Whoooosh. Take the cheapest school you can find. You’ll need all the money available if you’re this naive.

i think the catch is you're asking what school to go to based on the predetermined goal of building your own home. that's not how architecture school works, and you will be very frustrated if you approach it that way. that said, you seem to have a clear affinity for programs with a focus on the material and craft of architecture. maybe risd or cranbrook should be on your list. GSD and Sciarc less so, much more theory oriented.

on second thought, phillip johnson built a home for himself as his thesis at gsd, and then built an even better one a few years later, and then a few other things, and won the pritzker prize. maybe you could look into something like that.

Most mopey USA architecture teachers will hate you for being interested in a) single family houses b) being a developer and c) owning land. Many architecture professors have failed to thrive as practicing architects in the real world and have sought refuge in academia. Their hostility to persons seeking a practical education can get very thick.   Be prepared.

This is viable - I'm a licensed architect with no architecture degree myself. Based on my own experience, however, I'd recommend an MArch to anyone with the financial resources to do it as being the path of much less resistance.

congrats! how'd you do it?

Ah, yes tech bro money and I’ll do whatever I want mindset. So fresh and unique. Yawn. You missed the whole point of the real comments above. You don’t need more school and it’s asinine to think that that will be a worthwhile investment. What’s really dumb is you think you’ll be able to rent these out (aka landlord) as opposed to outright sell but that’s another issue.

Why'd you ask for advice if you didn't want it?

Non, he'll airbnb, much more profitable

"what's real dumb is you think you'll be able to rent these out" care to share your real name so I can credit the right person when I print this one out?

yawn, another typical "tough" guy response. Carry on ignoring the obvious in all of our comments.

That could be a decent route - two birds one stone... Also agree with your university choices.

Thank you for your kind and helpful suggestions.

I didn't wait quite until mid-life, but did get a late-ish start in architecture, and by a "non-standard" route, so I completely agree. A friend of mine used to have a bumper sticker that said, "It's Never Too Late to Have a Happy Childhood!"

UC Berkeley, most of my co-workers are from there and they are crazy smart - U of Mich., one of my firm presidents and other co-workers came from there - U of Cinncinati DAAP is another possibility -

Also, several of the schools others have suggested upthread wouldn't be bad choices. McGill and U of MN are also not bad schools.

Another thing to consider, since you are interested in larger developments, would be a program in Planning - some schools offer a joint MArch/Planning program, although I don't remember which specific schools off the top of my head.

Thanks for this! I looked at McGill and actually would be one of

my top choices since it’s in Montreal and I know some excellent folks who went there but it appears their masters is only for folks with architecture backgrounds.

I think I do want to go w MArch but I’m curious what ideas you had.

You’re looking at a McGill March?

this is definitely an interesting idea! thank you. however, given my experience in the Engineering school, my fear would be the program is too theoretical for me, and that the business focus of their RE folks is oriented toward NYC / big-metro development. I will do some further investigation though!

Maybe look at other schools outside of NYC that offer an MArch/Real Estate combo.

Yes, it's theoretical. But TBH, from what you have posted here, I suspect you could use a little balancing from the entrepreneurial/pragmatic side of things. Good design bridges between "can do" & "what if".

That said, if you are never going to embrace the design side of development, I suppose that that is a good thing to understand about yourself & just move forward in the most efficient way. [No judgements from me, just being frank] My guess is that would be: don't worry about becoming an architect at that point. Just design & develop houses, as is your right under the exemptions in the professional services codes of NY state. 

Just depends on your design aspirations.

Marmol/Radziner is also an interesting firm to look at that does design/build.

one thing you said is very true: while I'm not confident in my aptitude for designing or for building homes as I'd like to be, I do have a sense I can cultivate it to be good enough at it that even I might enjoy staying in them. it's a big ask. I seem to enjoy the ambition of creating useful, potentially beautiful, financially-sensical (if not profitable) and hopefully impactful things in the physical world much more than the internet world. I think it's possible most M. Arch's would be frustratingly "extra" and too "academia" given the ambitions I currently have. But perhaps, given the right program, it's actually exactly what I need to do? As an update, I'm noticing the folks at Michigan seem to have their act together. Just sat in on an info call with Oregon - it was interesting but not sure how practical focused? Looking forward to learn more though. thanks for the continued input all -

"I do have a sense I can cultivate it to be good enough at it that even I might enjoy staying in them" -- that's called hubris. Everyone thinks they can. Our built environment emphatically states most are not capable. [notice i didn't exclude architects] There are a vast number of reasons for this that aren't necessarily talent.

Everyone thinks they can?

Everyone (layman) I've ever met who finds out that I am an architect immediately expresses that they to could/want to design houses. It's annoying really because it's really easy to do a mediocre job (look around you), but it's exponentially harder to do it well enough to make a living at it. Too many think it's a fun hobby.

@non - that sounds frustrating. is it that you don't think people grasp the value of the unique contribution of the work you do?

^Yes... and no. I don't expect the average wanker to care about the value I can bring because the average wanker can't afford an architect's time. The issue is mostly HGTV related which is a big reason I do so very little residential work. The frustrating part is having to constantly argue basic construction concepts with typically intelligent people simply because their "experience" watching design and construction shows on TV has convinced them that they know something.  

People generally have a lot of preconceived notions on what "designing a house" involves because they have a lot of experience living in houses and seeing them around. Few get the entirety of what makes a house design successful. Even those who understand when a house design is successful may not necessarily be able to create those conditions on command. It takes experience and education to get there, despite the exemptions for house designers in state law. So, yeah, anyone can do it, but doing it well isn't well understood by most people, even in the construction industry.

Well, it's only two semesters in a much bigger program, but UrbanBuild at Tulane comes to mind for me: https://urbanbuild.tulane.edu/03-structure/curriculum/

how far away from being able to create build-ready construction docs would one be after graduating from these programs? it's sounding like in general schools emphasize design at the expense of practical skills -- but that perhaps some schools inculcate you with both?

@joseffischer, that's largely true

"how far away from being able to create build-ready construction docs would one be after graduating from these programs?"

VERY. The normal expectation is that recent graduates really only know how to do some modeling in Rhino - everything having to do with producing a set of CDs has to be taught "on the job". This is part of the reason that licensure requires work experience after graduation.

so.. someone spends 6 years getting both a bachelors followed by a masters in architecture and is still how many years away from being able to produce CD's that are buildable?

It depends on the school and the student. Some are many many years away. I know and worked with some with 15y experience (and licenses) who could not assemble CDs to save their lives. Others can pop them out shortly after graduation but that's because content of schools vary greatly. Purely theoretical programs don't push hard building science while some will intergrate COOP and tech courses into their design studios.

Also worth noting that the vast majority of the education required for good CD comes from the work place... hence why there is so many complaints here about low entry wages.  Everyone wants to do the "easy" and fun designy stuff.  Few care enough to learn how to put shit together in a way that communicates the design.  So the best way to learn is through practice... which will take several years.

this is insightful. how does one typically figure out where programs lie on the theoretical / practical spectrum ? I imagine having both an engineering and construction background helps, like I do. I do not, however, have any design education.

It's easy to figure out if you can get your hands on the curricula and course breakdowns and most schools have these published. It's then a mater of looking at alumni projects, graduate thesis, and faculty work. The real catch is that a good school will teach you how to think and solve problems in creative ways. A mediocre school will show you what to do and expect you to replicate the solution. Having a background in practical stuff is very good since you likely already know about physical limitations of materials, for example, but it can easily hamper creativity if a practical solution becomes the de facto answer. Trial and error, and experimentation (and defending the final product) is the basis of design education.

It wasn’t listed bc Auburn doesn’t have an M Arch 1 program, but doing a thesis at Rural Studio definitely forces you through all the nitty gritty of specifying and detailing as well as fun stuff like dealing with local AHJs and actual construction. You can buy into a thesis at RS if you are an outsider by being an Outreach Fellow, which sounds like it would be up OP’s ally. The design build master’s program at Auburn might actually be a better fit for OP because it has a lot more CM and technical stuff, but mostly stays away from design theory education in the regular B Arch program. 

It wasn’t listed bc Auburn doesn’t have an M Arch 1 program, but doing a thesis at Rural Studio definitely forces you through all the nitty gritty of specifying and detailing as well as fun stuff like dealing with local AHJs and actual construction. You can buy into a thesis at RS if you are an outsider by being an Outreach Fellow, which sounds like it would be up OP’s ally. They also have a design build

in your opinion what is a better way to learn? 

do it (design & build)

a lot

rinse/repeat

you will learn a shitton - tho without guidance, your learning vector may not necessarily be architectural

Ahip, we already told the OP this up on top. It's really funny to think that you need a Master's degree to spit out suburban sprawl.

Non.... thought if I said it in simple sentences he might understand

nick.... read some books on design principals and wood construction methods. Become friends with a general contractor.

exactly. so how does one efficiently and effectively gain an architectural learning vector without going to architecture school? building requires capital, which requires a promised return on investment, which requires confidence in the prolonged usability and sell-ability of the project. with that said, do you still advocate this approach?

95% of architects design commercial, institutional, industrial, health care facilities and multi family housing. Complex forms and structures that require enhanced safety requirements for the occupants. Not single family homes. You do not need a fancy architect degree to accomplish what you want to do.

^This. Nick, you need a 2y college-level diploma in wood-frame, small building construction. You can probably knock one out remotely and on weeknights. Besides that, all you really need is start-up capital and some free time.

Gussy up the courage to post your real name and I'll take your discouragement seriously. I also trust you'll be far less sarcastic and better behaved.

Half the regulars here know who I am and I'm no one special. I say the same thing to plenty of people, especially highschool students who ask me about arch school so there is literally no sarcasm in my post above. 

You're asking about a few houses, not a sports stadium. I spent my morning evaluating fire-separations in an office building. My words and observations is directly related to a few hundred people's life-safety. This is the kind of high-level archy stuff you go to school for and why we have licenses. Single-fam house design is not even the same sport.

I can't imagine posting anonymously on a website dedicated to "community" in my own profession.

lack of imagination? I'm not surprised.

I wish you better days, human-hiding-behind-screenname "Non-Sequitur"

Who you trying to doxx there nick?

no doxxing, it just puts the comments into helpful context for me. a recent RISD grad starting out at a large firm in NYC is going to have a very very different perspective than someone mid-career who runs their own design-driven development firm.

How is showing us the profile of a random intern lead to that observation?

Some things are just not fair. Thanks for all the advice folks - even the bad advice. I’ve learned a lot.
I’ve squeezed all the juice from this thread.

You got entirely all excellent advice despite the snark. Still no idea what that SOM chap link was for tho.

"I’ve squeezed all the juice from this thread." there's that hubris again...

Good luck, dude; you've exhibited some patience with us, but you've also ignored some of the nuggets. I hope you will take away that you still have a far more shallow understanding of what design can be & strive to learn more. Admittedly, it won't be learned on this website. But many of us have been profs & interns & project architects & sole proprietors. There are even a couple of design/builders here. What you seem to be searching for seems to miss the target of what good design might be, and I hope you keep that thought in your head as you approach whatever your next steps may be. You don't know yet what you don't know yet.

I always suspected Non isn't really a Canadian - this just proves it. Canadians spell about 'aboot'...

Hey now... sometimes I try to dumb it down for you freedom lovn' muricans.

oh i figured it out. The realperson "outed" above has an archinect profile featuring a project titled "non sequitur".. nice projects, and a worldview about 180 degrees away from the real NS

^nice catch but are those imperial or metric degrees?