I will start. I should also mention a forethought that I am trying to keep this as a serious thread and professional. I see a lot of ranting on here loosely thrown around but just curious to hear others' perspective in rational thinking, what you do not like about the profession.
I was an artist before going back to school for architecture. One of the reasons I loved art was its ability to provide an outlet for creative thinking outside the norms of the [BOX]. Box being the normative world of rational thought, societal standards and overall disregard it often had for perception and profit (no need to dig into me here, I am well aware about commercialization of the art world now).
I love Architecture, I do not love the commercialization of this art form as a model for profit. One cannot exist without the other in many regards but I often find myself so inspired listening to some of the greats of the design world (Steve Jobs (sort of ICK but a smooth talker, David Kelley, Pentagram, etc.) on one hand talk too well about creatives who are put into this box to conform to society and those who go against the grain and just do things their own way. Of course this is romanticized A LOT and they talk from a very privileged perspective of success and also from a leadership standpoint. Sometimes I just feel like when I am so deep into the whole I lose a little bit of that spark of WHY I love architecture and why I pursued it to begin with. The irony being it is hard not to sell out in the art world (not a trust fund baby) and form a comfortable living. I understand that architects are only a small piece of the pie to getting work done but sometimes you look around the room and wonder how in the pursuit of creative and constructive endeavor got consumed by greed.
Maybe that is the way it is supposed to be, moments of bliss and moments of struggle (a la, rollercoaster). Sometimes it just breaks my heart how this profession is filled with so many creatives who have our bumpers set in place by clients, developers, construction industry, code and regulations. Some days the throat is more dry when the pill goes down than others.
Right now my biggest pet peeve is making the same amount of money regardless of the quantity, difficulty or frustration of a project. It's a biproduct of being an employee & not being on my own yet, but it's annoying. In due time.
Edit: I think the majority of the problem is with motivation. I'd realistically work harder if I was on a commission based system, but there are negatives to that as well if we hit a down market.
Obviously you'll be paid more if you're the owner however your clients aren't necessarily going to pay you more for increased difficulty, complexity, or frustration caused by a project. You can ask them for more money but . . .
Oct 18, 22 12:36 pm ·
·
natematt
Never happen. If you're a real good employee maybe you'll make a little more than someone else, but you can easily get 2,3,4x as much work done as someone else and even do it better and you'll get max 20% more pay... if you're lucky ha.
Chad- My main point was that I'd make more money if I did more projects. Currently there's no benefit to me for doing 15 projects or 6, so naturally I want 6 easy ones.
Oct 19, 22 10:54 am ·
·
RJ87
Update, I was told my bonus number for the year so I'm no longer as bitter. For the next few months at least.
Working for yourself as your own firm brings its own challenges because until you have your own staff, it is very much the case where you have to literally do everything yourself especially if you are solo... so this will limit number of projects and scale of projects. You will customarily be working 25-50% more hours than a regular employment but it can be twice the amount of hours from time to time. Location and types of projects plays a big part in how much you may earn as well as the economy especially in the areas that impacts the market sectors of the project types and construction.
In some cases you may in fact be doing better working for established firms that are doing good and stay employed (though you can change jobs in the context I am referring to) regularly.... than you might in starting your own firm for a period of time which varies for too many reasons to go through and be concise.
I'm a building designer but it does fit into architecture. I would say there are some pet peeves that I have or simply don't like. I iterated some of the issues in the past about the licensing / regulations of architectural licensing. However, I'll more talk about the business of building design services which applies to architects that focuses on the same kinds of projects. First, I'd say that dismal project budgets are a frequent frustration. Second, client expectation for the amount they are paying is often frustrating especially when there is essentially a price ceiling which makes for a fairly broken system where it's financially unsustainable.... thus a third area of frustration.... too much underpricing just to get the job.
I tend to view constraints like budget, codes, and regulations as opportunities for creativity. I've found the more constraints a project has the more creative I am.
I often tell people that the whole reason I got into architecture was that I knew my freehand skills would never earn me a living as a fine artist or illustrator, but give me a straightedge and my drawing is AWESOME.
I agree with Chad that constraints can be opportunities for creative thinking. While there are aspects I don't like about some types of constraints, there are also things that I like about finding a good, successful solution to those constraints that leads to successful projects.
Biggest pet peeve is wankers who still believe that architecture must equal art. I can certainly be art, but it not need to be in order to be good architecture. We're not curing cancer with our design and far more than "art" is involved. The farthest we remove ourselves from the silly starving artist mentality, the better. There is plenty to be proud of in a well thought-out design that suits the client and is buildable. Notions of sell-out and greed and whatever other porte-manteau term you want to use can stay with the deluded starving artists.
My pet peeve are people who think that architecture can solve some social dilemma. Sure it can impact the outcome of a social dilemma (good or bad) but architecture isn't going to solve it.
^That's where I coined the architecture to cure cancer from. I started using that phrase as a critique to my fellow M.arch colleagues during peer reviews. If I had a nickel for every social problem solved by modular furniture project... I'd have enough for a few pints of Guinness.
That last part simply can't be true (and never has been). I also come from fine art, but don't share the same hangups. I recognize that they're different things and that's ok. I might suggest furniture design, where there's more room for testing ideas before things go into production (if you're extremely lucky).
Oct 18, 22 7:49 pm ·
·
square.
historically architecture was considered an art, if not the "highest" art- read anyone writing about the discipline before the 50s (i personally think this has as much to do with the computer as anything).
whether or not you agree with this change, or that this change is good (i certainly think the change is true but that it is bad for the discipline), is one thing, but people aren't mistaken to associate architecture with art, especially prior to entering the professional world.
Oct 19, 22 10:51 am ·
·
Almosthip
NS - I wish you would tell this to my design studio coordinator. Who is always telling me she doesn't see my parti in my plans. Last comment I got was "We all know your great at space planning, but I want to feel more of your parti in your floor plans" Ugh
Architecture has more in common with industrial and other applied art to an extent than fine art.... not to say there isn't ever situations where fine art is applied. Our profession began with the crafts and trades when an experienced craftsman with experience in multiple trades and coordinating those trades to a envisioned design in the mind of that experienced craftsman in charge of the project. Then the profession evolved with the development of means and methods of visual communication with pictorial depiction and written language. Eventually, there was a separation of architecture from that of construction. People who didn't want to get their hands dirty joined the profession through the architecture academia who rather not get sweaty and hands dirty with actual construction skills development. You get people who rather be in an office than outside building a building. Now, this came with the idea of architecture as fine art and architect as artist mentality. The crafts trade sought beauty in their work and incorporated the arts and crafts that comes from the fine woodworking skills, fine masonry, etc. However, architects incorporated that in the context of addressing the needs of a project. There is no need to divorce art from architecture and can be incorporated but it not the centerpiece in which the design solution is entirely hinged upon. We need to devise solutions to real needs.
With regards to architecture solving social needs. It never does. We can't solve that. It's the clients whose purpose is to solve social needs. Sometimes, architects can be part of that but it is not the role of the profession of architecture itself. This doesn't mean architects can't serve beyond their profession in those domains and some architects actually do that. This is because the person who is an architect is not just an architect. A person can be many things and make their life and career have meaning and purpose more than just the definition that defines what an "architect" is, a word and title, but the person is much more than the title (or word) - architect. Architects designing buildings designed to facilitate a social service need are participating as a part of the solution but the client... such as the social service organization commissioning an architect is designing a building or a campus of buildings that can more efficiently facilitate the needs of the social service organization in their mission to addressing the social needs the social services organization is attempting to address. When I say... social services organization, I am speaking broadly which can include religious institutions (although not always the case).
I agree with N.S. that we need to move further away from the starving artist mentality but we don't divorce 'art' aspects but we approach design more like applied art and industrial art/design devising solutions for those who are not ourselves. The architect's role is not to be a fine artist of buildings. Fine art is about the impression or expression of the artist alone.... a self-centric role. Architecture is more social-centric in the sense that it's not our personal self and personal expression. While we can express within the core context and purpose, this is not what someone else is going to hire any of us architects/designers to do as a core aspect and purpose of our commission. It's not my building. It is the client's building.
What it actually takes to design a building hasn't really changed much, but with CAD and now BIM, and fax machines and now e-mail, we are expected to crank out design like products off an assembly line.
I’ve said it before but….-Art makes noise out of silence, Architecture makes silence out of noise. Art and architecture are not the same thing. They are actually opposite in their process direction. Architecture and Landscape architecture harmonize constraints. That’s what it is.
In its end result yes, But the process is different. Design starts with external parameters. Art often does not have any external parameters. Even if you buy a flat lot, have unlimited budget, and self design a house in some area with No codes. there are still many constraints (climate, ergonomics, program, structural physics, etc)
It can depend on the art. Take sculptors for example. They have plenty of external parameters to contend with. Many are the same as architecture. Then there are the external parameters that the artist places on themselves - subject, media, meaning, ect.
I would argue that a big part of art can be organizing. Look at mosaics. Tile frescos. Beadwork. The layering of oil or acrylic painting. That's without getting into the mental organizing of color, ballance, texture, form, ect.
Oct 18, 22 4:46 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
The minute you state "art doesn't deal with..." is the absolute opportunity to do that thing. Gordon Matta-Clark, and Fake Estates comes to mind.
Chad, the mosaics composition and it’s materials are usually determined by the artist. I’m not saying that there isn’t overlap, but generally speaking artists primarily resolve self imposed constraints, designers primarily resolve external constraints. You can say that a grid in architecture is a self imposed constraint to help organize a space. As is “style”. So yes, overlap…but the degree of external constraints in art are not the main force driving the artwork and the self imposed constraints in architecture are not the main force driving the architecture. Proof of that are the plenty of mundane buildings out there. A “supermarket” will come into existence with or without an artful approach by an architect. It’s conception happened before the phone even rang. The building is set into motion externally and comes with a bundle of constraints right off the bat.
I understand that you're speaking in generalizations but I disagree x-jla. Art has plenty of exterior constraints. Architecture has plenty of interior constraints that are the driving factors behind their design.
To take this one step further. Everything has inherent external constraints. Even life.
see my post above, but this division between art and design is a fairly new concept and came out of mass-production.. it's only really affected architecture more recently with the advent of digital production and specialization within the building industry.
Based on my personal experience the money isn't worth it. A lot of clients think that an 'integrated delivery method' is the only way to go. The board of directors and end users never want to spend the time up front to develop and finalize the program. As a result there are a lot of stressful changes.
The thing I probably hate most is that we're the least respected vocation in any construction project. Everybody listens to the engineers. If the contractor needs more money for X, they get it. But if I need to charge to assist the client with their new request, I get looked at like I have two heads.
ha, yeah, in my intitutional days, i often worked w/ engineers that oversized all the framing for their own extra safety factor (or design wiggle room since we architects are pressured to hyper-plan any elbow room away) -- when was structural ever VE'ed to be right-sized? NEVER! (Maybe if a CMGC found himself over budget...? Or was trying to "help" the owner to find savings even when not asked?)
I would get an email (saw it), then a call (voicemail left), then a text message. Text says to check my voice mail, voicemail says to check my email, email asks for drawings to be sent ASAP.
I miss the days of fax, where you buy yourself some time and get shit done.
i hate the continually self-manufactured crises and chaos (much of which stems from the "love of work" myth that architects are especially prone to), whether from the client demanding significant changes with no consideration for the work involved, or managers/leadership willingly accepting these terms or even going above and beyond them to appease said clients. what we forget is that we usually have much more control of these things then we realize; consultants often do a much better job at setting boundaries than architects.
Could be. I've only worked at seven firms so my data is limited. I've interviewed at firms with that admitted to the 'live to work' mindset - I didn't accept positions at those firms.
I’ll go with contractors saying all architects do is make things pretty and are a waste of money one minute then the next complaining that the architect didn’t even tell them what to do or how to do it. And shop drawings.
And add services and scope creep. Every project starts with all we want is X. It’s so simple. So simple it should probably be free. You dont have to do much. Then later we want this and that and more stuff and this stuff too and you need to make it happen. Without pay. By tomorrow.
1. client expectations - they think we are magicians that can materialize appliances and windows and steel out of a hat. They may be used to get whatever they want just paying for it, but the last 3 years have demonstrated that production and transport are not up to date with new billionaires.
2.Like Chad said above, the bipolar nature of workload, always looking a year ahead to see if you need to make a move or stay put.
Revit, like asbestos, is fine if left un-molested. It gets dangerous once people start asking it to do things it was never intended to do. It's all about clear expectations and not liking the the questionable insulation wraps.
Revit is a good tool. It has it's place. It has it's issues. The biggest issue I have with Revit are people who don't know they don't know how to use it.
b3tadine, it's an opinion of mine (and I think numerous others). I do understand some exceptions. It is not saying that one can't 'design' with Revit. I believe a lot of 'designing' takes place in the quick "napkin sketches" because a lot to iteration in design happens here at this stage.
At a certain stage where you are dealing with the technical drawings that Revit can be beneficial but this is after you have already work through the designing. Sometimes, you can work that in your head but it's this rapid iterative design process that designing soley in Revit is often less desirable. There is a stage where you move from paper & pencil to the computer tools. I'm not dissing Revit because that is not the point. Revit has its pros and cons.
I know you are making a 3d model with parametric data and all as there is more to Revit than just the technical document tool. It even be used to complement design such as cases where energy analysis is applied to BIM tools.
It has a valuable purpose along side "DESIGNING" throughout the process. You could argue that energy analysis is part of designing. Perhaps, that could be true. However, it is possible to see it as a complentary activity that aids designing.
Contentious Thread, Enter Beware! What are some things that you do not like about architecture?
I will start. I should also mention a forethought that I am trying to keep this as a serious thread and professional. I see a lot of ranting on here loosely thrown around but just curious to hear others' perspective in rational thinking, what you do not like about the profession.
I was an artist before going back to school for architecture. One of the reasons I loved art was its ability to provide an outlet for creative thinking outside the norms of the [BOX]. Box being the normative world of rational thought, societal standards and overall disregard it often had for perception and profit (no need to dig into me here, I am well aware about commercialization of the art world now).
I love Architecture, I do not love the commercialization of this art form as a model for profit. One cannot exist without the other in many regards but I often find myself so inspired listening to some of the greats of the design world (Steve Jobs (sort of ICK but a smooth talker, David Kelley, Pentagram, etc.) on one hand talk too well about creatives who are put into this box to conform to society and those who go against the grain and just do things their own way. Of course this is romanticized A LOT and they talk from a very privileged perspective of success and also from a leadership standpoint. Sometimes I just feel like when I am so deep into the whole I lose a little bit of that spark of WHY I love architecture and why I pursued it to begin with. The irony being it is hard not to sell out in the art world (not a trust fund baby) and form a comfortable living. I understand that architects are only a small piece of the pie to getting work done but sometimes you look around the room and wonder how in the pursuit of creative and constructive endeavor got consumed by greed.
Maybe that is the way it is supposed to be, moments of bliss and moments of struggle (a la, rollercoaster). Sometimes it just breaks my heart how this profession is filled with so many creatives who have our bumpers set in place by clients, developers, construction industry, code and regulations. Some days the throat is more dry when the pill goes down than others.
Right now my biggest pet peeve is making the same amount of money regardless of the quantity, difficulty or frustration of a project. It's a biproduct of being an employee & not being on my own yet, but it's annoying. In due time.
Edit: I think the majority of the problem is with motivation. I'd realistically work harder if I was on a commission based system, but there are negatives to that as well if we hit a down market.
Obviously you'll be paid more if you're the owner however your clients aren't necessarily going to pay you more for increased difficulty, complexity, or frustration caused by a project. You can ask them for more money but . . .
Never happen. If you're a real good employee maybe you'll make a little more than someone else, but you can easily get 2,3,4x as much work done as someone else and even do it better and you'll get max 20% more pay... if you're lucky ha.
Nate- Agreed
Chad- My main point was that I'd make more money if I did more projects. Currently there's no benefit to me for doing 15 projects or 6, so naturally I want 6 easy ones.
Update, I was told my bonus number for the year so I'm no longer as bitter. For the next few months at least.
Working for yourself as your own firm brings its own challenges because until you have your own staff, it is very much the case where you have to literally do everything yourself especially if you are solo... so this will limit number of projects and scale of projects. You will customarily be working 25-50% more hours than a regular employment but it can be twice the amount of hours from time to time. Location and types of projects plays a big part in how much you may earn as well as the economy especially in the areas that impacts the market sectors of the project types and construction.
In some cases you may in fact be doing better working for established firms that are doing good and stay employed (though you can change jobs in the context I am referring to) regularly.... than you might in starting your own firm for a period of time which varies for too many reasons to go through and be concise.
Starting a business in every sense that matters is a gamble. It comes with risks but you would be wise to mitigate those risks the best you can.
I'm a building designer but it does fit into architecture. I would say there are some pet peeves that I have or simply don't like. I iterated some of the issues in the past about the licensing / regulations of architectural licensing. However, I'll more talk about the business of building design services which applies to architects that focuses on the same kinds of projects. First, I'd say that dismal project budgets are a frequent frustration. Second, client expectation for the amount they are paying is often frustrating especially when there is essentially a price ceiling which makes for a fairly broken system where it's financially unsustainable.... thus a third area of frustration.... too much underpricing just to get the job.
I tend to view constraints like budget, codes, and regulations as opportunities for creativity. I've found the more constraints a project has the more creative I am.
spoken like someone who knows a thing or two (or three) about the real world. Get-outtta here... this is a safe place to help grow delusions!
You can't make me.
Also I only know how to draw good. That's it. Nothing else.
That I can draw good. Thanks! ;)
I often tell people that the whole reason I got into architecture was that I knew my freehand skills would never earn me a living as a fine artist or illustrator, but give me a straightedge and my drawing is AWESOME.
Me too. Although I can crosshatch like a mofo.
Showoff...
I'm really bored at work today. Also that's supposed to be a dog on a couch so . . .
sketch title: "Analog Chad At Work Reading Archinect"
Only when I'm bored.
I agree with Chad that constraints can be opportunities for creative thinking. While there are aspects I don't like about some types of constraints, there are also things that I like about finding a good, successful solution to those constraints that leads to successful projects.
Biggest pet peeve is wankers who still believe that architecture must equal art. I can certainly be art, but it not need to be in order to be good architecture. We're not curing cancer with our design and far more than "art" is involved. The farthest we remove ourselves from the silly starving artist mentality, the better. There is plenty to be proud of in a well thought-out design that suits the client and is buildable. Notions of sell-out and greed and whatever other porte-manteau term you want to use can stay with the deluded starving artists.
My pet peeve are people who think that architecture can solve some social dilemma. Sure it can impact the outcome of a social dilemma (good or bad) but architecture isn't going to solve it.
^That's where I coined the architecture to cure cancer from. I started using that phrase as a critique to my fellow M.arch colleagues during peer reviews. If I had a nickel for every social problem solved by modular furniture project... I'd have enough for a few pints of Guinness.
That last part simply can't be true (and never has been). I also come from fine art, but don't share the same hangups. I recognize that they're different things and that's ok. I might suggest furniture design, where there's more room for testing ideas before things go into production (if you're extremely lucky).
historically architecture was considered an art, if not the "highest" art- read anyone writing about the discipline before the 50s (i personally think this has as much to do with the computer as anything).
whether or not you agree with this change, or that this change is good (i certainly think the change is true but that it is bad for the discipline), is one thing, but people aren't mistaken to associate architecture with art, especially prior to entering the professional world.
NS - I wish you would tell this to my design studio coordinator. Who is always telling me she doesn't see my parti in my plans. Last comment I got was "We all know your great at space planning, but I want to feel more of your parti in your floor plans" Ugh
Architecture has more in common with industrial and other applied art to an extent than fine art.... not to say there isn't ever situations where fine art is applied. Our profession began with the crafts and trades when an experienced craftsman with experience in multiple trades and coordinating those trades to a envisioned design in the mind of that experienced craftsman in charge of the project. Then the profession evolved with the development of means and methods of visual communication with pictorial depiction and written language. Eventually, there was a separation of architecture from that of construction. People who didn't want to get their hands dirty joined the profession through the architecture academia who rather not get sweaty and hands dirty with actual construction skills development. You get people who rather be in an office than outside building a building. Now, this came with the idea of architecture as fine art and architect as artist mentality. The crafts trade sought beauty in their work and incorporated the arts and crafts that comes from the fine woodworking skills, fine masonry, etc. However, architects incorporated that in the context of addressing the needs of a project. There is no need to divorce art from architecture and can be incorporated but it not the centerpiece in which the design solution is entirely hinged upon. We need to devise solutions to real needs.
With regards to architecture solving social needs. It never does. We can't solve that. It's the clients whose purpose is to solve social needs. Sometimes, architects can be part of that but it is not the role of the profession of architecture itself. This doesn't mean architects can't serve beyond their profession in those domains and some architects actually do that. This is because the person who is an architect is not just an architect. A person can be many things and make their life and career have meaning and purpose more than just the definition that defines what an "architect" is, a word and title, but the person is much more than the title (or word) - architect. Architects designing buildings designed to facilitate a social service need are participating as a part of the solution but the client... such as the social service organization commissioning an architect is designing a building or a campus of buildings that can more efficiently facilitate the needs of the social service organization in their mission to addressing the social needs the social services organization is attempting to address. When I say... social services organization, I am speaking broadly which can include religious institutions (although not always the case).
I agree with N.S. that we need to move further away from the starving artist mentality but we don't divorce 'art' aspects but we approach design more like applied art and industrial art/design devising solutions for those who are not ourselves. The architect's role is not to be a fine artist of buildings. Fine art is about the impression or expression of the artist alone.... a self-centric role. Architecture is more social-centric in the sense that it's not our personal self and personal expression. While we can express within the core context and purpose, this is not what someone else is going to hire any of us architects/designers to do as a core aspect and purpose of our commission. It's not my building. It is the client's building.
The main thing I dislike about architecture is the 'feast or famine' workflow.
What it actually takes to design a building hasn't really changed much, but with CAD and now BIM, and fax machines and now e-mail, we are expected to crank out design like products off an assembly line.
I’ve said it before but….-Art makes noise out of silence, Architecture makes silence out of noise. Art and architecture are not the same thing. They are actually opposite in their process direction. Architecture and Landscape architecture harmonize constraints. That’s what it is.
Architecture can be art. Art can be architecture. In the long history of architecture and art I don't think it happens often though.
In its end result yes, But the process is different. Design starts with external parameters. Art often does not have any external parameters. Even if you buy a flat lot, have unlimited budget, and self design a house in some area with No codes. there are still many constraints (climate, ergonomics, program, structural physics, etc)
It can depend on the art. Take sculptors for example. They have plenty of external parameters to contend with. Many are the same as architecture. Then there are the external parameters that the artist places on themselves - subject, media, meaning, ect.
A big part of design is organizing. Artists for the most part don’t deal with the organization of constraints.
I would argue that a big part of art can be organizing. Look at mosaics. Tile frescos. Beadwork. The layering of oil or acrylic painting. That's without getting into the mental organizing of color, ballance, texture, form, ect.
The minute you state "art doesn't deal with..." is the absolute opportunity to do that thing. Gordon Matta-Clark, and Fake Estates comes to mind.
Chad, the mosaics composition and it’s materials are usually determined by the artist. I’m not saying that there isn’t overlap, but generally speaking artists primarily resolve self imposed constraints, designers primarily resolve external constraints. You can say that a grid in architecture is a self imposed constraint to help organize a space. As is “style”. So yes, overlap…but the degree of external constraints in art are not the main force driving the artwork and the self imposed constraints in architecture are not the main force driving the architecture. Proof of that are the plenty of mundane buildings out there. A “supermarket” will come into existence with or without an artful approach by an architect. It’s conception happened before the phone even rang. The building is set into motion externally and comes with a bundle of constraints right off the bat.
I understand that you're speaking in generalizations but I disagree x-jla. Art has plenty of exterior constraints. Architecture has plenty of interior constraints that are the driving factors behind their design.
To take this one step further. Everything has inherent external constraints. Even life.
see my post above, but this division between art and design is a fairly new concept and came out of mass-production.. it's only really affected architecture more recently with the advent of digital production and specialization within the building industry.
Thing I hate most about architecture is the clients.
Medical clients.
We all love their money, though.....when it comes.
Based on my personal experience the money isn't worth it. A lot of clients think that an 'integrated delivery method' is the only way to go. The board of directors and end users never want to spend the time up front to develop and finalize the program. As a result there are a lot of stressful changes.
The thing I probably hate most is that we're the least respected vocation in any construction project. Everybody listens to the engineers. If the contractor needs more money for X, they get it. But if I need to charge to assist the client with their new request, I get looked at like I have two heads.
ha, yeah, in my intitutional days, i often worked w/ engineers that oversized all the framing for their own extra safety factor (or design wiggle room since we architects are pressured to hyper-plan any elbow room away) -- when was structural ever VE'ed to be right-sized? NEVER! (Maybe if a CMGC found himself over budget...? Or was trying to "help" the owner to find savings even when not asked?)
Instant responses to clients.
I would get an email (saw it), then a call (voicemail left), then a text message. Text says to check my voice mail, voicemail says to check my email, email asks for drawings to be sent ASAP.
I miss the days of fax, where you buy yourself some time and get shit done.
i hate the continually self-manufactured crises and chaos (much of which stems from the "love of work" myth that architects are especially prone to), whether from the client demanding significant changes with no consideration for the work involved, or managers/leadership willingly accepting these terms or even going above and beyond them to appease said clients. what we forget is that we usually have much more control of these things then we realize; consultants often do a much better job at setting boundaries than architects.
It seems like you work at the same place I do ... or rather this an endemic issue in our profession
Not at the firms I've worked for. You must work at some 'interesting' firms. :(
chad i think a lot of it is an overflow of nyc work culture
Could be. I've only worked at seven firms so my data is limited. I've interviewed at firms with that admitted to the 'live to work' mindset - I didn't accept positions at those firms.
i work at a firm with very reasonable work/life balance; unfortunately our clients don't subscribe to this
I’ll go with contractors saying all architects do is make things pretty and are a waste of money one minute then the next complaining that the architect didn’t even tell them what to do or how to do it. And shop drawings.
And add services and scope creep. Every project starts with all we want is X. It’s so simple. So simple it should probably be free. You dont have to do much. Then later we want this and that and more stuff and this stuff too and you need to make it happen. Without pay. By tomorrow.
1. client expectations - they think we are magicians that can materialize appliances and windows and steel out of a hat. They may be used to get whatever they want just paying for it, but the last 3 years have demonstrated that production and transport are not up to date with new billionaires.
2.Like Chad said above, the bipolar nature of workload, always looking a year ahead to see if you need to make a move or stay put.
But all in all, I couldn't do anything else.
RFIs where the response is "see drawing X-XXX"
Revit.
Revit, like asbestos, is fine if left un-molested. It gets dangerous once people start asking it to do things it was never intended to do. It's all about clear expectations and not liking the the questionable insulation wraps.
Ya more the inexperienced Revit User, don't blame the software
I revise my statement - people who seem to take criticism of revit personally.
Revit, like asbestos
i'm gonna stop you there...
Revit is a good tool. It has it's place. It has it's issues. The biggest issue I have with Revit are people who don't know they don't know how to use it.
Revit is a good technical documentation tool. However, one of the best tools of "DESIGNING" is the pencil/pen and the medium (such as paper).
^hmmm. I'm not sure about this. Let me get back to you.
Depends on the project. I sketch a lot. Like a lot. Some projects designs I find work better with Revit from the get go.
b3tadine, it's an opinion of mine (and I think numerous others). I do understand some exceptions. It is not saying that one can't 'design' with Revit. I believe a lot of 'designing' takes place in the quick "napkin sketches" because a lot to iteration in design happens here at this stage.
At a certain stage where you are dealing with the technical drawings that Revit can be beneficial but this is after you have already work through the designing. Sometimes, you can work that in your head but it's this rapid iterative design process that designing soley in Revit is often less desirable. There is a stage where you move from paper & pencil to the computer tools. I'm not dissing Revit because that is not the point. Revit has its pros and cons.
I know you are making a 3d model with parametric data and all as there is more to Revit than just the technical document tool. It even be used to complement design such as cases where energy analysis is applied to BIM tools.
It has a valuable purpose along side "DESIGNING" throughout the process. You could argue that energy analysis is part of designing. Perhaps, that could be true. However, it is possible to see it as a complentary activity that aids designing.
dealing with bureaucrats at the planning department.
(edited)
I hate having multiple deadlines a week, every week.
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.