I'm new here but have been roaming for the past several days and the general perception of the career architect seems very negative. This is what I got from reading these forums:
Underpaid by 25% to nearly half compared to careers that require similar level of study: lawyers and doctors.
A lot of stress dealing with "business partners" trying to undercut and undervalue roles and responsibilities of the architect.
Only real pro's of being an architect is awing guests at dinner parties and the slim chance of having passion and love for architectural things. Oh, and cool offices.
You will be jobless multiple times throughout your career and when economy collapses, your job is one of the first to go.
Most architects won't make $100,000 even at their career high.
You will eventually grow bitter due to underpay, undervaluing, constant arguing with contractors, becoming victim of project hijacking by other architects undercutting, measuring and re-doing old bathrooms.
Your community and probably the whole world looks down on you while wondering why they have to go through you, and at the same time considering you as more of a hindrance than help.
Sometimes, you will not get paid right away for your services, and sometimes you never will and will have to seek legal assistance.
You work many hours.
These are just some of the things I read while browsing archinect forums. I came across almost no threads of architects talking about how awesome their career is and how much they are in love.
This is really depressing and discouraging. I'm currently in school to earn my degree in architectural engineering and I was going to go all the way and become an architect. Correct me if I'm wrong but if architect is such a poor career, I am not very hopeful about architectural engineer. Should I ditch architect and pursue something else? Are all these mountains of negative threads just people being sarcastically bitter?
I'm not sure where archinect users are predominantly located but I'm in Toronto. Is architect not a bright career in Canada as well?
I think it'd be a mistake to consider Archinect's posters as a broad cross section of the field. There's certainly a variety of folks here, but my hunch is that-- as with many unmoderated internet forums-- a lot of people come here to vent legitimate complaints more than tell what happened today that was awesome.
I love being an architect. The 'awe at dinner parties' is always fun ;o] but the work can be very stimulating --even if not always well-paid.
I'm 52 years old. There's nothing I'd rather do than be an architect. I hear a lot of talk lately, across the political spectrum, about people feeling lost because they "want to belong to something". It used to be that religion or small town community or union membership would make people feel like they belonged to something. Well, I've always belonged in architecture. I have camaraderie with so many, and I honestly feel like I'm making my clients' lives better when I do a successful project.
I don't get paid enough, and every other day feels like a marathon of stamina to keep my optimism up. But I took 5 years off to do another job, related to architecture, that didn't require much thought but paid well. It was miserable. There's still nothing I'd rather be doing.
My circle of friends (~6 years post-grad experience, M.Arch, licensed) make in the $70s in the Northeastern US. I make more than that, but I'm licensed and work for a CM now.
Comparing ourselves to doctors and lawyers doesn't make sense. Doctors have 8 years of school and 3-7 years residency. It took me five and 3.5 years of apprenticing. My close friend is a licensed lawyer after 8 total years of school and extra time studying for the bar. They make $65k in the same city as me.
Based on a look at large firms job boards for construction and architects, there's great demand in Toronto and Ottawa.
this is about right. it's pretty cool to see something you drew come to life. i've gotten the impression more senior people often don't seem to want younger staff to be part of that though.
I think it'd be a mistake to consider Archinect's posters as a broad cross section of the field. There's certainly a variety of folks here, but my hunch is that-- as with many unmoderated internet forums-- a lot of people come here to vent legitimate complaints more than tell what happened today that was awesome.
I love being an architect. The 'awe at dinner parties' is always fun ;o] but the work can be very stimulating --even if not always well-paid.
I'm 52 years old. There's nothing I'd rather do than be an architect. I hear a lot of talk lately, across the political spectrum, about people feeling lost because they "want to belong to something". It used to be that religion or small town community or union membership would make people feel like they belonged to something. Well, I've always belonged in architecture. I have camaraderie with so many, and I honestly feel like I'm making my clients' lives better when I do a successful project.
I don't get paid enough, and every other day feels like a marathon of stamina to keep my optimism up. But I took 5 years off to do another job, related to architecture, that didn't require much thought but paid well. It was miserable. There's still nothing I'd rather be doing.
Try not to let the exceptional negativity on this message board get you down. There are pros and cons to every career. Architecture is no exception.
Pursue what you're passionate about, but make sure to be mindful of the lifestyle it affords you. If you haven't already, try talking with practicing architects to get more insight about the career. Academia is quite different than practice.
I don't regret becoming an architect. I do regret the amount of debt I took on to get my degree. But you know what? I paid it off. Now I'm free.
Here's what I love about the profession, from the perspective of a technically oriented pragmatist. I love the problem solving aspect of it. I love seeing something you work to design on paper or digitally become a reality. I love working with teams of designers, engineers, consultants, building trades, and even (sometimes) contractors. Most recently, I loved seeing the happy faces of high school kids cheering on the ironworkers at the topping off ceremony for the school I'm currently working on as they hoisted the Christmas tree onto the final beam. Their current school was in the background, well past it's intended useful life.
Of all the gripes you’ve noted it’s really the pay that cuts closest to the bone. It isn’t the job itself I loath or any of those other things. I actually like my job. It’s the constant feeling of being behind financially compared to all my peers. And not just doctors and lawyers. Really anyone in any profession with equivalent experience is having a decent middle class life vs if I stay indefinitely in architecture I know I’ll never get to that level much less catch up. Take a look at the salaries from any number of sources and compare to anything else: tech, PR, marketing, accounting, film, government paper pusher, really any profession which requires a degree or training of any sort, you’ll find architects way down at the bottom of the ‘middle class’ pay scale. There’s just something really depressing about never being able to afford to keep up with those who were once your peers. You will lose friends who aren’t architects as the demands of the profession itself and the crap pay slowly (or rapidly) take their toll.
Aug 20, 18 11:11 pm ·
·
LeCordonBleu
How much are Architects really paid? All the research I've done states that Architects are paid around $70,000 to close to $100,000 with $70k being the lower end. With that information alone, Architects are paid more than the middle-class, which in my opinion is around $40~$50k. I just thought Architects were underpaid compared to comparable careers that require a similar amount of education like Doctors and Lawyers, but being the bottom of all and any careers that require an undergrad? Now, that just sounds so unfair and unreasonable....
My circle of friends (~6 years post-grad experience, M.Arch, licensed) make in the $70s in the Northeastern US. I make more than that, but I'm licensed and work for a CM now.
Comparing ourselves to doctors and lawyers doesn't make sense. Doctors have 8 years of school and 3-7 years residency. It took me five and 3.5 years of apprenticing. My close friend is a licensed lawyer after 8 total years of school and extra time studying for the bar. They make $65k in the same city as me.
Based on a look at large firms job boards for construction and architects, there's great demand in Toronto and Ottawa.
Aug 21, 18 7:01 am ·
·
joseffischer
I rarely compare to doctors and lawyers, but as many have already said (work for a CM seems a common response right now) when comparing to contractors (usually an undergrad degree in there somewhere), or even master plumbers/electricians, developers, the bankers sitting at the table, the engineers we work with, architects are approximately $10-20,000 short. Considering everyone wants to point fingers at us when something goes wrong, you'd think we would be $10-20,000 ahead, but I'd take even steven right now... you know, baby steps.
Aug 21, 18 9:54 am ·
·
LeCordonBleu
Hmm I read on archinect that Architects go through about 8 years of studying. That's where the comparison to doctors and lawyers came from, because that's about how long they study. Lawyers actually study less at 4 yr undergrad and 3 yr law school. Doctors study 8 years and residency but they still get paid about 50k during residency. Yes, there are architectural degrees one can get with 3-5 years of education but I also read on here that those people aren't quite "allowed" to identify themselves as architects but only as Architectural ________. At this point, I'm confused. Do architects need to get masters or just 3-5 year undergrad is enough? Do you get any benefits for getting masters?
Aug 21, 18 12:58 pm ·
·
kjdt
It depends on what you want to do, and where. In the US there are about 15 states in which an NAAB-accredited B.Arch or M.Arch is not necessarily required in order to be a licensed architect. In some of those states all you need is a high school diploma. But if you don't have the NAAB-accredited degree then you generally need to document more experience - sometimes as much as 9 years (compared to the 3 years or so that someone with a B.Arch or M.Arch needs in most states, to take the licensing exams.) Also in all but a few states you don't need a license to work on single-family residential projects, and in some states you can do some additional types/sizes of projects with no license. A 3 or 4 year undergrad program is usually a non-professional major, even if it's architecture-related, so if you go that route but you do want an accredited degree then you usually do an M.Arch afterward - which usually takes an additional 2.5 to 3.5 years. There are also post-professional" M.Arch programs for people who already have B.Archs - those are usually to allow further investigation in research/studio topics (and to add to one's credentials), and take from 1 to 2 years. I don't know about in Canada, but in the US in almost every state you cannot actually use a professional title of "architectural" anything unless you have a license to practice architecture in that state. Even if you do a degree program in "architectural engineering" or "interior architect" you aren't allowed to use those as professional titles. Usually unlicensed people refer to themselves as designers, or sometimes technicians or design associates or something like that.
Aug 21, 18 1:09 pm ·
·
LeCordonBleu
Thanks for the input. This helps me connect the dots on a lot of the education-related questions I had. A question. In a state that does not require an M.Arch to be an Architect, are there any benefits to having an M.Arch degree compared to someone who only has the B.Arch aside from the more likelihood of getting hired? For example, more pay, more benefits, higher positions, more responsibility, etc?
Aug 21, 18 3:43 pm ·
·
kjdt
There are no states that specifically require an M.Arch in order to be an architect. As long as you have an NAAB-accredited degree, whether a B.Arch or a first professional M.Arch, you will meet the education requirements of any US state. NAAB's minimum architecture-related curriculum requirements of both degrees are the same, though in many schools the curriculum goes beyond the NAAB-minimum, so someone with an M.Arch will often have had cumulatively more hours of studio, more coursework in things like project management and other business topics, and there are currently more M.Arch programs that have some hands-on construction project as part of their curriculum. This is mainly just because B.Arch programs have to satisfy not only NAAB's requirements, but the general undergrad academic requirements for the universities' other accreditations, and it's very difficult to do all that and still provide opportunities for much beyond the minimum requirements of both.
Many employers consider the degrees to be interchangeable - the only really big exception is if you want to teach, in which case the M.Arch is almost always a prereq (most of us can think of exceptions to this - but those exceptions are usually either very longtime tenured or "grandfathered" faculty, or adjuncts teaching specific skills such as software, wood shop, welding - or sometimes people who already have wide name recognition in the field.)
There are some firms that prefer to hire those with M.Archs - but it is usually more because of perceived maturity than because of a major difference in education. Or for some firms it's because of the value of those people's resumes for inclusion in proposals, or sometimes it's because the firm values those with diverse educations, and those with M.Archs will usually have an undergrad degree in something else. A few firms I worked in early on had better incentives for entry-level people with M.Archs - more vacation days initially, skipping over the most entry-level title, things like that. I found I was a little more bullet-proof during down times, because they wanted to keep my resume so they had to keep me.
Aug 21, 18 4:11 pm ·
·
joseffischer
I think it's important to add that the typical undergrad NAAB-accredited degree (which is 5 years long) will take the full 5 years because it includes 10 semesters of studio courses, none of which can be taken at the same time or during summers. So if you're saying 3-5 years because "college is supposed to take 4 years but some people finish early and some late" that's not the case for this.
Thanks for the mature responses. I know my original post can come off as very offensive to some and also ego-damaging. I mean, these aren't my opinions, but I literally compiled a list of reasons of why being an architect sucks.
With that said,
I am not an architect yet but I can totally imagine myself feeling super proud while telling new acquaintences that I'm an architect.
Architecture is indeed interesting even to an unknowledgeable person like myself. I think Architecture is one of the most interesting out of all engineering careers.
And I can kind of understand why Architects are under-paid. Lawyers, Doctors, and the likes of Petroleum, Biomedical, Software and AI Engineers are all either necessities in our societies and/or have a high demand. Architect on the other hand is a luxury. Not something everyone, especially the developing countries, necessarily need.
I also understand why Architects require such high level of studying. An ill-prepared Architect would be a huge disaster waiting to happen.
So for me, Architecture is something one does out of passion. And not just any amount of passion, but enough to withstand the constant mental stress knowing that you're under-paid and under-appreciated for the amount of studying, time, effort, and loans that went in to becoming what you are today. Not enough passion to outweigh or even neutralize the feeling of unfairness would eventually break the person.
Aug 20, 18 11:22 pm ·
·
Almosthip7
An Architect is not a luxury when your designing more than a house.
I am very appreciated at work, seeing lots of genuine praise, and I get paid well enough, more than many of my friends and all the ones who get paid more hate their jobs and live for the weekend and I don't. They are aging and I am not. I love Mondays and I love going to work. I love that I get paid to think, draw, and come up with shit. And people carry out your plans... you draw it and they make it. Feels pretty good. Also a LOT of responsibility. I didn't always feel this way and it took a lot of work to get here but it does pay off if you stick with it. Lots of hard work. I work harder than anyone I know and well, I have the most interesting and rewarding job of anyone I know.
Aug 20, 18 11:24 pm ·
·
LeCordonBleu
Thanks for the reply. It's good to see some positive input regarding Architects.
Aug 20, 18 11:33 pm ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
Note that I'm on the fringe of the profession and I don't work a typical position in a firm... and probably never will.
Not exactly on topic, but still related: I remind folks considering potential careers that there are many, many ways to be involved in the wonders of architecture without pursuing it professionally. Reading, tours, lectures, exhibitions, volunteering, preservation, travel, local commissions and other activities all allow convenient pursuit without dedicated practice.
If you're comparing architecture school to law or medical school, you've already lost the argument. Spending 10+ hours a day rendering 3D models or aimlessly re-sketching the same project is no where near as difficult and challenging as med or law school.
By business partners, you must mean client? Then sure, most will be aggressive and nickle & dime on your fee while asking for free services. It's up to you to know your worth and move on from such folks. There are good and bad clients.
The pros are there and I won't list more than the obvious: critical thinking skills, discipline & craft, construction knowledge. Besides that, I often refrain from saying what my profession is unless asked directly (and even then, I don't gloat). Too many idiots think we're superheros because we worked 80 hour weeks once while laying out graphite on paper... not because we run multi-million dollar projects.
Jobless? Maybe, if you're a talent-less grunt wanker who can be replaced on a whim. It's like any other profession, plenty of folks do just fine without complaining and if you're good enough to get into large project management, then those can last for years and easily carry one through market regressions.
$100K career top? Not really, and that depends on the size of the office and it's location. Sure, some start under $10/hr because they either don't know their value or have very little value to offer... and combine that with ridiculous student loans and you certainly have a large crowd crying foul that they are not given "doctor and lawyer" money. You don't get a 6-figure salary to copy-paste typical details and pretty CGIs. You earn it by demonstrating you can run projects effectively.
None of your undercutting and project stealing comments make much sense. Sounds more like you're stating from ignorance rather than experience.
What community? Archinect? Nah, we cool here in our dive bar. As for my personal circles, well, who cares what they think? I have loads of non-arch and arch drinking buddies. Everyone is loved!
Payment not received is a separate issue and unless you're a firm owner, you don't need to worry about that for a while.
You work the hours your salary covers and what you and your project manager agree too. Some work tons of unpaid overtime and those people are fools if they are only employees. There are great offices and bad offices. It's your fault if you stick around the bad ones.
You're Canadian, and in Ontario? You'll be happy to know that the profession is doing very well here. Not sure where arch-eng programmes are given right now, but you have a long way until you can get that OAA license so try to kill some of these nonsensical assumptions.
Aug 21, 18 12:08 am ·
·
LeCordonBleu
Thanks for that long post. It helped explain a lot of the questions and uncertainties I had. Please be advised that my original post was a compilation of the complaints I've come across while browsing Archinect. They are not my opinions since, well... I don't have any! I'm not in the field yet since I'm just a sophomore now. I really do appreciate your input though! And I know money isn't everything but what is the average pay for Architects in Canada? Everything about Architects are very interesting for me, but I don't want to live in poverty. Actually, I want to be well off if I can be.
Aug 21, 18 12:18 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
If fame and riches are your goals, then look elsewhere. You can always just get a gig with the federal government and retire at age 45 racking in 6-figure salaries doing absolutely nothing. Money in architecture is not so obvious since schools do, in general, a piss-poor job at preparing students to actually practice and be architects. Circle back to the law & doctor strawman from earlier and you'll quickly see that the cost of education is not paid for through tuition but by the intern's employer.
All this to say that starting wage for a intern architect (ie. with a Masters) ranges in the low to mid 40s. There was a time when 50K starting was common, but those spots were mostly in Alberta. Arch Technologists tend to start on the low 40s and interior designers high 30s to low 40s. Seasoned architects with a license and 8 to 10 years real world experience will fetch the 70k (or more) you listed in your initial post. Income after that threshold depends on project performance and bonus and profit sharing if you step into management and firm ownership.
(Aside: I just visited Toronto, and really enjoyed it. Some great architecture, and the clash of the modern with so much historic fabric is striking. Lots of bad stuff, too, just like everywhere else.)
Aug 21, 18 12:26 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
tell me about it. I'm still torn on Libeskin's ROM. I've had many heated debates about the old vs new clash and I think that the reason I can't quite make up my mind is the point of it. I do love OCAD and FOG's AGO renovation to point out the obvious charaters.
Aug 21, 18 8:09 am ·
·
citizen
Agreed on both. I titled the ROM addition as Mr. Libeskind takes a prismatic dump on Bloor Street. It completely ruins that sidewalk space. The interiors aren't bad, though.
OCAD and Gehry's addition are great, in my opinion. And that more recent glass gallery/canopy over the street is fantastic-- the precise opposite of der Liber's dump at ROM. Grange Park next to OCAD is a wonderful urban space, too.
Archinect is the equivalent to a zoo. You, the zoo goer, are seeing the animals in an environment that is not their own. Of course, they are unhappy and negative. The lion lounges in the shade and is thrown a big hunk of fresh meat which on one hand makes the lion's life an easy proposition. But that lion was built to hunt, not to lounge. The orangutan was built to swing from trees and eat palm leaves. In captivity, however, they throw their shit at zoo goers.
Oh really? Have you read the papers lately? Have you been to the us/mexico border? have you had a life threatening injury that will cost you your life savings? are you flying from your recently demolished house on a war zone? Did you lose an eye because your husband threw acid on your face?
get a little perspective on life before showing your privilege in public.
Everybody needs a plumber. Most people need a doctor at some point. Nobody “needs” an architect.
Aug 21, 18 4:02 pm ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
Nobody needs buildings?
Aug 21, 18 4:17 pm ·
·
randomised
You don't really need architects to build buildings.
Aug 21, 18 4:26 pm ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
Then what the hell are we doing???
Aug 21, 18 4:34 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
wearing nice shoes in the rain. That's what I'm doing.
Aug 21, 18 5:04 pm ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
So if one wanted to design buildings, what career path should one go into? Asking for a friend.
Aug 21, 18 5:20 pm ·
·
JLC-1
So if one wanted to design buildings, what career path should one go into?
MONEY
Aug 21, 18 5:22 pm ·
·
mightyaa
So if one wanted to design buildings, what career path should one go into?.... Property management and/or investment banking then have architects draw it up for you.
I'm 39 years old. I am not even making half of USD100,000 annually but I am extremely happy with the Architecture that I do and I would do the same thing all over again on my next life.
Aug 21, 18 6:27 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
Not even 50k? I hope you dont live in North America or Europe...
So.. the taboo salary thing. I've consistently pulled in a six figure income for the last 15 years. Even as a PM working for other firms if you discount owning my own firm until '15. Currently I'm $115k plus bonus's. My 'sidegig' of renting pulls another $30k and another $15k or so from various investments. Basically, the top depends on how well you sell yourself, your niche, and what you do with your earnings to generate money elsewhere. Counterpoint though; I don't get up every morning thinking "Yea me!" Once you get into the higher salaries, you probably are doing the 'less glorious' aspects; putting out fires, writing reports, getting good with excel most of the time. Sort of ironic that you'll look at the PA's and have nostalgic thoughts of just being able to bang on a set of drawings and designing... They are looking at you thinking 'if only' too... lol.
As for the perks... I could care less about dinner parties. My ego gets stroked a bit more from driving down streets and pointing out building after building I designed to my kids. My friends and wife aren't really leaving any sort of trail of what they do all day; they pushed some paper that maybe had an impact on someone somewhere, but nothing physical remains of those efforts. We leave behind something physical that shapes the 'real world' in specific locations for decades and maybe centuries. We can hit google maps and see what we did for better or worse :)
If you're comparing architecture school to law or medical school, you've already lost the argument. Spending 10+ hours a day rendering 3D models or aimlessly re-sketching the same project is no where near as difficult and challenging as med or law school.
[/endquote]
Actually, the brightest architecture students of any particular school could have gotten accepted to their alma mater's law school or med school, while the brightest med and law students could not have reciprocated this for architecture.
The "aimlessly re-sketching the same project" and "10+ hours a day rendering" are obviously some of the simplest tasks in architecture school. For some reason, you omit the more complicated tasks of conquering subjective beauty standards, producing energy analyses, forming proofs and theorems, model building, parametric coding in grasshopper, and the most diverse set of problem solving. Med students memorize and regurgitate for their exams and then occasionally hand a surgeon an exacto knife, yet call it a scalpel. Law students tirelessly study legal precedents, yet never invent, and everything in their life is based on their cut-and-dry resume.
Aug 21, 18 7:00 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
nope. my point still stands even stronger.
Aug 21, 18 7:30 pm ·
·
citizen
Yeah, I'd give the edge to med school here.
But why the need to rank and belittle at all? It just possible that all of these fields' programs are challenging in various ways? Apples and oranges, in other words?
Aug 23, 18 8:00 pm ·
·
BR.TN
Agreed, citizen. Med school IS more difficult than M.Arch curriculum, but what I'm really saying is that because Architecture requires such a diversified skill set to succeed, the brightest architecture students could have also decided to become doctors and succeeded in med school, but not vice versa.
Aug 24, 18 1:33 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Br.tn I've known more than one arch student go to med school following M.arch... and a few go from med into arch. I wonder which one of these groups made the better choice.
Aug 24, 18 1:47 pm ·
·
citizen
So the brightest med students could not succeed in architecture school is your point?
And this generalized statement is based on what, again? Further, even if somehow true... who cares? I'm just wondering who you're hoping to impress with a statement that's inaccurate, unverifiable, and inconsequential --but uttered with such confidence.
Aug 24, 18 4:54 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
BR.TN, keep drinking the Kool
Aid, it helps survival.
Architecture DOES NOT have the same exacting standards and causal effect as Medicine. Morever, have you seen the amount of study medical students have to do to even graduate.
I have seen kids in architecture do absolute jackshit for the finals, and they still graduate. And yes, many of the less bright ones are the first in line to get their licenses -- so nothing tough there either.
Sure, it is apples and oranges, but there is no way med school is easier than architecture school.
Aug 24, 18 9:56 pm ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
Med schools are moving towards pass-fail lately. I sure hope a B- is failing!
I love architecture. Love to see my drawings come to life. Nothing is better for me. The only thing that bothers me are Realtors. Why do they get to charge 10% commission on a building that they can sell over and over again? My firm struggles to get a 5% fee that we have to share with 4 possible 5 other consultants. We take all the liability, Realtors have 0.
It's just another job, there are cons and pros to every job.
There are architects on here and in real life that just like to complain but have you ever worked in any other office job where people didn't complain about something?
Then there are those architects that stroke their cock telling themselves how great they are, "yeah you see that block of metal and glass that sell for a cool half mill to some dickbag? I made that".
Honestly, go on any job forum for engineers, designers, actuary, accountants, programmers and etc, they're all complaining or bragging about something. Take it all with a grain of salt.
Aug 24, 18 6:11 pm ·
·
citizen
+++ Exactly.
Aug 24, 18 6:12 pm ·
·
AdrianFGA
I follow the CE section on eng-tips forum, they are less into complaining and they really share information, answer questions,
etc.
Aug 24, 18 6:16 pm ·
·
archiwutm8
I follow several forums and to be honest architects just seem to be less into sharing useful thing than others
and more into moaning but aye you get the idea.
We fall over ourselves to help each other, lots of evidence here for that. On the other hand, we’re not exact eager to give away our craft and trade to every overentitled developer/broker/cheapskate/jackass looking for a freebie.
Keep in mind that you will find a wild disparity between the salaries of architects that is commensurate with the type of work they do and what market they're in. There is a huge difference in the skillset and earning potential of a sole proprietor who designs single family homes vs. a PM at a large firm dealing with multi-million dollar contracts. The majority of the profession is made up of the sole-proprietor types. Not to say one is better than the other, they're just different and command different rates of pay.
Aug 25, 18 9:08 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.
I'm new here but have been roaming for the past several days and...
I'm new here but have been roaming for the past several days and the general perception of the career architect seems very negative. This is what I got from reading these forums:
These are just some of the things I read while browsing archinect forums. I came across almost no threads of architects talking about how awesome their career is and how much they are in love.
This is really depressing and discouraging. I'm currently in school to earn my degree in architectural engineering and I was going to go all the way and become an architect. Correct me if I'm wrong but if architect is such a poor career, I am not very hopeful about architectural engineer. Should I ditch architect and pursue something else? Are all these mountains of negative threads just people being sarcastically bitter?
I'm not sure where archinect users are predominantly located but I'm in Toronto. Is architect not a bright career in Canada as well?
3 Featured Comments
I think it'd be a mistake to consider Archinect's posters as a broad cross section of the field. There's certainly a variety of folks here, but my hunch is that-- as with many unmoderated internet forums-- a lot of people come here to vent legitimate complaints more than tell what happened today that was awesome.
I love being an architect. The 'awe at dinner parties' is always fun ;o] but the work can be very stimulating --even if not always well-paid.
I'm 52 years old. There's nothing I'd rather do than be an architect. I hear a lot of talk lately, across the political spectrum, about people feeling lost because they "want to belong to something". It used to be that religion or small town community or union membership would make people feel like they belonged to something. Well, I've always belonged in architecture. I have camaraderie with so many, and I honestly feel like I'm making my clients' lives better when I do a successful project.
I don't get paid enough, and every other day feels like a marathon of stamina to keep my optimism up. But I took 5 years off to do another job, related to architecture, that didn't require much thought but paid well. It was miserable. There's still nothing I'd rather be doing.
http://salaries.archinect.com/poll/results/country/canada I don't have firsthand experience about salaries in Canada, but I don't think they're quite as high as in the US.
My circle of friends (~6 years post-grad experience, M.Arch, licensed) make in the $70s in the Northeastern US. I make more than that, but I'm licensed and work for a CM now.
Comparing ourselves to doctors and lawyers doesn't make sense. Doctors have 8 years of school and 3-7 years residency. It took me five and 3.5 years of apprenticing. My close friend is a licensed lawyer after 8 total years of school and extra time studying for the bar. They make $65k in the same city as me.
Based on a look at large firms job boards for construction and architects, there's great demand in Toronto and Ottawa.
All 22 Comments
this is about right. it's pretty cool to see something you drew come to life. i've gotten the impression more senior people often don't seem to want younger staff to be part of that though.
I think it'd be a mistake to consider Archinect's posters as a broad cross section of the field. There's certainly a variety of folks here, but my hunch is that-- as with many unmoderated internet forums-- a lot of people come here to vent legitimate complaints more than tell what happened today that was awesome.
I love being an architect. The 'awe at dinner parties' is always fun ;o] but the work can be very stimulating --even if not always well-paid.
The biggest problem I have is that it's impossible to say "I'm an architect" without sounding very pompous
I'm 52 years old. There's nothing I'd rather do than be an architect. I hear a lot of talk lately, across the political spectrum, about people feeling lost because they "want to belong to something". It used to be that religion or small town community or union membership would make people feel like they belonged to something. Well, I've always belonged in architecture. I have camaraderie with so many, and I honestly feel like I'm making my clients' lives better when I do a successful project.
I don't get paid enough, and every other day feels like a marathon of stamina to keep my optimism up. But I took 5 years off to do another job, related to architecture, that didn't require much thought but paid well. It was miserable. There's still nothing I'd rather be doing.
Try not to let the exceptional negativity on this message board get you down. There are pros and cons to every career. Architecture is no exception.
Pursue what you're passionate about, but make sure to be mindful of the lifestyle it affords you. If you haven't already, try talking with practicing architects to get more insight about the career. Academia is quite different than practice.
I don't regret becoming an architect. I do regret the amount of debt I took on to get my degree. But you know what? I paid it off. Now I'm free.
Here's what I love about the profession, from the perspective of a technically oriented pragmatist. I love the problem solving aspect of it. I love seeing something you work to design on paper or digitally become a reality. I love working with teams of designers, engineers, consultants, building trades, and even (sometimes) contractors. Most recently, I loved seeing the happy faces of high school kids cheering on the ironworkers at the topping off ceremony for the school I'm currently working on as they hoisted the Christmas tree onto the final beam. Their current school was in the background, well past it's intended useful life.
Hope this helps,
Excellent post, athensarch.
How much are Architects really paid? All the research I've done states that Architects are paid around $70,000 to close to $100,000 with $70k being the lower end. With that information alone, Architects are paid more than the middle-class, which in my opinion is around $40~$50k. I just thought Architects were underpaid compared to comparable careers that require a similar amount of education like Doctors and Lawyers, but being the bottom of all and any careers that require an undergrad? Now, that just sounds so unfair and unreasonable....
http://salaries.archinect.com/poll/results/country/canada I don't have firsthand experience about salaries in Canada, but I don't think they're quite as high as in the US.
My circle of friends (~6 years post-grad experience, M.Arch, licensed) make in the $70s in the Northeastern US. I make more than that, but I'm licensed and work for a CM now.
Comparing ourselves to doctors and lawyers doesn't make sense. Doctors have 8 years of school and 3-7 years residency. It took me five and 3.5 years of apprenticing. My close friend is a licensed lawyer after 8 total years of school and extra time studying for the bar. They make $65k in the same city as me.
Based on a look at large firms job boards for construction and architects, there's great demand in Toronto and Ottawa.
I rarely compare to doctors and lawyers, but as many have already said (work for a CM seems a common response right now) when comparing to contractors (usually an undergrad degree in there somewhere), or even master plumbers/electricians, developers, the bankers sitting at the table, the engineers we work with, architects are approximately $10-20,000 short. Considering everyone wants to point fingers at us when something goes wrong, you'd think we would be $10-20,000 ahead, but I'd take even steven right now... you know, baby steps.
Hmm I read on archinect that Architects go through about 8 years of studying. That's where the comparison to doctors and lawyers came from, because that's about how long they study. Lawyers actually study less at 4 yr undergrad and 3 yr law school. Doctors study 8 years and residency but they still get paid about 50k during residency. Yes, there are architectural degrees one can get with 3-5 years of education but I also read on here that those people aren't quite "allowed" to identify themselves as architects but only as Architectural ________. At this point, I'm confused. Do architects need to get masters or just 3-5 year undergrad is enough? Do you get any benefits for getting masters?
It depends on what you want to do, and where. In the US there are about 15 states in which an NAAB-accredited B.Arch or M.Arch is not necessarily required in order to be a licensed architect. In some of those states all you need is a high school diploma. But if you don't have the NAAB-accredited degree then you generally need to document more experience - sometimes as much as 9 years (compared to the 3 years or so that someone with a B.Arch or M.Arch needs in most states, to take the licensing exams.) Also in all but a few states you don't need a license to work on single-family residential projects, and in some states you can do some additional types/sizes of projects with no license. A 3 or 4 year undergrad program is usually a non-professional major, even if it's architecture-related, so if you go that route but you do want an accredited degree then you usually do an M.Arch afterward - which usually takes an additional 2.5 to 3.5 years. There are also post-professional" M.Arch programs for people who already have B.Archs - those are usually to allow further investigation in research/studio topics (and to add to one's credentials), and take from 1 to 2 years. I don't know about in Canada, but in the US in almost every state you cannot actually use a professional title of "architectural" anything unless you have a license to practice architecture in that state. Even if you do a degree program in "architectural engineering" or "interior architect" you aren't allowed to use those as professional titles. Usually unlicensed people refer to themselves as designers, or sometimes technicians or design associates or something like that.
Thanks for the input. This helps me connect the dots on a lot of the education-related questions I had. A question. In a state that does not require an M.Arch to be an Architect, are there any benefits to having an M.Arch degree compared to someone who only has the B.Arch aside from the more likelihood of getting hired? For example, more pay, more benefits, higher positions, more responsibility, etc?
There are no states that specifically require an M.Arch in order to be an architect. As long as you have an NAAB-accredited degree, whether a B.Arch or a first professional M.Arch, you will meet the education requirements of any US state. NAAB's minimum architecture-related curriculum requirements of both degrees are the same, though in many schools the curriculum goes beyond the NAAB-minimum, so someone with an M.Arch will often have had cumulatively more hours of studio, more coursework in things like project management and other business topics, and there are currently more M.Arch programs that have some hands-on construction project as part of their curriculum. This is mainly just because B.Arch programs have to satisfy not only NAAB's requirements, but the general undergrad academic requirements for the universities' other accreditations, and it's very difficult to do all that and still provide opportunities for much beyond the minimum requirements of both.
Many employers consider the degrees to be interchangeable - the only really big exception is if you want to teach, in which case the M.Arch is almost always a prereq (most of us can think of exceptions to this - but those exceptions are usually either very longtime tenured or "grandfathered" faculty, or adjuncts teaching specific skills such as software, wood shop, welding - or sometimes people who already have wide name recognition in the field.)
There are some firms that prefer to hire those with M.Archs - but it is usually more because of perceived maturity than because of a major difference in education. Or for some firms it's because of the value of those people's resumes for inclusion in proposals, or sometimes it's because the firm values those with diverse educations, and those with M.Archs will usually have an undergrad degree in something else. A few firms I worked in early on had better incentives for entry-level people with M.Archs - more vacation days initially, skipping over the most entry-level title, things like that. I found I was a little more bullet-proof during down times, because they wanted to keep my resume so they had to keep me.
I think it's important to add that the typical undergrad NAAB-accredited degree (which is 5 years long) will take the full 5 years because it includes 10 semesters of studio courses, none of which can be taken at the same time or during summers. So if you're saying 3-5 years because "college is supposed to take 4 years but some people finish early and some late" that's not the case for this.
Thanks for the mature responses. I know my original post can come off as very offensive to some and also ego-damaging. I mean, these aren't my opinions, but I literally compiled a list of reasons of why being an architect sucks.
With that said,
I am not an architect yet but I can totally imagine myself feeling super proud while telling new acquaintences that I'm an architect.
Architecture is indeed interesting even to an unknowledgeable person like myself. I think Architecture is one of the most interesting out of all engineering careers.
And I can kind of understand why Architects are under-paid. Lawyers, Doctors, and the likes of Petroleum, Biomedical, Software and AI Engineers are all either necessities in our societies and/or have a high demand. Architect on the other hand is a luxury. Not something everyone, especially the developing countries, necessarily need.
I also understand why Architects require such high level of studying. An ill-prepared Architect would be a huge disaster waiting to happen.
So for me, Architecture is something one does out of passion. And not just any amount of passion, but enough to withstand the constant mental stress knowing that you're under-paid and under-appreciated for the amount of studying, time, effort, and loans that went in to becoming what you are today. Not enough passion to outweigh or even neutralize the feeling of unfairness would eventually break the person.
An Architect is not a luxury when your designing more than a house.
I am very appreciated at work, seeing lots of genuine praise, and I get paid well enough, more than many of my friends and all the ones who get paid more hate their jobs and live for the weekend and I don't. They are aging and I am not. I love Mondays and I love going to work. I love that I get paid to think, draw, and come up with shit. And people carry out your plans... you draw it and they make it. Feels pretty good. Also a LOT of responsibility. I didn't always feel this way and it took a lot of work to get here but it does pay off if you stick with it. Lots of hard work. I work harder than anyone I know and well, I have the most interesting and rewarding job of anyone I know.
Thanks for the reply. It's good to see some positive input regarding Architects.
Note that I'm on the fringe of the profession and I don't work a typical position in a firm... and probably never will.
Not exactly on topic, but still related: I remind folks considering potential careers that there are many, many ways to be involved in the wonders of architecture without pursuing it professionally. Reading, tours, lectures, exhibitions, volunteering, preservation, travel, local commissions and other activities all allow convenient pursuit without dedicated practice.
CordonBleu, to your points:
You're Canadian, and in Ontario? You'll be happy to know that the profession is doing very well here. Not sure where arch-eng programmes are given right now, but you have a long way until you can get that OAA license so try to kill some of these nonsensical assumptions.
Thanks for that long post. It helped explain a lot of the questions and uncertainties I had. Please be advised that my original post was a compilation of the complaints I've come across while browsing Archinect. They are not my opinions since, well... I don't have any! I'm not in the field yet since I'm just a sophomore now. I really do appreciate your input though! And I know money isn't everything but what is the average pay for Architects in Canada? Everything about Architects are very interesting for me, but I don't want to live in poverty. Actually, I want to be well off if I can be.
If fame and riches are your goals, then look elsewhere. You can always just get a gig with the federal government and retire at age 45 racking in 6-figure salaries doing absolutely nothing. Money in architecture is not so obvious since schools do, in general, a piss-poor job at preparing students to actually practice and be architects. Circle back to the law & doctor strawman from earlier and you'll quickly see that the cost of education is not paid for through tuition but by the intern's employer.
All this to say that starting wage for a intern architect (ie. with a Masters) ranges in the low to mid 40s. There was a time when 50K starting was common, but those spots were mostly in Alberta. Arch Technologists tend to start on the low 40s and interior designers high 30s to low 40s. Seasoned architects with a license and 8 to 10 years real world experience will fetch the 70k (or more) you listed in your initial post. Income after that threshold depends on project performance and bonus and profit sharing if you step into management and firm ownership.
(Aside: I just visited Toronto, and really enjoyed it. Some great architecture, and the clash of the modern with so much historic fabric is striking. Lots of bad stuff, too, just like everywhere else.)
tell me about it. I'm still torn on Libeskin's ROM. I've had many heated debates about the old vs new clash and I think that the reason I can't quite make up my mind is the point of it. I do love OCAD and FOG's AGO renovation to point out the obvious charaters.
Agreed on both. I titled the ROM addition as Mr. Libeskind takes a prismatic dump on Bloor Street. It completely ruins that sidewalk space. The interiors aren't bad, though.
OCAD and Gehry's addition are great, in my opinion. And that more recent glass gallery/canopy over the street is fantastic-- the precise opposite of der Liber's dump at ROM. Grange Park next to OCAD is a wonderful urban space, too.
I like the ROM. But that my opinion.
Archinect is the equivalent to a zoo. You, the zoo goer, are seeing the animals in an environment that is not their own. Of course, they are unhappy and negative. The lion lounges in the shade and is thrown a big hunk of fresh meat which on one hand makes the lion's life an easy proposition. But that lion was built to hunt, not to lounge. The orangutan was built to swing from trees and eat palm leaves. In captivity, however, they throw their shit at zoo goers.
Architects as predators, King of the jungle! LOL
This is really depressing and discouraging
Oh really? Have you read the papers lately? Have you been to the us/mexico border? have you had a life threatening injury that will cost you your life savings? are you flying from your recently demolished house on a war zone? Did you lose an eye because your husband threw acid on your face?
get a little perspective on life before showing your privilege in public.
Everybody needs a plumber. Most people need a doctor at some point. Nobody “needs” an architect.
Nobody needs buildings?
You don't really need architects to build buildings.
Then what the hell are we doing???
wearing nice shoes in the rain. That's what I'm doing.
So if one wanted to design buildings, what career path should one go into? Asking for a friend.
So if one wanted to design buildings, what career path should one go into?
MONEY
So if one wanted to design buildings, what career path should one go into?.... Property management and/or investment banking then have architects draw it up for you.
I'm 39 years old. I am not even making half of USD100,000 annually but I am extremely happy with the Architecture that I do and I would do the same thing all over again on my next life.
Not even 50k? I hope you dont live in North America or Europe...
So.. the taboo salary thing. I've consistently pulled in a six figure income for the last 15 years. Even as a PM working for other firms if you discount owning my own firm until '15. Currently I'm $115k plus bonus's. My 'sidegig' of renting pulls another $30k and another $15k or so from various investments. Basically, the top depends on how well you sell yourself, your niche, and what you do with your earnings to generate money elsewhere. Counterpoint though; I don't get up every morning thinking "Yea me!" Once you get into the higher salaries, you probably are doing the 'less glorious' aspects; putting out fires, writing reports, getting good with excel most of the time. Sort of ironic that you'll look at the PA's and have nostalgic thoughts of just being able to bang on a set of drawings and designing... They are looking at you thinking 'if only' too... lol.
As for the perks... I could care less about dinner parties. My ego gets stroked a bit more from driving down streets and pointing out building after building I designed to my kids. My friends and wife aren't really leaving any sort of trail of what they do all day; they pushed some paper that maybe had an impact on someone somewhere, but nothing physical remains of those efforts. We leave behind something physical that shapes the 'real world' in specific locations for decades and maybe centuries. We can hit google maps and see what we did for better or worse :)
Non Sequitur:
[quote]
[/endquote]
Actually, the brightest architecture students of any particular school could have gotten accepted to their alma mater's law school or med school, while the brightest med and law students could not have reciprocated this for architecture.
The "aimlessly re-sketching the same project" and "10+ hours a day rendering" are obviously some of the simplest tasks in architecture school. For some reason, you omit the more complicated tasks of conquering subjective beauty standards, producing energy analyses, forming proofs and theorems, model building, parametric coding in grasshopper, and the most diverse set of problem solving. Med students memorize and regurgitate for their exams and then occasionally hand a surgeon an exacto knife, yet call it a scalpel. Law students tirelessly study legal precedents, yet never invent, and everything in their life is based on their cut-and-dry resume.
nope. my point still stands even stronger.
Yeah, I'd give the edge to med school here.
But why the need to rank and belittle at all? It just possible that all of these fields' programs are challenging in various ways? Apples and oranges, in other words?
Agreed, citizen. Med school IS more difficult than M.Arch curriculum, but what I'm really saying is that because Architecture requires such a diversified skill set to succeed, the brightest architecture students could have also decided to become doctors and succeeded in med school, but not vice versa.
Br.tn I've known more than one arch student go to med school following M.arch... and a few go from med into arch. I wonder which one of these groups made the better choice.
So the brightest med students could not succeed in architecture school is your point?
And this generalized statement is based on what, again? Further, even if somehow true... who cares? I'm just wondering who you're hoping to impress with a statement that's inaccurate, unverifiable, and inconsequential --but uttered with such confidence.
BR.TN, keep drinking the Kool Aid, it helps survival.
Architecture DOES NOT have the same exacting standards and causal effect as Medicine. Morever, have you seen the amount of study medical students have to do to even graduate.
I have seen kids in architecture do absolute jackshit for the finals, and they still graduate. And yes, many of the less bright ones are the first in line to get their licenses -- so nothing tough there either.
Sure, it is apples and oranges, but there is no way med school is easier than architecture school.
Med schools are moving towards pass-fail lately. I sure hope a B- is failing!
I love architecture. Love to see my drawings come to life. Nothing is better for me. The only thing that bothers me are Realtors. Why do they get to charge 10% commission on a building that they can sell over and over again? My firm struggles to get a 5% fee that we have to share with 4 possible 5 other consultants. We take all the liability, Realtors have 0.
"This is what I got from reading these forums:"
Many are also in denial, and they do their best to rationalize.
One can look at architecture as an uneconomical way to make a living.
uneconomical is a comical word
under-remunerated is the word.
@JLC-1: I recently read the Foundation book, so I like how that sounds. But you are unequivocally correct.
It's just another job, there are cons and pros to every job.
There are architects on here and in real life that just like to complain but have you ever worked in any other office job where people didn't complain about something?
Then there are those architects that stroke their cock telling themselves how great they are, "yeah you see that block of metal and glass that sell for a cool half mill to some dickbag? I made that".
Honestly, go on any job forum for engineers, designers, actuary, accountants, programmers and etc, they're all complaining or bragging about something. Take it all with a grain of salt.
+++ Exactly.
I follow the CE section on eng-tips forum, they are less into complaining and they really share information, answer questions, etc.
I follow several forums and to be honest architects just seem to be less into sharing useful thing than others and more into moaning but aye you get the idea.
We fall over ourselves to help each other, lots of evidence here for that. On the other hand, we’re not exact eager to give away our craft and trade to every overentitled developer/broker/cheapskate/jackass looking for a freebie.
@citizen: there is a biunivocal relation between architecture and under remuneration.
.
Keep in mind that you will find a wild disparity between the salaries of architects that is commensurate with the type of work they do and what market they're in. There is a huge difference in the skillset and earning potential of a sole proprietor who designs single family homes vs. a PM at a large firm dealing with multi-million dollar contracts. The majority of the profession is made up of the sole-proprietor types. Not to say one is better than the other, they're just different and command different rates of pay.
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.