Hey guys. We all struggle everyday, work our asses off and keep dreaming for the day when our field will be better, high paying and satisfactory. However it doesn't look possible in near future.
Better is subjective, pay is only one aspect of a job (unfortunately society seems to believe this the only meaningful aspect), and satisfaction is completely within your capability to adjust based on your expectations and goals.
To answer the question; I like building stuff, everyday is different, I like resolving complex problems with people I respect and admire, I look forward to work everyday ( after 30 + years ), choose what kind of projects I want to work on, I like making a positive impact on the people and community around me and they respect me for the effort we put into it.
I never chose the profession for money, but I can attest that the money / success followed.
architects don't build things, but they do get to make instructions for how things get built.
Oct 5, 20 2:16 pm ·
·
whistler
Ummm, I actually build things, everything from furniture to multi-family residential projects. Yes I still "make instructions" as you say but it's really only a portion of what I do. Maybe looking outside the typical and traditional roles that many have found themselves pigeon-holed into would help with gaining better skills, experience, satisfaction from the profession. Some would call it really old school where the Architect / Builder are one in the same.
yes, very old school. like gothic cathedral old school. and furniture is not architecture. unless you're design build (in which case still there is a distinction between drafters and builders), which most offices are not, the majority of architects do not build buildings. in fact the most typical aia contracts assume the triangular relationship of owner, architect, and contractor.
yeah, I'm with square. on this one, whistler. You're no more building projects than the on-site labour is designing - yes, you're on site and making decisions alongside the trades, but I'm going to assume you're not actually following through by hauling a piece of siding up a ladder and installing it yourself.
OK, but metaphorically "building things" is more appropriate to architecture. The outcome of our work is often a building, in the same way that the outcome of an accountant's work is a spreadsheet, the outcome of a lawyer's work is a case win, the outcome of a psychologist's work is a more-balanced human, the outcome of a teacher's work is a smarter human, etc. etc.
have to agree with bowling_ball here. it's not pedantic, it's actually a conversation about what really happens in the reality of the job of an architect, and there are implications. for example, what about all of the speculative projects, or projects that get canceled. is that work meaningless because it was never built? not to mention as someone said above, it would be absurd if a contractor claimed they were doing design work; contractors are much more aware of the boundaries of their roles. architects, on the other hand, consistently over-inflate their role in the building process. i used to work in construction, and hearing architects claim they build things always makes me laugh.
donna, to your point- apple designs the iphone, but it's made in china. ignoring this fact and giving apple the credit for "making" the iphone obscures all of the inconvenient economic and labor issues associated with globalized manufacturing. my point is that i don't think this is just some academic discussion, but has implications in how we think about the discipline in practice.
the experiences at working in different firms, cities, and project type vary wildly. so neither the op's opinion nor those contradicting it here are a de-facto representation of the profession. some have it good, others not so much. and many fall somewhere in between.
while i don't think this industry should be immune from criticism, the original post is incredibly over-generalized, vague, and not very useful. there have been much better threads about this elsewhere.
"better, high paying and satisfactory". Your query needs a page for definitions. In my case, things have gotten better over the last 30 years, I get paid higher than 80% of the population and I must say, some of the built things are quite satisfactory. What do you expect?
Pure speculation here - but I think some people just getting into architecture look at the lifestyle of a certain stereotype of the early to mid-20th century Playboy Architect and assume the profession has deteriorated because they can't live that life. Nevermind that 99% of Architects in the early to mid 20th century didn't live that life either, and also nevermind that people like Bjarke, Zaha, Rem, etc. are living that life in the 21st century.
Zaha sadly is not (pedantic note) otoh i saw a few years back a feature on gehry selling his home for 10mil to give some sense of scale. there are self made rich architects - but most people complaining aren't going to be one of them.
After completing 5 years of education, when you compare architecture to other fields of engineering and science, they have numerous benefits, job satisfaction and high paying for number of hours that one put.
Maybe I have much expectations from this field, but how do you justify the long working hours that you put working for the firm and no overtime pay? How do you justify the paying invited competitions, the no pay internships??
It's not about what I expect, but what I see all around the world.
your problem is politics, not the profession - I can't justify any of those forms of labor abuse, and if they're widely practiced is because they're feeding off a system of "caste" for lack of a better word; if you're not rich and connected you will have to work your ass off no matter what your major is. Please show in which fields of engineering or science are they getting high pay after 5 years of school?
Wall-E... please realise that working long hours in studio re-rendering the same model 50 times does not equal the same level of education as real science degrees.
how do you justify the long working hours that you put working for the firm and no overtime pay?
I don't. I've yet to take a job that's required long hours with no overtime. In various firms, I've been paid in earned PTO (hour-for-hour), time + half (as an hourly employee), or profit share (as an associate). Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've also been picky in the jobs I apply to and accept.
How do you justify the paying invited competitions, the no pay internships??
I don't. I don't enter comps with high entry fees. I've only had one unpaid internship, and that was a three week stint building an off-grid house, specifically to get my hands dirty & learn construction. So I look at it as more of an educational workshop than a job. (Which, imo, is what internships are supposed to be)
Again to my original point - Asking "How do you?" without first asking "Do you?" assumes your experience is universal and unavoidable. I'd counter it's neither. The better question is - how do you get out of that situation or avoid getting into it? I don't have easy answers for that one, but it'd be a more fruitful discussion and less prone to devolve into a circle of complaining.
Why are you guys complaining and arguing about this meaningless topic. There will be people working for starchitect upper level management. Doing magazine projects with amazing publicity. They will tell you architecture is wonderful, dream come true. There will be interns working for starchitect doing mindless models, renderings, diagrams with overtime and low pay. They will tell you the field is fun but cruel. There will be People working in Advanced LEED box and doing reasonable hour. They will tell you it is meaningful and fulfilling. There will be people working for boring kitchen renovation, roof replacement, 2x4 stick houses, tenant fit outs. They will say it is boring like any other jobs. There will be people working a specific task in big firms, like spec writer or detailer. They will tell you it pays fair but not quite satisfying. There are just the various types and experience from stereo types. I bet there are a lot more sub varieties and options like open your own firm. And of course people have different goals and definition of fulfillment.
The key to the discussion is actually the percentage of those types. How many gets to do fulfilling creative projects. How many works kitchen renovation, tenant fit outs. You wonder why so many firms are able to abuse labors with low pay in this profession. It all comes down to a single word. Competition.
I would estimate roughly 50% recent grad does not even make it into the traditional architecture field. The remaining 50%, majority of them works for small or boring project. Another majority works for large corporations as a cog of the wheel. Another majority works for mid size firm doing boring repetitive types of work like low income housing. Only the absolute small fraction remaining gets to work for firms doing high customized creative projects in decent size of team with large control and exposure. The distribution has to do with market demand. And this market is largely built on reputation and experience. The large big name firms will continue to get good projects, while small and medium ones are left for the crumbs. All the workers are trying to get into the big names trying to do fulfilling fun projects while willingly to sacrifice time and energy for it.
What can you do? Nothing. Unless there are way less supply than demand. But you know there will still be tons of architecture students dreaming to be Ghery or Zaha.
TL;DR. It is all supply and demand. Just try to land at the top of pyramid and cut out your competitors. Then you will have a satisfying job and reasonable hour and high pay.
Also a side note, remember it is all just relative. Developing countries have it way worse. 60hr work week without extra pay? That is standard in many firms and fields in developing country.
my biggest problems with architecture are problems that are just endemic to the us economy.. no protection (could be fired tomorrow without any reason/process), lack of representation/bargaining, little vacation time, long hours, etc. there are some strange cultural things with architecture that i don't like (over utilization of the moving goalposts of the design process- engineers are much better at not working for free...), but those are fewer than the overarching common problems.
i'm sure i would enjoy it more in certain european countries. but the truth is our profession is suffering from existing in an extremely worker-hostile economic system and country.
OP, Notice that the responses here are, "there's no problem, it's your attitude" That is your answer as to why people accept it. The ones that remain either really buy into the suffering artist mentality or have the "this is fine mentality." As someone whose switched out of the profession, worked at 6 diferent firms and made it all the way to license holder before making the switch, I can say yes, the majority of architecture positions are low paid vs the effort and not even that rewarding. Most jobs outside of the profession are much more light hearted, pragmatic when it comes to pay and understand that work is work and not a passion when you are doing it for someone else. Theres much better ways to make a living and do architecture on the side of you want!
We need to convince more architecture students to get away from the profession to reduce supply. If you are not into actual buildings, honestly it is not a good career to pursuit. Academic is even more competitive than practice. But if you are into actual building and assemblies, it sure is fun when you can work on a meaningful project. Like large institutional buildings or high end residential. Watch your custom designed baby gets constructed into an actual building offers great satisfaction. You won't likely be able to afford the building and construct yourself, you cannot do those on the side once you are out of the field. Please don't call your side gig kitchen remodel architecture. Or you can be a dreamer like me. Design the custom dream house and drool all over it, but does not have 2M to make it a reality.
What is that magic job outside of the profession? Asking for a friend...
Oct 8, 20 12:13 pm ·
·
geezertect
archi_
dude: well said.
Oct 8, 20 12:20 pm ·
·
Jay1122
Honestly, we are talking about input vs outcome ratio here. Many architects put in consistent 50+ Hrs regular weeks with massive professional knowledge and dedication. It's not like dish washing job, you do the work, you go home and you forget. We have to tread carefully against negligence and disputes as a professional and continue to improve our knowledge. 10+ yrs down the profession still making 80-90K is not unusual. If you apply the same effort and hour in other fields like IT, Engineering, Medicine, Law, Finance, Real estate, I guarantee you will get a better reward. The only other field that is worse than architecture that I know, is gaming design. They call those extra work without pay "crunching", usually near game release. Then they boot you off after the game has been released because well, our product is out the door, and next title is a few year away. Gaming design is a niche sub branch market of IT though. The similar thing about them is the passion that is fueling the culture. We are producing something we are proud of, more than money it self, and it gets taken advantage of.
Oct 8, 20 12:29 pm ·
·
midlander
archi-dude: what do you do now? i don't know many people who left architecture but didn't stay in closely related fields like construction and re dev.
Oct 8, 20 8:51 pm ·
·
archi_dude
Construction, which since you deal with some many people instead of drafting all day gives you a peak into many roles from brokers, agents, investors, PMs, labor, trades ect. Also I always was very pro work life balance and becuase of that butted heads with many peers so my personal life circle in college and professional life has always been people outside of the AEC industry. I find the people in the same rut as architects tend to be other creatives, graphic designers, photographers, filmmakers ect. Becuase since its grounded in peoples passion it becomes something to exploit since there is such high competition for the jobs that actually are creative and not cookie cutter
workshops.
Oct 8, 20 10:00 pm ·
·
midlander
I think what you describe is the single biggest problem for job satisfaction in young architects - that many firms put people in a slot and run them like machines without any autonomy. I was lucky to change jobs early on and end up somewhere where I was meeting with clients, consultants, brokers, etc. Being able to see your role in context and develop your own plan for your career is essential to enjoying the work. I think the reason architecture firms often are such terrible places to work isn't the nature of the industry so much as that design skill and management skill don't have much overlap - so a lot of firms end up run by terrible managers who can't recognize the importance of developing autonomous roles for all levels of staff.
Oct 9, 20 12:14 am ·
·
midlander
i'd note too that the job which i did really enjoy was at a big AE firm that wouldn't make anyone's list of top-tier design firms, but it was well-run by people who liked good design despite having little competence at it. it's a tough balance to get work which is both interesting yet has reasonable work expectations.
my advice for anyone struggling in architecture who still feels drawn to stay would be to take a careful look for a next job that puts you in a firm run by nice people who like design but don't seem to care about it as much as about providing a good service.
Oct 9, 20 12:19 am ·
·
geezertect
Cults are always exploitative and the cult mentality starts the first day of freshman year.
Why did we come to Architecture?
Hey guys. We all struggle everyday, work our asses off and keep dreaming for the day when our field will be better, high paying and satisfactory. However it doesn't look possible in near future.
Do we want to live like this all our lives?
Can't we do anything At ALL?
Apart from quitting
Better is subjective, pay is only one aspect of a job (unfortunately society seems to believe this the only meaningful aspect), and satisfaction is completely within your capability to adjust based on your expectations and goals.
Not everyone is struggling and If you have unreasonable expectations, then you will always be struggling.
This is another one of those threads (gosh, there are so many) where someone asks "Why is [x]?" without first asking "Is [x]?"
The responses so far would suggest that [x] is not. At least not universally. Certainly not for me specifically.
Misery loves company. It doesn't feel as bad when others are complaining about the same stuff - kind of absolves one of blame.
To answer the question; I like building stuff, everyday is different, I like resolving complex problems with people I respect and admire, I look forward to work everyday ( after 30 + years ), choose what kind of projects I want to work on, I like making a positive impact on the people and community around me and they respect me for the effort we put into it.
I never chose the profession for money, but I can attest that the money / success followed.
architects don't build things, but they do get to make instructions for how things get built.
Ummm, I actually build things, everything from furniture to multi-family residential projects. Yes I still "make instructions" as you say but it's really only a portion of what I do. Maybe looking outside the typical and traditional roles that many have found themselves pigeon-holed into would help with gaining better skills, experience, satisfaction from the profession. Some would call it really old school where the Architect / Builder are one in the same.
yes, very old school. like gothic cathedral old school. and furniture is not architecture. unless you're design build (in which case still there is a distinction between drafters and builders), which most offices are not, the majority of architects do not build buildings. in fact the most typical aia contracts assume the triangular relationship of owner, architect, and contractor.
yeah, I'm with square. on this one, whistler. You're no more building projects than the on-site labour is designing - yes, you're on site and making decisions alongside the trades, but I'm going to assume you're not actually following through by hauling a piece of siding up a ladder and installing it yourself.
haha you guys have been sitting at your desks for way too long!
well, as someone mentioned above, it's important to have realistic expectations as to what architecture is. which is not building things.
OK, but metaphorically "building things" is more appropriate to architecture. The outcome of our work is often a building, in the same way that the outcome of an accountant's work is a spreadsheet, the outcome of a lawyer's work is a case win, the outcome of a psychologist's work is a more-balanced human, the outcome of a teacher's work is a smarter human, etc. etc.
This is some pedantic silliness right here.
No, the outcome of what architects do is the set of specs and drawings we create. That's literally our product.
have to agree with bowling_ball here. it's not pedantic, it's actually a conversation about what really happens in the reality of the job of an architect, and there are implications. for example, what about all of the speculative projects, or projects that get canceled. is that work meaningless because it was never built? not to mention as someone said above, it would be absurd if a contractor claimed they were doing design work; contractors are much more aware of the boundaries of their roles. architects, on the other hand, consistently over-inflate their role in the building process. i used to work in construction, and hearing architects claim they build things always makes me laugh.
donna, to your point- apple designs the iphone, but it's made in china. ignoring this fact and giving apple the credit for "making" the iphone obscures all of the inconvenient economic and labor issues associated with globalized manufacturing. my point is that i don't think this is just some academic discussion, but has implications in how we think about the discipline in practice.
the experiences at working in different firms, cities, and project type vary wildly. so neither the op's opinion nor those contradicting it here are a de-facto representation of the profession. some have it good, others not so much. and many fall somewhere in between.
while i don't think this industry should be immune from criticism, the original post is incredibly over-generalized, vague, and not very useful. there have been much better threads about this elsewhere.
Don’t know why I came to architecture, but I’m here now...
"better, high paying and satisfactory". Your query needs a page for definitions. In my case, things have gotten better over the last 30 years, I get paid higher than 80% of the population and I must say, some of the built things are quite satisfactory. What do you expect?
Pure speculation here - but I think some people just getting into architecture look at the lifestyle of a certain stereotype of the early to mid-20th century Playboy Architect and assume the profession has deteriorated because they can't live that life. Nevermind that 99% of Architects in the early to mid 20th century didn't live that life either, and also nevermind that people like Bjarke, Zaha, Rem, etc. are living that life in the 21st century.
Zaha sadly is not (pedantic note) otoh i saw a few years back a feature on gehry selling his home for 10mil to give some sense of scale. there are self made rich architects - but most people complaining aren't going to be one of them.
After completing 5 years of education, when you compare architecture to other fields of engineering and science, they have numerous benefits, job satisfaction and high paying for number of hours that one put.
Maybe I have much expectations from this field, but how do you justify the long working hours that you put working for the firm and no overtime pay? How do you justify the paying invited competitions, the no pay internships??
It's not about what I expect, but what I see all around the world.
your problem is politics, not the profession - I can't justify any of those forms of labor abuse, and if they're widely practiced is because they're feeding off a system of "caste" for lack of a better word; if you're not rich and connected you will have to work your ass off no matter what your major is. Please show in which fields of engineering or science are they getting high pay after 5 years of school?
Wall-E... please realise that working long hours in studio re-rendering the same model 50 times does not equal the same level of education as real science degrees.
but, but, what about THIS masters of science? https://archinect.com/news/article/150231512/apply-now-to-mit-s-master-of-science-in-real-estate-development-program
how do you justify the long working hours that you put working for the firm and no overtime pay?
I don't. I've yet to take a job that's required long hours with no overtime. In various firms, I've been paid in earned PTO (hour-for-hour), time + half (as an hourly employee), or profit share (as an associate). Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've also been picky in the jobs I apply to and accept.
How do you justify the paying invited competitions, the no pay internships??
I don't. I don't enter comps with high entry fees. I've only had one unpaid internship, and that was a three week stint building an off-grid house, specifically to get my hands dirty & learn construction. So I look at it as more of an educational workshop than a job. (Which, imo, is what internships are supposed to be)
Again to my original point - Asking "How do you?" without first asking "Do you?" assumes your experience is universal and unavoidable. I'd counter it's neither. The better question is - how do you get out of that situation or avoid getting into it? I don't have easy answers for that one, but it'd be a more fruitful discussion and less prone to devolve into a circle of complaining.
Why are you guys complaining and arguing about this meaningless topic. There will be people working for starchitect upper level management. Doing magazine projects with amazing publicity. They will tell you architecture is wonderful, dream come true. There will be interns working for starchitect doing mindless models, renderings, diagrams with overtime and low pay. They will tell you the field is fun but cruel. There will be People working in Advanced LEED box and doing reasonable hour. They will tell you it is meaningful and fulfilling. There will be people working for boring kitchen renovation, roof replacement, 2x4 stick houses, tenant fit outs. They will say it is boring like any other jobs. There will be people working a specific task in big firms, like spec writer or detailer. They will tell you it pays fair but not quite satisfying. There are just the various types and experience from stereo types. I bet there are a lot more sub varieties and options like open your own firm. And of course people have different goals and definition of fulfillment.
The key to the discussion is actually the percentage of those types. How many gets to do fulfilling creative projects. How many works kitchen renovation, tenant fit outs. You wonder why so many firms are able to abuse labors with low pay in this profession. It all comes down to a single word. Competition.
I would estimate roughly 50% recent grad does not even make it into the traditional architecture field. The remaining 50%, majority of them works for small or boring project. Another majority works for large corporations as a cog of the wheel. Another majority works for mid size firm doing boring repetitive types of work like low income housing. Only the absolute small fraction remaining gets to work for firms doing high customized creative projects in decent size of team with large control and exposure. The distribution has to do with market demand. And this market is largely built on reputation and experience. The large big name firms will continue to get good projects, while small and medium ones are left for the crumbs. All the workers are trying to get into the big names trying to do fulfilling fun projects while willingly to sacrifice time and energy for it.
What can you do? Nothing. Unless there are way less supply than demand. But you know there will still be tons of architecture students dreaming to be Ghery or Zaha.
TL;DR. It is all supply and demand. Just try to land at the top of pyramid and cut out your competitors. Then you will have a satisfying job and reasonable hour and high pay.
Also a side note, remember it is all just relative. Developing countries have it way worse. 60hr work week without extra pay? That is standard in many firms and fields in developing country.
Heard some good things about NXIVM’s Executive Success Programme...it is all relative!
my biggest problems with architecture are problems that are just endemic to the us economy.. no protection (could be fired tomorrow without any reason/process), lack of representation/bargaining, little vacation time, long hours, etc. there are some strange cultural things with architecture that i don't like (over utilization of the moving goalposts of the design process- engineers are much better at not working for free...), but those are fewer than the overarching common problems.
i'm sure i would enjoy it more in certain european countries. but the truth is our profession is suffering from existing in an extremely worker-hostile economic system and country.
"We all struggle everyday, work our asses off and keep dreaming for the day when our field will be better, high paying and satisfactory"
not dreaming of this at all. just want to make one good building
I have started to believe that architecture is tor people with money and contacts.
No matter which country you are in.
You're not wrong, but it's not *only* for those people.
and it's getting better.
historically used to be different. it can change, but needs some bigger thinking in terms of the economy.
OP, Notice that the responses here are, "there's no problem, it's your attitude" That is your answer as to why people accept it. The ones that remain either really buy into the suffering artist mentality or have the "this is fine mentality." As someone whose switched out of the profession, worked at 6 diferent firms and made it all the way to license holder before making the switch, I can say yes, the majority of architecture positions are low paid vs the effort and not even that rewarding. Most jobs outside of the profession are much more light hearted, pragmatic when it comes to pay and understand that work is work and not a passion when you are doing it for someone else. Theres much better ways to make a living and do architecture on the side of you want!
We need to convince more architecture students to get away from the profession to reduce supply. If you are not into actual buildings, honestly it is not a good career to pursuit. Academic is even more competitive than practice. But if you are into actual building and assemblies, it sure is fun when you can work on a meaningful project. Like large institutional buildings or high end residential. Watch your custom designed baby gets constructed into an actual building offers great satisfaction. You won't likely be able to afford the building and construct yourself, you cannot do those on the side once you are out of the field. Please don't call your side gig kitchen remodel architecture. Or you can be a dreamer like me. Design the custom dream house and drool all over it, but does not have 2M to make it a reality.
What is that magic job outside of the profession? Asking for a friend...
archi_ dude: well said.
Honestly, we are talking about input vs outcome ratio here. Many architects put in consistent 50+ Hrs regular weeks with massive professional knowledge and dedication. It's not like dish washing job, you do the work, you go home and you forget. We have to tread carefully against negligence and disputes as a professional and continue to improve our knowledge. 10+ yrs down the profession still making 80-90K is not unusual. If you apply the same effort and hour in other fields like IT, Engineering, Medicine, Law, Finance, Real estate, I guarantee you will get a better reward. The only other field that is worse than architecture that I know, is gaming design. They call those extra work without pay "crunching", usually near game release. Then they boot you off after the game has been released because well, our product is out the door, and next title is a few year away. Gaming design is a niche sub branch market of IT though. The similar thing about them is the passion that is fueling the culture. We are producing something we are proud of, more than money it self, and it gets taken advantage of.
archi-dude: what do you do now? i don't know many people who left architecture but didn't stay in closely related fields like construction and re dev.
Construction, which since you deal with some many people instead of drafting all day gives you a peak into many roles from brokers, agents, investors, PMs, labor, trades ect. Also I always was very pro work life balance and becuase of that butted heads with many peers so my personal life circle in college and professional life has always been people outside of the AEC industry. I find the people in the same rut as architects tend to be other creatives, graphic designers, photographers, filmmakers ect. Becuase since its grounded in peoples passion it becomes something to exploit since there is such high competition for the jobs that actually are creative and not cookie cutter
workshops.
I think what you describe is the single biggest problem for job satisfaction in young architects - that many firms put people in a slot and run them like machines without any autonomy. I was lucky to change jobs early on and end up somewhere where I was meeting with clients, consultants, brokers, etc. Being able to see your role in context and develop your own plan for your career is essential to enjoying the work. I think the reason architecture firms often are such terrible places to work isn't the nature of the industry so much as that design skill and management skill don't have much overlap - so a lot of firms end up run by terrible managers who can't recognize the importance of developing autonomous roles for all levels of staff.
i'd note too that the job which i did really enjoy was at a big AE firm that wouldn't make anyone's list of top-tier design firms, but it was well-run by people who liked good design despite having little competence at it. it's a tough balance to get work which is both interesting yet has reasonable work expectations.
my advice for anyone struggling in architecture who still feels drawn to stay would be to take a careful look for a next job that puts you in a firm run by nice people who like design but don't seem to care about it as much as about providing a good service.
Cults are always exploitative and the cult mentality starts the first day of freshman year.
oh, I just kummm for the pencil erasings, rubber flubber and what not..
yeah, I don't care, I'm an architect.
I chose architecture.
I was lost... and still am...
when in doubt, just do lines of pencil shavings, that'll wake yer as sup!
I snort the contents of dry cleaning pads all the time... maybe that’s my issue?
shavings lost 'tect, shavings. use the french curve to scrape to.
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.