I currently work in an architect office doing mostly government and infrastructure work. Benefits are excellent but pay is not great.
I am planning my next course of action, after getting my license. Is working for General Contractors a good idea? I am not crazy about the design side of the architecture profession.
If this is a good idea, what should I do to increase my chances to hopefully enter a GC company? Are all architects in a GC company called project engineers?
It depends on the contractor. If they are more or less a design build practice where they hire architects to be part of team, which a lot of contractors to because of the architects skillset, then you are ok.
But you cant be a GC and provide architectural services, at least not in New York.
So yes, if you are planning to work for a GC by using your skillset as an architect yes, go ahead, but to practice architecture while working for a GC? don't think that's a good idea and illegal in many states.
my motivations for joining a GC is for higher salaries and a more stable career, and to get more experience on the money-making side of the business.
The license is just a milestone for me, and I was hoping it would give me better chances at entering GC companies. I do not intend to practice architecture while working for a GC.
I made the jump to working for a GC after 10 years in traditional architectural offices, working almost exclusively on publicly funded education buildings. I have never looked back. Aside from the pay being far superior to architect salaries, I have found it to be a more dynamic and energizing work experience. I initially worked in job trailers learning how buildings get built and then transitioned into a preconstruction manager role where I work with my estimating department, owners, and architects, to manage projects through the design and permitting phase and am a part of negotiating the GMP. Once the project goes into construction I transition off the team, but am a resource to answer questions through the construction phase, basically maintaining the institutional knowledge of how the design came together and why.
Going to a design/build firm is only one option. I am involved in many design-build projects, but we always partner with an architect rather than offering that 'in-house'. If you find a GC that has experience in design-build or CM at risk type work, they will see the value of having someone who fundamentally understands the design process working on their team!
I've never known a GC that dose CMGC (what you call CM at risk) to have an architect on staff. In my experience CMGC is typically required by the owner. The GC and architect trust each other and propose on the project in a CMGC capacity.
Jan 10, 23 1:38 pm ·
·
betonbrut
That is different than where I am located... CMGC here for public projects at least, the owner hires the architect first and then sometime before the end of SD, hires the GC. Whenever we propose on a project with an architect, it is a design-build delivery.
Interesting. For our public projects CMGC is always and architect and GG together. It's probably because of the funding methods used here. AKA: a bond has to be voted on by the general population.
Jan 10, 23 3:17 pm ·
·
betonbrut
Interesting... I am in Washington State and we refer to it as GCCM... but in that delivery, the owner/public entity always contracts and owns the design and engineering obligation. Our participation during preconstruction is primarily focused on cost certainty, working out complex scheduling or phased jobs, and overall constructability reviews.
For your CMGC projects, who owns the design risk? The owner or the GC??
Nope. The Arch and GC hold that risk in a CMGC. Just like in a normal design, bid, build project. Architect misses something we have to fix it. GC builds something incorrectly, they have to fix it.
Any potential challenges I should be aware of while making the transition?
Jan 10, 23 3:25 am ·
·
betonbrut
It really depends on your experience and the perspective/focus of the GC. Broadly speaking, GCs are all more focused on dollars than architects... how much things cost, how risky a project or contract is, and how much margin/profit they are making overall and per project.
I'm assuming your question to work for GC comes from already knowing companies that have this service in house or someone who has this experience, if not, it may be worth doing some research and talk to a few folks firsthand and to understand what type of work would be expected - you know what they say about all that grass on the other side...
I've worked with one GC company that had architect in-house, they did good amount of larger projects and a bunch of TIs in tech space. It seems that few GC go this route partially because of increased liability, at least that's the answer I got from one of the owners. Also, working for a GC you may not have as many fellow architects/designers to bounce ideas off of or ask a question when in doubt but you also might have more a decision-making capacity/freedom. and of course there is all that money stuff.
If you don't actually want to be an architect for a GC, they'll pop you into a wage category that's close to your abilities - project engineer is typically a starting position (eg something CM graduates would start working as), depending on your skill you could end up being a PM. I've generally found working w/GC educational - you learn a lot and get to understand what's buildable, what issues they dealt with, etc but their trade is fairly high pressure, especially during construction (think CA, but everyday and more intense). Of course pre-construction as mentioned above could also be an option and might have fewer sleepless nights (unless you've misjudged your estimate)
Jan 15, 23 3:39 am ·
·
lalu
thank you! My main motivation for going into GC is for financial and job stability reasons. I prefer more stress + more job stability + more pay, over less stress + less job stability + less pay
your mileage may vary, but I thought my experience might be helpful in you clarifying your opportunities. project engineers at GC firms I've worked with are the title for low level grunts on the paperwork side, and would be the position I would offer an architect if they didn't have enough experience to jump to a more PM type position. I would not expect them to be using their 'architect' skills. For GCs that do design-build (or some variant) the architects I know that were on their staff had different titles than the project engineers (think recently out of school with a building management degree)
thank you! I don't have a problem with starting from the bottom as long as the pay is higher.
Jan 18, 23 1:56 am ·
·
betonbrut
The pay will most certainly be higher. Having said that, I caution you to overly value that fact with the realities of working as a Project Engineer vs. Architect/in an office environment. Here are some generalizations… Not all GCs are the same, just as not all architecture offices are the same… but there are similarities, especially if you are planning to join a GC doing similar work to what you have been designing, government and infrastructure work.
As a PE, you will likely be on job sites just as much, if not more than in an office. Job site offices are often mobile trailers, that are cold in the winter and hot in the summer. They do not typically have plumbing. Main offices for GCs can be nice but can also be utilitarian. You will at least get an idea of the main office via interviews.
As you move up to PM roles and beyond, you begin to spend less time on job sites and more time in the office. Most of the PMs in my office are on site one to two times a week. Our PE staff are almost exclusively on job sites in job trailers.
Beyond the physical work environment, most GCs are heavily dominated by men. Most owners of companies are men and most of the positions in leadership are men. Women are more commonly in lower-level roles, accounting, and marketing/communications.
Lastly, one of the other main differences I remember when switching from architecture to a GC was the speed or intensity of my day. When you are on a job site, time is of the essence! Everything feels more like a fire drill… and issues that come up need immediate action/attention/decisions. These decisions are not necessarily made by PE staff, but PE staff need to have the information at the ready. I came home from a typical day on a job site feeling more exhausted than I ever did in architecture.
These are just a few items to consider in addition to compensation that may inform your decision. Alternatively, these ideas could be useful in evaluating different GCs.
From the PM position and on in your post - sounds just like an architectural office. The only exception is that PA's also do most of the work that you ascribe to PM's.
how's the competition for these PE positions? Are they as competitive as regular architecture positions? Are people with construction management degrees preferred?
Jan 19, 23 1:22 am ·
·
betonbrut
Depends... but here in Seattle, they are typically filled with recent graduates with CM or civil engineering degrees. The overall competitiveness is aligned with how much work there is or isn't in our State. In other words, when work is slow and firms are laying folks off, very competitive... when there is too much work, then not very competitive at all. This is all from the commercial construction perspective.
Jan 19, 23 2:35 pm ·
·
lalu
I see. Are my chances of entering a GC as a PE or PM almost always less than those with CM or civil engineering backgrounds?
Look into VDC (virtual design & construction) or “design manager” roles at CMs where design-build is more popular (Northwest, California…..anywhere except New England and Mid-Atlantic states north of Philly. Firms like DPR, Swinerton, Clark, etc.
The design managers focus on keeping a project to a budget, schedule, scope capture/constructability. They get paid more than the PMs (at least at my CM based on our rate sheet).
At most GCs/CMs you’re salaried and about 10-15hrs OT/wk may be expected. Depends on the company culture. Based on coworker/friend feedback Turner and Suffolk work people 80hrs/wk but they pay well.
Feb 19, 23 7:28 am ·
·
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.
Working for GC's
I currently work in an architect office doing mostly government and infrastructure work. Benefits are excellent but pay is not great.
I am planning my next course of action, after getting my license. Is working for General Contractors a good idea? I am not crazy about the design side of the architecture profession.
If this is a good idea, what should I do to increase my chances to hopefully enter a GC company? Are all architects in a GC company called project engineers?
It depends on the contractor. If they are more or less a design build practice where they hire architects to be part of team, which a lot of contractors to because of the architects skillset, then you are ok.
But you cant be a GC and provide architectural services, at least not in New York.
So yes, if you are planning to work for a GC by using your skillset as an architect yes, go ahead, but to practice architecture while working for a GC? don't think that's a good idea and illegal in many states.
my motivations for joining a GC is for higher salaries and a more stable career, and to get more experience on the money-making side of the business.
The license is just a milestone for me, and I was hoping it would give me better chances at entering GC companies. I do not intend to practice architecture while working for a GC.
I made the jump to working for a GC after 10 years in traditional architectural offices, working almost exclusively on publicly funded education buildings. I have never looked back. Aside from the pay being far superior to architect salaries, I have found it to be a more dynamic and energizing work experience. I initially worked in job trailers learning how buildings get built and then transitioned into a preconstruction manager role where I work with my estimating department, owners, and architects, to manage projects through the design and permitting phase and am a part of negotiating the GMP. Once the project goes into construction I transition off the team, but am a resource to answer questions through the construction phase, basically maintaining the institutional knowledge of how the design came together and why.
Going to a design/build firm is only one option. I am involved in many design-build projects, but we always partner with an architect rather than offering that 'in-house'. If you find a GC that has experience in design-build or CM at risk type work, they will see the value of having someone who fundamentally understands the design process working on their team!
I've never known a GC that dose CMGC (what you call CM at risk) to have an architect on staff. In my experience CMGC is typically required by the owner. The GC and architect trust each other and propose on the project in a CMGC capacity.
That is different than where I am located... CMGC here for public projects at least, the owner hires the architect first and then sometime before the end of SD, hires the GC. Whenever we propose on a project with an architect, it is a design-build delivery.
Interesting. For our public projects CMGC is always and architect and GG together. It's probably because of the funding methods used here. AKA: a bond has to be voted on by the general population.
Interesting... I am in Washington State and we refer to it as GCCM... but in that delivery, the owner/public entity always contracts and owns the design and engineering obligation. Our participation during preconstruction is primarily focused on cost certainty, working out complex scheduling or phased jobs, and overall constructability reviews.
For your CMGC projects, who owns the design risk? The owner or the GC??
I'm not sure what you mean by design risk.
GC - guaranteed maximum price and schedule.
Architect - has to design something that can be built for the owners budget and schedule
I guess I mean the inherent errors and omissions of the design team. Sounds like the owner still holds that risk.
Nope. The Arch and GC hold that risk in a CMGC. Just like in a normal design, bid, build project. Architect misses something we have to fix it. GC builds something incorrectly, they have to fix it.
.
betonbrut, thank you!
Any potential challenges I should be aware of while making the transition?
It really depends on your experience and the perspective/focus of the GC. Broadly speaking, GCs are all more focused on dollars than architects... how much things cost, how risky a project or contract is, and how much margin/profit they are making overall and per project.
thank you!
I'm assuming your question to work for GC comes from already knowing companies that have this service in house or someone who has this experience, if not, it may be worth doing some research and talk to a few folks firsthand and to understand what type of work would be expected - you know what they say about all that grass on the other side...
I've worked with one GC company that had architect in-house, they did good amount of larger projects and a bunch of TIs in tech space. It seems that few GC go this route partially because of increased liability, at least that's the answer I got from one of the owners. Also, working for a GC you may not have as many fellow architects/designers to bounce ideas off of or ask a question when in doubt but you also might have more a decision-making capacity/freedom. and of course there is all that money stuff.
If you don't actually want to be an architect for a GC, they'll pop you into a wage category that's close to your abilities - project engineer is typically a starting position (eg something CM graduates would start working as), depending on your skill you could end up being a PM. I've generally found working w/GC educational - you learn a lot and get to understand what's buildable, what issues they dealt with, etc but their trade is fairly high pressure, especially during construction (think CA, but everyday and more intense). Of course pre-construction as mentioned above could also be an option and might have fewer sleepless nights (unless you've misjudged your estimate)
thank you! My main motivation for going into GC is for financial and job stability reasons. I prefer more stress + more job stability + more pay, over less stress + less job stability + less pay
your mileage may vary, but I thought my experience might be helpful in you clarifying your opportunities. project engineers at GC firms I've worked with are the title for low level grunts on the paperwork side, and would be the position I would offer an architect if they didn't have enough experience to jump to a more PM type position. I would not expect them to be using their 'architect' skills. For GCs that do design-build (or some variant) the architects I know that were on their staff had different titles than the project engineers (think recently out of school with a building management degree)
design staff = project engineers
project architect = superintendent
PM = PM
again, YMMV
thank you! I don't have a problem with starting from the bottom as long as the pay is higher.
The pay will most certainly be higher. Having said that, I caution you to overly value that fact with the realities of working as a Project Engineer vs. Architect/in an office environment. Here are some generalizations… Not all GCs are the same, just as not all architecture offices are the same… but there are similarities, especially if you are planning to join a GC doing similar work to what you have been designing, government and infrastructure work. As a PE, you will likely be on job sites just as much, if not more than in an office. Job site offices are often mobile trailers, that are cold in the winter and hot in the summer. They do not typically have plumbing. Main offices for GCs can be nice but can also be utilitarian. You will at least get an idea of the main office via interviews. As you move up to PM roles and beyond, you begin to spend less time on job sites and more time in the office. Most of the PMs in my office are on site one to two times a week. Our PE staff are almost exclusively on job sites in job trailers. Beyond the physical work environment, most GCs are heavily dominated by men. Most owners of companies are men and most of the positions in leadership are men. Women are more commonly in lower-level roles, accounting, and marketing/communications. Lastly, one of the other main differences I remember when switching from architecture to a GC was the speed or intensity of my day. When you are on a job site, time is of the essence! Everything feels more like a fire drill… and issues that come up need immediate action/attention/decisions. These decisions are not necessarily made by PE staff, but PE staff need to have the information at the ready. I came home from a typical day on a job site feeling more exhausted than I ever did in architecture. These are just a few items to consider in addition to compensation that may inform your decision. Alternatively, these ideas could be useful in evaluating different GCs.
From the PM position and on in your post - sounds just like an architectural office. The only exception is that PA's also do most of the work that you ascribe to PM's.
how's the competition for these PE positions? Are they as competitive as regular architecture positions? Are people with construction management degrees preferred?
Depends... but here in Seattle, they are typically filled with recent graduates with CM or civil engineering degrees. The overall competitiveness is aligned with how much work there is or isn't in our State. In other words, when work is slow and firms are laying folks off, very competitive... when there is too much work, then not very competitive at all. This is all from the commercial construction perspective.
I see. Are my chances of entering a GC as a PE or PM almost always less than those with CM or civil engineering backgrounds?
Look into VDC (virtual design & construction) or “design manager” roles at CMs where design-build is more popular (Northwest, California…..anywhere except New England and Mid-Atlantic states north of Philly. Firms like DPR, Swinerton, Clark, etc.
The design managers focus on keeping a project to a budget, schedule, scope capture/constructability. They get paid more than the PMs (at least at my CM based on our rate sheet).
At most GCs/CMs you’re salaried and about 10-15hrs OT/wk may be expected. Depends on the company culture. Based on coworker/friend feedback Turner and Suffolk work people 80hrs/wk but they pay well.
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.