Earlier today, during a disciplinary review, my employer (GC, design+build) randomly brought this into the conversation:
"Architects are glorified paper pushers. They sit around their office until something comes along that they can throw their ego at. Nothing about the profession appeals to me. You said you were interested in following that career path? I want you to know that won't be in line with what we need from you and your success working here"
In my cherry-on-top view of the world I would be drafting plans, understanding and implementing client needs, solving construction and municipal issues and working with design professionals. I would, at the end of a hard day, reflect on all my great work and know that I made some really cool spaces and environments for people to experience, use and enjoy.
I'd like to say that his words fell on deaf ears, but my life-expectancy at this office was shortened by the conversation.
Anyone emerging or seasoned in the profession care to comment inspirational? Or do I need to wake up and smell the coffee-flavored napalm?
yeah, pretty much the attitude that design-build gc’s have in general. This is why I’m starting a design-build firm. Very very few are led by designers. There is a much greater threshold (license wise and money wise) to add the word “build” than “design”....we need to start out competing these motherfuckers because design-build (led by gc) is taking over ....
May 29, 19 3:19 pm ·
·
x-jla
They figured out that they can make more money controlling the design from early stages then to just build some architects plans. They are preemptively planning their profits, and “nice environments for people to enjoy” interferes with that. They will put it down, because it’s a threat to their bottom line. Run and don’t look back.
May 29, 19 3:25 pm ·
·
emb98
Thank you, I appreciate this one a lot, you're helping me understand where they are coming from.
Next time this guy has a problem and needs an Architect to solve it, I'd tell him you're too busy pushing paper.
GC probably feels inconvenienced by the Architect's professional obligations to do things certain ways, and any push-back they've gotten from that. I'm always hearing those "this is the way we've always done it" comments out of contractors. These people don't know regulations and make no effort to expand their knowledge base. But, then get pissy when someone says they're not up to snuff.
I usually push back that most GC/Builders aren't anything more than glorified managers... they no longer construct, they aren't master builders where they can perform any construction themselves beyond general labor or possibly one other low skill trade like drywall or flatwork. All they really do is schedule and push off any real direction about the work or what they are supposed to be doing to others whom they hope knows what they are doing because they sure can't spot the difference between quality and non-compliant.
Well to be fair, at least your employer gave you the courtesy of telling you the cold hard truth instead of sugar coating it. The delivery could have been a bit more diplomatic but honesty is better than lying to your face. There is some element of truth to what they said, and I don't think its all out of left field.
Architects DO put their ego into the profession and many instances conflict between GC and Architect's is inevitable. Our incentives are different and the process to get to the solutions are inherently worlds apart as well. Conflict and grievances is to be expected and the norm.
Truth is, by the time you get to be in a position of an architect (be it associate, principal or partner) with years of experience, you are literally a paper pusher. You're out there reviewing drawings, specs, writing proposals, reading up on code, researching products, meeting with clients, attending meetings and seminars etc. etc. etc. and rarely on site.
May 31, 19 2:36 pm ·
·
bowling_ball
Principals review drawings and specs? Read code? Research products? Those are news to me.
May 31, 19 5:26 pm ·
·
GridBubbles
Yes, and this is a for a 100+ people firm. It was more directed towards the associates but principals and partners still occasionally do those exercises quite a bit in addition to their other obligations and responsibilities of "managing" the firm.
Your employer means that you’re drinking the architectural kool aid a bit too much - no fault of yours cuz that’s what school teaches us. You need to learn more bout construction and actual architecture. Take it as constructive criticism and grow.
Jun 2, 19 1:02 pm ·
·
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.
Architects are "Glorified Paper Pushers" rebuttal?
Hey guys?
Earlier today, during a disciplinary review, my employer (GC, design+build) randomly brought this into the conversation:
"Architects are glorified paper pushers. They sit around their office until something comes along that they can throw their ego at. Nothing about the profession appeals to me. You said you were interested in following that career path? I want you to know that won't be in line with what we need from you and your success working here"
In my cherry-on-top view of the world I would be drafting plans, understanding and implementing client needs, solving construction and municipal issues and working with design professionals. I would, at the end of a hard day, reflect on all my great work and know that I made some really cool spaces and environments for people to experience, use and enjoy.
I'd like to say that his words fell on deaf ears, but my life-expectancy at this office was shortened by the conversation.
Anyone emerging or seasoned in the profession care to comment inspirational? Or do I need to wake up and smell the coffee-flavored napalm?
- C
yeah, pretty much the attitude that design-build gc’s have in general. This is why I’m starting a design-build firm. Very very few are led by designers. There is a much greater threshold (license wise and money wise) to add the word “build” than “design”....we need to start out competing these motherfuckers because design-build (led by gc) is taking over ....
They figured out that they can make more money controlling the design from early stages then to just build some architects plans. They are preemptively planning their profits, and “nice environments for people to enjoy” interferes with that. They will put it down, because it’s a threat to their bottom line. Run and don’t look back.
Thank you, I appreciate this one a lot, you're helping me understand where they are coming from.
Sometimes design-build companies have to compete for projects and the ones who don't value architecture lose because of their poor designs.
You probably need to find a better job though. Design quality doesn't seem to be a consideration in the vast majority of design-build.
Yeah I'd quit that job.
Next time this guy has a problem and needs an Architect to solve it, I'd tell him you're too busy pushing paper.
GC probably feels inconvenienced by the Architect's professional obligations to do things certain ways, and any push-back they've gotten from that. I'm always hearing those "this is the way we've always done it" comments out of contractors. These people don't know regulations and make no effort to expand their knowledge base. But, then get pissy when someone says they're not up to snuff.
I spend far less time pushing papers than I do solving the GC's problems.
Ironically, the majority of paper-pushing I do is during CA, at the direct request of the contractor.
Depending on the GC and the job, I would say the same.
Yup
I usually push back that most GC/Builders aren't anything more than glorified managers... they no longer construct, they aren't master builders where they can perform any construction themselves beyond general labor or possibly one other low skill trade like drywall or flatwork. All they really do is schedule and push off any real direction about the work or what they are supposed to be doing to others whom they hope knows what they are doing because they sure can't spot the difference between quality and non-compliant.
He's wrong. We're UNDERPAID paper pushers AND a rubber stamp if you're licensed.
there’s nothing glorified about it
Well to be fair, at least your employer gave you the courtesy of telling you the cold hard truth instead of sugar coating it. The delivery could have been a bit more diplomatic but honesty is better than lying to your face. There is some element of truth to what they said, and I don't think its all out of left field.
Architects DO put their ego into the profession and many instances conflict between GC and Architect's is inevitable. Our incentives are different and the process to get to the solutions are inherently worlds apart as well. Conflict and grievances is to be expected and the norm.
Truth is, by the time you get to be in a position of an architect (be it associate, principal or partner) with years of experience, you are literally a paper pusher. You're out there reviewing drawings, specs, writing proposals, reading up on code, researching products, meeting with clients, attending meetings and seminars etc. etc. etc. and rarely on site.
Principals review drawings and specs? Read code? Research products? Those are news to me.
Yes, and this is a for a 100+ people firm. It was more directed towards the associates but principals and partners still occasionally do those exercises quite a bit in addition to their other obligations and responsibilities of "managing" the firm.
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.