I'm currently a Senior on a BS track for Arch, doing my first real arch internship as a CAD monkey. Obviously my job is mindless, boring, and soul crushing. I expected nothing more as an intern. But what concerns me is the ppl who work around me, all full timers, are doing the exact same thing as me, all day every day. Reading these forums, people seem to say that it takes 10-20 years of this mindless work before you can even think about MAYBE getting to do something creative. While I am willing to do a few years of grunt work to climb that chain, I'm not sure I can throw away 20 years of my life like this. It is very worrying, so much so that I am questioning whether I made a mistake choosing Arch. Also, we all know that Boomers never want to retire, so there isn't space for people to move up, which is true in basically every career right now. Can anybody speak to the timeline and reality of working in architecture?
There are plenty of firms who will take you on and let you have some measure of influence on the design. This is generally proportional to your experience and the quality of your input. You need to have an understanding of what it is you bring to the table and match it to a well informed set of expectations when you apply for jobs.
There is plenty of work to go around of all types and while it's highly unlikely someone will give you the design reins like you've experienced in school studios without significant experience, do remember that not every task in this field is CAD monkey grunt work.
And also OP remember that not every task in this field is high falutin design work either; I still do a lot of production work as a licensed architect at my current firm (we're small by national standards but considered "medium size" for our area ): )
...CAD monkey. Obviously my job is mindless, boring, and soul crushing...
If this is where you are, this early in your career, you should get out while you can, you're not cut out for the life. If you stay, let me know how close you live to a tower, and how many long guns you own.
OH MAN...didn't know my job was mindless, boring and soul crushing.
I don't think you're doing it right......
Jun 21, 22 5:09 pm ·
·
idagarfield
Not sure how anybody could enjoy tracing details , not even drafting them myself, all day every day.
Jun 22, 22 7:51 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
Details gets shit built and is ultimately what clients pay your office for. They are necessary and it's hard to take anyone in this field seriously if they don't understand this.
What gave the impression that I do not understand this? It is just the fact that tracing details all day is not exactly intellectually stimulating, and thus not something one can be very passionate about, and it seems that these tasks are delegated to a group of beginners who, and here's my issue, are not given the opportunity to TOUCH anything else for a really long time. It becomes very repetitive very quickly. Was just looking to hear about the timeline in terms of getting to also do other kinds of work before I pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a masters degree in this field....
Jun 22, 22 4:17 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
What do you mean by "trace" exactly? I never actually traced anything and barely ever assembled drawings by copy/pasting mindlessly from a database... never. Even when I was in undergrad working part-time at min wage in between studios. Your experience totally does not sound common at all so perhaps you simply got the short end of the drafting pencil? Also, lol at 100k+ master degree. That's ridiculous and certainly not an investment regardless of the institution's name on the paper.
If you find your current work "mindless, boring, and soul crushing" then you're approaching it with the wrong attitude. This should be your time to be soaking up knowledge - every redline is a lesson that will go toward making you a real architect if you learn it. How long it takes to go from "CAD monkey" to real architect is almost entirely dependent on how well, and how quickly, you learn the things being presented to you.
Like I said, my issue is not necessarily that I am doing this mindless work right now. It is that the people around me with masters degrees are also tracing cad details for 8 hours a day.
"Reading these forums, people seem to say that it takes 10-20 years of this mindless work before you can even think about MAYBE getting to do something creative."
This depends on a lot of things.
1. How creative are you? If you're not creative then you'll not get to do any creative work. This doesn't' just mean design work mind you.
2. Do you understand building sciences? It's great if you are creative but if what you design can't be built then their is an issue.
3. How large of a firm do you work in? Big firms tend to use interns as drafting labor. Work at a medium (up to say 25 people) or small (under 15 people) and you'll get to do everything because you'll have to.
A few side comments:
I will say that it takes about 10-20 years before you know enough in this profession to be good at it. Obviously I'm speaking in general terms.
Most architecture is not mindless work devoid of creativity. Sure not all of what we do is high design with loads of creativity. You'll still have to eat your vegetables to get a project built the way you've designed it. That's normal.
It may be that the people you're around are in the 'drafting pool' and aren't very creative. It may be the firm you work at doesn't do good work.
Also in 20 years there's an almost even chance you're still making less than 100k when studio apartments are $6000/mo and starter homes are $3 million.
One unit in this delightful building in a delightful neighborhood (notice the bars on the windows) is what $290K will get you within a 1-hr commute of my office. This is currently the cheapest listing on Zillow unless you count trailer parks.
To the OP -- just remember that "Creativity" is a term that is very relative. For some it may mean nerding out on a cool detail, for some it is being creative with areas on an excel sheet, so on an so forth.
If you are expecting to be "creative" like in school with crazy-ass projects, you are bound to be unsatisfied. After graduation, you pretty much have to un-learn 80% of your school education and start learning again. That may be a problem with how architectural education is, but there you go...
I wouldn't say you have to 'unlearn' anything. What is required is a modification and expansion to process to include things like budget, feasibility, constructability, and availability.
also, client expectations.. nowadays I'd have to be creative in deflecting accusatory comments from the clients for what my design team did not do correctly.. I spent all day in writing to remind my client 'you caused this change order' without offending him... totally agree with sameolddoctor... so many ways to be creative in this field :), but I think OP wants to do cool design works as we do in design competitions coming up with cool forms. I did that for first 5 years of my career, excitement fades away and eventually, you soon realize that you don't actually learn much unless the project moves onto next phases.. I learned more in working from DD to CA than doing these competitions that didn't go anywhere. It seemed like a pipe dream to me. Perhaps others on this forum had better experience in working on an actual project by winning a competition.
Honestly, I’d be happy to do anything that requires the firing of a single neuron.
Jun 22, 22 7:57 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
What did you expect to do in this particular office? Designers are a dime a dozen, perhaps 2 dozen these days but a half-decent detail-oriented person is a rare find.
I expected to do exactly this! I knew I wouldn't be having much fun, but rather soaking up the nitty gritty of real life drafting. Like I said, what is troubling is seeing the people around me who work here full time and are still doing the same work I am doing on day 1 as an intern and nothing else.
garfield, could you talk to me about the difficulty, and difference between floor mounted WC and wall mounted? What would be your concerns? Let's assume two conditions. SOG and multi story building.
If OP does not like drafting. That is not good. Drafting is like 50% of the job. School style creative building design is probably only 10%. Most of time it is just different shape of boxes. The rest 40% is project management and consultant coordination. If you want to maintain the school type of creative architecture work. The only way is to work for a high design firm in design position only. That is just rare and extremely competitive. long hours and low pay.
Try to stay through the full project from schematic design down to CA. If you don't like it after going through the full phase. Well, better plan another career.
I am curious what work does OP think is creative and fun. Make 3D models? Rendering? Hand sketching?
Jun 22, 22 4:35 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I carved a solid 2hr of design work today. I’m wicked busy on 8 million other things and have a bunch of ÇA to do, but still got the design time in. Don’t get many of those breaks these days. Most of the design time I get is off hours anyways.
Jun 22, 22 5:54 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
Isn't it ironic that what constitutes the majority of architectural education is something you end up squeezing in during your personal time?!
I had to deal with a younger designer who came up with this elaborate jagged wood panels arranged in a radial pattern around a circular auditorium. He just developed his design in Rhino then brought it to Revit and claimed that he provided enough information. When the project moved onto construction, there were no logics behind how the panels will be set out (as they are wrapping around the circular auditorium), there are 12+ panels but no typical types, how each panel should be fabricated, and no connection details.. This person completely ignored what his end product was, and just flashed his rhino model without any details. As I inherited this mess so late in the game while both the client/GC (it was a DB, so we were their sub) demanding answers yesterday, I came up with a series sketches explaining to the GC/Casework sub how to attach each piece to the base walls. Just to give the original designer a little middle finger, I took his design and simplified the panels down to two types and repeated 5 times. Fortunately, the casework sub was really good, so the final outcome came out to be beautiful, and that young designer wasn't bright enough to catch that I deviated from his original design intent. Lol, it became my design.
So, my recommendation to young designers is that they need to understand that their end product is a building and they need to own their design to that end product. This requires carefully thinking about drafting in details and developing some sense of constructability. One cannot be a good designer if they don't embrace good draftsmanship and technical details. You cannot develop this unless you start with picking up redlines and drafting off of someone else's sketches. It's good to ask questions why they did what they did.
As a building designer, I would have notice that the lack of detail regarding how it would be connected is sub-professional level. It would be fine for schematic design but at CD level, you have to provide complete construction details and instructions not just rehashing the schematic design with some measurements info added. Stasis, good job fixing that f--- up and make it work with the design intent in general and making it work so they project can be properly completed. Deviating is okay as you're the architect of that project at that point.
Jun 22, 22 7:11 pm ·
·
Bench
As a building designer, you would not have been allowed to work on the above project. Stop shit posting about these what-if's. Weren't you always talking about studying for your exams? I've literally finished them in the time you started contemplating it.
I don't know, Bench--I'm also a building designer but I used to do a lot of detailing for architects in my office who didn't know how things are built. Since I've been on my own I have had several architects help me and maybe one out of ten is good at detailing. Granted, both situations are small-ish scale residential; I'm sure things are different at larger firms and on larger, higher-budget projects. But I agree with Stasis that getting good at detailing, and simply taking the time to learn how things are actually built AND taking the responsibility to draw or model those details, is surely a path to success. Or steady employment, anyway.
Bench, in my state, an auditorium is something I am allowed to design as long as the building is within the ground area and height rule if it isn't part of an SFR but what Stasis is talking about can be in a small auditorium. Additionally, an auditorium can be part of a very large house and in Oregon, there isn't a ground area or height limit on houses under ORS 671.030, just as we can have a full size basketball court that is part of such a large house. Yes, I would have an engineer in such a project. My point is I do agree with Stasis and his essential point. In addition, for the above specific project, who says I wouldn't be able to work on it. Sure, I might not have been the architect of record for the project but in the very specific project in California, I would have been working under the direction and supervision of an Architect but it would be responsible even as a team member on such project to point out such glaring issues like lack of important construction details and specifications. These kinds of details are important regardless of state. It doesn't matter if the project is in Oregon, California, or even in f---ing Sweden.
Jun 23, 22 3:29 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Bench, sure, when I started contemplating taking the exams, it was LONG before I was granted authorization to test. What Stasis was talking about in terms of wood panels can be applied to SFRs and not just auditoriums. PS: In Oregon and Washington, I am authorized by statutes to design SFRs of any size and of any type of construction. This doesn't mean that an engineer won't be involved. That depends on the specifics of the project and professional prudence. Just as you might on such a project.
Jun 23, 22 3:35 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Ricky, auditoriums (Assembly Occupancy) are exclusively designed by architects up here. 8-)
Jun 23, 22 3:37 pm ·
·
rcz1001
You can say an auditorium is a room, right. A large one. You can't be seriously suggesting that circular rooms are exclusive only to auditoriums and you can't be seriously suggesting that I am only allowed to design square and rectangular rooms for SFRs in Oregon or Washington.
Jun 23, 22 3:49 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
We have clear size (under 6ksq.ft) and height (3 storeys), material, and use/type limitations for non-archs up here... Not really sure where you're getting trapazoidal rooms from tho. zoom meeting over, distraction time over.
Jun 23, 22 3:56 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Under California law, I might be stretching the limits of the definition of conventional wood frame construction part of the definition, and yeah, they have a two-story height rule but it's not specifically set to particular number of feet. It might be a more advanced application of conventional light wood framing but can be done. Some details could require an engineer but ultimately, it would be the things that one would need to do for such a structure. Detailing paneling and how they are going to be connected are important details even in the kind of manner that Stasis was talking about in the case of the auditorium but it can be similarly applied to a single-family dwelling. Conventional framing can include steam-bending material. Potentially, it can include strip-lamination to compose components as needed. Some of it could stretch the definition of conventional but even then certain details and specifications being prepared by a qualified engineering consultant. Therefore, there is still room to do some beautiful well done and creative homes without requiring a license as an architect. In Oregon & Washington, I have more freedom in the exemption when it comes to materials like being able to design houses using materials other than wood if I want to.
Jun 23, 22 4:32 pm ·
·
rcz1001
N.S., I don't disagree. Each state, province, country.... jurisdiction has their own respective laws. They are not all the same. I understand that. We are on a web forum so jurisdictions is variable... well.. the whole damn planet. Just because I can't work on the project in your jurisdiction doesn't mean I can't work on such a structure in another jurisdiction. It is where a particular project is located. My point to Stasis was if I came across a similar situation on a project (assuming it is a project I am authorized to work on in the jurisdiction where the project to intended to built), I would have noticed a lack of important details as sub-professional.
In other words, I agreed with Stasis. Since the specific issue is not really about it being an auditorium. The issue at hand is about the lack of fastening/connection details of wood panels of the original design. Let's forget for a moment that this particular project was an auditorium. This issue can be true even for an SFR. If I do a project in California, it doesn't mean I have to limit myself only to what is allowed in California for projects in Oregon or Washington, or even in your province. I simply have to follow the laws of the jurisdiction where a project I am working on is intended to be built.
Now, in Oregon, I can design big circular living room with a 100 yard radius for an SFR that has a footprint 10 times larger than the pentagon... in theory as the exemption is written. Ridiculously large... absolutely agree. Even on a more realistic project scale, I can design rooms with curved walls, circular shape rooms and such in Oregon and Washington and a number of states. It may be stretching the limits for California but not necessarily impossible.
It is still just as important to detail the connections of such wood panels even on SFRs.
In my personal opinion, the biggest mistake the profession of architecture made is to the extent that they have gone to divorce itself from construction. In my personal opinion, I think being a licensed contractor with construction experience should be a prerequisite to becoming a licensed architect. Now, I am not saying we don't teach the artistic side of architecture but there are literally too many architects & designers with literally zero construction experience and zero understanding of construction and how buildings are put together.
I think... at the very least, there should be at least a year maybe 2-3 years of construction experience in addition to AXP. This experience would be valuable for architects to have. I think there may also be some improvement in architectural education to train architects on principles of construction, construction methods, etc. A person should have no business designing buildings without at least some fundamental understanding of construction and how buildings are built. They don't have to be a master of all the trades. There are dumbasses in construction as well which is also an area of concern as well that needs improvement.
Jun 23, 22 5:17 pm ·
·
deltar
If your jurisdictions in Oregon are allowing you to design unlimited area structures/SFDs that is a failure on the jurisdiction or a building official that doesn't care about their liability in waiving requirements and honestly good for you. ORS 671.030 § (2)(c) has a specific ground area and height limitation as does the ORSC: R 106.1 Ex. 2.1 and the OSSC has it as well but it is just rehashing the above and this gets compounded the closer to the Coast you are because everything up and down the coast is either a special wind region or SDC E (downgradable to D2 but still.)
Jun 23, 22 5:49 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Ground area and height rule does not apply to SFRs. We been through this already. It does not mean that a building official can't require certain technical submissions involving engineering to be prepared by a professional engineer. Today's building codes have prescriptive code requirements. Yes, if you are doing something more complicated that involves engineering such as trusses or glulam beams, the trusses or glulam would have to be prepared by an engineer.
FYI: ORS 12.135 makes it pretty clear that I am not exempt from being sued for negligence, tort, etc.
Jun 23, 22 7:03 pm ·
·
Bench
* eyerolls *
Yeah WG - the comment was more directed at one specific individual and a long history of shit-posting and whataboutism on here. Personally i'd love to work for ya, or at least learn a bunch of things from ya. Looking forward to my copy of the book !
Fair enough, sorry to disrupt. We just got word that the book will ship to customers on July 26. First there was a paper shortage, then a delay in getting it bound. But at least it's a hardcover?!
So, MM, you’re telling me I won’t be able to read your book while on vacation? Damn dawg, why you have to hurt me that way? Shall we expect a personal apology note, written in gold, to ease our pain?
Jun 24, 22 2:13 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
Haha, I want to read it too! It's not my fault so I can only say I'm sorry you can't read it either ;-)
Jun 24, 22 2:58 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Whiny complaints are shitposts, too.... Bench. Shitpost is defined by eye of the beholder. To me, you whining is a worse shitpost. You can use the ignore user feature if you don't want to read my posts. Then we won't be shitposting back and forth. Sorry Stasis.
Jun 24, 22 4:34 pm ·
·
Bench
Rick I literally got my license while you've complained on these forums for years.
Jun 24, 22 4:46 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Bench, so what. Good for you. Do you want a chim chim cookie? I'm not on a pressing race to get licensed as an architect. When my projects are SFRs and light commercial projects that doesn't need an architect license to prepare plans for in my state, it isn't exactly a pressing need to throw on another line item of costs that isn't necessarily going to mean I am going to get clients willing to pay more. Clients aren't just going to be willing to pay more just because you get an architect license. I doesn't quite work like that. It takes more than that.
What you don't understand is, you don't become a professional when you get a license. You become a professional when you do the work you do at a professionally competent level. When you are professionally competent and perform your work in a professional workmanship manner, conduct your interaction in a professional manner, that is when you are a professional. IDEALLY, you are that BEFORE you get an architect license.
Sadly, that isn't always the case, unfortunately.
Now, do us all a favor and quit being a jackass and be professional about your conduct like you claim yourself to be by having an architect license. What I said to Stasis is valid. I hate to burst your bubble, but having an architect license... a sheet of paper with a number on it, doesn't make a person a true professional. I don't give a shit about the bullshit statutory definitions and other crock of crap that goes with it. All it means is you have a license. So, don't tell me you are a professional.... show me in your work, in how you conduct yourself with clients, consultants, etc. Show me. That is the proof.
The way you are talking to me is not very professional. You could have communicated in a PM if you wanted to. You came harping at me on this thread. Nothing I said to Stasis was meant as an insult or as a negative statement against Stasis. If there was a criticism, it would have been criticism of the original "designer" that he was referring to. You seem to be acting as if that original "designer" was you since you seem to be the one that is taking emotional offense to what I said in a response to Stasis.
Jun 24, 22 6:43 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that there isn't any value in an architect license and I am pursuing that incrementally but there are certain priorities like running a building design business that also provides landscape design services, and so forth. It is up to me when I pay for exams. It is up to me, when I pay for licensure or certification fees, and such. Right now, I'm not really complaining about pursuing licensure. I believe that there are things I think would make architects more competent and better equipped at being an architect because it is also true for building designers. That's an opinion, my opinion. You can agree or disagree. I am not interested or care to know if you agree or disagree.
Jun 24, 22 7:12 pm ·
·
pj_heavy
@Rick , how many live projects you have now ?
Jun 24, 22 9:28 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Right now, concurrent projects fully active.... none at the moment... kind of in-between projects. However, I have a number of concurrent prospective clients. There is one maybe two commercial projects that at this stage is more on the line of tenant improvement type projects that we are discussing the details during the last couple weeks. There is a landscape design type project for a residence that is prospective at the moment that is in the state of Washington. During the past year, I've had around a dozen residential oriented projects. In the last couple months, I had passed a division of the ARE exam and I have also passed the CCB exam. I have the CPBD certification exam to schedule in and I also have the other ARE exam divisions to fit into an otherwise busy and increasingly busier schedule. I hope that have answered your question. I'm technically in between projects so that has helped allow for some time to spend on a couple exams.
I haven't really spent time promoting about the projects I have been working on.
Jun 24, 22 10:20 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Even while the a commercial tenant improvement project is in talking phase, I have been doing a little preliminary 'work' I need to do to check the building dimensions that as a building designer in Oregon, it would be prudent to do. I have yet to do interior dimensions checks that I need to do. However, I have done exterior dimensions and am okay on that front. It all matters as that will define more of what I am allowed to do and provide in terms of services.
Lol, I came back to this thread to see that the conversation gone off to tangent. This was an auditorium, single-story, 500 seats capacity, assembly occupancy in a Type 1A construction. It was a small part of much larger tech HQ TI project. It featured radial acoustic walls to form an apple shape - circular on top then tapers to a narrower flat bottom. Sorry I can't share any picture as this was for a confidential client.
There were so many other things I had on my plate so when this came up, I was not happy to take on the work, but had to do it to save my company's face in front of important client. I actually appreciated the casework subs who brought up all these questions and worked through the problems with us. I came away deeply impressed with that particular company.
This has definitely not been my experience - even when I was an intern. I was frequently involved in the design process, and asked to create graphics and engage with design directors. I have rarely even used CAD. I think you might want to branch out from your current workplace and explore some offices that might be more design-focused. Many of the design directors I've worked with have also been university professors, and they typically make it a point to provide a creative learning environment for younger staff.
It's not all bad! But sometimes you have to make strategic decisions to avoid the monotony.
You don't have to stay on the traditional career path. Many of my arch school friends moved into set design and found it more lucrative and flexible. Other friends run fabrication businesses. I get paid to build out grasshopper and dynamo scripts. If you aren't very far through your undergrad it's definitely an option to switch to something else (and I would advise it... but hey, I'm a biased stranger on a forum). But if you're near the end of the degree and you're going to finish anyway, know that there are other options. Don't sleepwalk into a career you hate.
Scared about the field
I'm currently a Senior on a BS track for Arch, doing my first real arch internship as a CAD monkey. Obviously my job is mindless, boring, and soul crushing. I expected nothing more as an intern. But what concerns me is the ppl who work around me, all full timers, are doing the exact same thing as me, all day every day. Reading these forums, people seem to say that it takes 10-20 years of this mindless work before you can even think about MAYBE getting to do something creative. While I am willing to do a few years of grunt work to climb that chain, I'm not sure I can throw away 20 years of my life like this. It is very worrying, so much so that I am questioning whether I made a mistake choosing Arch. Also, we all know that Boomers never want to retire, so there isn't space for people to move up, which is true in basically every career right now. Can anybody speak to the timeline and reality of working in architecture?
There are plenty of firms who will take you on and let you have some measure of influence on the design. This is generally proportional to your experience and the quality of your input. You need to have an understanding of what it is you bring to the table and match it to a well informed set of expectations when you apply for jobs.
There is plenty of work to go around of all types and while it's highly unlikely someone will give you the design reins like you've experienced in school studios without significant experience, do remember that not every task in this field is CAD monkey grunt work.
And also OP remember that not every task in this field is high falutin design work either; I still do a lot of production work as a licensed architect at my current firm (we're small by national standards but considered "medium size" for our area ): )
...CAD monkey. Obviously my job is mindless, boring, and soul crushing...
If this is where you are, this early in your career, you should get out while you can, you're not cut out for the life. If you stay, let me know how close you live to a tower, and how many long guns you own.
OH MAN...didn't know my job was mindless, boring and soul crushing.
I don't think you're doing it right......
Not sure how anybody could enjoy tracing details , not even drafting them myself, all day every day.
Details gets shit built and is ultimately what clients pay your office for. They are necessary and it's hard to take anyone in this field seriously if they don't understand this.
What gave the impression that I do not understand this? It is just the fact that tracing details all day is not exactly intellectually stimulating, and thus not something one can be very passionate about, and it seems that these tasks are delegated to a group of beginners who, and here's my issue, are not given the opportunity to TOUCH anything else for a really long time. It becomes very repetitive very quickly. Was just looking to hear about the timeline in terms of getting to also do other kinds of work before I pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a masters degree in this field....
What do you mean by "trace" exactly? I never actually traced anything and barely ever assembled drawings by copy/pasting mindlessly from a database... never. Even when I was in undergrad working part-time at min wage in between studios. Your experience totally does not sound common at all so perhaps you simply got the short end of the drafting pencil? Also, lol at 100k+ master degree. That's ridiculous and certainly not an investment regardless of the institution's name on the paper.
If you find your current work "mindless, boring, and soul crushing" then you're approaching it with the wrong attitude. This should be your time to be soaking up knowledge - every redline is a lesson that will go toward making you a real architect if you learn it. How long it takes to go from "CAD monkey" to real architect is almost entirely dependent on how well, and how quickly, you learn the things being presented to you.
Like I said, my issue is not necessarily that I am doing this mindless work right now. It is that the people around me with masters degrees are also tracing cad details for 8 hours a day.
idagarfield wrote:
"Reading these forums, people seem to say that it takes 10-20 years of this mindless work before you can even think about MAYBE getting to do something creative."
This depends on a lot of things.
1. How creative are you? If you're not creative then you'll not get to do any creative work. This doesn't' just mean design work mind you.
2. Do you understand building sciences? It's great if you are creative but if what you design can't be built then their is an issue.
3. How large of a firm do you work in? Big firms tend to use interns as drafting labor. Work at a medium (up to say 25 people) or small (under 15 people) and you'll get to do everything because you'll have to.
A few side comments:
I will say that it takes about 10-20 years before you know enough in this profession to be good at it. Obviously I'm speaking in general terms.
Most architecture is not mindless work devoid of creativity. Sure not all of what we do is high design with loads of creativity. You'll still have to eat your vegetables to get a project built the way you've designed it. That's normal.
It may be that the people you're around are in the 'drafting pool' and aren't very creative. It may be the firm you work at doesn't do good work.
Good luck.
Also in 20 years there's an almost even chance you're still making less than 100k when studio apartments are $6000/mo and starter homes are $3 million.
I've been in the field for 20 years and I make over that.
100k/yr is rockstar money over-here (accounting for exchange rate)
Yeah but you have stuff like a functioning government, healthcare, and Tim Hortons.
One unit in this delightful building in a delightful neighborhood (notice the bars on the windows) is what $290K will get you within a 1-hr commute of my office. This is currently the cheapest listing on Zillow unless you count trailer parks.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3610-Montclair-St-Los-Angeles-CA-90018/2067388523_zpid/
To the OP -- just remember that "Creativity" is a term that is very relative. For some it may mean nerding out on a cool detail, for some it is being creative with areas on an excel sheet, so on an so forth.
If you are expecting to be "creative" like in school with crazy-ass projects, you are bound to be unsatisfied. After graduation, you pretty much have to un-learn 80% of your school education and start learning again. That may be a problem with how architectural education is, but there you go...
I wouldn't say you have to 'unlearn' anything. What is required is a modification and expansion to process to include things like budget, feasibility, constructability, and availability.
also, client expectations.. nowadays I'd have to be creative in deflecting accusatory comments from the clients for what my design team did not do correctly.. I spent all day in writing to remind my client 'you caused this change order' without offending him... totally agree with sameolddoctor... so many ways to be creative in this field :), but I think OP wants to do cool design works as we do in design competitions coming up with cool forms. I did that for first 5 years of my career, excitement fades away and eventually, you soon realize that you don't actually learn much unless the project moves onto next phases.. I learned more in working from DD to CA than doing these competitions that didn't go anywhere. It seemed like a pipe dream to me. Perhaps others on this forum had better experience in working on an actual project by winning a competition.
Honestly, I’d be happy to do anything that requires the firing of a single neuron.
What did you expect to do in this particular office? Designers are a dime a dozen, perhaps 2 dozen these days but a half-decent detail-oriented person is a rare find.
I expected to do exactly this! I knew I wouldn't be having much fun, but rather soaking up the nitty gritty of real life drafting. Like I said, what is troubling is seeing the people around me who work here full time and are still doing the same work I am doing on day 1 as an intern and nothing else.
Then you're working in a pretty shitty office.
garfield, could you talk to me about the difficulty, and difference between floor mounted WC and wall mounted? What would be your concerns? Let's assume two conditions. SOG and multi story building.
If OP does not like drafting. That is not good. Drafting is like 50% of the job. School style creative building design is probably only 10%. Most of time it is just different shape of boxes. The rest 40% is project management and consultant coordination. If you want to maintain the school type of creative architecture work. The only way is to work for a high design firm in design position only. That is just rare and extremely competitive. long hours and low pay.
Try to stay through the full project from schematic design down to CA. If you don't like it after going through the full phase. Well, better plan another career.
I am curious what work does OP think is creative and fun. Make 3D models? Rendering? Hand sketching?
I carved a solid 2hr of design work today. I’m wicked busy on 8 million other things and have a bunch of ÇA to do, but still got the design time in. Don’t get many of those breaks these days. Most of the design time I get is off hours anyways.
Isn't it ironic that what constitutes the majority of architectural education is something you end up squeezing in during your personal time?!
I sorta prefer it that way. Easy to schedule CA and detailing but hard to schedule in design time.
I suppose that most of my best design work has been done with some help from alcohol or weed, which is hard to schedule into the workday.
I had to deal with a younger designer who came up with this elaborate jagged wood panels arranged in a radial pattern around a circular auditorium. He just developed his design in Rhino then brought it to Revit and claimed that he provided enough information. When the project moved onto construction, there were no logics behind how the panels will be set out (as they are wrapping around the circular auditorium), there are 12+ panels but no typical types, how each panel should be fabricated, and no connection details.. This person completely ignored what his end product was, and just flashed his rhino model without any details. As I inherited this mess so late in the game while both the client/GC (it was a DB, so we were their sub) demanding answers yesterday, I came up with a series sketches explaining to the GC/Casework sub how to attach each piece to the base walls. Just to give the original designer a little middle finger, I took his design and simplified the panels down to two types and repeated 5 times. Fortunately, the casework sub was really good, so the final outcome came out to be beautiful, and that young designer wasn't bright enough to catch that I deviated from his original design intent. Lol, it became my design.
So, my recommendation to young designers is that they need to understand that their end product is a building and they need to own their design to that end product. This requires carefully thinking about drafting in details and developing some sense of constructability. One cannot be a good designer if they don't embrace good draftsmanship and technical details. You cannot develop this unless you start with picking up redlines and drafting off of someone else's sketches. It's good to ask questions why they did what they did.
As a building designer, I would have notice that the lack of detail regarding how it would be connected is sub-professional level. It would be fine for schematic design but at CD level, you have to provide complete construction details and instructions not just rehashing the schematic design with some measurements info added. Stasis, good job fixing that f--- up and make it work with the design intent in general and making it work so they project can be properly completed. Deviating is okay as you're the architect of that project at that point.
As a building designer, you would not have been allowed to work on the above project. Stop shit posting about these what-if's. Weren't you always talking about studying for your exams? I've literally finished them in the time you started contemplating it.
I don't know, Bench--I'm also a building designer but I used to do a lot of detailing for architects in my office who didn't know how things are built. Since I've been on my own I have had several architects help me and maybe one out of ten is good at detailing. Granted, both situations are small-ish scale residential; I'm sure things are different at larger firms and on larger, higher-budget projects. But I agree with Stasis that getting good at detailing, and simply taking the time to learn how things are actually built AND taking the responsibility to draw or model those details, is surely a path to success. Or steady employment, anyway.
Bench, in my state, an auditorium is something I am allowed to design as long as the building is within the ground area and height rule if it isn't part of an SFR but what Stasis is talking about can be in a small auditorium. Additionally, an auditorium can be part of a very large house and in Oregon, there isn't a ground area or height limit on houses under ORS 671.030, just as we can have a full size basketball court that is part of such a large house. Yes, I would have an engineer in such a project. My point is I do agree with Stasis and his essential point. In addition, for the above specific project, who says I wouldn't be able to work on it. Sure, I might not have been the architect of record for the project but in the very specific project in California, I would have been working under the direction and supervision of an Architect but it would be responsible even as a team member on such project to point out such glaring issues like lack of important construction details and specifications. These kinds of details are important regardless of state. It doesn't matter if the project is in Oregon, California, or even in f---ing Sweden.
Bench, sure, when I started contemplating taking the exams, it was LONG before I was granted authorization to test. What Stasis was talking about in terms of wood panels can be applied to SFRs and not just auditoriums. PS: In Oregon and Washington, I am authorized by statutes to design SFRs of any size and of any type of construction. This doesn't mean that an engineer won't be involved. That depends on the specifics of the project and professional prudence. Just as you might on such a project.
Ricky, auditoriums (Assembly Occupancy) are exclusively designed by architects up here. 8-)
You can say an auditorium is a room, right. A large one. You can't be seriously suggesting that circular rooms are exclusive only to auditoriums and you can't be seriously suggesting that I am only allowed to design square and rectangular rooms for SFRs in Oregon or Washington.
We have clear size (under 6ksq.ft) and height (3 storeys), material, and use/type limitations for non-archs up here... Not really sure where you're getting trapazoidal rooms from tho. zoom meeting over, distraction time over.
Under California law, I might be stretching the limits of the definition of conventional wood frame construction part of the definition, and yeah, they have a two-story height rule but it's not specifically set to particular number of feet. It might be a more advanced application of conventional light wood framing but can be done. Some details could require an engineer but ultimately, it would be the things that one would need to do for such a structure. Detailing paneling and how they are going to be connected are important details even in the kind of manner that Stasis was talking about in the case of the auditorium but it can be similarly applied to a single-family dwelling. Conventional framing can include steam-bending material. Potentially, it can include strip-lamination to compose components as needed. Some of it could stretch the definition of conventional but even then certain details and specifications being prepared by a qualified engineering consultant. Therefore, there is still room to do some beautiful well done and creative homes without requiring a license as an architect. In Oregon & Washington, I have more freedom in the exemption when it comes to materials like being able to design houses using materials other than wood if I want to.
N.S., I don't disagree. Each state, province, country.... jurisdiction has their own respective laws. They are not all the same. I understand that. We are on a web forum so jurisdictions is variable... well.. the whole damn planet. Just because I can't work on the project in your jurisdiction doesn't mean I can't work on such a structure in another jurisdiction. It is where a particular project is located. My point to Stasis was if I came across a similar situation on a project (assuming it is a project I am authorized to work on in the jurisdiction where the project to intended to built), I would have noticed a lack of important details as sub-professional.
In other words, I agreed with Stasis. Since the specific issue is not really about it being an auditorium. The issue at hand is about the lack of fastening/connection details of wood panels of the original design. Let's forget for a moment that this particular project was an auditorium. This issue can be true even for an SFR. If I do a project in California, it doesn't mean I have to limit myself only to what is allowed in California for projects in Oregon or Washington, or even in your province. I simply have to follow the laws of the jurisdiction where a project I am working on is intended to be built.
Now, in Oregon, I can design big circular living room with a 100 yard radius for an SFR that has a footprint 10 times larger than the pentagon... in theory as the exemption is written. Ridiculously large... absolutely agree. Even on a more realistic project scale, I can design rooms with curved walls, circular shape rooms and such in Oregon and Washington and a number of states. It may be stretching the limits for California but not necessarily impossible.
It is still just as important to detail the connections of such wood panels even on SFRs.
In my personal opinion, the biggest mistake the profession of architecture made is to the extent that they have gone to divorce itself from construction. In my personal opinion, I think being a licensed contractor with construction experience should be a prerequisite to becoming a licensed architect. Now, I am not saying we don't teach the artistic side of architecture but there are literally too many architects & designers with literally zero construction experience and zero understanding of construction and how buildings are put together.
I think... at the very least, there should be at least a year maybe 2-3 years of construction experience in addition to AXP. This experience would be valuable for architects to have. I think there may also be some improvement in architectural education to train architects on principles of construction, construction methods, etc. A person should have no business designing buildings without at least some fundamental understanding of construction and how buildings are built. They don't have to be a master of all the trades. There are dumbasses in construction as well which is also an area of concern as well that needs improvement.
If your jurisdictions in Oregon are allowing you to design unlimited area structures/SFDs that is a failure on the jurisdiction or a building official that doesn't care about their liability in waiving requirements and honestly good for you. ORS 671.030 § (2)(c) has a specific ground area and height limitation as does the ORSC: R 106.1 Ex. 2.1 and the OSSC has it as well but it is just rehashing the above and this gets compounded the closer to the Coast you are because everything up and down the coast is either a special wind region or SDC E (downgradable to D2 but still.)
Ground area and height rule does not apply to SFRs. We been through this already. It does not mean that a building official can't require certain technical submissions involving engineering to be prepared by a professional engineer. Today's building codes have prescriptive code requirements. Yes, if you are doing something more complicated that involves engineering such as trusses or glulam beams, the trusses or glulam would have to be prepared by an engineer.
FYI: ORS 12.135 makes it pretty clear that I am not exempt from being sued for negligence, tort, etc.
* eyerolls *
Yeah WG - the comment was more directed at one specific individual and a long history of shit-posting and whataboutism on here. Personally i'd love to work for ya, or at least learn a bunch of things from ya. Looking forward to my copy of the book !
Fair enough, sorry to disrupt. We just got word that the book will ship to customers on July 26. First there was a paper shortage, then a delay in getting it bound. But at least it's a hardcover?!
So, MM, you’re telling me I won’t be able to read your book while on vacation? Damn dawg, why you have to hurt me that way? Shall we expect a personal apology note, written in gold, to ease our pain?
Haha, I want to read it too! It's not my fault so I can only say I'm sorry you can't read it either ;-)
Whiny complaints are shitposts, too.... Bench. Shitpost is defined by eye of the beholder. To me, you whining is a worse shitpost. You can use the ignore user feature if you don't want to read my posts. Then we won't be shitposting back and forth. Sorry Stasis.
Rick I literally got my license while you've complained on these forums for years.
Bench, so what. Good for you. Do you want a chim chim cookie? I'm not on a pressing race to get licensed as an architect. When my projects are SFRs and light commercial projects that doesn't need an architect license to prepare plans for in my state, it isn't exactly a pressing need to throw on another line item of costs that isn't necessarily going to mean I am going to get clients willing to pay more. Clients aren't just going to be willing to pay more just because you get an architect license. I doesn't quite work like that. It takes more than that.
What you don't understand is, you don't become a professional when you get a license. You become a professional when you do the work you do at a professionally competent level. When you are professionally competent and perform your work in a professional workmanship manner, conduct your interaction in a professional manner, that is when you are a professional. IDEALLY, you are that BEFORE you get an architect license.
Sadly, that isn't always the case, unfortunately.
Now, do us all a favor and quit being a jackass and be professional about your conduct like you claim yourself to be by having an architect license. What I said to Stasis is valid. I hate to burst your bubble, but having an architect license... a sheet of paper with a number on it, doesn't make a person a true professional. I don't give a shit about the bullshit statutory definitions and other crock of crap that goes with it. All it means is you have a license. So, don't tell me you are a professional.... show me in your work, in how you conduct yourself with clients, consultants, etc. Show me. That is the proof.
The way you are talking to me is not very professional. You could have communicated in a PM if you wanted to. You came harping at me on this thread. Nothing I said to Stasis was meant as an insult or as a negative statement against Stasis. If there was a criticism, it would have been criticism of the original "designer" that he was referring to. You seem to be acting as if that original "designer" was you since you seem to be the one that is taking emotional offense to what I said in a response to Stasis.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that there isn't any value in an architect license and I am pursuing that incrementally but there are certain priorities like running a building design business that also provides landscape design services, and so forth. It is up to me when I pay for exams. It is up to me, when I pay for licensure or certification fees, and such. Right now, I'm not really complaining about pursuing licensure. I believe that there are things I think would make architects more competent and better equipped at being an architect because it is also true for building designers. That's an opinion, my opinion. You can agree or disagree. I am not interested or care to know if you agree or disagree.
@Rick , how many live projects you have now ?
Right now, concurrent projects fully active.... none at the moment... kind of in-between projects. However, I have a number of concurrent prospective clients. There is one maybe two commercial projects that at this stage is more on the line of tenant improvement type projects that we are discussing the details during the last couple weeks. There is a landscape design type project for a residence that is prospective at the moment that is in the state of Washington. During the past year, I've had around a dozen residential oriented projects. In the last couple months, I had passed a division of the ARE exam and I have also passed the CCB exam. I have the CPBD certification exam to schedule in and I also have the other ARE exam divisions to fit into an otherwise busy and increasingly busier schedule. I hope that have answered your question. I'm technically in between projects so that has helped allow for some time to spend on a couple exams.
I haven't really spent time promoting about the projects I have been working on.
Even while the a commercial tenant improvement project is in talking phase, I have been doing a little preliminary 'work' I need to do to check the building dimensions that as a building designer in Oregon, it would be prudent to do. I have yet to do interior dimensions checks that I need to do. However, I have done exterior dimensions and am okay on that front. It all matters as that will define more of what I am allowed to do and provide in terms of services.
Lol, I came back to this thread to see that the conversation gone off to tangent. This was an auditorium, single-story, 500 seats capacity, assembly occupancy in a Type 1A construction. It was a small part of much larger tech HQ TI project. It featured radial acoustic walls to form an apple shape - circular on top then tapers to a narrower flat bottom. Sorry I can't share any picture as this was for a confidential client.
There were so many other things I had on my plate so when this came up, I was not happy to take on the work, but had to do it to save my company's face in front of important client. I actually appreciated the casework subs who brought up all these questions and worked through the problems with us. I came away deeply impressed with that particular company.
This has definitely not been my experience - even when I was an intern. I was frequently involved in the design process, and asked to create graphics and engage with design directors. I have rarely even used CAD. I think you might want to branch out from your current workplace and explore some offices that might be more design-focused. Many of the design directors I've worked with have also been university professors, and they typically make it a point to provide a creative learning environment for younger staff.
It's not all bad! But sometimes you have to make strategic decisions to avoid the monotony.
You don't have to stay on the traditional career path. Many of my arch school friends moved into set design and found it more lucrative and flexible. Other friends run fabrication businesses. I get paid to build out grasshopper and dynamo scripts. If you aren't very far through your undergrad it's definitely an option to switch to something else (and I would advise it... but hey, I'm a biased stranger on a forum). But if you're near the end of the degree and you're going to finish anyway, know that there are other options. Don't sleepwalk into a career you hate.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.