Of course I know that architects don’t earn as much as other high earning white collar jobs. But I thought they maybe earned at least around £50k a year in the UK, and that would probably be enough to satisfy me. However, I was really disheartened when I read an article by the BBC which said that the average salary of an architect is £27k - £35k. I think I would enjoy working as an architect a lot, but I just can’t justify that salary. I’m not trying to be spoiled, but I have the potential of studying medicine, which has the potential of giving me a salary that is easily double that of an Architect according to these numbers. Do you think these numbers are correct?
yep, numbers are reasonably close to what others report here. The issue here is not that architects are underpaid, it's that we (most of us) overvalue ourselves compared to other professions (such as medicine). The reality is, we're not really that important but for some reason, people tend to think our snappy outfits and shiny macbook pros represent top dawg salaries. The truth is, it takes many many (read: 10+ years depending on location and projects) of real hard work outside of school in order to start making some money... but even at that point, you'll still be eclipsed by medicine and tech bros $-wise.
Moral of the story, if you're smart enough for medicine, go there. Ditto if what you're really after are dollar signs.
it's not important in today's economy.* i agree with most of this take, which reflects reality, but it's a little cynical for me. architecture has historically been pretty valuable, but like i said today the money goes to and through developers and clients first, which means, yes, they are most important relative to this question.
For a right out of school? No, that's right on (depending on where you live). Larger metro areas may be higher though.
Apr 5, 21 2:21 pm ·
·
RJ87
Other than IPAL students, no one is an architect for a few years out of school though.
"average salary of an architect is £27k - £35k" doesn't specify right out of school either, which is why I was questioning it.
Apr 5, 21 2:25 pm ·
·
natematt
Right out of school yes, but to be fair, salary in this field goes up pretty quick. Seems like within maybe 6-7 years most people are making twice what they made when they started.
Apr 5, 21 4:09 pm ·
·
msparchitect
@square "architecture has historically been pretty valuable" - no it hasn't. It has more or less been valued the same for all of civilization. Architects have never been historically significant regardless of the very few persons your history teacher told you about. It's just a profession. Please provide any research showing otherwise... people yearn for the "good old days" ignorant that these are the best the days have ever been.
In 15 years of practice I've only worked three weekends, never over a holiday, and never for free.
Apr 5, 21 3:25 pm ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
I take Tuesday mornings, Thursdays, and Friday during the day off. I'm all backards at this point. Lifestyle. I was in your vicinity last week, Chad. I could live that lifestyle.
... then again, to compare architecture to being waitstaff in a thread about money does raise some questions... I'm going to go out on a limb and question Miles food service credentials .... and I'm ready for the server-off, don't you worry.
I've worked in food service, and there are more overlaps than you might expect (or want to believe).
Apr 6, 21 12:56 pm ·
·
natematt
I used to work as a dishwasher. Got paid ~1/6th what I do now, and about 1/3 of what I did when I started in architecture, and got 0 benefits. Worked an approximate second shift often not getting home until 3am after all the post dinner service work was done.
It's not the same. not even close. I occasionally have to do the dishes at work because we take turns cleaning the kitchen in our office. I laugh to their faces at the people who complain about it.
I have yet to get onion batter spice in my eyes while working in architecture, and I think I have only had to dry out a pair of shoes once. I have put on an apron a few times though...
Architects and civil engineers used to be one and the same in ancient times. Today civil engineers enjoy relatively high pay, job security, a collegial work environment. What happened?
Apr 5, 21 11:03 am ·
·
square.
the expropriation of peasant property during the reformation -> the commodification of property/land
The architects became dirt-poor serfs and the serfs became comfortable well-off civil engineers? Not sure that is how I remember my Reformation studies.
Apr 5, 21 11:20 am ·
·
square.
no, think harder. hint: it's about the land, not the people.
"Today civil engineers enjoy relatively high pay, job security, a collegial work environment. What happened? " Engineers make decisions based on facts formulas and Math, Architects rely more on emotion, ego and "style" (the dysfunctional ones that is)
lobbyists are the most lucrative lazy asses that exist, they charge exuberant amounts of money to transport bribes between industries and legislators, and it's all legal. Drug dealers, on the other hand, live dangerous lives and most die young, but orders of magnitude wealthier than lobbyists. Prostitution can be a good compromise between the two, no pun intended.
Architecture in the US, and I suspect in may other places, can provide you the means to have a solid middle class lifestyle. If you aspire to an upper class lifestyle, regardless if you can afford it, then architecture may not be for you.
The problem is we have added a lot to our "lifestyle" and that added stuff comes with a cost. If you need to live in a city with decent transit and still own a car, have a gym membership that you use 5-15 times a year or chose to pay someone else to make your meals, your coffee, and deliver those things to you then you need to have a job that can provide the salary for all of those things.
Architects are not raking in huge salaries at first because the value we bring is not just our knowledge and skills but our experience as well. Folks need to learn how to live within their means, it is possible, many have gotten by with less.
Are kids considered a luxury nowadays? Because all the ‘lifestyle’ attributes mentioned above are not even close to the expenses parents have. A cup
of coffee to go is 5$. Babysitting is 20$ per hour (in nyc).
What's gross? My quenching? Diet Coke? Or just me in general?
Apr 6, 21 1:45 pm ·
·
tduds
I was expecting some kind of health-conscious righteousness behind the no coffee stance, but Diet Coke is a real hard tack in the other direction. Whatever floats your boat, though. We've all got our vices.
Meh, Diet Coke isn't bad for you unless you drink like a case a day. Quenching. :)
Apr 6, 21 2:58 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
Chad, are you joking? That shit is nasty.
Apr 6, 21 3:03 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I only drink coke when it's offered as part of a rye/coke... Besides that, can't stand the stuff, diet or not.
Apr 6, 21 3:13 pm ·
·
tduds
It might just be the way my taste buds work but I've always been repulsed by anything with artificial sweetener. Whether its a drink or a candy, if it's make with fake sugar the *only* thing I can taste is a sickening chemical taste. It's one of the only things I just have no tolerance for.
Apr 6, 21 3:16 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
I should have added a smiley face or something, sorry Chad. I thought of that just now while getting my afternoon pick-me-up at Dunkin Donuts. I do drink regular Coke occasionally, though I try not make a habit of it, for the sugar as much as anything. It's funny about sweeteners. My wife makes and sells herbal tea so I've learned to taste the sweetness in things like anise seed or a stevia leaf.
I've been a type 1 diabetic for 32 years so the only soda I drink is diet. To me the regular stuff tastes way too sweet. Hell, I can smell the difference between regular and diet soda. I limit myself to 32 oz a day though. Otherwise way too much caffeine!
Apr 6, 21 3:46 pm ·
·
randomised
Non, a cup as in a one person serving...the bigger the cup the worse the coffee.
Anti-trust laws prevent architects from setting uniform prices. Competiton for too few projects by too many architects drives prices down. Meanwhile megacorporations run anticompetitive virtual monopolies. Congress recently proposed exempting some small businesses from the Anti-Trust Act(!) so that they could band together to sue the big internet monopolies (Facebook, Google, etc.). If this doesn't show you how everything is upside down I don't know what to tell you.
The "value" in architecture is not in design, it is in land and physical development. Architects are only necessary for providing the necessarylegal administration and some curb appeal. Cost is the primary concern for developers striving to maximize ROI. Thus a competitive bidding process is used to select service and material providers instead of a quality review process.
Even if it's not done for developers, the ingrained behavior of "maximizing value" rules. If I buy cheaper shit I can buy more shit!
Where architects have value is in branding. Pritzker winners are showered with high-value commissions based on name recogniton and the assumed effect that will have on development ROI and/or corporate prestige (curb appeal). Thus Zaha luxury condos and anything Gehry, Mayne, etc.
Economics rule.
This is just another refection of the stratification of society. There is the 0.1% 'at the top' and so on down to the 60% that don't have $1,000 in savings. How many architecture students get economicallyweeded out after completing an expensive education that only prepares them for internship?
I'm surprised you mentioned all of these items, but left out the lack of bargaining power within the architectural labor pool. The absence of a powerful labor movement (both within and outside the industry) depresses wages and increases unpaid work hours in service of developer whims more than anti-trust laws, IMO
I guess I'll take the off-choice opinion on this one... yes we should be paid more. No, not because "look at the doctors". Architects use claims of experience to support their spot in life but in reality we just can't let go of responsibility. Take a cue from contractors, CMs, etc and let the 23 year old wing it. Pay accordingly and you'll find 23 year olds who can pull it off. Buildings aren't complicated. Grads are making $20-25/hr around here and similar engineering interns with just as little experience whose job tasks include picking up engineering redlines instead of architectural ones are walking in at 70-80k...
If more architects began to take on contracting we would all be better off. Not only in the obvious fees, but designer-led-design-build is a good project delivery method- AND it would provide the economics to engage with clients of a broader demographic (other than the top 1%)- AND would imo increase quality.
I was at a lecture where the president of the RIBA said that architects in London can expect 50k in pounds after ten years. Thank god I do not live in london.....you can earn more elsewhere. But in general the salary of an architect is quite low compared to other professions where you have to study equally as long. Go in medicine if you can do it. You can dabble in architecture when you are a dr. earning the cash for a nice house.
Apr 6, 21 4:22 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.
Concerns about money
Of course I know that architects don’t earn as much as other high earning white collar jobs. But I thought they maybe earned at least around £50k a year in the UK, and that would probably be enough to satisfy me. However, I was really disheartened when I read an article by the BBC which said that the average salary of an architect is £27k - £35k. I think I would enjoy working as an architect a lot, but I just can’t justify that salary. I’m not trying to be spoiled, but I have the potential of studying medicine, which has the potential of giving me a salary that is easily double that of an Architect according to these numbers. Do you think these numbers are correct?
yep, numbers are reasonably close to what others report here. The issue here is not that architects are underpaid, it's that we (most of us) overvalue ourselves compared to other professions (such as medicine). The reality is, we're not really that important but for some reason, people tend to think our snappy outfits and shiny macbook pros represent top dawg salaries. The truth is, it takes many many (read: 10+ years depending on location and projects) of real hard work outside of school in order to start making some money... but even at that point, you'll still be eclipsed by medicine and tech bros $-wise.
Moral of the story, if you're smart enough for medicine, go there. Ditto if what you're really after are dollar signs.
truth
it's not important in today's economy.* i agree with most of this take, which reflects reality, but it's a little cynical for me. architecture has historically been pretty valuable, but like i said today the money goes to and through developers and clients first, which means, yes, they are most important relative to this question.
Wouldn't that put the average at between 38-48k USD? That's pretty significantly off the US average, no?
For a right out of school? No, that's right on (depending on where you live). Larger metro areas may be higher though.
Other than IPAL students, no one is an architect for a few years out of school though.
"average salary of an architect is £27k - £35k" doesn't specify right out of school either, which is why I was questioning it.
Right out of school yes, but to be fair, salary in this field goes up pretty quick. Seems like within maybe 6-7 years most people are making twice what they made when they started.
@square "architecture has historically been pretty valuable" - no it hasn't. It has more or less been valued the same for all of civilization. Architects have never been historically significant regardless of the very few persons your history teacher told you about. It's just a profession. Please provide any research showing otherwise... people yearn for the "good old days" ignorant that these are the best the days have ever been.
We take half our compensation in lifestyle.
And by that I mean you have to work long hours, often weekends and holidays. Often for no compensation.
In 15 years of practice I've only worked three weekends, never over a holiday, and never for free.
I take Tuesday mornings, Thursdays, and Friday during the day off. I'm all backards at this point. Lifestyle. I was in your vicinity last week, Chad. I could live that lifestyle.
Architecture is a service industry. It's right up there with Uber drivers and waitstaff, except for the tips.
Said Miles, who is NOT an architect.
Neither are you so kindly shove off you wanker.
Ap, you're still alive?
apukeov, we're still waiting for you to post your work. But no worries, nobody is holding their breath.
I am. Please post your work, it's getting dark in here.
I also still want to see this architecture-off
... then again, to compare architecture to being waitstaff in a thread about money does raise some questions... I'm going to go out on a limb and question Miles food service credentials .... and I'm ready for the server-off, don't you worry.
I've worked in food service, and there are more overlaps than you might expect (or want to believe).
I used to work as a dishwasher. Got paid ~1/6th what I do now, and about 1/3 of what I did when I started in architecture, and got 0 benefits. Worked an approximate second shift often not getting home until 3am after all the post dinner service work was done.
It's not the same. not even close. I occasionally have to do the dishes at work because we take turns cleaning the kitchen in our office. I laugh to their faces at the people who complain about it.
I have yet to get onion batter spice in my eyes while working in architecture, and I think I have only had to dry out a pair of shoes once. I have put on an apron a few times though...
Architects and civil engineers used to be one and the same in ancient times. Today civil engineers enjoy relatively high pay, job security, a collegial work environment. What happened?
the expropriation of peasant property during the reformation -> the commodification of property/land
The architects became dirt-poor serfs and the serfs became comfortable well-off civil engineers? Not sure that is how I remember my Reformation studies.
no, think harder. hint: it's about the land, not the people.
My head hurts when I think that hard.
"Today civil engineers enjoy relatively high pay, job security, a collegial work environment. What happened? " Engineers make decisions based on facts formulas and Math, Architects rely more on emotion, ego and "style" (the dysfunctional ones that is)
^ But facts, formulas and math are just social constructs and tools of White oppression.
sir, this is a wendy's.
if you really want to make money go into politics or drug dealing, go big or go home!
I made quite a bit of money as a gigolo. Alas, I was forced into architecture when my looks faded.
lobbyists are the most lucrative lazy asses that exist, they charge exuberant amounts of money to transport bribes between industries and legislators, and it's all legal. Drug dealers, on the other hand, live dangerous lives and most die young, but orders of magnitude wealthier than lobbyists. Prostitution can be a good compromise between the two, no pun intended.
Architecture in the US, and I suspect in may other places, can provide you the means to have a solid middle class lifestyle. If you aspire to an upper class lifestyle, regardless if you can afford it, then architecture may not be for you.
The problem is we have added a lot to our "lifestyle" and that added stuff comes with a cost. If you need to live in a city with decent transit and still own a car, have a gym membership that you use 5-15 times a year or chose to pay someone else to make your meals, your coffee, and deliver those things to you then you need to have a job that can provide the salary for all of those things.
Architects are not raking in huge salaries at first because the value we bring is not just our knowledge and skills but our experience as well. Folks need to learn how to live within their means, it is possible, many have gotten by with less.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Are kids considered a luxury nowadays? Because all the ‘lifestyle’ attributes mentioned above are not even close to the expenses parents have. A cup
of coffee to go is 5$. Babysitting is 20$ per hour (in nyc).
Living in a city where the cost of living is 150% the national average probably has more to do with that than architecture as a profession.
There are other cities in the US? I consider anything beyond 9th Ave the countryside. It's why I live off 8th.
Plus the only kid I know who spent any significant time in NYC was Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone 2. We all see how he turned out.
People that pay $5 for a cup of coffee are idiots, just sayin'...
rando, depends on how big your cup is.
What is this coffee you all speak of?
BLASPHEMY
Burn the heretic!
Bah! You cannot burn me for I shal quench the flames with my diet coke! BwaHaHaHaHa!
Gross.
What's gross? My quenching? Diet Coke? Or just me in general?
I was expecting some kind of health-conscious righteousness behind the no coffee stance, but Diet Coke is a real hard tack in the other direction. Whatever floats your boat, though. We've all got our vices.
Although now that I think of it, "Quenching" is kind of a gross sounding word
vices are fun.
Meh, Diet Coke isn't bad for you unless you drink like a case a day. Quenching. :)
Chad, are you joking? That shit is nasty.
I only drink coke when it's offered as part of a rye/coke... Besides that, can't stand the stuff, diet or not.
It might just be the way my taste buds work but I've always been repulsed by anything with artificial sweetener. Whether its a drink or a candy, if it's make with fake sugar the *only* thing I can taste is a sickening chemical taste. It's one of the only things I just have no tolerance for.
I should have added a smiley face or something, sorry Chad. I thought of that just now while getting my afternoon pick-me-up at Dunkin Donuts. I do drink regular Coke occasionally, though I try not make a habit of it, for the sugar as much as anything. It's funny about sweeteners. My wife makes and sells herbal tea so I've learned to taste the sweetness in things like anise seed or a stevia leaf.
I've been a type 1 diabetic for 32 years so the only soda I drink is diet. To me the regular stuff tastes way too sweet. Hell, I can smell the difference between regular and diet soda. I limit myself to 32 oz a day though. Otherwise way too much caffeine!
Non, a cup as in a one person serving...the bigger the cup the worse the coffee.
one-person serving is 4 cups in my book.
Oh yeah regular soda is also too sweet. Never been much of a sweet tooth. I mostly drink bubbly water and beer.
I'm a huge fan of bubbly water. Not so much for the beer - jacks up my blood sugar too much. Now whiskey; that's the good stuff.
When you think about it, Whiskey is just turbocharged beer.
Non, you're being tricked in drinking warm brown caffeinated water pretending to be coffee ;)
Anti-trust laws prevent architects from setting uniform prices. Competiton for too few projects by too many architects drives prices down. Meanwhile megacorporations run anticompetitive virtual monopolies. Congress recently proposed exempting some small businesses from the Anti-Trust Act(!) so that they could band together to sue the big internet monopolies (Facebook, Google, etc.). If this doesn't show you how everything is upside down I don't know what to tell you.
The "value" in architecture is not in design, it is in land and physical development. Architects are only necessary for providing the necessarylegal administration and some curb appeal. Cost is the primary concern for developers striving to maximize ROI. Thus a competitive bidding process is used to select service and material providers instead of a quality review process.
Even if it's not done for developers, the ingrained behavior of "maximizing value" rules. If I buy cheaper shit I can buy more shit!
Where architects have value is in branding. Pritzker winners are showered with high-value commissions based on name recogniton and the assumed effect that will have on development ROI and/or corporate prestige (curb appeal). Thus Zaha luxury condos and anything Gehry, Mayne, etc.
Economics rule.
This is just another refection of the stratification of society. There is the 0.1% 'at the top' and so on down to the 60% that don't have $1,000 in savings. How many architecture students get economicallyweeded out after completing an expensive education that only prepares them for internship?
I'm surprised you mentioned all of these items, but left out the lack of bargaining power within the architectural labor pool. The absence of a powerful labor movement (both within and outside the industry) depresses wages and increases unpaid work hours in service of developer whims more than anti-trust laws, IMO
I guess I'll take the off-choice opinion on this one... yes we should be paid more. No, not because "look at the doctors". Architects use claims of experience to support their spot in life but in reality we just can't let go of responsibility. Take a cue from contractors, CMs, etc and let the 23 year old wing it. Pay accordingly and you'll find 23 year olds who can pull it off. Buildings aren't complicated. Grads are making $20-25/hr around here and similar engineering interns with just as little experience whose job tasks include picking up engineering redlines instead of architectural ones are walking in at 70-80k...
If more architects began to take on contracting we would all be better off. Not only in the obvious fees, but designer-led-design-build is a good project delivery method- AND it would provide the economics to engage with clients of a broader demographic (other than the top 1%)- AND would imo increase quality.
I have been thinking of doing that for some awhile now.
Just added design-build to the menu last week.
I was at a lecture where the president of the RIBA said that architects in London can expect 50k in pounds after ten years. Thank god I do not live in london.....you can earn more elsewhere. But in general the salary of an architect is quite low compared to other professions where you have to study equally as long. Go in medicine if you can do it. You can dabble in architecture when you are a dr. earning the cash for a nice house.
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.