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 One thing I learned is that I can no longer deal with outdated policies, top down bashing over the head with unrealistic deadlines and just sheer ego that comes with putting up tall glass and metal collage boxes like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.

"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.

That would be nice and all if that also came with free money to go back to college for another 3-4 years or whatever to "retrain" for another occupation.

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. . .

Rick (rcz1001) wrote:

“It's the complex, technical stuff that most people don't want to do. Often, in firms, there are architects that become Principals (either by climbing up the ladder or establishing a firm) where they focus on the "design" stuff and have staff that does the technical stuff but, guess what, they too had to do some of this drudgery in their career. It's like a frat club initiation. You need to do this as part of 'proving yourself' and over time, you may get into a position either in this firm or another where you aren't doing as much of this.” 

 No. 

 It's not a frat club initiation. 

 You’re not proving yourself. 

 You’re learning. 

 Architecture is incredibly complex and all the work that is done outside of the fun conceptual design is what makes those pretty pictures into built work. To be a good designer an architect must know how any why a building is put together. Even as a designer you will never get away from doing the technical aspects of architecture.

Actually, it's both what I said and what you said. Yes, it's actually both proving yourself as a valuable employee but also learning. I don't disagree with you. You're not wrong. I didn't dive into all aspects. This is why there is value in the different takes and perspectives and points made. It's not one or the other. It's a compilation of all these points. Thank you for adding that point.

I did leave it out in the post because I had to do something else for a moment. I agree with your points about the technical aspects of architecture. Somewhere along the way, I did state something along the lines to some extent in line with your last sentence above.

Sure there are. They aren't spending their time whining on a web forum because they are busy doing their work and collecting a pay check and managing a work-life balance.

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.

SneakyPete, I didn't say the caramelhighrise is whining. 

Those that are happy with the work they are doing are willing to persevere the crud that occasionally happens (and they do in absolutely every single occupation that exists) then spend their valuable time whining on a forum because it isn't going to change a reality that is going to be a factor in every occupation until the extinction of humans. 

Why waste energy trying to make a utopia that will never last and is purely fairy-tale? There is no "happy ever after" except in fantasy/fairy tales. Why would a person who loves their profession and love the work they do overall be wasting valuable time they have whining when they can use that time with their family and friends and having a life. 

Most architects that are successful aren't spending their time on web forums whining and complaining. They work their job and spend the off-time as much as possible to not be thinking about their job and work and enjoying their time with their loved ones (spouse and children). There's that saying, "get a life". It is apt for a lot of us, including myself. 

You can change jobs, careers, etc. all you want but you are going to always find some sh-t work you don't like. It's called, a reality check. The world is full of shit as it is also full of joy, and everywhere in between. It's full of a lot but guess what, you have to take the package called life.... as a whole.

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 agree. There is some room where the profession can improve within the realm of what is possible.

caramelhighrise, there's crap we all have to deal with in our profession. There will always be stuff that we like to do more and stuff we don't like to do but have to do. It's part of the job. Now, this isn't a statement to condone poor treatment of employees but that is a different situation that may warrant complaints or not. As professionals, we have to be adequately skilled not just in the artsy stuff of design but also the technical stuff that may be of less joy but important. I think some of the architecture schools out there kind of does a disservice to the students by over emphasizing on the designing side and sometimes leading those who are emerging into the profession a false sense of what the profession is and sometimes they lack the skills to that their employers are assuming they should or would have. All professions have stuff some employees just aren't passionate about doing but it has to get done.

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.

It really depends like what RJ87. Most SFRs built are speculative / tract development. It isn't necessarily as "creative/design-oriented" as it maybe for some custom design work. Again, it won't be without its technical side.

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.

I second tduds post. It really depends on your client and their motivation.

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.

I wouldn't say 98% is correct or incorrect but it is likely more accurate to say.... most because then you only have to be able to support by evidence that more than half the number of architects never do the 'last paragraph'.

Good point. The key is to have a sound sense of how buildings are built in the first place. Therefore, with that sense, never sell the client on something that can't be built or remotely close to being able to be built in the budget the client has. Don't even waste time with a pretty picture in prelim design that is not remotely feasible. If the client's budget isn't remotely feasible, you tell them the factual truth.... the cold hard truth... the reality check. 

It's important to get the scope of work correct and feasible so that you get paid, not waste time designing b.s. that the client won't be able to afford and in turn won't be paying you because you aren't delivering a realistic solution within a realistic budget which you are required by laws including consumer protection laws. It is one of those things under the scope of "(i)Advertises real estate, goods or services with intent not to provide the real estate, goods or services as advertised, or with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity." (this is directly from Oregon law but similar worded provisions of these laws exists in other laws and there are other provisions in that law which I am not copying here.) 

Reasonable expectable public demand applies to not just goods but service including the scope of work and that the work is realistic and that the provider of service is blowing smoke up the client's ass with b.s. designs that won't even be possible to be built scientifically or that it would be so far beyond the scope of the client's budget that it would be outright unconsciousable like if the client's budget is $500,000 but you propose a design that would cost $5,000,000 or more. 

Your prelim and your final design, if project scope isn't changed, should be within reason.... so a quick and dirty estimate should be in the ballpark of $300,000 and actual cost estimates with final design should not exceed the prelim estimate by 2x as you should have an idea what typical construction material and labor costs are for the type of work. 

Ideally, every architect or design professional of any kind should spend at least a year or so doing construction/landscape construction (latter... in case of landscape design/landscape architecture) so they can get some idea of what it takes in reality. Professional education programs for architecture/landscape architecture should teach construction cost estimation, not only for preliminary but also for actual construction, so there can be some sense of checking the bids even if you are not officially bidding or doing actual construction contractor work so you can spot bullshit bids and sift out the nonsense with the client who would not likely be able to tell a valid bid from a bullshit one. If you can't do this, you're not ready to be in responsible charge of providing architectural / design services. This is a fundamentally required professional skill. 

Consumer protection laws apply to professions (licensed and others). The law provided as an example is one of the laws protecting clients from bait & switch. One can be guilty of a bait & switch even if they are not intentionally causing it. Bait & Switch can be a basis or client arguing that the provider of service is in breach of contract. (NOTE: "you" as used does not mean caseygrimely or anyone in particular and is rhetorical).

That's a whole topic in itself.

OK Ryan.

Somebody is an optimist.

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

In the United States, unless you work for the Federal government on federal enclaves.... there is no such thing legally.... for unlicensed architect. The very describing and fashioning yourself as "unlicensed architect" is a violation of the architect title/practice & licensing laws in every single state on the United State. I would advice you to never utter the title "unlicensed architect" ever again in your life. Forget the term. Don't ever use it especially in describing yourself. If you continue to do so, you will eventually get caught and fined for using it and those fines have to be paid in 30 days from the board meeting in which the fine is levied.... in a number of states. Failure to comply can eventually lead to judicial action and failure to comply to a judicial order will result in a contempt of court fine and possibly also a jail sentence. It can get that serious. I'm just giving you a heads up in a stern manner so you can take corrective measure before some title nazi reports you. It doesn't have to be anyone on this forum.

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!