouns?
I counted one masculine pronoun, is that too many?
One is,
too many.
What country are you from Sam?
Longest thread title record holder?
I think it is much more complex than that. I know a guy who started an office because he needed to be closer to his parents. I know another guy who wanted to start a firm to be more entrepreneurial with clients and innovative with services. Then they started a firm together...
So much of it is based on situation and place...
I also know a woman who started a low key practice because she wanted to continue to design and build while she was teaching. It was a way for her to stay grounded in making and drawing.
"Also many do not have any philosophies to practice architecture rather architects build whatever the client demands"
I am guessing you never had your own firm or business before. We need clients to build the architecture we come up with. It is like the line from the producers we " never put your own money in the show". The philosophies you mention need to align with the client's goals. Having your own firm allows you to select (to some extent) the clients you try to land. the clientele are like guardrails on a winding road, their program budgets and individual taste keep you from wondering off into the countryside chasing "innovation" because they have hired you to solve their specific needs for a building or some other design service. Where you get to innovate is within the space between the guardrails and this often narrow space is where some truly brilliant and quality design can come from. The other thing owning your own firm allows you to control is how ethically or professionally you choose to run your firm and treat your clients, employees and subcontractors.
Over and OUT
Peter N
At some point: (1) You'll want to take all that experience working for a company or an employer's projects and be able to apply it under your own name, in your own terms, and in your own pace with the projects or opportunities that solely come your way. (2) I agree with Marc Miller that it happens or can happen on a very situational basis. I'm an example of that. Coincidentally, I had to move back to my hometown to be nearer to my parents. Another one was before I quit my job and relocated, there were side projects (and clients from my hometown) slowly coming my way. (And my job was paying us shit and we overtime like overkill so might as well give the freelance route a try). Eventually, I had to register my practice as a business since I was earning from it---hence I eventually opened a really small low key office, etc. You can never really be 100% ready for anything but there's a learning curve to it that taught or gained experience from that will take me awhile, or never, to get if I was still working at my previous job.
Now with innovation and philosophy, that varies in every practice, in every project, in every client, in every location, etc. No projects are the same, and no clients are the same. Some projects (and clients) give you the opportunity to be innovative, while some don't. In the end, picking up from Peter's comment, our job is to be able to translate the needs/demands of the client into a design that pleases and works for them. Creativity or artistry gets compromised in architecture a lot especially when budget or value engineering comes in; but that's the challenge of it and the decisions you make, and how you handle the process of arriving at an outcome that satisfies both your client and yourself the architect, is what can define your practice.
Also is it just me or do clients who (window) shop for architects rates and treat the profession as if like we're going to cock fight with each other for their project need to be called out?
A colleague of mine went through a similar experience I had years ago when two separate clients were asking me for a proposal for a residential project and I found out they tapped 2 or 3 other (same) architects for the same project. Apparently, they were like exchanging notes between who has a better portfolio, or who has this, that etc. On top of the proposal, they were also asking us a draft of the design so they can choose which amongst us had the "best" design to go with the proposal. Whoever they chose gets to design their project, etc. Anyway, none of us ended up doing the job for them because me and the other architects jointly informed them that if they want a draft they need to sign or agree with our individual proposals and conform to the pertinent payments, etc. And they were like pissed because they believed that bidding was the nature of our profession (like we always bid for a client and a project before we even get paid or profit, etc. the worse part was that they believed that design is free since profit will come from the construction part. I mean, it's a clients prerogative and right to choose his/her designer and he can ask from as many as he want, but I just found it rude or unethical that they'd attempt to pit us against other colleague (and it's not like their project was a competition or anything). /rant
Couter-question: how far out of school are you
Started "my company" after graduation so I would qualify for cultural subsidies and start practicing architecture instead of applying for unemployment benefits and being forced to take any kind of job.
It is a noble deed to create something for the betterment of society and invest more time, more effort and more money than the bare minimum.
However, it’s far less noble when you aren’t the one investing the additional real world labor and required capital to do so. Pretty easy to just pick up a pencil and call everyone else greedy and closed minded who doesn’t agree with your “philosophy.”
That title though... I'm new here myself actually.
Anyway, you have to be practical. If your morals dictate that you starve before you make these changes to society, that's your decision. Because clients tend to be greedy, and since you're not in their shoes you can't really blame them.
I for one, am trying to learn about the market before I make any such attempts at starting up (regardless of the reasons).
Why can't a practice have purpose and make money? The original question seems like just a way to put some firms down. It's overly simplistic.
Architects get criticized for not making as much money as other professionals then also get criticized for "selling out" by starting a business that is profitable.
"Architects get criticized for not making as much money as other professionals "
Criticized? Don't you mean laughed at?
"Help! I'm in a box!"
Or, are we all in the box and he's the free one?
What do you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHzfhU8t5i8
Just wanting to do your own thing without restriction or control by someone else on your time, at your pace, in the manner you feel is appropriate to yourself and your family circumstance.
What's wrong with that? and if you make more money and can tolerate the stress associated with slow times and staff if you are so fortunate then it sounds like a preferred situation..... at least that was my motivation.
Still is.
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.