We are in Chicago as well, the position is advertised here on archinect and a few other places, we interviewed folks but have not been able to make a match happen to fill the positions we have open. 

 I think the problem with wages is we don't want to lose clients by having to charge more and we don't know how successful a new person will be and how long their training will need to be before they can be profitable thus wages for a new 0-3 years experienced intern architect or designer tend to be less than fantastic. We are a small enough of a shop that having a false start with a single hire can blow the budget for the year.

Right now, unless you are stuck in a location or have serious other problems it should not be hard to get a job, but you might have to move to Chicago or someplace with winters and more affordable housing than a coastal city.

Is the attitude there that you would rather turn down work than hire a PA at a higher salary and raise rates?

I was talking about wages for experienced, licensed professionals. Entry level people should be starting low.

I think it is a catch 22 on the wages and losing work we lose work if we have no one to do it, we lose work if we become too expensive if we have to pay more and thus have to have a higher billable rate to cover the higher wages.

Architecture firms likely have trouble filling "BIM Manager" roles because, in my experience, E or GC/CMs pay considerably more. We start BIM staff around 70k. I know senior "BIM Managers" at top 10 (by billing) GCs/CMs in the US making 120-150k+. I made 50k as a "designer"/BIM Manager my old firm. When you're not heavily involved in design there's no financial reason to stay at an architecture firm.

BIM managers are wanted everywhere right now, I get a call everyday and several emails as it's similar to my position however I still haven't taken the leap

This is our experience too. We've been looking for a spec writer and PM since mid-2016.

Nice thinking, your crap attitude (...country you fled...) is probably why you have plenty of troubles hiring people. Tone down your passive-aggressive racism and you will have more luck in hiring "new immigrants"

please, stop jumping to conclusions. They are all nice folks here.

Non, it takes half of a brain cell to adjust your speech to what you claim your values are. You consistently refuse to do so and then try to blame others for jumping to conclusions. The conclusions are either that you feel you shouldn't have to consider others when speaking or that you intend the words you chose. Either way the onus is on you. If people draw the "wrong" conclusions, it's your problem, not theirs.

Exactly, SneakyPete, thanks.

Point taken.

Agree w/ the rest..

Are you in a big city?

Seattle. But a multi office firm and we have trouble pretty much everywhere.

75-78k at your firm, or leaving for that amount elsewhere?

@athensarch Leaving for that elsewhere.

In a bad downturn, when things get bad enough, there's no such thing as earning your place and job security. If your firm gets slow enough you may be the last to go, but you may still need to go. If that happens then it's usually better to already be in the bigger city, just because of more firms, and more diversity in the types of firms.

Also, speaking as one of the 40% of unemployed architects in Chicago during 2008-2009, the good thing about a big city is that if you DO get laid off, there are PLENTY of other jobs in other industries that aren't necessarily as tied to the vicissitudes of the construction industry. I landed a gig to ride out the recession that paid more than any arch job I'd ever had, and it was pretty cushy. Every one of my laid off architect buddies similarly landed rando gigs.

thanks for the feedback! That's a great point about finding a job in a different industry. I didn't think of it that way.

Also if you can make more money in the larger city - enough more money that it more than covers the probably higher living costs of the larger city - then taking advantage of this period in which you can make more money may put you in a better position to ride out any bouts of unemployment or underemployment. If you're going to jump ship for more money, now is the time to do that, exactly because of the shortages evidenced in this thread. Now is when you're likely going to be worth the most to prospective employers.

Welcome to Chicago. remember to join the young Architects Forum put on by the local AIA. The Chicago AIA office has free resources for studying for the ARE. Also join NOMA for their free ARE study sessions (NOMA is open to everyone)

http://www.noma.net/

https://www.meetup.com/Chicago...

https://www.aiachicago.org/com...

Good luck and remember no ketchup on the hot dog!

Over and OUT

Peter N

Thanks for the info! I'm originally from the Chicago area so I've had my hot dogs right. I've done some of the YAF social events since I have some friends here - they were fun. I didn't know about NOMA, that's cool and I'll definitely have to utilize that. I'm hopefully submitting for a competition this fall and then I'll get busy with the AREs. I'd like to collaborate with some of the local school's faculty since I'd like to move into a teaching/practice type of thing eventually/interested in digi fab, which seems tied to schools (seems less so at Chicago arch schools? )

I'm curious about "BIM Lead" - how much is that still a thing, and is it likely to stay one? A year or so ago my firm sent most of us through AutoDesk-official Revit training - though most of us have been using Revit for years already, and I'd had other training elsewhere. In my past training, about 10 years ago, the instructors seemed to assume that any firm would have a firm-wide BIM leader, and focused a lot on that person's Revit organization and surveillance responsibilities. My firm currently has 2 people in that role.  But in the AutoDesk training, which was taught by a licensed-architect-turned-trainer, it was repeated numerous times that if we have to have a dedicated BIM Lead then we're doing it wrong, and that it's not that complicated and should be something that the project manager or a job captain is fully fluent and capable in and does for each project. What do you think?

All of the firms I have worked in, except one, have had dedicated "BIM leaders" who typically fall under a "Design Technology" department. Their role is supposed to be the development of best practices, BIM standards, and automated processes, among other things. They are also supposed to help teams set up complex projects, assist with BIM execution plans, train people as required. I don't like this scenario for a couple of reasons. First, the "design technology" people are usually architects who have no practical experience with documenting a project or working with teams made up of people with varying levels of experience. They tend to create workflows for "ideal" situations in a vacuum without taking into account the things that will inevitably go wrong. I've lost count of how many arguments I've had with Design Technology people about how to set up large and complex jobs where I've ended up being right in the end.​ Second, the firms with the "Design Technology" setup typically rely on this staff to train people and monitor projects which means they are almost always spread too thin. With unexperienced project teams, it also tends to absolve the team of taking ownership of the model and any problems that arise because they have a "design technologist" to complain to. Not to say this is a given, but it's a lot easier to maintain quality and control of the model when you have one or more members of the team who are actually working on the model responsible for retaining "ownership" of the model and ensuring that best practices are followed. One large firm I worked at, incidentally where I learned Revit really well, didn't have dedicated design technology people. Instead, this firm required all projects to be done in Revit and this firm was committed to having all production people trained to a certain level of proficiency in Revit. They sent me to a 3-day Autodesk training and then had a trainer come to the office for a week of supplemental training where they shadowed me as I worked on my first project. This was while working on a small, but complex project where the PA was ok, but not great at Revit, so the trainer would help us both out. At this firm, I never had any issues with stupid things like people not using the correct worksets, etc because everyone was expected to know the basics. Things ran very smoothly. Every project had at least one person actively working in the model that was a Revit expert, if not more.

It has a lot to do with it. Many ads I see are looking for 5-10 years experience, which would mean people who graduated from 2008 on. Since firms didn't hire those people to gain those 5-10 years experience, they lament they can't find the talent they never gave a chance to and said talent was forced into other careers/barista positions that pay better.

I'd also be curious about the quality of graduates in those years. Did the schools try to compensate for the drop off in applications by lowering their standards?

We are past due for another economic downturn, so we may get a chance to repeat the experiment.

Based on my anecdotal experience, Gatech did lower standards around 2012 or so. When the recession first hit they actually could tighten things up because a ton of 4-year people finally came back to get their +2 grad degree. 2009 and 2010 were booming years for the grad program. Had the recession only lasted shorter, this would have produced a ton of registered architects with X years experience, but as these people started graduating into a still broken economy, then they took other jobs. Personally, I say I have 10 years of experience, since 2006 I had 3 years at an internship, 2 years back in grad school, 5 years in construction and 2 years finally back in architecture. Plenty of places look at my resume and clock me at 2 relevant years experience with revit... Any place complaining about hiring people should be more open-minded. I had to take a $10k pay cut to get back in architecture.

Historically there's an uptick in grads in the years after a recession, because enrollments swell during recessions, particularly in graduate programs. People think that since they're not employed anyway, and prospects are bleak, they might as well spend the downturn going back to school for more credentials. I know that the university that I graduated from had much higher numbers of applicants in 2009-2011, resulting in the largest class sizes ever, but still the lowest accepted percentages of applicants ever. I don't think the hiring shortage is due to a shortage of grads - it's related more to clients deferring projects for years, and the inevitable crunch resulting from all those delayed projects finally moving forward at the same time.  

I never understood the aversion to spec writing. You have so much control writing specs, and good specs make the difference between a good project and a shit project.

that sounds like just about the worst possible place to work. why would anyone put up with that?

and again, you're in a vastly different working world that 99% of the rest of the architects here. Good offices don't run this sort of game.

Multifamily/Mixed_use is a tough sector. The developers are forcing the projects due to 1. rising const. costs(Thanks to Trump's tariffs), 2. A looming recession, again thanks to Trump

David, Xenakis is working for one of the firms that mass produces multi family housing, there is a rush to get things done always as many growing parts of the nation are short of housing, especially in the mid market range. I agree with comments above, if the work environment is toxic this would be the time to go looking and to find someplace that is a better fit. There is always risk even in this decent job market.

Xenakis has been calling for a recession since 2009. Eventually he’ll be right.

Xenakis, are you working in the bay area?

Fear sure as hell is driving you, that and Stockholm syndrome obviously. Always complaining, never doing something about it...if not now, when? Run Forest, run!

Revit people are the unicorns?? I worked in a Revit-using firm about 20 years ago, before it was even bought out by AutoDesk, and I know that's earlier than most - but at this point a pretty large % of firms use it, many for 10+ years, so why are good Revit people still rare?

People who know how to detail and use revit efficiently are unicorns in my opinion. I got my feet wet in revit back in 2006.

I gotta agree. People who can design well and also produce good drawings, regardless of the software, are quite rare.

Maybe I should be looking for the same... care to share to what city?

PM me.

I got relo back in 2014 - it happens!

Same. I just hope there isn't a downturn, as we'd be the first on the block, I imagine

Doubtful, we cost less than 10+ year people and know way more than those with less than 5 years experience, and there isn't enough of us. I'm optimistic.

I like that about you.

@archanon i was literally typing that exact comment, lol

In my experiences the people who have lasted longest in downturns in the firms I know have been:

1. Marketing people - or at least one of them - usually the one with the combined abilities to schmooze, established relationships with repeat clients, and abilities to put together proposals on their own - i.e. enough photoshop, indesign, and sketchup to not need to involve designers or production staff.

2. Best production staff to finish out any sets on projects still in the works. Usually this would be one or more people with at least a couple years' experience, but not necessarily tons.

3. Best senior project manager type, to finish out those projects in CA - though in a worst-case scenario the firm's owners will eventually take that on and can the last of the PMs.

4. Spec writer, if there's anything at all still in production or likely to pan out on the horizon - mostly because these guys are nearly irreplaceable and firms won't risk them going to another firm if they can help it.

5. Bookkeeper/office manager - no kidding, this is usually the very last person to go, even if the whole firm is gutted.  There could be 100% empty desks and no projects, but this person will still be all alone answering the phone.

I was just having a conversation with a co-worker about spec writers and how irreplaceable they are...seriously, the whole industry could be tanking and they'd still be in demand.

The firm I'm at has straight up told us that their most valuable employees are the technical PAs...anyone can learn to be a PM, but being a PA requires so much technical knowledge.  

What's a technical PA? Someone with a good understanding of how things are built and how to draw them?

PA Project Architect?

As a spec writer, I have to say last recession was absolutely brutal. It doesn't take that much time to write a project manual. I average about 40 projects a year. When nothing is being built you are pretty much fucked.

"PA" or "Project Architect" is one of those terms that is used inconsistently from firm to firm. In most where I've worked the PA is the high-altitude conceptual designer - typically either a principal of the firm or a senior level designer. Usually it's the person who is the client-facing project lead in procuring the project, and in the early design phases. Over the course of the project that person usually takes a backseat to the Project Manager as it moves into CDs and CA. So the PA's I've known certainly wouldn't be writing specs or pulling together other technical info. But what I'm seeing in this thread is "PA" being used to describe more of a production lead role - which in the firms I've known might have been called a job captain or a production coordinator.

Strange. To me the project designer, often a principle does the early designer work. Pm manages the project and client. PA leads the actual work and coordinates the subs. Same jobs, different titles I guess

I agree with shell. In my office, the PA is supposed to be focused on a single project, maybe with a little time going to CA on their previous project. The PM has a few projects to oversee. Designers just screw around coloring pictures of building without exits.

I work at a smaller size firm. We don’t have separate designers and job captains. The PM oversees the whole team from beginning to end with the PA doing the more technical role both in terms of drafting details, BIM coordination, and managing staff. The PM and PA are a team (both do design and CA fee permitting) while the draftsmen/intern architects shuffle
around to help different teams.

Meant to add, having only worked at smaller offices, it is crazy to me how many different roles some firms have for a project team! We’ve done collaborations with firms that have job captains, BIM staff, PAs, etc., and you never know who exactly to call to answer your questions.

Regarding PM's I've worked with good and bad... My current PM's job is "client relations" The PAs do everything, including going to all meetings with the PM because the PM  can't be trusted to describe an issue accurately or ask intelligent questions if/when an issue comes up. Her primary qualification seems to be that she's the Owners GF. but I'm not bitter......

In my firm, the PA and PM are often the same person. If not, the rough description is that a PA oversees the design direction of the project (with heavy emphasis during schematic phase) while the PM oversees the PA and deals with clients, coordinates with consultants, and directs the design through CDs.
I'm a PM who also acts as the PA for most of my projects.

PM is responsible for schedules and agendas, plus reviewing invoices. PA is responsible for putting the drawing set together.

Pm seems to have minimal responsibility, blames others if something does wrong. How does one get that job?

the peter principle says you're promoted to your level of incompetence. so, be a good enough PA that they want to promote you enough that you don't quit, but do a bad job as PM so they don't promote you out of that position.

In my corporate firm experience, the people who are going to be PM vs PA are on totally different tracks from around 4-5 years experience on. Managers vs do-ers.

at your firm archanon, is the PM role ultimately going to get you a better position (higher pay, leadership, influence in the company, all that sort of thing) in your firm? as far as i can tell, my firm seems to put a ceiling on PAs.

I'm actually now at a place that doesn't have managers per session. But yeah... Old place you didn't want to be a pa if you had your eye on leadership. They tended to come from management and the pure "design" side (aka idiots with cheap ideas who don't know how buildings work). PA was seen as a technician, I think it's that way at many large firms.