If you are a recent graduate and people/firms are asking for free or low wage internships, then you are the problem. It may sound like you don’t have a choice to get some experience, but trust me, you won’t find a job if you and all your colleagues agree to deplorable pay and conditions. You are better off doing a sample project on your own and ask a mentor for feedback, or band with a few colleagues and do a cool sample project.
If you are a junior architect, project architect, or project manager and you’re wondering who’s to blame for your shitty salary and work conditions, you only need to look in the mirror. Yes, that’s right, you are the problem. If you work more than 45 hours a week and pull along multiple projects because your co-workers left to other firms, then you’re the problem. There has never been a better time to find a better paying position. Companies are struggling to fill positions left and right. This culture of working overtime is so degrading, if you add the hours and divide the pay, you’re up there with minimum wage people, working for McDonalds.
If you are a principal, look in the mirror and reflect how we as a profession ended up at the bottom of the shit pile. Yes, we all know you have to sign new work, but under-bidding projects is the worst strategy to maintain the financial stability of your firm. You can make it up by understaffing the project and asking everyone to work overtime to get it done, but for how long? And please grow some balls and ask your client for add-service every time they change their mind and derail your project.
For the amount of school, work knowledge and time spent on a project, the effort does not meet the amount we get paid anymore. All my friends in other professions are paid a decent wage and receive six figure bonuses at the end of the year. It’s becoming a disgrace to say we are architects in public.
Nope, one of my friends is in finance; he gets paid well. My other friend is in law, he never had a salary under 100K in his life. I am the only architect in my group of friends and it's freaking depressing the amount we get paid
Speak for yourself. I work 40 hours a week and only do around 60 hours of overtime a year. I make six figures. It all depends on the firm you work with.
A fairly significant part of my job involves both law and finance. That in addition to all the other important knowledge I need to balance in order to make a building work. We're doing ourselves a disservice by not putting our industry on the level of similarly educated professionals.
SStduds, so do I... sometimes almost exclusively on legal issues some days. Even today, while I'm on a week-long vacation, I had to pop in to quench some legal fires... but still, we are not lawyers, nor are we trained to be. Those who take part in the contract and legal issues in architecture do so because of expertise gained while working in the field... not due to "extensive education"... for sean connery's sake... You don't get to pimp out your junior staff's wages just because a few senior archs save the client a few legal headaches. You pimp the senior staff's wages.
"we are not lawyers, nor are we trained to be." No, but we are architects, and I would argue it takes a similar magnitude of training to be a good one.
As a reference, I have a graduate degree, busted my ass in school, 15 years of experience, PM level, did some cool projects and worked in cool firms, but It's just not worth the rat race anymore
Why not take your own advice and move to a better firm? With that degree of experience and what should be a great portfolio you should be able to get a new position almost anywhere.
Magnus has some good points but also feel like you are yelling into an echo chamber. I recently saw a linkedin post someone made about architects thinking about their profession in a way that we are above all and we should work long hours because we are in a profession to improve quality of life (effectively on the level of doctor) and thought to myself. We are a service industry, we literally provide a service to a client. We are legally bound to deliver a project to a standard of care, to which will NEVER be "improve quality of life". I have been seeing firms lower fees to 5% to secure jobs in the last year. Overhiring, poor staffing and ineffective project managers are definitely part of the problem. We SHOULD go out of our way to delve our level headed advice to youngsters coming out of school because they need to hear it from people like us to set expectations. Not just grind it out and be pissed off day in and day out.
I have thought about that, and yes, I am part of the problem because I put up with it
I wanted to do something about it, and I leaned how to say no to ridiculous work requests, I began to call out unrealistic bullshit fees principals sign us up for, I began telling my staff to have a work-life balance instead of asking them to produce more work, and I started keeping better meeting records so I can hold my clients accountable and ask for time/money if they change their mind in the middle of CDs.
So far it's going well, At least I'm doing something about it
I get it's hard to compare finance with architecture, and moreover I'm not advocating for keeping up with any other profession, but when you have people barely making ends meet paying student loans and barely able to afford a place to live, then that's a problem
It's not "hard" to compare finance to architecture, it is simply not a good comparison. Of all the service-industry type jobs, architecture generally does quite well for its workers. THAT SAID, the issues of hours, compensation, and debt are all definitely relevant.
If you really want to understand the issues at hand, look no further than your local and national politics. The AIA didn't do anything to stop our title from being explicitly used by tech companies to advertise their own job listings. Beyond that, the AIA proved ineffectual at fighting the Sherman Anti-Trust Act lawsuits when it came to architects promoting higher wages and discussing fees, both in 1972 and 1990.
To top all of that off, we as a profession primarily work for the interests of capitalism and for governmental structures (in a far more direct and harmful way than lawyers or doctors, systematically). Our two largest clientele bases are directly opposed to the idea of mutual aid, ending poverty, and larger support of the working class in any way. As long as we've tied our lifeboat to capital interests in such a direct way, we will never see higher wages for architectural workers, and will only see meager gains for architectural firm owners (many of whom are slightly better off than their workers, because they side against their class, in favor of capitalism, their largest clientele).
To be clear, the best way to improve your conditions in the workplace will always be unionization.
The optimal outcome is one where you (plural) and your employer have reached a mutual agreement for the betterment of your firm's working hours, compensation, and conditions. As a matter of practical education, research how your firm makes money:
What are your company's revenue streams? How much is the overhead? What are the working hours and benefits attributed currently to the employees, and where does that land the firm in its profit margins? What inefficiencies currently exist in your firm, and how can you as a group enact material improvement to that?
By approaching with a sense of aid and mutualism, your negotiations will become easier and more likely to succeed. Most architectural firm owners, while being technically a part of the capitalist class, have much more in common with their employees than they do with their clients. Understanding where they stand will help everyone move to the same side of the table, because at the end of the day, material conditions in architecture firms are much more biased toward the client than they are toward the business owner (given the capitalist nature of our clients).
I heard about AIA's failures, and yes, it is being led by clowns. We as architects are being taught to be obedient little servants, and we need to break that mentality. Get involved in politics, AIA and take a page from business school and put more emphasis on networking/connections.
Speaking of clients, we are behaving like we are luck to have them and we'll take the suffering on our backs for the good of the project. This is such a messed up mentality. The project will be fine, you don't need to slave yourself and others.
I worked as an adjunct faculty for a while, and was unionized, but not sure if a union is the answer to all our problems. On the fence on this one
As an insight, my firm (a large international one) is having a tough time finding PA's PM's and senior staff. We had to turn down jobs sometimes. Half of my peers have left the firm to other fields. If there ever was a time to stand up, this would be it.
I've never worked for free, but also, I've never wanted to be a millionaire. Where does this "we are underpaid" whining comes from? Lawyers that make millions by scalping rich clients on frivolous lawsuits? Financiers that gloat on speculation and cocaine? If I wanted that life, I would have sought a degree different than architecture. I've never heard of an architect becoming rich for his work, most of the rich architects were born rich (in contacts and potential clients).
So? Just 'cause someone else is doing it doesn't mean you should.
Mar 14, 23 1:33 pm ·
·
pj_heavy
Norman Foster grew up in a poor working class family… now you know
Mar 15, 23 5:54 am ·
·
square.
i don't think anyone is asking to be "rich," they're asking to not be saddled with 5-6 figures of student loan debt and maybe be able to purchase the thing they design.
Chad, are you not aware of cocaine bear? You're a CO boy. C'mon now!
Mar 14, 23 7:11 pm ·
·
pandahut
More coke =higher efficiency. Perhaps it's time for architecture offices to have a subbarient on our efficiency ratios and net billable hours. Kyle does x amount of grams of cocaine. He typically has an efficiency ratios of 60-70%. However, once he's on the pixie dust he is at 85-100% billable hours cranking out bathroom elevations. Therefore the office will have a higher productivity and net multiplier on fee proposals!
I'm well aware of cocaine bear. I'm the one that gave 'em the nose candy. Don't tell anyone though, I already have an elk, bobcat, and coyote as clients and I'm tapped out.
Let's first face what the root cause of the problem really is.
Instead of telling our recent grads they are responsible for our low wages, consider: why on earth are we still each drawing the same toilet details and spending time on similar "dumb" dreaded tasks on every single project?
The answer is: our fees are usually time based. The more time spent, the more fee. Thus we keep doing the dumb stuff to collect billable hours to justify our fee, diluting the value of our expertise (which lead to the lowering of our fee), and trapping ourselves against innovation. Because god forbid if we should work faster! that'll mean less fee!!!
The solution is not unionize or other ways to diminish competition. Let's face it, if you won't take this pay, those who are more desperate will. The more realist solutions are: transitioning to value based fees and innovate.
I don't know what sector you work in, but here in high-end SFR land, our fees are lump sum based on percentage of construction costs. I and many other architects I know are always trying to find ways to cut down our billable hours, because lump sum lowers profits the more hours you work. I don't know any architects who purposely try to pad their hours, even on hourly jobs. Unionizing is not about diminishing competition, it's about organizing a fair table where all members of the workplace can have the same seat and discuss the issues that affect all of us, including work time and compensation.
“Let's first face what the root cause of the problem really is.
Instead of telling our recent grads they are responsible for our low wages, consider: why on earth are we still each drawing the same toilet details and spending time on similar "dumb" dreaded tasks on every single project? “
I don’t know of any firm that does this. If a detail is typical, then it’s already been created and kept in a detail library that people can pull from.
“The answer is: our fees are usually time based. The more time spent, the more fee. Thus we keep doing the dumb stuff to collect billable hours to justify our fee, diluting the value of our expertise (which lead to the lowering of our fee), and trapping ourselves against innovation."
What are you talking about? In nearly 20 years’ experience I’ve never worked on a project that didn’t have a fixed fee.
“Because god forbid if we should work faster! that'll mean less fee!!!”
You can only work so fast. Even the smallest project takes a base amount of time. Working ‘faster’ will not reduce the design schedule.
“The solution is not unionize or other ways to diminish competition. Let's face it, if you won't take this pay, those who are more desperate will. The more realist solutions are: transitioning to value based fees and innovate.”
Unionizing doesn’t reduce competition. Where are you getting this idea?!? I suggest you research this a bit before you spout nonsense.
Our fees are already value based. I don’t know about you but our clients come to use for the creative, innovative, and practical design solutions that can be built within the owners budget.
__________
Now a question for you CrazyHouseCat: How long have you been practicing architecture?
This feels like therapy, and these subjects are not discussed enough in my opinion;
I can throw a tangent and loop all this in;
@JLC-1, you bring up a good point; none of us went to school to be millionaires, but we should be rewarded for our effort and expertise, and not get pushed around. There is a lot of stereotyping, and it actually hurts us. Money is a taboo in architecture, and should not be. Talking about money does not make you a bad person, nor does it make finance guys or lawyers bad people. Knowing how money works should be common knowledge to survive in a money-based society. (This taboo money is an issue at a societal level too. I was raised not to talk about money, and it hurt me financially, but I learned to make better decisions and be better at it)
We all went to school because we like architecture, and ignoring the money part is not helping. After spending so much time in school and work experience, I am beginning to wonder if it was all worth it. Or should I change fields. All valid options. The pandemic didn't help, colleagues dying before retirement didn't help, and this inflation didn't help either.
So the cocaine trader thing, lol; well we can compare a Goldman intern working 15h a day and an architecture intern. one gets a six figure salary, the other gets minimum wage(or less depending on the studio). They have money for coke. See the disparity?
the goldman intern is part of a team making 6,7,8 figures that creates bonuses at the end of the year; the arch intern is part of a team making 5 or 6 figures if it's a large project where the whole fee has been mortgaged out...the clients don't value making infrastructure the way they value making money #applestooranges
the product provided is overhead, not profit, to the client
I get what you are saying, and yea different circumstances.
But at a basic level, comparing the level of knowledge and time/effort to do a job; that's what I meant
I'm not sure you do quite get what proto is saying. The way most architecture firms make their money is on a fixed fee (often calculated as a percentage of estimated construction costs). Of that fee, typically 30% or more pays the consultant engineers. Then you have other overhead within the architectural office. You have lease, utilities, software, printers, ink, paper, etc. Then come employee compensation. Profit margins are based in understanding employee hours worked, their utilization rates, billing rates, and a whole host of other complex numbers. And the majority of architectural fees balance on a project for 2-5 years.
The way that architectural firms make their money is simply not comparable to the way financial companies make theirs. I absolutely agree that architectural finances are far lower than they should be, but comparing us to other professions that work in an entirely different way is just not useful.
Mar 14, 23 3:56 pm ·
·
ivanmillya
If my fee on a $10m residential project is 7% (pretty typical in my neck of the woods) that's $700,000. $310,000 of that goes to my engineers. That leaves $490,000 to pay overhead and employee compensation (say, 3 employees working on that project for ~50% of their time at $60k salary each = 90k worth of salary per year of project time). It's more complicated than that, but there's a 2nd-grade level rundown.
The answer to getting more money is either streamlining project time (i.e. less billable hours, wider profit margin) or raising your fees (which can only go so high before you're no longer competitive with the market). The argument on an employee's behalf is to raise the fee and lower the burden of overtime.
Both of those are beneficial to the employer, and can be negotiated successfully if the employees who are proposing this have a solid understanding of the economics of keeping the firm in the black. Understanding how your firm makes money is critical to your success in negotiating more money and fewer hours.
Mar 14, 23 4:05 pm ·
·
MagnusO
ok fair enough. Yes, I know how fees work. We diverged a bit too much from the subject (or maybe not; project fees talk is always productive)
It's about providing "value" in a world that only measures in money. Further, the client doesn't necessarily understand what value in architecture specifically is, often substituting some dollar placeholder to fill the void.
Architects who do well are able to explain their value. Sometimes that's explained as ROI for an owner; sometimes it is PR; sometimes it's even fundamental satisfaction in a well crafted structure; sometimes it's good urbanism; sometimes it's a schedule to fits the academic year; etc.; etc.
But the public mostly sees architecture as a transactional exchange because they aren't interested in it beyond its most basic performance (dry, warm, secure). It's why they're happy with whatever speculative development is nearest by. There is zero critical understanding of what makes architecture good or bad; it's just a thing to be purchased as cheaply as possible (except for the few with financial wherewithal to stomach choices beyond that threshold).
The architects who can explain (& deliver) value tend to get paid. The question is how do we educate the general public so that they don't expect a transaction like they get at Best Buy.
Tell the client that we: take all of their wants and needs, ballance that between the constraints of budge, site, constructability and building codes, all while coordinating several thousand various parts of the building so they integrate seamlessly. All while providing a building that is pleasant to look at and comfortable to be within.
Mar 14, 23 5:51 pm ·
·
MagnusO
I'm sure it's not a new discussion, but worth talking about every so often. Great point about presenting value to a customer/client. In school, the main narrative is progressing the architectural field and testing new theories, while real life is based in economics. I would add that architecture schools have been a failure in that regard, which is also nothing new. Lesson of the day: if you want to sneak in an architectural agenda into your project, don't tell your client. He doesn't care, or most don't. Learn how to sell a ROI.
"If you want to sneak in an architectural agenda into your project, don't tell your client."
Wrong. The vast majority of clients that I work with do so because they care (on some level) about the architectural agenda. We're working with them because we've made it clear we can make a building that not only performs well, but also because we're driving an aesthetic agenda that is unique to what they can get elsewhere, and they're happy for it. Trying to "sneak in" an architectural agenda is insulting to your clients, and will only result in you getting clients who don't like you and don't want to pay you.
"Learn how to sell a ROI" Sure, that works, but ultimately kicks the fundamental can down the road. IMHO we need to sell why clients will have better buildings by asking us to do our thing & how that improves not just ROI, but life experience, durability, wayfinding by strangers, brand enhancement, employee happiness, etc, etc, etc...
We don't build buildings to produce money; that isn't the goal of buildings. That's what a developer does. When he sells his asset, the building still needs to have value in its fundamental purpose. We need to sell the developer, in this example, on why a better building is better for his ROI/pro forma & why that supports more up-front investment either in professional fees or materials or both.
During construction, I've sometimes commented to a sub (in as inoffensively a way as possible) when he wants to do something the easy way instead of the right way: "We aren't building this building for you & your convenience; we are building this building for the client to use many years after this month while you are on the site. Shouldn't the client benefit from the right installation vs the one that lets you go fishing by 3p today?"
I don't usually post but here goes. Interesting post and gripe which has some legitimacy. There are many reasons for the earnings we receive as employees and/or owners. I've been at this gig since 1989 as a licensed architect. Add another ten or so years before licensing - it's been awhile. To the OP: maybe in your 15 years you haven't noticed the changes to the profession, I have. The following is not good or bad - just is. While this post is a bit ad lib, I suppose, I can break it down to two basic points - regulatory requirements and the financial landscape In short our responsibilities have increased and our fees have been reduced Regulatory: Increasingly having to satisfy ever changing regulatory requirements eat up a ton of fees - things that never existed before. The same is true for the wide army of consultants Continuing Ed: Prior to 1998 continuing ed didn't exist and I personally don't think it should but that's a different conversation. In short it has undermined our professional authority. Try calculating the cost of continuing education for staff or yourself. It is not an insignificant amount for a firm or an individual, if you are on your own. Liability: professional liability insurance is ever complex and forever increasing. Fees: Firms have disappeared and or merged over the years and continue to. Fee competition is fierce. Economy: I can safely say that for 4 decades I have witnessed a financial collapse at least once for every one of those decades. This has a stinging effect on the profession as a whole. Each time it happens the most senior professionals are let go (the ones who cost the most) and more junior staff are moved up to fill the void and payload (usually with no increase in wages). There is also a significant brain drain involved every time this happens - i.e. we are worth less. No disrespect to talented younger architects intended or inferred - just a fact. To my mind the 2008 crash changed everything. Why? I'm not completely sure except to say everyone was under financial pressure. Clients, Builders, Architects and Consultants. I remember a bid opening for a public project - I read the number of one bid in a room with 30 contractors. Four well established and reputable contractors, raised their hands in disgust and walked out of the room. It was the wrong number. All I can say is everyone was desperate. You get the point - I can add much more. The fact is the landscape has changed To the OP: yes there are some hard firms not willing to give a dime. But (and excuse the pun) the other side of that coin is, and i guarantee this, they are fighting for their lives. While I don't disagree with you in regards to what we earn, I personally think your gripe is pointed in the wrong place. Maybe give the AIA a call and see what they are doing for you today (sarcasm). Best regards in all your endeavors
Thanks for the write up, I've got a question regarding the long view. Perhaps the root of the problem is elsewhere, but we (workers) really can't do anything about clients and especially not economies. We can push against our employers by refusing to work for free. That's pretty much all we can do. Puts them in a tougher spot, but it also may inspire them to push against their own "bosses." as has been said elsewhere, the only way to successfully change the workplace is to organize. Beats doing nothing!
strong disagreement there, but to be expected from someone with so much experience. We (meaning most production staff) very much are trade workers. Have you forgotten of the times when draftsmen existed? Who are the draftsmen now? I'll tell you, the Arch 1-3s, the PA/PM dual role staffers, the "have this to me before you leave tonight and I'll review it in the morning" mooks. If you don't have director in your title, you're production.
I would add also how much more architects produce in drawings and specs... i worked with an architect 30 years my senior who pointed out how drawing packages use to be half as many sheets 40 years ago for the same type of building today. similarly, spec manuals used to be a quarter of the pages compared to today.
And they spent 300% more time on site or had a person in the job trailer for the majority of construction. You have to spend the time somewhere to get a decent building.
Mar 22, 23 2:59 pm ·
·
x-jla
Maybe Part of the problem is that draftsman don’t officially exist. In law firms you have paralegals, in medical you have PA’s, LPn,s, etc. this is for good reasons. They don’t want to hire an over educated and overpriced person to do something that others can do for less. In architecture they just tiered the salary rather than tiering the job descriptions/degrees.
we are fortunate to have a good architectural drafter (supporting 4 architects), he has an associates degree and started with us six years ago at age 20... he is great with the tech stuff and never turns down an opportunity to learn new stuff to help out the architects. i wish we had 3-4 more just like him.
the real source of the problem is who controls the money; there's a lot of work to do within architecture to creating better working conditions and pay (especially through unionization), but at the end of the day money is more and more concentrated in the hands of people who determine architecture's value through choosing who they hire, how much they will pay them, and what the service is they are looking for.
Easier said than done. When there are 200-300 recent grad competing for the same position, of course someone will be willing to accept the lower pay to get in the door. It is all down to field size and competition. Many recent grad will have to choose another field unrelated to architecture. It gets easier down the road because the pool of candidates gets much smaller. It is the same on the business side, there are only so many new projects. Non starchitect service firms will likely lower fees to stay competitive in order to win more projects and grow.
At first don't go after positions located in major metro areas that have architectural programs. Go after positions at medium to small firms in cities with populations around 500k. You'll get a lot of experience do everything and after a few years (and licensure) you can apply to those large firms in major metro areas. You'll be able to pull in more money.
Just to throw something out there, it's important to recognize that the "root" of this problem is one thing, and the actions we as employees can take is another entirely. Understanding both is helpful, but we are never in a position to single handedly solve anything (a sickness we learned in architecture school maybe). We can advocate for our interests, and that's all.
I'm reminded me of that scene from Mad Men where Conrad Hilton chides Don Draper for not giving him a free ad idea. From Draper's perspective, giving out free ideas was bad for business and quite demaning. Hilton points out that a free idea could lead to actual business down the line - because he implicitly holds the upper hand as a potential client with a huge ad spend.
Of course, this is not a given. Maybe Sterling Draper gets the Hilton account, or maybe it doesn't even if Don gives out a dozen free ideas. It's the uncertainty that kills you and uncertainty is a phantom confronting all construction projects. On a larger scale, you've got firms burning tens of thousands chasing prestigious competitions.
Mar 15, 23 9:48 pm ·
·
Appleseed
'you've got firms burning tens of thousands chasing prestigious competitions.' - certainly not like they used to! Most (US?) municipalities seemed like they gave up doing public competitions for civic awards after the Great Recession-
I've never seen any US municipalities do a design competition for work. Was it very common in large metro areas? I've seen a few private companies do design competitions for private work.
Really? I've been in the field for around 20 years (MN, ND, MT, CO) and never encountered one for public projects. I have seen a few of them for private projects.
You must have been practicing for a lot longer and in different areas than I.
Mar 16, 23 4:21 pm ·
·
Appleseed
Lol, yes, you and I have clearly had very different experiences in this profession...
I guess! How long have you been practicing? Where did these comps for public projects occur? It sounds like fun (to an extent).
I've done public work in various communities ranging from major metro areas (Denver, St. Paul) down to small towns (Missoula, Fargo) and never had a design comp! We may have done conceptual ideas in our proposals but never a full on comp.
Mar 16, 23 4:56 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Chad, we’ve done a few full comps for public buildings. Won 2 but had a giant one get cancelled not that long ago. Bummed out quite a lot of people. 1billion+ $ project too.
i knew that in Canada and Europe design comps for public buildings where common. I hadn't encountered them in the US outside of huge projects with international comps - even then they were typically commercial projects like the WTC.
The European competition model for public work is also why there are so many young, small, (financially) sustainable offices. It's essentially the "first single family home commissioned by your wealthy family" that we have here in the US.
That's how I understood the European comp model as well. I've heard various European architects speak about how a design comp was how they got their firm started. I've just not encountered it here in the US much.
I'd love to hear more about Appleseed's experience with it.
I spent years working on competitions in Europe. Won some. Lost plenty. The bit most Americans don't appreciate about that model is that it is often paid, or at least the top X firms get a prize amount that at least partially/wholly compensates them for their ideas/time while the winner gets to fully design the project. It's a fantastic business model.
I've spent years working stateside and worked on a few large commercial competitions. Won some. Lost plenty. I rarely see any public building competitions, more just RFQ's. Most governments have prequalified architects that they work with anyways.
Chad, pull out any young-and-hungry paper firm monograph from the 80s~00s to find countless examples. When I was in undergrad, there was even a quarterly pub. roundup (Competitions), which covered the whole spectrum, including US civic procurement.
Morphosis is a poster child for this; had some notoriety with the little Westside houses, but were in do-or-die mode following the Japanese bubble pop. Managed to hold it together long enough to win Pomona Unifieds comp. for Diamond Ranch - and now Thom has a Pritzker.
My point was simply, post 2008-10 govt. belt-tightening, you simply don’t see the dog-and-pony show any more. Coop Himmelb(l)au for LAUSD is a distant memory (for better / worse). Everything is PPP and closed-door RFQ/RFPs now. And I think you could argue that the symbolic pendulum swung back to private companies (esp. tech. w/ things like AMZ HQ2, FOG for Meta/FB) as a result.
I started out in 2002 in Minnesota. We didn't get those types of public work comps even in Minneapolis and St. Paul based projects. By the time I left the Midwest for Colorado in 2014 we'd only done three design comps for commercial projects. Since moving out west our firm has sadly not gone after any design comp projects.
In 2023 Architects should be developers also and hire tech workers as the profession digitizes .Provide opportunities for all demographics and create egalitarian schools and profession. The traditional model of architecture has failed to reach the aspirations of society thanks to a failed AIA and Architectural education system and internship system .Pursuing Architecture and development while building an egalitarian profession can be financially and socially rewarding for architects and society at large. The same applies to other professionals connected to architecture like landscape and interior.AI might render the profession as it is obsolete.
It's not petty to critique someone's writing style. Especially when that writing style reads like a 13 year old did a google search for examples of arch-speak and dumped them into Chat GPT.
Mar 22, 23 6:11 pm ·
·
papd
troll
Mar 22, 23 7:28 pm ·
·
ivanmillya
P's take a
lso sounds like a weird techno-futurist take on architecture that ignores the financial reality of the profession...architects ARE undervalued monetarily. As are teachers. As are doctors. Embracing AI will not make us more money in an economic system designed to keep a large percentage of us poor.
I just dont know what ARCHITECTS are providing that make this industry deserves a better pay. We were just jerks to contractors and slaves to client. We dont want to take any risk from either side , so we dont get any money to compensate for that. Comeon , this industry is dying , and just let it die out, dont bring the next generations in, they dont need architecture design.
True .Developers have taken the risk and reap the rewards also they are most scrutinized by the general public and are subject to the economy and aspirations of society despite their weaknesses. The AIA has failed to guide architecture schools towards an egalitarian profession that reflects the society. If the military can push towards a profession that represents the aspirations of society, same with the medical profession architecture can do so failure of which it will be a pale shadow of itself in the future .Most registered architects are within baby boom generation moving towards retirement. The internship and licensing process is skewed and architects recruit based on their personal preferences same with the schools. Unlike Engineering, Architecture can be very subjective.
Architecture has always been a representation of the interests of the wealthy, and of the state. I don't know why you think it's "dying", when architects have never worked for broader society. The vast majority of buildings that have existed through history were not designed, nor were their constructions directed by architects. The fact is that while many other professions have figured out ways to serve the under-privileged, architecture has continued its millennia-long trajectory of serving only the richest among us, and then complaining that we don't gain enough money (which like... duh, wealthy people are inherently cheap with their money).
i don't agree with this take - yes there's a large element which is true to the wealthy position, but the state shouldn't be equated (exclusively) with wealth or "narrow" society. think of all the public buildings which serve, well, the public: train stations, libraries, schools, parks, affordable housing, and even religious buildings to some extent. even architects who design luxury commercial spaces have some effect on the public built environment for those who walk by.
it might not be the majority of architects, but to say architecture isn't involved in serving the broader public neglects a lot of the work that actually does. there's obliviously fewer of these types of projects, but that's because they are public, aka shared.
You’re completely right. However, I’m actually making an effort to change my circumstances. I took a 3d visualization/rendering course to improve my skills and add to my portfolio; I picked up a 2nd job as a waitress to save up money so that I can move to a new city and apply to firms there, larger firms that pay well. My current firm is upset with me that I don’t do free labor like my coworkers. I think it’s outrageous that free labor is even expected. Why would I work 14 hour days and only get paid for 8 hours?? That’s insane, and I’m not doing that. I show up to work at 8:30 am and leave at 5:00 pm every day, the hours I was scheduled, and sometimes if I’m feeling generous I’ll stay till 5:30 pm. It’s bad enough that I’m barely making enough money to move out on my own. So I’m doing everything I can to change those circumstances. If you don’t like your circumstances in life, change them, it’s that simple.
This is actually an interesting thread. Sorry I missed it first time around. Reading through the comments, I can't help thinking every one of them is making valid points, regardless of the arguments being made between them, but none of them is telling the whole story.
Conventional fee-for-service architectural practice tends to be very exploitative of junior staff and difficult to maintain as a sustainable business by firm owners. There is a gigantic mismatch between the level of education necessary to be an architect and typical compensation levels afforded by the business model. There is very little predictability to future revenue. Fee competition is very high and there is an over-supply of both architects and architecture firms in the marketplace.
On the other hand, there is a strong core value proposition for architects in the development and construction delivery chain. So there is a significant role and secure place for architects in the industry which is not likely to disappear or be automated away any time soon. If owners/developers/clients could get away with not hiring architects, they would. The fact is, they need us, and they are well aware of that. In fact, they are far more aware of it than most architects are.
The interplay of all these factors together, rather than any one of them separately, is what leads us to the messed-up business models and compensation structures we see. And trying to solve for any one of them individually creates major imbalances which cause more harm rather than good.
Take unionization of architect staff as an example. On the one hand, it makes sense for specialized labor to organize and protect their interests through collective negotiation. On the other hand, there is not enough pricing leverage on fees in the market for employers to respond with flexibility to the demands of union labor. The net effect of that would be to raise compensation for a limited number of people within the union, and drive everyone else out, dramatically restricting the supply of staff and thus the capacity of firms to take on work to pay them.
Similarly, if firms raise their fees unilaterally to increase profitability and compensation levels, the huge oversupply of other firms will immediately act to under-bid and drive them out of business. Prior to the DOJ Consent Decree, Architects as a professional guild did engage cartel price setting, essentially acting as a union for architects generally toward our clients. Following legal action from DOJ, this was made legally impossible. But even when it was going on, it had a similar effect to unionized labor in a competitive market: those who were in the guild did fine, but that kept the guild relatively small and clients actively looking for alternatives outside the guild.
The business itself, as consultant fee-for-service, has a number of very significant problems just by the fact that architects are not an integral part of the supply chain but work as hired guns on a per-project basis. There are many reasons why this model evolved, but the reality is that it forces many perverse incentives on everyone involved. It also encourages the very same exploitative business practices which everyone generally hates. There is no predictability of revenue, so there is no way to really plan for pro-active growth or weathering out business cycles. Firms staff up or staff down in response to project contracts, rather than building staff capacity strategically to grow revenue predictably. When the economic air gets a little thin, architecture firms, like mine canaries, all start choking to death immediately as the fee revenue dries up.
Finally, architects are notorious in the industry for being terrible business managers and not understanding their own value in the project delivery chain. What do our clients really need and value from us, versus what we think we should be doing for them? You'd be surprised at how wide the gap in those two things tends to be industry-wide. So most architects give away fee leverage on important, high-value things, and fight for fee leverage on stuff that doesn't really matter that much. Our clients are happy to take the high-value work at low cost, and let us scratch for every cent on stuff that doesn't really matter as much to them.
Very good points. I'd add that some, if not many, practices are sustained by foreign labor - that is, work visa holders who reply on their employer for sponsorship now and in the future and thus accept lower wages in return. And there may just be enough of them to keep businesses afloat. One side effect of unionization in practices with a large cohort of foreign (Mostly Chinese and Korean) employees is that the burden of more work/lower pay may get shifted over from the unionized Americans to their foreigner colleagues - who may already be less paid.
Having paid a fortune to make their way to the US in the first place for a chance at working at storied firms, they're usually more than happy to fight their way to a green card.
What can be done, conceivably, through legislation at state and federal level, make it completely ILLEGAL for any employer (other than a genuine non-profit or religious institution) operate unpaid internship programs. Unpaid internship is volunteering and no for-profit business of any business entity type including sole-proprietorships and general partnership from requiring employees who do not possess ownership stake in the firm to volunteer in any form. Training and the cost of training staff is a responsibility and investment risk of doing business. If this risk is too high, you have no business employing or otherwise.
The only exception would be an academic internship / cooperative work experience program that is usually only for a term or semester and usually part-time as they are usually students. A full-time summer academic internship for course credit can be an acceptable exception permitted. Beyond that, unpaid internships should be strictly prohibited. For-profit businesses should not be permitted to employ unpaid interns except for academic internships. If they are in business and need staff, they should EITHER hire and pay them or use a service akin to temp workers services.
At least with temp worker services, the worker is ultimately getting paid.... albeit limited pay, usually. However that is different then working for free for who knows how long.... years? On a so called 'honor' system which is total b.s. because there is no honor or respect for honor and morality. I call b.s. to employers who try to justify such things. OJT, supervision, mentoring, guidance, and exercise of responsible control is part of the day-to-day life of being an employer and part of being in business.
If you are concerned about employees leaving then you should look at yourself. Employees are not properties. We don't own people especially in the U.S. and many other countries that outlawed slavery. Unpaid internship is effectively slavery. If you employ them, you pay them for work they done and take responsibility. No if, and, or but. PERIOD.
Dear Architects, Stop Working For Free
If you are a recent graduate and people/firms are asking for free or low wage internships, then you are the problem. It may sound like you don’t have a choice to get some experience, but trust me, you won’t find a job if you and all your colleagues agree to deplorable pay and conditions. You are better off doing a sample project on your own and ask a mentor for feedback, or band with a few colleagues and do a cool sample project.
If you are a junior architect, project architect, or project manager and you’re wondering who’s to blame for your shitty salary and work conditions, you only need to look in the mirror. Yes, that’s right, you are the problem. If you work more than 45 hours a week and pull along multiple projects because your co-workers left to other firms, then you’re the problem. There has never been a better time to find a better paying position. Companies are struggling to fill positions left and right. This culture of working overtime is so degrading, if you add the hours and divide the pay, you’re up there with minimum wage people, working for McDonalds.
If you are a principal, look in the mirror and reflect how we as a profession ended up at the bottom of the shit pile. Yes, we all know you have to sign new work, but under-bidding projects is the worst strategy to maintain the financial stability of your firm. You can make it up by understaffing the project and asking everyone to work overtime to get it done, but for how long? And please grow some balls and ask your client for add-service every time they change their mind and derail your project.
For the amount of school, work knowledge and time spent on a project, the effort does not meet the amount we get paid anymore. All my friends in other professions are paid a decent wage and receive six figure bonuses at the end of the year. It’s becoming a disgrace to say we are architects in public.
6 figure bonus? In what, pesos?
you must have no friends .....
Nope, one of my friends is in finance; he gets paid well. My other friend is in law, he never had a salary under 100K in his life. I am the only architect in my group of friends and it's freaking depressing the amount we get paid
We're not lawyers nor are we finance wankers. Learn the difference.
You are right, we work longer hours for less pay! :)
Speak for yourself. I work 40 hours a week and only do around 60 hours of overtime a year. I make six figures. It all depends on the firm you work with.
A fairly significant part of my job involves both law and finance. That in addition to all the other important knowledge I need to balance in order to make a building work. We're doing ourselves a disservice by not putting our industry on the level of similarly educated professionals.
SStduds, so do I... sometimes almost exclusively on legal issues some days. Even today, while I'm on a week-long vacation, I had to pop in to quench some legal fires... but still, we are not lawyers, nor are we trained to be. Those who take part in the contract and legal issues in architecture do so because of expertise gained while working in the field... not due to "extensive education"... for sean connery's sake... You don't get to pimp out your junior staff's wages just because a few senior archs save the client a few legal headaches. You pimp the senior staff's wages.
"we are not lawyers, nor are we trained to be." No, but we are architects, and I would argue it takes a similar magnitude of training to be a good one.
As a reference, I have a graduate degree, busted my ass in school, 15 years of experience, PM level, did some cool projects and worked in cool firms, but It's just not worth the rat race anymore
Why not take your own advice and move to a better firm? With that degree of experience and what should be a great portfolio you should be able to get a new position almost anywhere.
Which school u went to?
@Chad, yes I have thought about that. Working on it.
Magnus has some good points but also feel like you are yelling into an echo chamber. I recently saw a linkedin post someone made about architects thinking about their profession in a way that we are above all and we should work long hours because we are in a profession to improve quality of life (effectively on the level of doctor) and thought to myself. We are a service industry, we literally provide a service to a client. We are legally bound to deliver a project to a standard of care, to which will NEVER be "improve quality of life". I have been seeing firms lower fees to 5% to secure jobs in the last year. Overhiring, poor staffing and ineffective project managers are definitely part of the problem. We SHOULD go out of our way to delve our level headed advice to youngsters coming out of school because they need to hear it from people like us to set expectations. Not just grind it out and be pissed off day in and day out.
if magnusO is earnest about his low salary, isn’t HE the problem?
I kid…but seriously…
don’t compare architecture to industries like finance — the scale of production doesn’t match and never will
Proto, yes
I have thought about that, and yes, I am part of the problem because I put up with it
I wanted to do something about it, and I leaned how to say no to ridiculous work requests, I began to call out unrealistic bullshit fees principals sign us up for, I began telling my staff to have a work-life balance instead of asking them to produce more work, and I started keeping better meeting records so I can hold my clients accountable and ask for time/money if they change their mind in the middle of CDs.
So far it's going well, At least I'm doing something about it
I get it's hard to compare finance with architecture, and moreover I'm not advocating for keeping up with any other profession, but when you have people barely making ends meet paying student loans and barely able to afford a place to live, then that's a problem
no question
It's not "hard" to compare finance to architecture, it is simply not a good comparison. Of all the service-industry type jobs, architecture generally does quite well for its workers. THAT SAID, the issues of hours, compensation, and debt are all definitely relevant.
If you really want to understand the issues at hand, look no further than your local and national politics. The AIA didn't do anything to stop our title from being explicitly used by tech companies to advertise their own job listings. Beyond that, the AIA proved ineffectual at fighting the Sherman Anti-Trust Act lawsuits when it came to architects promoting higher wages and discussing fees, both in 1972 and 1990.
To top all of that off, we as a profession primarily work for the interests of capitalism and for governmental structures (in a far more direct and harmful way than lawyers or doctors, systematically). Our two largest clientele bases are directly opposed to the idea of mutual aid, ending poverty, and larger support of the working class in any way. As long as we've tied our lifeboat to capital interests in such a direct way, we will never see higher wages for architectural workers, and will only see meager gains for architectural firm owners (many of whom are slightly better off than their workers, because they side against their class, in favor of capitalism, their largest clientele).
To be clear, the best way to improve your conditions in the workplace will always be unionization.
The optimal outcome is one where you (plural) and your employer have reached a mutual agreement for the betterment of your firm's working hours, compensation, and conditions. As a matter of practical education, research how your firm makes money:
What are your company's revenue streams? How much is the overhead? What are the working hours and benefits attributed currently to the employees, and where does that land the firm in its profit margins? What inefficiencies currently exist in your firm, and how can you as a group enact material improvement to that?
By approaching with a sense of aid and mutualism, your negotiations will become easier and more likely to succeed. Most architectural firm owners, while being technically a part of the capitalist class, have much more in common with their employees than they do with their clients. Understanding where they stand will help everyone move to the same side of the table, because at the end of the day, material conditions in architecture firms are much more biased toward the client than they are toward the business owner (given the capitalist nature of our clients).
or entrepreneurial action
Yes, all great points
I heard about AIA's failures, and yes, it is being led by clowns. We as architects are being taught to be obedient little servants, and we need to break that mentality. Get involved in politics, AIA and take a page from business school and put more emphasis on networking/connections.
Speaking of clients, we are behaving like we are luck to have them and we'll take the suffering on our backs for the good of the project. This is such a messed up mentality. The project will be fine, you don't need to slave yourself and others.
I worked as an adjunct faculty for a while, and was unionized, but not sure if a union is the answer to all our problems. On the fence on this one
As an insight, my firm (a large international one) is having a tough time finding PA's PM's and senior staff. We had to turn down jobs sometimes. Half of my peers have left the firm to other fields. If there ever was a time to stand up, this would be it.
I've never worked for free, but also, I've never wanted to be a millionaire. Where does this "we are underpaid" whining comes from? Lawyers that make millions by scalping rich clients on frivolous lawsuits? Financiers that gloat on speculation and cocaine? If I wanted that life, I would have sought a degree different than architecture. I've never heard of an architect becoming rich for his work, most of the rich architects were born rich (in contacts and potential clients).
You're assuming quite a bit there JCL-1.
I'm not the only one assuming things here
So? Just 'cause someone else is doing it doesn't mean you should.
Norman Foster grew up in a poor working class family… now you know
i don't think anyone is asking to be "rich," they're asking to not be saddled with 5-6 figures of student loan debt and maybe be able to purchase the thing they design.
Cocaine bear day trader.
What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
Chad, are you not aware of cocaine bear? You're a CO boy. C'mon now!
More coke =higher efficiency. Perhaps it's time for architecture offices to have a subbarient on our efficiency ratios and net billable hours. Kyle does x amount of grams of cocaine. He typically has an efficiency ratios of 60-70%. However, once he's on the pixie dust he is at 85-100% billable hours cranking out bathroom elevations. Therefore the office will have a higher productivity and net multiplier on fee proposals!
I'm well aware of cocaine bear. I'm the one that gave 'em the nose candy. Don't tell anyone though, I already have an elk, bobcat, and coyote as clients and I'm tapped out.
lol if you think there aren't a a ton of architects out there doing coke.
Let's first face what the root cause of the problem really is.
Instead of telling our recent grads they are responsible for our low wages, consider: why on earth are we still each drawing the same toilet details and spending time on similar "dumb" dreaded tasks on every single project?
The answer is: our fees are usually time based. The more time spent, the more fee. Thus we keep doing the dumb stuff to collect billable hours to justify our fee, diluting the value of our expertise (which lead to the lowering of our fee), and trapping ourselves against innovation. Because god forbid if we should work faster! that'll mean less fee!!!
The solution is not unionize or other ways to diminish competition. Let's face it, if you won't take this pay, those who are more desperate will. The more realist solutions are: transitioning to value based fees and innovate.
I don't know what sector you work in, but here in high-end SFR land, our fees are lump sum based on percentage of construction costs. I and many other architects I know are always trying to find ways to cut down our billable hours, because lump sum lowers profits the more hours you work. I don't know any architects who purposely try to pad their hours, even on hourly jobs. Unionizing is not about diminishing competition, it's about organizing a fair table where all members of the workplace can have the same seat and discuss the issues that affect all of us, including work time and compensation.
CrazyHouseCat wrote:
“Let's first face what the root cause of the problem really is. Instead of telling our recent grads they are responsible for our low wages, consider: why on earth are we still each drawing the same toilet details and spending time on similar "dumb" dreaded tasks on every single project? “
I don’t know of any firm that does this. If a detail is typical, then it’s already been created and kept in a detail library that people can pull from.
“The answer is: our fees are usually time based. The more time spent, the more fee. Thus we keep doing the dumb stuff to collect billable hours to justify our fee, diluting the value of our expertise (which lead to the lowering of our fee), and trapping ourselves against innovation."
What are you talking about? In nearly 20 years’ experience I’ve never worked on a project that didn’t have a fixed fee.
“Because god forbid if we should work faster! that'll mean less fee!!!”
You can only work so fast. Even the smallest project takes a base amount of time. Working ‘faster’ will not reduce the design schedule.
“The solution is not unionize or other ways to diminish competition. Let's face it, if you won't take this pay, those who are more desperate will. The more realist solutions are: transitioning to value based fees and innovate.”
Unionizing doesn’t reduce competition. Where are you getting this idea?!? I suggest you research this a bit before you spout nonsense.
Our fees are already value based. I don’t know about you but our clients come to use for the creative, innovative, and practical design solutions that can be built within the owners budget.
__________
Now a question for you CrazyHouseCat: How long have you been practicing architecture?
solution: "innovate" (how is tech doing these days?)
This feels like therapy, and these subjects are not discussed enough in my opinion;
I can throw a tangent and loop all this in;
@JLC-1, you bring up a good point; none of us went to school to be millionaires, but we should be rewarded for our effort and expertise, and not get pushed around. There is a lot of stereotyping, and it actually hurts us. Money is a taboo in architecture, and should not be. Talking about money does not make you a bad person, nor does it make finance guys or lawyers bad people. Knowing how money works should be common knowledge to survive in a money-based society. (This taboo money is an issue at a societal level too. I was raised not to talk about money, and it hurt me financially, but I learned to make better decisions and be better at it)
We all went to school because we like architecture, and ignoring the money part is not helping. After spending so much time in school and work experience, I am beginning to wonder if it was all worth it. Or should I change fields. All valid options. The pandemic didn't help, colleagues dying before retirement didn't help, and this inflation didn't help either.
So the cocaine trader thing, lol; well we can compare a Goldman intern working 15h a day and an architecture intern. one gets a six figure salary, the other gets minimum wage(or less depending on the studio). They have money for coke. See the disparity?
the goldman intern is part of a team making 6,7,8 figures that creates bonuses at the end of the year; the arch intern is part of a team making 5 or 6 figures if it's a large project where the whole fee has been mortgaged out...the clients don't value making infrastructure the way they value making money #applestooranges
the product provided is overhead, not profit, to the client
I get what you are saying, and yea different circumstances. But at a basic level, comparing the level of knowledge and time/effort to do a job; that's what I meant
I'm not sure you do quite get what proto is saying. The way most architecture firms make their money is on a fixed fee (often calculated as a percentage of estimated construction costs). Of that fee, typically 30% or more pays the consultant engineers. Then you have other overhead within the architectural office. You have lease, utilities, software, printers, ink, paper, etc. Then come employee compensation. Profit margins are based in understanding employee hours worked, their utilization rates, billing rates, and a whole host of other complex numbers. And the majority of architectural fees balance on a project for 2-5 years.
The way that architectural firms make their money is simply not comparable to the way financial companies make theirs. I absolutely agree that architectural finances are far lower than they should be, but comparing us to other professions that work in an entirely different way is just not useful.
If my fee on a $10m residential project is 7% (pretty typical in my neck of the woods) that's $700,000. $310,000 of that goes to my engineers. That leaves $490,000 to pay overhead and employee compensation (say, 3 employees working on that project for ~50% of their time at $60k salary each = 90k worth of salary per year of project time). It's more complicated than that, but there's a 2nd-grade level rundown.
The answer to getting more money is either streamlining project time (i.e. less billable hours, wider profit margin) or raising your fees (which can only go so high before you're no longer competitive with the market). The argument on an employee's behalf is to raise the fee and lower the burden of overtime.
Both of those are beneficial to the employer, and can be negotiated successfully if the employees who are proposing this have a solid understanding of the economics of keeping the firm in the black. Understanding how your firm makes money is critical to your success in negotiating more money and fewer hours.
ok fair enough. Yes, I know how fees work. We diverged a bit too much from the subject (or maybe not; project fees talk is always productive)
I don't think discussing fees is diverging from the subject. Fees are the driving factor behind our pay.
May I ask which school u graduate from?
No u may not.
Doesn't matter which school; we're talking about the industry as a whole
It's not a new discussion.
It's about providing "value" in a world that only measures in money. Further, the client doesn't necessarily understand what value in architecture specifically is, often substituting some dollar placeholder to fill the void.
Architects who do well are able to explain their value. Sometimes that's explained as ROI for an owner; sometimes it is PR; sometimes it's even fundamental satisfaction in a well crafted structure; sometimes it's good urbanism; sometimes it's a schedule to fits the academic year; etc.; etc.
But the public mostly sees architecture as a transactional exchange because they aren't interested in it beyond its most basic performance (dry, warm, secure). It's why they're happy with whatever speculative development is nearest by. There is zero critical understanding of what makes architecture good or bad; it's just a thing to be purchased as cheaply as possible (except for the few with financial wherewithal to stomach choices beyond that threshold).
The architects who can explain (& deliver) value tend to get paid. The question is how do we educate the general public so that they don't expect a transaction like they get at Best Buy.
See y'all on Fiverr...amirite?
Tell the client that we: take all of their wants and needs, ballance that between the constraints of budge, site, constructability and building codes, all while coordinating several thousand various parts of the building so they integrate seamlessly. All while providing a building that is pleasant to look at and comfortable to be within.
I'm sure it's not a new discussion, but worth talking about every so often. Great point about presenting value to a customer/client. In school, the main narrative is progressing the architectural field and testing new theories, while real life is based in economics. I would add that architecture schools have been a failure in that regard, which is also nothing new. Lesson of the day: if you want to sneak in an architectural agenda into your project, don't tell your client. He doesn't care, or most don't. Learn how to sell a ROI.
https://archinect.com/jobs/entry/150342323/nyc-licensed-architect-mentor-remote-or-semi-remote
"If you want to sneak in an architectural agenda into your project, don't tell your client."
Wrong. The vast majority of clients that I work with do so because they care (on some level) about the architectural agenda. We're working with them because we've made it clear we can make a building that not only performs well, but also because we're driving an aesthetic agenda that is unique to what they can get elsewhere, and they're happy for it. Trying to "sneak in" an architectural agenda is insulting to your clients, and will only result in you getting clients who don't like you and don't want to pay you.
"Learn how to sell a ROI" Sure, that works, but ultimately kicks the fundamental can down the road. IMHO we need to sell why clients will have better buildings by asking us to do our thing & how that improves not just ROI, but life experience, durability, wayfinding by strangers, brand enhancement, employee happiness, etc, etc, etc...
We don't build buildings to produce money; that isn't the goal of buildings. That's what a developer does. When he sells his asset, the building still needs to have value in its fundamental purpose. We need to sell the developer, in this example, on why a better building is better for his ROI/pro forma & why that supports more up-front investment either in professional fees or materials or both.
During construction, I've sometimes commented to a sub (in as inoffensively a way as possible) when he wants to do something the easy way instead of the right way: "We aren't building this building for you & your convenience; we are building this building for the client to use many years after this month while you are on the site. Shouldn't the client benefit from the right installation vs the one that lets you go fishing by 3p today?"
I don't usually post but here goes.
Interesting post and gripe which has some legitimacy. There are many reasons for the earnings we receive as employees and/or owners.
I've been at this gig since 1989 as a licensed architect. Add another ten or so years before licensing - it's been awhile.
To the OP: maybe in your 15 years you haven't noticed the changes to the profession, I have.
The following is not good or bad - just is.
While this post is a bit ad lib, I suppose, I can break it down to two basic points - regulatory requirements and the financial landscape
In short our responsibilities have increased and our fees have been reduced
Regulatory: Increasingly having to satisfy ever changing regulatory requirements eat up a ton of fees - things that never existed before. The same is true for the wide army of consultants
Continuing Ed: Prior to 1998 continuing ed didn't exist and I personally don't think it should but that's a different conversation. In short it has undermined our professional authority. Try calculating the cost of continuing education for staff or yourself. It is not an insignificant amount for a firm or an individual, if you are on your own.
Liability: professional liability insurance is ever complex and forever increasing.
Fees: Firms have disappeared and or merged over the years and continue to. Fee competition is fierce.
Economy: I can safely say that for 4 decades I have witnessed a financial collapse at least once for every one of those decades. This has a stinging effect on the profession as a whole. Each time it happens the most senior professionals are let go (the ones who cost the most) and more junior staff are moved up to fill the void and payload (usually with no increase in wages). There is also a significant brain drain involved every time this happens - i.e. we are worth less. No disrespect to talented younger architects intended or inferred - just a fact.
To my mind the 2008 crash changed everything. Why? I'm not completely sure except to say everyone was under financial pressure. Clients, Builders, Architects and Consultants.
I remember a bid opening for a public project - I read the number of one bid in a room with 30 contractors. Four well established and reputable contractors, raised their hands in disgust and walked out of the room.
It was the wrong number. All I can say is everyone was desperate.
You get the point - I can add much more. The fact is the landscape has changed
To the OP: yes there are some hard firms not willing to give a dime.
But (and excuse the pun) the other side of that coin is, and i guarantee this, they are fighting for their lives.
While I don't disagree with you in regards to what we earn, I personally think your gripe is pointed in the wrong place.
Maybe give the AIA a call and see what they are doing for you today (sarcasm).
Best regards in all your endeavors
Wow.
Thanks for the write up, I've got a question regarding the long view. Perhaps the root of the problem is elsewhere, but we (workers) really can't do anything about clients and especially not economies. We can push against our employers by refusing to work for free. That's pretty much all we can do. Puts them in a tougher spot, but it also may inspire them to push against their own "bosses." as has been said elsewhere, the only way to successfully change the workplace is to organize. Beats doing nothing!
By organizing - if you mean union then I disagree. We are not trade workers and unions will only serve to further erode the profession.
strong disagreement there, but to be expected from someone with so much experience. We (meaning most production staff) very much are trade workers. Have you forgotten of the times when draftsmen existed? Who are the draftsmen now? I'll tell you, the Arch 1-3s, the PA/PM dual role staffers, the "have this to me before you leave tonight and I'll review it in the morning" mooks. If you don't have director in your title, you're production.
I would add also how much more architects produce in drawings and specs... i worked with an architect 30 years my senior who pointed out how drawing packages use to be half as many sheets 40 years ago for the same type of building today. similarly, spec manuals used to be a quarter of the pages compared to today.
And they spent 300% more time on site or had a person in the job trailer for the majority of construction. You have to spend the time somewhere to get a decent building.
Maybe Part of the problem is that draftsman don’t officially exist. In law firms you have paralegals, in medical you have PA’s, LPn,s, etc. this is for good reasons. They don’t want to hire an over educated and overpriced person to do something that others can do for less. In architecture they just tiered the salary rather than tiering the job descriptions/degrees.
we are fortunate to have a good architectural drafter (supporting 4 architects), he has an associates degree and started with us six years ago at age 20... he is great with the tech stuff and never turns down an opportunity to learn new stuff to help out the architects. i wish we had 3-4 more just like him.
the real source of the problem is who controls the money; there's a lot of work to do within architecture to creating better working conditions and pay (especially through unionization), but at the end of the day money is more and more concentrated in the hands of people who determine architecture's value through choosing who they hire, how much they will pay them, and what the service is they are looking for.
Easier said than done. When there are 200-300 recent grad competing for the same position, of course someone will be willing to accept the lower pay to get in the door. It is all down to field size and competition. Many recent grad will have to choose another field unrelated to architecture. It gets easier down the road because the pool of candidates gets much smaller. It is the same on the business side, there are only so many new projects. Non starchitect service firms will likely lower fees to stay competitive in order to win more projects and grow.
At first don't go after positions located in major metro areas that have architectural programs. Go after positions at medium to small firms in cities with populations around 500k. You'll get a lot of experience do everything and after a few years (and licensure) you can apply to those large firms in major metro areas. You'll be able to pull in more money.
At least most of us do not have to work in S Korea (sorry for the ones that do)
69 hour work weeks in S Korea
nice.
Here I am doing only 40 hours a week. If I were a South Korean I'd be a failure. ;)
69 except ….never mind
I was thinking the exact same thing x-jla. I'm glad we both had the restraint not to make the joke . . . for now.
Just to throw something out there, it's important to recognize that the "root" of this problem is one thing, and the actions we as employees can take is another entirely. Understanding both is helpful, but we are never in a position to single handedly solve anything (a sickness we learned in architecture school maybe). We can advocate for our interests, and that's all.
History says: unionize.
I'm reminded me of that scene from Mad Men where Conrad Hilton chides Don Draper for not giving him a free ad idea. From Draper's perspective, giving out free ideas was bad for business and quite demaning. Hilton points out that a free idea could lead to actual business down the line - because he implicitly holds the upper hand as a potential client with a huge ad spend.
Of course, this is not a given. Maybe Sterling Draper gets the Hilton account, or maybe it doesn't even if Don gives out a dozen free ideas. It's the uncertainty that kills you and uncertainty is a phantom confronting all construction projects. On a larger scale, you've got firms burning tens of thousands chasing prestigious competitions.
'you've got firms burning tens of thousands chasing prestigious competitions.' - certainly not like they used to! Most (US?) municipalities seemed like they gave up doing public competitions for civic awards after the Great Recession-
I've never seen any US municipalities do a design competition for work. Was it very common in large metro areas? I've seen a few private companies do design competitions for private work.
Public competitions for things like 'a new city hall' used to be rather common - and not just in 'large metro areas'...
Really? I've been in the field for around 20 years (MN, ND, MT, CO) and never encountered one for public projects. I have seen a few of them for private projects.
You must have been practicing for a lot longer and in different areas than I.
Lol, yes, you and I have clearly had very different experiences in this profession...
I guess! How long have you been practicing? Where did these comps for public projects occur? It sounds like fun (to an extent).
I've done public work in various communities ranging from major metro areas (Denver, St. Paul) down to small towns (Missoula, Fargo) and never had a design comp! We may have done conceptual ideas in our proposals but never a full on comp.
Chad, we’ve done a few full comps for public buildings. Won 2 but had a giant one get cancelled not that long ago. Bummed out quite a lot of people. 1billion+ $ project too.
i knew that in Canada and Europe design comps for public buildings where common. I hadn't encountered them in the US outside of huge projects with international comps - even then they were typically commercial projects like the WTC.
The European competition model for public work is also why there are so many young, small, (financially) sustainable offices. It's essentially the "first single family home commissioned by your wealthy family" that we have here in the US.
That's how I understood the European comp model as well. I've heard various European architects speak about how a design comp was how they got their firm started. I've just not encountered it here in the US much.
I'd love to hear more about Appleseed's experience with it.
I spent years working on competitions in Europe. Won some. Lost plenty. The bit most Americans don't appreciate about that model is that it is often paid, or at least the top X firms get a prize amount that at least partially/wholly compensates them for their ideas/time while the winner gets to fully design the project. It's a fantastic business model.
I've spent years working stateside and worked on a few large commercial competitions. Won some. Lost plenty. I rarely see any public building competitions, more just RFQ's. Most governments have prequalified architects that they work with anyways.
That was my (limited) understanding as well msparchitect. I with that the US followed the European comp model.
Chad, pull out any young-and-hungry paper firm monograph from the 80s~00s to find countless examples. When I was in undergrad, there was even a quarterly pub. roundup (Competitions), which covered the whole spectrum, including US civic procurement. Morphosis is a poster child for this; had some notoriety with the little Westside houses, but were in do-or-die mode following the Japanese bubble pop. Managed to hold it together long enough to win Pomona Unifieds comp. for Diamond Ranch - and now Thom has a Pritzker. My point was simply, post 2008-10 govt. belt-tightening, you simply don’t see the dog-and-pony show any more. Coop Himmelb(l)au for LAUSD is a distant memory (for better / worse). Everything is PPP and closed-door RFQ/RFPs now. And I think you could argue that the symbolic pendulum swung back to private companies (esp. tech. w/ things like AMZ HQ2, FOG for Meta/FB) as a result.
Thanks for sharing Appleseed! Very interesting.
I started out in 2002 in Minnesota. We didn't get those types of public work comps even in Minneapolis and St. Paul based projects. By the time I left the Midwest for Colorado in 2014 we'd only done three design comps for commercial projects. Since moving out west our firm has sadly not gone after any design comp projects.
Whatever... I'm going to win capitalism without passing go. Community chance for the win.
In 2023 Architects should be developers also and hire tech workers as the profession digitizes .Provide opportunities for all demographics and create egalitarian schools and profession. The traditional model of architecture has failed to reach the aspirations of society thanks to a failed AIA and Architectural education system and internship system .Pursuing Architecture and development while building an egalitarian profession can be financially and socially rewarding for architects and society at large. The same applies to other professionals connected to architecture like landscape and interior.AI might render the profession as it is obsolete.
Did you have ChatGPT write that for you?
A lot of aspiration with no historical analysis. Quite the kool aid.
The odd spacing of periods makes me
*feel uneasy.
Architects can be petty ..
Looks like P's feelings got hurt.
It's not petty to critique someone's writing style. Especially when that writing style reads like a 13 year old did a google search for examples of arch-speak and dumped them into Chat GPT.
troll
P's take a lso sounds like a weird techno-futurist take on architecture that ignores the financial reality of the profession...architects ARE undervalued monetarily. As are teachers. As are doctors. Embracing AI will not make us more money in an economic system designed to keep a large percentage of us poor.
I just dont know what ARCHITECTS are providing that make this industry deserves a better pay. We were just jerks to contractors and slaves to client. We dont want to take any risk from either side , so we dont get any money to compensate for that. Comeon , this industry is dying , and just let it die out, dont bring the next generations in, they dont need architecture design.
True .Developers have taken the risk and reap the rewards also they are most scrutinized by the general public and are subject to the economy and aspirations of society despite their weaknesses. The AIA has failed to guide architecture schools towards an egalitarian profession that reflects the society. If the military can push towards a profession that represents the aspirations of society, same with the medical profession architecture can do so failure of which it will be a pale shadow of itself in the future .Most registered architects are within baby boom generation moving towards retirement. The internship and licensing process is skewed and architects recruit based on their personal preferences same with the schools. Unlike Engineering, Architecture can be very subjective.
Architecture has always been a representation of the interests of the wealthy, and of the state. I don't know why you think it's "dying", when architects have never worked for broader society. The vast majority of buildings that have existed through history were not designed, nor were their constructions directed by architects. The fact is that while many other professions have figured out ways to serve the under-privileged, architecture has continued its millennia-long trajectory of serving only the richest among us, and then complaining that we don't gain enough money (which like... duh, wealthy people are inherently cheap with their money).
i don't agree with this take - yes there's a large element which is true to the wealthy position, but the state shouldn't be equated (exclusively) with wealth or "narrow" society. think of all the public buildings which serve, well, the public: train stations, libraries, schools, parks, affordable housing, and even religious buildings to some extent. even architects who design luxury commercial spaces have some effect on the public built environment for those who walk by.
it might not be the majority of architects, but to say architecture isn't involved in serving the broader public neglects a lot of the work that actually does. there's obliviously fewer of these types of projects, but that's because they are public, aka shared.
You’re completely right. However, I’m actually making an effort to change my circumstances. I took a 3d visualization/rendering course to improve my skills and add to my portfolio; I picked up a 2nd job as a waitress to save up money so that I can move to a new city and apply to firms there, larger firms that pay well. My current firm is upset with me that I don’t do free labor like my coworkers. I think it’s outrageous that free labor is even expected. Why would I work 14 hour days and only get paid for 8 hours?? That’s insane, and I’m not doing that. I show up to work at 8:30 am and leave at 5:00 pm every day, the hours I was scheduled, and sometimes if I’m feeling generous I’ll stay till 5:30 pm. It’s bad enough that I’m barely making enough money to move out on my own. So I’m doing everything I can to change those circumstances. If you don’t like your circumstances in life, change them, it’s that simple.
This is actually an interesting thread. Sorry I missed it first time around. Reading through the comments, I can't help thinking every one of them is making valid points, regardless of the arguments being made between them, but none of them is telling the whole story.
Conventional fee-for-service architectural practice tends to be very exploitative of junior staff and difficult to maintain as a sustainable business by firm owners. There is a gigantic mismatch between the level of education necessary to be an architect and typical compensation levels afforded by the business model. There is very little predictability to future revenue. Fee competition is very high and there is an over-supply of both architects and architecture firms in the marketplace.
On the other hand, there is a strong core value proposition for architects in the development and construction delivery chain. So there is a significant role and secure place for architects in the industry which is not likely to disappear or be automated away any time soon. If owners/developers/clients could get away with not hiring architects, they would. The fact is, they need us, and they are well aware of that. In fact, they are far more aware of it than most architects are.
The interplay of all these factors together, rather than any one of them separately, is what leads us to the messed-up business models and compensation structures we see. And trying to solve for any one of them individually creates major imbalances which cause more harm rather than good.
Take unionization of architect staff as an example. On the one hand, it makes sense for specialized labor to organize and protect their interests through collective negotiation. On the other hand, there is not enough pricing leverage on fees in the market for employers to respond with flexibility to the demands of union labor. The net effect of that would be to raise compensation for a limited number of people within the union, and drive everyone else out, dramatically restricting the supply of staff and thus the capacity of firms to take on work to pay them.
Similarly, if firms raise their fees unilaterally to increase profitability and compensation levels, the huge oversupply of other firms will immediately act to under-bid and drive them out of business. Prior to the DOJ Consent Decree, Architects as a professional guild did engage cartel price setting, essentially acting as a union for architects generally toward our clients. Following legal action from DOJ, this was made legally impossible. But even when it was going on, it had a similar effect to unionized labor in a competitive market: those who were in the guild did fine, but that kept the guild relatively small and clients actively looking for alternatives outside the guild.
The business itself, as consultant fee-for-service, has a number of very significant problems just by the fact that architects are not an integral part of the supply chain but work as hired guns on a per-project basis. There are many reasons why this model evolved, but the reality is that it forces many perverse incentives on everyone involved. It also encourages the very same exploitative business practices which everyone generally hates. There is no predictability of revenue, so there is no way to really plan for pro-active growth or weathering out business cycles. Firms staff up or staff down in response to project contracts, rather than building staff capacity strategically to grow revenue predictably. When the economic air gets a little thin, architecture firms, like mine canaries, all start choking to death immediately as the fee revenue dries up.
Finally, architects are notorious in the industry for being terrible business managers and not understanding their own value in the project delivery chain. What do our clients really need and value from us, versus what we think we should be doing for them? You'd be surprised at how wide the gap in those two things tends to be industry-wide. So most architects give away fee leverage on important, high-value things, and fight for fee leverage on stuff that doesn't really matter that much. Our clients are happy to take the high-value work at low cost, and let us scratch for every cent on stuff that doesn't really matter as much to them.
Very good points. I'd add that some, if not many, practices are sustained by foreign labor - that is, work visa holders who reply on their employer for sponsorship now and in the future and thus accept lower wages in return. And there may just be enough of them to keep businesses afloat. One side effect of unionization in practices with a large cohort of foreign (Mostly Chinese and Korean) employees is that the burden of more work/lower pay may get shifted over from the unionized Americans to their foreigner colleagues - who may already be less paid.
Having paid a fortune to make their way to the US in the first place for a chance at working at storied firms, they're usually more than happy to fight their way to a green card.
What can be done, conceivably, through legislation at state and federal level, make it completely ILLEGAL for any employer (other than a genuine non-profit or religious institution) operate unpaid internship programs. Unpaid internship is volunteering and no for-profit business of any business entity type including sole-proprietorships and general partnership from requiring employees who do not possess ownership stake in the firm to volunteer in any form. Training and the cost of training staff is a responsibility and investment risk of doing business. If this risk is too high, you have no business employing or otherwise.
The only exception would be an academic internship / cooperative work experience program that is usually only for a term or semester and usually part-time as they are usually students. A full-time summer academic internship for course credit can be an acceptable exception permitted. Beyond that, unpaid internships should be strictly prohibited. For-profit businesses should not be permitted to employ unpaid interns except for academic internships. If they are in business and need staff, they should EITHER hire and pay them or use a service akin to temp workers services.
At least with temp worker services, the worker is ultimately getting paid.... albeit limited pay, usually. However that is different then working for free for who knows how long.... years? On a so called 'honor' system which is total b.s. because there is no honor or respect for honor and morality. I call b.s. to employers who try to justify such things. OJT, supervision, mentoring, guidance, and exercise of responsible control is part of the day-to-day life of being an employer and part of being in business.
If you are concerned about employees leaving then you should look at yourself. Employees are not properties. We don't own people especially in the U.S. and many other countries that outlawed slavery. Unpaid internship is effectively slavery. If you employ them, you pay them for work they done and take responsibility. No if, and, or but. PERIOD.
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.