Can you explain a bit more what you mean by concept development? What does that entail and how would somebody just starting out find that type of opportunity?

I'm a student currently and I love the concept/design development aspect of my studio courses and internship experience but, as others are saying, some of the more technical stuff feels like it kind of takes over

Have a look at: https://www.demannenvanschuim.nl/?lang=en or https://blauwhoed.nl/en it is about coming up with concepts for real estate projects for developers.

I think it depends on the environment you work in as well. For me I am used to the rigorous and time consuming work that NEEDS to be done. What I am NEVER going to get used to is the shithead developer mentality a lot of these big corporate firms have. I've had experience in both tiny and large scale firms doing all sorts of projects form a designer position. One thing I learned is that I can no longer deal with outdated policies, top down bashing over the head with unrealistic deadlines and just sheer ego that comes with putting up tall glass and metal collage boxes like Hudson yards.

i’m younger (20) so i would like to know how are you guys able to pay for such expensive art schools and for a risky degree

"do what you love" = bullshit needs to be said on every forum related to working in architecture.

Agree 100%. I'd put the "fun" parts at closer to 20%. If I can have fun at work for an hour or two each day, I can get through the drudgery. Long ago I was into reading self-help books that were all about "do what you love" and came across one that shocked me--the point was, "do what you can make the most money at in the least amount of time and don't expect your source of income to also be your source of fulfillment." It's a Boomer way of thinking, but despite that I think it's correct. That said, if you absolutely hate 95% of your job, then maybe you should look elsewhere.

"do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life" could be read literally to mean if you simply follow your passion you'll be unemployed. i know for someone like me whose passion is sitting outside drinking tea reading crap online that's probably true...

I grew up in a house where work was seen as work. There was none of this "dream job" talk because such a thing was so outside of the realm of possibility for my parents, they just figured work was work and not a path to happiness or anything but a paycheque. And I'm so glad about that - I see the huge disappointment in people when they realise they've been lied to. Or even worse, when somebody refuses to accept anything less than their perfect dream job, and so are constantly disappointed and questioning everything. The concept of enjoying one's work is younger than many of the posters here. For thousands of years, work was an exchange of labour for money, and that hasn't changed.

For thousands of years, work was an exchange of labour for money

not exactly; the wage laborer is a pretty modern thing, at least as a widespread condition. for example, medieval serfs rarely made money (and worked much less than we do now), and a lot of labor was compelled through various forms of slavery.

your point is still a good one, though i would hope as we progress as a society, and generate more wealth than ever, we can move beyond work as drudgery (for everyone), or at least alleviate it a bit.

An hour or two *each* day?! We should all be so lucky.

Wood Guy your comment reminded me of a snarky tweet I made recently:

"For me, that's architecture. A good 75% of day to day architecture is slogging through difficult, frustrating, and unrewarding work to get the job done. But the other 25% is so personally fulfilling that I can push through knowing the end result is worth it"

I appreciate the earnestness of this viewpoint, and overall I'd say it's decent advice.  But it's also a very drab and depressing rationalization of how to endure the drudgery of work. Let's be generous and assume 20%-25% fulfillment is correct. That's a staggeringly low percentage of ones entire working career. So we go into the office (pandemics not included) 1 day a week for our own benefit, and the other 4 days are only to benefit the bosses? And for how many years?  Yeesh.

"I grew up in a house where work was seen as work. There was none of this "dream job" talk because such a thing was so outside of the realm of possibility for my parents, they just figured work was work and not a path to happiness or anything but a paycheque"

As did I, and it's why I think for some of us it's easier to soberly view work that is done in exchange for currency as a form of drudgery (not trying to be dramatic, just honest) that is necessarily done as means of keeping ones head above water. There are no illusions of finding spiritual fulfillment or meaning in work for people who grow up working class, it's just something you do to keep yourself fed, clothed, and have a warm bed to sleep in.

Sure, you can try to find ways to whistle while you work, but you'll still need to find avenues outside of your desk to motivate you to eventually buy your way out of wage slavery. Some days I like my job, some days I merely tolerate it, and other days I despise it to the point of not wanting to draw lines or answer any emails or sit in any more endless coordination meetings.

But if I had the financial security and means to not have to work in exchange for money, I probably wouldn't, and I think many people feel this way. Working class people own this feeling of contempt for drudgery (and their management/bosses), but its mostly the petite bourgeois middle class people who endlessly search for meaning from their labor by feverishly trying to climb slippery career ladders where they ultimately confuse rank and position with their sense of "purpose"

Totally agree, newguy. I bought into the company to be my own boss, which comes with its own, different set of stresses. I could easily (mentally, not financially) retire if I had the means.

really interesting perspective, though a little different for me. i grew up in a somewhat working class home, and have family members that were teachers (i realize this is a job that straddles working class/professional class), but they found a ton more fulfillment from their work than i do in architecture. so while i think there are jobs out there that are incredibly meaningful and fulfilling, the vast majority are like you describe.

I currently work in commercial (multi family) which is horribly developer driven and very cheap and uninventive. I did get a few months working on a single family residential project which I enjoyed much more. I was also working with a different boss, but the whole thing just seemed a lot more relaxed and more collaborative with the client than what I was used to in commercial. I’ve also done some work with sustainability residential construction research which I loved (non design role, all research, marketing, and some web design). I’ve just found there’s not a huge market for that kind of work in my area. The market is very tough right now to find many entry level positions to try something different. And I’ve also heard horror stories of people working is residential and how the clients can just be brutal all the time, so it’s hard to judge if that will even be worth it.

Commercial work is financially driven. The game there is how to do subtle things that make the building look nicer without blowing the budget. There are some days where I look at the end product & it just is what it is. But then certain projects come around where you have the opportunity to do something nice. Certain projects keep the lights on, other projects are what we put on the website. All depends on the budget, that's how the world works.

Great Contribution to the Profession - worth having

Academia & the vast majority of the profession are two very different things. Most kids in school think the profession is all museums, airports & high rises. No one talks about the projects the other 98% of firms work on.

i think they used to be much closer, but academia has been too slow to adapt, and the profession accepts any and all technological change/progress without question.

Architecture school prepares you for work in an architecture firm in the way that a degree in literature would prepare you for work at a bookbinding shop.

Love it

That said I loved academia. Arch school taught me to think like a designer. But I learned more about how to be a professional from working in kitchens & construction sites than I ever did in a design studio. Both are important, imo.

Architecture school prepares you for work in an architecture firm in the way that a degree in literature would prepare you for work at a bookbinding shop.

It was never my experience, but I didn't go to school in the US.  Beyond the practical internships working in real life while in school, I had a couple of studios where you had to get to detail 1'-0" = 6" or so. Some people did it inversely, designed the whole project around the detail.

Free advice is worth exactly what you pay for. If I quit, are you going to step up to pay my bills? No? Then let's get back to reality. Although your intentions are good, you're not really helping.

Yes, I think the biggest shock to me when entering the profession was the technical work. I don’t think I fully understood that my technical and engineering courses in college were what I was going to be doing every day all day so I never paid much attention. I literally always thought someone else just did it. I was definitely naive, and I wish I had read up on the non-starchitect profession more.
But yes the design architecture jobs are so competitive, assuming many people who went through architecture school were like me and didn’t really understand the full extent of the industry. I never even knew what a CD set was until 2 years ago when I started. I have always loved the graphics of architecture (board layouts, illustrative renderings, site analysis diagrams) and could literally do that all day. Moving into a more graphics/tech field sounds so appealing, but I do find it such a hard decision to make with so much time, money, and energy already invested into this. It’s hard to decide if giving it another year and getting my license is worth it, or just jumping ship before I lose my mind!

Yes, I think the biggest shock to me when entering the profession was the technical work. I don’t think I fully understood that my technical and engineering courses in college were what I was going to be doing every day all day so I never paid much attention. I literally always thought someone else just did it. I was definitely naive, and I wish I had read up on the non-starchitect profession more.
But yes the design architecture jobs are so competitive, assuming many people who went through architecture school were like me and didn’t really understand the full extent of the industry. I never even knew what a CD set was until 2 years ago when I started. I have always loved the graphics of architecture (board layouts, illustrative renderings, site analysis diagrams) and could literally do that all day. Moving into a more graphics/tech field sounds so appealing, but I do find it such a hard decision to make with so much time, money, and energy already invested into this. It’s hard to decide if giving it another year and getting my license is worth it, or just jumping ship before I lose my mind!

Don't have the perfect answer for you. But it definitely sounds like you only like the design and graphic aspects. Large firm design position is definitely the way to go if you can land one. Don't be afraid to jump if it is not for you. But also be strategic about it. Not just quit and thinking you will suddenly have a bright future in UX/UI. I can't tell you much about the transition, I don't even know exactly what UX/UI do other than basic understanding of graphic user interface design for apps.

"doing *good* design"...I work with some designers that don't know squat about detailing and construction science and a lot of their design gets cut out because it's simply not feasible (usually because of budget.)

No, you're thinking of Jay1122. . .

I like whining more. But in all seriousness I didn’t intend to come across that way. I’m just realizing more each day that many people I talk to, even within my own firm and network, dread coming to work for a range of reasons. The root of my question was me trying to figure out if maybe I’m just not at a firm that fits me. Every company will have their own downsides but without getting into specifics of why my current company may not be the best fit for me personally, I’m holding out hope that maybe there’s a better role for me elsewhere. I do love WHY I do what I do, just not the day to day.

Don't let Balkins dunk on you. He has no grounds to call you out as being a whiner, and just because people suffer in silence doesn't mean they love their fucking jobs. Most people are scared of becoming homeless if they express anything other than adulation and false pleasure at work. It's bullshit and it needs to fucking stop. We love a good movie where someone says IM MAD AS HELL AND IM NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANY MORE while telling real life folks that they're just whiners. GTFOH with that two-faced bullshit.

To address your actual point: "I’m also hesitant to keep with my current career trajectory, as I will inevitably be forced into a PM role soon." 

This is real. This is bad. This is not a good way to run a firm (ARE YOU LISTENING ARCHITECTURE?) Hire PMs that didn't spend 5-15 years learning to design if you want someone good at Excel, client ass-kissing, billing, and scheduling. They don't need a fucking Arch degree. THEY DO NOT NEED AN ARCHITECTURE DEGREE. 

 Architecture firms hire HR people and Accountants that don't have Arch degrees, but we insist that PMs need one. So. Fucking. Dumb.

Is anyone here a PM or know any PMs in arch firms that don’t have an arch background? I know plenty of people that seem to have the perfect skillset for it, but every PM I’ve ever known lives and breathes architecture so it’s difficult for me to picture.

Overall I'm very happy with my professional life.

As am I. That doesn't mean (and I don't think you were suggesting this) there isn't room for improvement in the way the profession handles its humans.

i have a good career. always moments of grass is greener envy or the dissatisfaction after a project/job/initiative don't work out - but on the whole i'm satisfied. or to put it this way, it's far less distressing, uncomfortable, and profoundly rewarding than being a parent. the reality is that life itself is an unpleasant process that's nevertheless worthwhile if you follow your values.

Is anyone here a PM or know any PMs in arch firms that don’t have an arch background? I know plenty of people that seem to have the perfect skillset for it, but every PM I’ve ever known lives and breathes architecture so it’s difficult for me to picture.

i've worked with PM's who have civil engineering backgrounds. It would be hard to do the job without some professional knowledge of building design.

/\ This is really good advice.

There's a wide range of residential work, so it depends. But consider that most people can't afford to build a new home & most homes in the US look pretty mediocre. But higher end residential focuses a lot more on finishes & finish level details. Mostly because of the millwork involved.

I started my career in custom residential & moved to commercial developer work about 6 years ago. There is still a lot of "technical" work in SFR, & like I said above it's still got it's fair share of BS. But you're not too far off in that there are some fundamental differences.. The major difference to me is motivation. Most commercial architecture is primarily motivated by finance, whether that's an improvments budget for an owner client or an ROI for a developer client. With residential (and to a lesser extent small commercial - restaurants and small shops), there's more of an emotional / experiential motivator. It doesn't always lead to *better* design but I find the conversations much more interesting, and the possibilities much wider. Of course exceptions exist on both sides (I've dealt with home renovation clients who are obsessed with the bottom line & little else, and developers who are very interested in driving good design) but as a general rule it's true enough

Personally I'd advise every young architect to (if they have the option) work in a small residential firm and a large commercial firm in the first decade of their career.

for the OP, i think the issue to consider is less what sector you're working in and more how much you respect the work. look for firms doing projects you admire and i think you'll find it much more engaging and worth pushing to get involved at higher level design work. if you're only doing drudgery work it's because no one trusts you to be comfortable leading on the design - which is understandable if you don't like the work the firm does.

i've worked commercial my entire career and love it btw - but i enjoy the challenges of getting an appealing design to fit within a developers constraints. obviously different architects have different goals.

SOO much ennui

A post ironically written by someone who's not an architect.

Meh, semantics. They're doing the work of an architect and we all know what they meant.

Agreed on the meh front, just thought the headline with a sad picture being on the front page was ironic. Like I said in another thread, its just an involuntary twitch whenever I see people saying it. Wasn't meant to be malicious.

Your last posts were in October 2014 though...

Ha, yes — you are right! It seems I made a posting trying to source (gasp) linoleum floor that year. I should have specified, "the last time I commented upon another thread".

My previous (and long since deleted) account was from 1997 - 2006.

Cheers!

Or pursue a career in academic. Continue to enjoy what you enjoyed as a student. Research, writing, design ,theory, etc. It is all good except its a very very competitive field. A lot of design critics are backed with impressive design portfolio or their own practices. Professors with PhDs. I would love to be in a studio and explore architecture without boundary again with the technical skills gained from actual practices. Not just churn out code compliant boxes for clients.

You can still explore architectural design and push the boundaries of design while still complying with building code. You just need to find the right firm to work for.

Chad, You are correct. But do keep in mind, A vast majority of actual projects have very limited design flexibility. A few sectors I can think of, Warehouses, most public civil projects, developer/low income housing, K-12, ordinary residential, most renovation projects. Only big sectors like Museum, higher Ed, rich corporate clients like google apple, have a much larger budget and flexibility. We all know where those project types end up. When someone takes the good project/firm, someone else has to take the bad one. Simply have everyone to go for the good one is not possible. The field is already competitive, only 50% students enter the field with available positions. Also, We have to discuss the level of creativity available in actual practice, it is a relative term. For some, having some offsetting boxes and glass curtainwalls = creative. For me, need something like the rolex learning center to be called creative and boundary pushing. Which is very unlikely to be done in actual practice. That design did not had budget in mind.

^ Excellent perspective from cbiii

"push through to get your license and then decide what you want to do. at least you could say you were a legit architect and not just someone who fizzled after architecture school. I think having license (current or past) would help establish some credibility/respect with future employers or clients if you venture into another field."

Trying to answer this on my phone... Anyway, this is pretty bad advice. I love hiring architects for non-architecture roles and not once has having a license stood out in any way. There is no credibility or respect that inherently comes from having a license. If you do not see yourself practicing architecture do not get your license. Also this perspective of "not just fizzled after architecture school" says more about the OPs view towards licensure as a status symbol than an actual tool.

"push through to get your license and then decide what you want to do....I think having license (current or past) would help establish some credibility/respect with future employers or clients if you venture into another field."

I hardly view licensure as a sense of status or entitlement. I merely see it as having completed a first and significant measure of professional knowledge and discipline … and that would help boost (more than it would hurt) one’s resume for an employer or field that may value those particular things. I admired my sister for attempting a marathon and the time and effort to train for it, and would have admired her the same had she not been able to finish. But I admired here that much more when she crossed the finish line.

Licensure is a gatekeeping tool to constrain supply of regulated services. Most employers outside of practice do not understand what it means to be licensed.

One of the values (in most states) is being an architect, as opposed to a designer. That professional distinction is legitimate and worth something (to most). I do agree that it doesn't make sense for everyone in the OP's spot to "push through" and get licensed. A lot depends on how far in one is. But to say it has no value is just false. It may not matter to this or that employer; fine. But it's a big world out there.

My main point is that you shouldn't strive to get your license because of what other people think. It's a decision you should make if you seek to practice architecture. If you do strive to get your license knowing that you do not want to practice architecture do not expect other industries to intuit some intrinsic value in a certification. GCs have less hurdles and own more risk from their license and no one outside of GCs would understand the value of that. I've talked to a lot of frustrated folks who are licensed and will never exercise it professionally. The highest leverage you have with the license is starting your own practice or joining another firm that will pay you a 25%+ salary bump because of it.

^ Fair enough. I agree that it would be nuts to start and complete the registration process for someone going into banking or insurance or retail, etcetera.

licensure is definitely much more of a tool to supply constraint than to confer value.

excellent long answer, the suggestion to get outside of situations where you feel stuck is so important.

This is my life.

thanks bb, I feel heard

98% of architects never do your last paragraph and get stuck in the first, better to get paid elsewhere.

That's right. If you are designing Carl's Jrs (the burger place), you might think twice .

I won't repeat what tintt wrote, because this is exactly how I feel. I do side projects, that is the thing that I find sustaining, and is the thing that is making me be a better architect. I'd do that full-time, but I don't want to chase work. I have a steady, and lovely client, and if I get work from that association, I'm very picky. I'm also working toward other things; devdesbuild, this will be the jump.

Guess I'm in the 2% then. That can't be right.

OK Ryan.

Somebody is an optimist.

Not to be a dick but you're not an unlicensed architect. You should know that.

you're either unlicensed or an architect...not that it matters.

as a non-stamp-collecting stamp-collector, let me tell you how ya'll should be collecting stamps.

Doesn't thinking in "30 diffferent dimensions" count for anything?

if i drive in michigan with my illinois license am i an unlicensed driver? can you be considered a driver even if unlicensed?

Donald Rumsfeld was the unlicensed architect of the Iraq War.

i can neither confirm nor deny that i am an unlicensed architect.

You can tell us square.  We won't judge.

Semantics no longer. I pointed out the the author of this post called themselves an Architect without being one & received the worlds supply of downvotes. I see we have moved into the phase of this thread where we can point that out again, I shall rejoice.

I recently graduated and decided not to go to graduate school for the time being. I grew up in a custom furniture shop, helped my dad with renovations, and always had a liking for architecture ever since I was 10. Most people in this forum seem to think that we young, aspiring architects don't want to learn or have to deal with the technical stuff, however, I find the detailing and technical side of architecture to be the most exciting aspect of a design. My issue with the profession has been the corporate, cubicle lifestyle that comes with pursuing architecture. I am at the point now where I'd much rather be on-site doing the hard, back-breaking work instead of sitting in front of a computer every day. Then again this may just be the situation I am in now, but it's hard to tell if all firms or practices are this way or not.

Intern Architect, Designer, Architectural Associate?

According to the purists on here you could not use the term 'architectural associate' or 'intern architect'. I think 'emerging professional'- as if the employee is some kind of grasshopper larvae in late-stage development is as far as they would go.

'Designer' sounds fine, but 'architectural designer' is a no-no. 

"Architecture degree holder from Notre Dame University, 2007' would work, but that's a little wordy. 

I call the unlicensed worker-bee in my firm the principal.

In practice I use the term "designer" or sometimes "residential designer" but I'm often confused with interior designers, graphic designers or others who also use the term "designer."

There's no reason I shouldn't be able to use the term "architectural designer" other than architects can't prove their value over unlicensed designers so they have to commandeer the word architect to make themselves feel important. I get it--if I had spent all of that time and money to earn a title that is not valued in the marketplace, I'd be jealous too.

Our office bills them out as Production Staff.

We've got 4 tiers of billables for design professionals:

1.Principal

2. Project Manager

3. Project Architect

4. Production Staff

Some people try to come up with a fancy title for themselves to feel better on their LinkedIn profile, but those are the four tiers it boils down to. Pretty simple.

Volunteer - using the term architectural in the title of non licensed people was made legal a few years ago. Even AIA changed their stance on the words use.

RJ87 - We have all of those but also have architect in-between PA and production staff. We also have Architectural Intern. All titles except for principal have 1, 2, or 3 behind the name. That's only for internal use though to denote experience so it's not part of our 'title'.

Yeah we're only about 17 people so there's not much use for the I, II, III experience notations but I know those are pretty popular in larger firms. What's the difference between an architect & a project architect to y'all? For us a PA is the same day to day as Production Staff, it's just that when you get licensed you move from hourly to salary & the pay takes a jump up.

My assumption is that you're going to say PA's run projects & are supervised by a PM.

Edit: I should also note that we have some billing rates for the design department folks too, but that's a different thing.

We're only a ten person firm. The 1,2,3 is just for accounting purposes.

I gotcha, I enjoy this size of firm. Anywhere from 10-20 is a sweet spot for me I think.

But you can see why I don't put much stock into the whole "what do we call them" debate. We only have 1 title that actually uses the term Architect within the office. Now outside of the office, I just introduce myself as an architect because it's easier than explaining it otherwise (I bounce back & forth as a PM for smaller projects & a PA for larger ones). It's just cleaner than saying "I'm a _____ at an architectural firm".

I get why people look for a more elegant answer than saying they're production staff at an architectural firm, but it's still the answer.

Chad, it depends on your jurisdiction whether using "architectural" or some derivation of "architect" in the title is legal or not. AIA can soften their stance all they want, but they don't make the laws. Your state of Colorado, does indeed have a softer stance than other jurisdictions on this, but it is limited to unlicensed people working under the supervision of an architect as they pursue licensure. Other jurisdictions are not so lenient.

EA - Correct. I wasn't referring to anyone not working under an architect. Thanks for bringing that up - I totally forgot to mention that part!

RJ87 - You're correct about PA and PM roles. PA's run projects and the PM's oversee things. The PA's in our office also have the added responsibilities of scheduling, and QC'ing drawings.

Being in a smaller sized firm we all do a bit of everything though.  It's common for PM and PA duties to overlap and change responsibilities.  

Everyone in our firm has their strengths and we all complement each others abilities to try to work as a team.  

How the terms "PA" and "PM" are used varies wildly from firm to firm, at least in the firms I've worked for.

The definition of an Architect has changed. Now it's called, a puppet on a string. Why would anyone want to become an architect when the building technologies are 100 years behind in the past. Anything worth building will not be recognized by the owner since they are not professionals. Gloria Steinem: “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”

I don't think the issue is so much about architecture, I do love architecture, and I do enjoy designing absolutely anything on a building, on any project, it's a great hobby as per #geezertect's point below. The issue is that architect can't be a job for those who also want to buy their home, raise kids, put money to the side, have a normal life. And actually one can't say I haven't tried, having worked for about twenty different practices, large and small, succesful and more humble, and in four different countries. I hear the board claiming that they aim to protect architecture, it means that they just put building before people, they don't protect architects, they dont even protect the title.

at least the value of all that debt will decrease too!

It's a great hobby, but a shitty profession for all the reasons cited above.

Your "experience" is certainly not main stream and it appears your account here only exists to repeat the same sad song... over and over. Perhaps it's not the profession, maybe it's just you've had bad luck or have a different expectation (or are just bad... who knows?).

I actually laughed at that when I went back up and read his username.

Gloria Steinem: “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”

Speak for yourself. I can do finished carpentry, concrete, lay brick, frame wood studs, and weld. 

 My clients hire me for my creativity and understanding of bundling science and construction. Clients may have ideas regarding what they want but I help them make those ideas a reality. 

Also -  I work for the client, not the contractor. Unless I'm doing design build- which I avoid except for a few trusted contractors.  

My career and experience differs quite a bit from yours.

It could be because you're not an architect and have been treated poorly?  Is that why you're so bitter?

Chad, this greg fellow only exists here to repeat the same sad song. Looks like they can't get over that perhaps it's not us, maybe it's him.

there are lots of shit jobs in healthcare fwiw. i'd rather be an architect than a home health aide or even a nurse.

Edit: Never mind, it's not worth debating.

I can do you one better.. having clients who's looking to sue you at the end of the project..

Haha, yes I have had that too!

Our office has been sued and given new projects by the same client on the same day.  For some, it's just business.

What is an “EAC team?”

Engineering architecture construction? Eastern Arizona college? Environmental analysis and communications? East African community?

Hi cynnamon, about a year after I wrote this post, I did end up changing jobs, started working at a different architecture firm in my city. I kept going on and off trying to study for other career paths (coding, UX design, web design), and I explored doing a coding bootcamp or possibly a masters in a different field. Went to therapy for a bit to help me process these emotions and all this confusion about a big potential life change, which I strongly recommend to anyone who is financially able to and in a similar situation. I really like my new job a lot more - it’s a bigger company which helps to take care of some of the issues I had at my old job, the people are a lot nicer and kinder, the type of work allows me to work with kinder clients. I’ve being working on my AREs. I will say I am finding myself at that one year itch, wondering once again if this career path is right for me or not. I would like to keep my options open as I move forward through life - I’m realizing as someone who changes my mind often I need to just expect I’ll want a job (or maybe even career) change every few years to experience something new and different. Overall things are much better for me now!

Let me guess - you couldn't find a position as an architect.

On a side note - the advice you give is horrible.  Working in corporate facility type jobs (not a career) are low paying, unstable, and have horrible long term prospects.  

In addition - the growth rate for architectural graduates is 5% compared to the last six years where the growth rate was nearly zero.  New graduates is not keeping up with the demand that is needed for new architects.  

Chad, I think things are a bit harder for fresh grads these days than some of us who have been in the business 10-15 years...

With the stagnant salaries and high inflation, I do not think it is worthwhile for a young grad to go into a traditional architecture role. Sure, there are many job openings these days, but the pay-scale and rate of pay growth is really not commensurate with on-ground realities, at least in big cities. 

Also, I do not think that corporate facility planning roles are dead-end, they do offer a much better life-work ratio and steady paycheck.

I don't think salaries are stagnant for new grads - they are being paid more now than three years ago. As for pay rate and growth with 'on-ground realities in big cities' I assume you mean the amount of work required isn't commensurate with the pay. If that's the case then move to a new firm. You don't have to work in a big city where there are large amount of new grads trying to work in the same 2-3 huge firms. 

Finally, your impression of corporate facility planning roles are not correct. I know of plenty of such jobs (not careers) that pay poorly, have bad hours, no work life balance, and have poor job security.

As I've said many times on this site it's all about the firm you work with (NOT FOR).  

FWIW I know plenty of people who work in corporate facility positions that are paid out the ass with 5-10 years experience. I don't have a foot in this argument however. I was recruited by a few tech companies that were looking for facility architects (Tesla, Rivian) that paid upwards of 120k-150k for 5-7 years experience but I was not willing to move to the middle of nowhere. Those positions are MUCH more volatile of course and when times get hard those people are the first to get cut.

The corporate facility positions I was referring to where the store planners that marksoroko mentioned. Those type of positions don't pay well, ect. Being a facility architect - that's a different story and is not the same as a facility planner.  

"There are more architects in the USA than in China" Then guess who's doing most of the architecture in China.

Scandinavians?

No, no, it's the French!

What about Icelanders?  

I give up, who is it JCL-1?  ;)

It’s never the French, or it’s always. J’oublie. Sacrament.

Chad, I think your info/outlook may be very regional, if I had to hazard a guess. I appreciate you being a cheer leader for this profession, but facts are facts.

For example, a recent grad in LA used to make around 35k in 2003, and they probably make around 50k now, in 2023 - so a growth of 40%. At the same time inflation has grown to around 56% in LA. Not to mention a much more saturated market (architects dont die off lol).

So, not sure if financially it is a prudent decision for a youngin to stay in architecture. 

sameolddoctor - no one's pay has kept up with inflation since the mid 90's. This isn't limited to architecture. As for the saturated market - that's a regional thing. Overall the amount of fresh grands and architects has been going DOWN since 2008.

Wrong, the pay for tech has only gone up since the mid 90s, and fresh law grads get paid at least a 100% more than what they were paid 20 years ago. I really understand the passion for the profession, but to say it is a sustainable business in today's times is just not true. As i said before, people like myself with 15-20 years of experience have it slightly easier than fresh grads.

You site tech and law as two of thousands of careers that make more than they where 20 years ago. The same applies for architecture.  Here are some actual numbers according the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Look it up.  

Fresh law grads make 5% more than they did in 1995 when adjusted for inflation. 

Fresh tech grads make 15% more than they did in 1995 when adjusted for inflation. 

The average fresh architectural grad makes 10% more than they did in 1995 when adjusted for inflation.

I'm not saying that architectects shouldn't be paid more.  I'm saying that with the exception of rare few most people's pay hasn't kept up with inflation.  It's not just architecture.  

Chad, I just spend some time on the BLS website and I can't find the data you share--any chance you could point me in the right direction?

The statistics you share note "when adjusted for inflation" seems to contradict your stated viewpoint. I wonder how the comparison to inflation compares to the change in the consumer price index--i.e., the actual cost of living. I know that the apartment I rented near Boston in the mid-90s now goes for about three times what it did then, but I'm sure pay has not increased that much.

Simply search the site - that's how I found the pay over the years.

 Stating that pay increases are adjusted for inflation doesn't contradict my viewpoint. Figures have to be adjusted for inflation - if not someone in 1995 would make $38k a year and someone in 2023 would make $75k a year showing a nearly 50% increase in wages without taking into account the purchasing power of said pay. 

It's important to note that just because pay is going up that doesn't mean that it's keeping up with inflation.  That's not what this was about though. Someold said that pay for entry level architects hasn't gone up since the mid 90's.  Someold went on to say that every other profession has had their entry level pay go up .  That's not true. To be fair almost no one's pay has kept up with inflation since the mid 90's.   

2003 - Birmingham AL, $35k, had options in Atlanta for roughly the same, generally not a strong candidate (more in construction) so I know better fresh grads at the firm I was at and friends at others who were at $38-42... I was definitely the low ball. My salary increased by leaps and bounds each year though, as I got more utilized in CA quickly and generally fell into my niche.

At our firm now, we can't get anyone in the door for less than $70k.  Atlanta GA.  No fresh grad is hitting $80 though, so tightish range.  Let's say $5k difference across the band.  However, the difference between Arch 1-3 is very minimal, so way less incentive and way more frustration to work through the lowest rungs of their career.  

so 20 years, 2003-2023, roughly 100% increase. (anecdotal obviously)

bls.gov CPI inflation calculator, 35k in May 2003 is now 58k in May of 2023... so stands to say fresh grads now are killing it compared to myself. I'll also add the mentality has definitely changed. I was willing to try everything and do anything assigned to me and totally interested in learning the ins/outs. I get that most grads won't necessarily become designers (Chad excluded) and therefore have to go through an architectural personality crisis if they're going to stay in the profession. That said I'm still amazed as the resident technical/code/CD/CA back-of-house guru in-office at how many eye rolls or outright refusals I get from younger staff when they get assigned to tasks/roles more in my wheelhouse. I've had quite a few hard conversations along the lines of "no, you didn't draw the short straw, if you had what it takes you'd still be designing. This isn't a death sentence to your design career, but you really need to view these next few months on project X as an opportunity to learn the nuts and bolts of architecture and hopefully that will influence your design and support where you want your career to be."

Ask to be given another task that interests you. As an employer I would be fine with that.

very generous of you, employer!

Please share some more wisdom from your enlightened perspective on the "spoiled" generation. Maybe throw in a few barbs about "welfare queens" while you are at it. You are on a roll.

Larchinect wrote:

"Interesting thread." 

It's also informative. 

“As an employer I can see the 'next generation' carrying the mentality of 'do what makes the most money and takes the least amount of time...dont try to get fulfillment from your job...' “

 I’m 45 years old. I’ve been in this profession for about 20 years. I have not encountered this with the ‘next generation’ 

Also, what type of firm do you run?  How many team members do you have?

“The paradigm today is a job is just a job, A lot of people are punching clocks and wondering why they're still miserable. They don’t ask questions, show no initiative, and generally do as little as possible to not get fired, which is quite a little these days.” 

Again, I’ve never encountered this. I have encountered that people are expecting to be paid fairly for the work they do and maintain work / life balance. 

"Thing is--you're only cutting yourself short. You're still at your desk for 8 hours a day. Even if you're working from home and able to pretend to work for 4 hours and do only 4 hours of actual work, those 4 hours add up--you might as well spend them doing something meaningful." 

That’s a lot to unpack in one run on sentence. Are you trying to say since you’re going to be unhappy for eight hours you might as well be unhappy for 10 or 12?  I ask because doing 'meaningful' work won't necessarily make someone happy.  

“If you're drafting trash chutes, study it. Learn how to make an awesome one or even improve the design. If you're feeling pigeon holed, say something. Ask to be given another task that interests you. As an employer I would be fine with that. “

First off it’s not a task. It’s part of the design process. Second, would you be willing to actually give the team member a new part of the design process? 

 “Theres always way more to be done than can be done, try to pitch in and take some pride in whatever you're doing. Humans need to work, to contribute something. “ 

Taking pride in your work doesn’t mean you need to work more than 40 hours a week. 

 “I like to think we're all making the world a better place. If you're not, go work somewhere else.”

 I agree. If your not happy at the firm you work with then you should move to a different one.

In the last 5 years I dont think ive ever asked any employee to work more than 40 hours.

Oops hit post by accident..wanted to add

Oops hit post by accident..wanted to add

Wanted to add…over the last two years I’ve watched employees regularly come in after 9, go home for an hour in the middle of the day and still leave at 4:45. As an employer, its tough. It took us nearly 6 months to hire our latest person and outmr productivity is the lowest its ever been while work keeps coming over the transom. Im not seeing much passion or drive.

Honestly, this whole comment screams that you don’t understand the “current generation”

Honestly, this whole comment screams that you don’t understand the “current generation”

Larchstein wrote: 

“Wanted to add…over the last two years I’ve watched employees regularly come in after 9, go home for an hour in the middle of the day and still leave at 4:45. As an employer, its tough. It took us nearly 6 months to hire our latest person and outmr productivity is the lowest its ever been while work keeps coming over the transom. Im not seeing much passion or drive.” 

It might be your firm and its leadership style. I’m not encountering this with our interns. May I ask what type of work your firm does? It could be that your new staff simply isn’t interested?

we've got some small consistent $2-5M const cost work that the firm was excited to take on to fill the gaps between large projects and give junior designers more ownership in the design. The idea was that select people would get the opportunity to go from start to finish and own the entire thing. The general take from arch1-3s is no one wants them, they're too small, bland, boring, "not design" and they all want to be on the $300M tower, but oh yeah, they don't want to do the bathrooms for the $300M tower either.

A little (or a lot) cynical, but you're not wrong either. 95% of us have no formal business training at all, and yeah, we went to school to learn to design, not how to get clients. It's to be expected and needs to change to keep up with our changing economy.

I’m be interested to hear what you think a growing industry is. Personally, I left “architecture” after I got all my hours to become licensed. Got into real estate brokerage to learn lead generation and sales (aka how to get business). Real estate is very little in terms of out of pocket expenses and barrier to entry, but has a very high attrition rate due to no
clients = no food on the table.

Continued. I’m now getting back into “architecture” but from the design/build angle. My first project will be a self-developed spec home to show my target clients (small scale developers) I know how to get a project done that looks good, has high margins and gets done on time. Once I sell this spec home I got another one lined up and then I’ll roll these into a sixplex. My services will be customizable spec homes and low rise multi family, doing mainly design, project management (herding subs) and construction administration. To eliminate low time value drafting I’ll be relying on premade plans to avoid reinventing the wheel and one-off detailing. I’ll be releasing my journey on YouTube. Currently still weeding my lots but construction should start mid July. I got into architecture to build stuff, not be glorified desk jockey. I’m fed up with architecture schools purposefully separating us from “mere builders” by focusing completely on design, when at the end of the day all they create are graphic designers that have no clue how a building actually gets put together. Once I’m situated my goal is to teach architects/designers how to build a house from start to finish - not sure how yet.

Do you follow John Anderson? He does a lot of education around cost-effective, thoughtful, small development. Same with Ross Chapin.

In regards to your goal of how to teach architects how to build and house . . . are you not sure how to teach or not sure how to build a house? I belive you mean the former but wanted to make sure. 

On a related note it sounds like you've experienced some horrible architectural schools with poor education and attitudes. That's unfortunate.

@wood guy No I haven’t heard of John Anderson. My initial google search points me towards an architect in Chico CA? Is this the same John Anderson? If not, I’d like to see his work.

@wood guy No I haven’t heard of John Anderson. My initial google search points me towards an architect in Chico CA? Is this the same John Anderson? If not, I’d like to see his work.

@chad miller Both. And yes, this stems from my graduate school education. I got my BS in Biology. Graduated in 2009, went to grad school for Landscape Arch, then double mastered with Arch with a certificate in Real Estate. My education was entirely focused on “the big picture.” While I did have classes that focused on detailing and structures, nothing prepared me for having someone come up to me after graduation and asking me to design a house with four walls and a roof (without it falling down, a mud sill is to wipe the mud off your boots right?). The guy I’m partnering with knows all of this but he graduated like 30 years ago when architects were supposed to know basic structural engineering. Education has gone to the dogs and is reinforcing project architects slowly transition into building code compliance consultants (at least commercial architects). I’m considering offering free yearly residential training studio once I get established over the next few years (like 6-8 people at a time) I suppose this will be limited to PNW architects since our rainscreen states and foundation
are different than else where.

... project architects slowly transition into building code compliance consultants... j'accuse! That hit home

@mission critical, this is John, a small-scale developer and designer in the SE US:
https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/author/r-john-anderson,
https://www.rjohnthebad.com/,
https://www.facebook.com/rjohn.anderson.

mission_critical - it sounds like you got taken advantage of by the school(s) and spread yourself too thin. I'm sorry to hear this.

Nearly every good program I know of (including the one I attended) was a minimum of five years of intensive architectural related classes (including studio design) that provided grads with a technical understanding of how to design, detail, and build projects. Obviously this was a bare minimum of understanding and you still needed work experience to become better.  Basically upon graduation you could be given a few sketches for a simple project (say a wood framed home) from your boss and create decent DD level drawings.

Do the non-sexual equivalent cucking, but for architecture. "archicuckture"

I like the field about 60% of the time. The solution is simple: If you don't like the field you're in move to a different field.

I truly like this field. I get to work on many different types of projects where I have to make creative decisions while solving an seemingly indefinite list of complicated problems. I get to point to many buildings in my city and proudly claim: "yeah bitch, I did that." The solution is find a work environment that suits your ambitions/needs and not simply cry foul when the world does not instantly bend to your needs.

I love my job as well. Been as the same place of employment for almost 16 years. Its defiantly all the reasons that Non S says above. Plus I like my co-workers, we have all been together for a very long time. I work in a small city, and so many building here have ties to my firm, there is a pride in quality work that we do.