I am an Architectural Designer with three years of experience…..I have been laid off from a top design firm due to the slowdown of projects in the office and lately I have been thinking in how unstable and easy is to get replaced as a young designer. So I just got a job offer from a top well known AOR firm and I wonder if being away from design and more involved into the technical, Construction drawings and administration could potentially increase my skills and be more valuable to a design firm in case of switching back to design…. Any advices?
The technical and Construction documents are what people pay you for not making sketches a pre-school child can do. While design is good and actually being good at that. You need to be good with the stuff the client couldn't do themselves like the technical and difficult stuff. The stuff that warrants a 4+ year college education. Get good with the technical, professional, and ability to put together and facilitate the preparation of professional quality competently prepared technical drawings, specifications, and other PROFESSIONAL documents. That's where the money is in the architectural/building design. Get good with that and good with "design" then you'll be more valuable and the desire to retain you would increase. You'll need to get into developing project management and leadership skills as well.
If you turn around and give essentially the same answer, you should be disregarded as well. By the way, I am a building designer and the business owner so I OWN the office and work from it. I just not some dumb fuck who spends thousands of dollars a month to rent a commercial space suitable for have a half dozen to a dozen employees when you don't need that. You can't just jump from 1-2 individual to a dozen employees unless you get a lot of money and the time to vett through resumes/applications, picking good fit for your "middle" staff (the supervisory staff/managers, and staff up. You're not talking something you can just afford to do out of pocket. That's major loan type stuff like a half million or more and you need to secure over a million dollars in retainer fees or you better have some angel investor in your back pocket. There has never been one single client and prospective client that I have ever talked to who is looking for "design" so much that it is #1 thing.
In the U.S., there's a reason why there is that "starving artist" thing. While good design skill and being creative is good. They aren't looking for parti scribbles.
Unless you are a starchitect... which means, unless you're rich, privileged, and essentially a celebrity, you're not going to be one. Starchitects represents only an extreme minority of the profession. Licensed or not. Bottom line: you won't be one and fancy design skills isn't going to be the bread and butter and top reason you are hired/contracted by clients.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying developing design skills are not worth it. It will be the technical and professional knowledge and skills, not you're sketching but your ability to communicate, professional guidance, and ability to manage and lead a project team to execute and complete a project. There will not be any absolute solution to not getting your employment terminated. However, it is these skills that need to be built, not just "designing" that makes a person more valuable to keep as an employee or of value to a client.
Every damn student/graduate are taught to "design". That's what your art school program teaches. What they don't really do good at is teaching how to manage and execute project in a real professional setting. So everyone's a fucking "designer" so what the hell makes you stand out and offer an employer that 90% of the rest do not possess?
Before dissing someone, read what was written and if what was written, you could have written something like:
"First, what _________ written, here is largely true and should not be blindly dismissed. Second, ________ had not worked for an architect so caution should be made in not blindly following _________ advice."
That would have been a more professional and appropriate response from you.
The bottom line of my point to the OP is what "reallynotmyname" wrote below.
For example: A firm principal once told me very bluntly that "designers are a dime a dozen, but good technical people are much harder to find".
Exactly. Architecture art school is basically teaching how to design think but often there is too much focus on that front. Too much grading weight on the artistic qualities but not enough attention towards preparing the complete education and skillset training and development to execute an idea and concept to project completion, and the evaluation holistically the knowledge and skills on all facets of the process not just the designing but also project management, technical, etc.
Too often, "project completion" is seen as just the end of the designing phase which is basically the completion of SD/DD phase. That's where a lot of studio projects essentially end at.
The curriculum basically pumps out "designers" not professionals making my point "everyone's a fucking designer...".
My point is the OP needs to develop these other areas not just the "designing" skills. I wouldn't give up and let the design skills go but it's the rest of the skill sets to further professional development. If he or she is good at design then make these other areas good as well while keeping up his/her design skill. It's like not just focusing on building up biceps but holistically your entire body.
"For example: A firm principal once told me very bluntly that "designers are a dime a dozen, but good technical people are much harder to find".
Funny. All the firm owners I know say the exact opposite.
We don't care if you can draft or the programs you know. We care how you think and if you can be creative. We'll teach you the drafting an the programs.
@chad
I’m curious how you would apply this over a range of experience levels. The “we’ll teach you” comments make me think this is really about entry level people, to which I’d agree creative thinking is a bigger sell for firms in my experience…. Probably because there is no such thing as a good technical person at an entry level (only people with potential)
I agree on the various points but there is a truth to that argument as well as yours. Keep in mind, you have every single graduate.... proclaimed "designers".
Your argument is fine for entry-level positions. That is not where anyone wants to be career-wise if you want career stability and that includes financial stability. You need value beyond design skill. Considering 90% of architects are all coming from glorified art schools called architecture schools where "designing" is essentially THE curriculum. Of course, to varying quality, many already think and are creative (to varying degrees) but those are far more common than those that can do the technical and produce the bread and butter and can lead/manage a project from concept to completion.
It is those skills that elevate you from entry-level staff to associate/senior associate to potentially a Principal (where business leadership skills and procuring projects is your job) as well as skills along the way where you work and talk to clients and resolve problems.
Paraphrasing what I said, "everyone's a designer, what do you offer and provide beyond that?"
For most young designers, the answer to the question in bold is probably none. If you want to advance your career, you don't want to stick with "none" as your answer. You may find difficulties getting taught those skills.
There are three parts to learning. The theories and principles (the 'books' theory) and then practicing (applying the theories and principles). The third part is "assessing". These three parts are iterative as well. The first and the last are things you will likely need to take initiative. The last happens after you practice but the employer isn't doing that for you. You have to assess for yourself. No one can really do that for you. They can provide valuable observations but your enlightenment will come when assess for yourself.
Before that, you need to practice and even make mistakes but ideally in a controlled environment where you can make a mistake and correct it without anyone getting harmed. Before you practice, you need to know theories and principles including best practices and observations experienced individuals have had over the course of their career. There are resources where you can do this on your own time.
Career development is your responsibility for yourself, not the employer's. It is nice when they help you but don't expect it.
If I was hiring, the quality of self-initiative to learn is a quality I would look for. They are the ones who'll be studying and learning on their break time and on their personal time not just sitting on their rear end waiting for their boss to take them by their hands through their career.
If you want something other than "none" to the question in bold, you need to take the initiative and learn. Starting with the principles and theories. Bosses don't have time to start you at first grade. You need to get some of those grades done on your own or with a mentor who is not your boss but is willing to help you out as a guide but the work is yours to do.
"@chad I’m curious how you would apply this over a range of experience levels. The “we’ll teach you” comments make me think this is really about entry level people, to which I’d agree creative thinking is a bigger sell for firms in my experience…. Probably because there is no such thing as a good technical person at an entry level (only people with potential)"
I would apply it over a wide range of experience levels. Limiting the idea of 'we'll teach you' to just entry level people is a mistake.
This profession is constantly changing and as such people with a great deal of experience in one area can easily learn new related skills if their firm is willing to teach them. Nearly everyone has potential to improve. It makes everyone better.
Most employers aren't going to teach that. Not every employer is good at teaching or have the patience to teach someone because it is costing them more to teach someone than it was to have done the work themselves especially if they have to start teaching someone from the very most basic level (like "first-grade" level). Some do not have the time or patience, or both.
You are right if the firm is willing to learn but that also means the "student-employee" needs to also be and have self-initiative to learn and do it (on their own time so they aren't wasting their employer's money not doing their job as an employee). At some point, when you demonstrate that you have an understanding of a subject matter, the employer may then be able to help you further your understanding. Technical skills are another beast but you learn it independently.
Yes there is a base level of knowledge that is needed however good firms are willing to invest in their team members and teach them how they like to do things.
Everyone in this profession is constantly learning new things. This applies from the student intern all the way up the a senior partner. If a firm isn't willing to invest in their team members and teach then the firm is going to fail.
There's a difference between investing in helping team members develop but that's not the same as hand holding you through everything. They don't have the time to devote to employees as a teacher in a school has to devote to students. Pretty much no employer has that kind of time. If they spent that amount of time, how the hell do they get any work done or procure projects?
There's a certain amount of energy and commitment toward helping employees learn. That I agree with.
However, the majority of energy and commitment to learning and development must be and necessarily borne by the employee. The employee must be more autodidactic in this stage than he/she was as some student in a classroom. This isn't the classroom environment anymore.
This is fundamentally true with absolutely every occupation that exists not just architecture.
How many hours a day... hours a week do you or your employers, individually, spend teaching employees. How many hours are they giving employees lectures and daily classroom type instruction like a professor? Does your firm have a dedicated professor at the office? I doubt they put *that* much effort. Mentoring is not the same as teaching. It's guidance and such but ultimately, the employees have to put their effort in studying, reading, etc. ie. learning with self-initiative.
Teaching involves giving detailed instruction. Teaching the theories and principles with a curriculum. That's what in the working environment and employers call "hand holding" because the employee isn't taking initiative and applying autodidactic studying to practice on his or her own time. Employers are concerned with deadlines and work getting done (through managing projects and oversight to directly working on the projects, to talking to contractors, clients, etc.), and procuring work. That alone is a full-time job. Teaching is a full-time job whether you teach a classroom of one or a classroom of dozens.
Mentoring isn't the same as being a teacher. Yes, you may instill things a person may learn from, but so does the authors of books. Anyway, I think we just have different terms for what we are describing.
I think you have a very narrow definition of teaching. Mentoring is not the same as teaching, however teaching is a part of mentoring. Here are few examples of teaching we do at our firm . . . .
We'll send team members to Revit training if we don't think they’re proficient enough in the program. It lasts a week, and we pay for everything.
We have weekly meetings where we share lessons learned from the previous week. This week it was about ADA countertop depths and how the door hardware can impact it.
At the same meeting we’ll have office training where we’ll address various knowledge gaps we’ve seen in the firms knowledge. This could be something as mundane as drafting. This week it was about CCD’s
We’ll have new staff take on tasks that will require them to do a lot of research and senior staff to be heavily involved to provide knowledge and guidance. The senior staff could do these tasks faster however the new staff learn a lot from this.
When staff are getting ready to take a licensing exam we'll do 'study parties' with a senior team member there to help answer any questions people may have.
All of these occur during work hours. We don't charge our client's for most of these (item three we'll bill out some of the time to the project).
Your firm does what I would refer to as mentoring and also help by investing in employees getting continuing education. If your firm was where I am or I lived in your area, the firm you are at would be a firm that I would consider working at. This isn't something all firms provide and is exceptional. Some may provide some investment for employees to further their skills. However, it is still important for employees to be more autodidactic in this stage. Young entry-level employees, what they think of in the terms teaching, it's going to be the classroom environment or something like that where the curriculum is defined and they follow a syllabus and curriculum. Not that way. If one wants to develop their career and steer it, they have to be more of a self-learner and take the reins to steer the horse that is their career. Mentoring and some instruction at the beginning would be great and ideal and should be norm but as time goes on, the student learns to steer the horse and use the reins and do so independently.
What I am getting at is, "breaking the habit of dependence on others to giving personal detailed teaching and instruction and become more self-driven and independent. Firms can help along this path but firms aren't necessarily going to steer a person's career. Where this employee's career going to be in 10 or 20 years, who knows. The employee is going to have to steer their career. Take the helm.
I don't recall the number of employees your firm has. Medium to larger firms may have the human resources to support this but smaller firms usually will not.
I'm not saying your firm makes them dependent. It is that some young people entering the profession, that the firm would be providing that. My comment is not an evaluation of your firm. I can see some limited level of teaching when you have the human resources to do so.
If I were to hire an employee and do that, it would consume too much time mentoring and instruction/teaching to procure projects and get work done. There's a certain level of human resources needed to successfully do what your firm provides.
Our firm has 12 people. We don't have just one person who mentors or teaches. Everyone does that. This includes the newer staff. We learn from each other.
@chad - I was going to comment back, but it is not worth reading all that's happened since my comment. 100% agreed on the "Nearly everyone has potential to improve. It makes everyone better. " comment though.
I agree but you need like that to do it. If you are a sole-propietor or firm of 5 or less, it would be extremely hard to have that on everyone's back.
If I added employees right now, and were to provide mentorship and such, it would likely be taking over 20 hour a week. Closer to 30-40 hour a week. I would have to add experienced business partners and then new employees because otherwise, I would have to be working 80+ hours a week to manage to get the work done, procure work, and mentor & teach, etc.
There has to be a sufficient number of employees/partners to be able to manage that. Otherwise, you can easily burn out even with good intentions. Your firm is on the scale to do what they are offering. Ideally 10+ employees/partners.
I wouldn't take that many hours. It's more about the culture of your firm and how you structure the review / design process of projects. I'd estimate that I only spend 3-5 hours a month teaching team mates and that's when I'm assisting them with project tasks.
I generally call that mentoring (which of course can involve some teaching) than a teaching role. My earlier point was for the OP should not expect the kind and teaching role from employers like what he/she might expect from a classroom. they just aren't going to be *that* devoted.
They may surely help you develop along the way but ultimately it would be the OP's responsibility to develop and learn, take the initiative, and be much more self-driven and autodidactic about their continuing learning. Don't expect some formal classroom-style teaching from employers. It is more appropriate to understand the learning environment where you and your colleagues are learning by "osmosis" (ie. listening, observing, brief inquiries over time, etc.). Different environment than the classroom.
I do entirely support what your firm is doing. The 3-5 hours a month or a week is much more doable to do and foster that culture. I can agree with and would support adopting such if I were to add employees. That's more doable.
As for funding some of the training, that's more a budgetary matter but plausible if one doesn't go overzealous with spending. Smaller the firm, more budget constraint but not beyond doable.
For you to think that teaching is only done in formal classroom style setting is a very antiquated view. No one promoted or stated that type of a learning environment to be provided by employers.
I suspect the person being relatively "young' in the profession might assume "teaching" in the context of a "classroom" style setting because that is their frame of reference because that is how most in this country gets their education.... didactically not autodidactically. They go through grade school didactically. They go through college didactically.
So, what other frame of reference would they have?
Most aren't substantial autodidactic learners such as myself. They didn't get their architecture degree autodidactically. They don't grant architecture degrees in this country to self-taught learners of the architecture curriculum.
Architecture programs typically teach in a combination of didactically and autodidactically. A lot of classes are taught through group and studio projects where you learn while doing. A professor is only there to guide you. They aren't in front of the class saying 'now this is how you layout a classroom, watch me and imitate'. Any fresh architectural grad would be experienced in this and understand that the majority of their learning experiences in a firm will be the same.
In addition, architects still learn via structured lecture courses via conferences.
Ok. Fair point you make. In any case, I'll argue that the OP should expect the learning environment in the office to be more like the studios courses not the subject courses with a strong emphasis of autodidactic learning. Revit learning, for example, is going to take time and not just the little seminars on it but personal time developing those skills. Project Management principles are going to be something you'll learn in mentorship, self-learning, and practice. Business management / administration, same thing. You can get the books and study but sooner or later, you have to practice. In any case, that's just only a portion of my overall point in my post on MAY 22, 23 @ 1:45 PM. Don't expect the employer to help. Some do. Some don't. In the end, you have to learn these things to advance your career with or without the help of the firm/employer.
Designers who know something about construction documents and admin. are indeed more valuable then those who don't. Your thought about designers being easily replaced is correct.
A firm principal once told me very bluntly that "designers are a dime a dozen, but good technical people are much harder to find".
A 2-3 stint in an AOR shop would probably be good for you. If the place is drawing up projects for prominent design architects, you may be able to network with them and eventually navigate back to a mid-level position at one of the design architects' firms.
Agreed with above. With 3 years’ experience, you’re really going to be limiting your value and employment options if you don’t get some broader experience.
That said, I might opt for a firm that just does both myself, but whatever pays the bill and builds the skills.
You've got your 3 years at a (presumptive) well-known design firm; that's a great start. But you've also learned a tough lesson that those firms go through a much more acute boom-and-bust cycle that can have harsh consequences, like lay-offs. Taking a position to deeply learn the in's and out's of putting together a great document set that will be used on-site is a really useful counterpoint to that experience. And more than likely, they will have a good support system for allowing you to get your license while employed there. I'd say go for it. Focus on learning as much as you can and writing your exams. Once that's done you'll be able to show that you were successful in two very different firms, and you'll have leverage to make another lateral move into a better role further down the line.
It is good to also have a good look at your skills: Can you make it to the top at one of the starchitect firms?
The communication, presentation, style points, business development, academic connections, chemistry with the namesake founder ... not everyone has that skillset to rise to the top. It's perfectly fine not to have that skillset - there're only that many Principal positions and they tend to stick around for a long time.
If you don't think you can make it to that level of security, gaining technical skills will be a fantastic next step.
It should be something you learn anyway, but if you stick to producing renders and schematic diagrams for starchitects who do not produce construction drawings, there is a chance that you might be competing with fresh graduates with a comparable skill level five years down the road - but who are on lower wages.
Le Courvoisier, you don't know what you are talking about. Most projects that I work on are with regard to private citizens and I don't discuss their projects on a public web forum, especially with people who hide from accountability by using aliases. Use your real name so you can be held accountable in the court of law when you do commit libel... yes, the court of law, perhaps is the only legitimate place remaining where facts matter.
Besides, I don't have buildings or things built. The client has things built. That's their role not the role of architects and designers. You should know the difference between having things designed or built, from designing or building. So whose money?
when can I buy your pre-designed house plans Rick. Oh… no provinces in Australia or the UK FYI..
May 21, 23 1:30 am ·
·
natematt
“Besides, I don't have buildings or things built. The client has things built. That's their role not the role of architects and designers. You should know the difference between having things designed or built, from designing or building. So whose money?”
This is more vague than inaccurate. Without really getting into it, this is an industry typical simplification of a statement. No architect, contractor, owner, or even layperson misunderstands this.
Being a good designer and AOR both are valuable parts of the profession. Unfortunately layoffs/leaving jobs is a part of the career and life - you can be the most talented, hardworking person and be doing a great job and can be fired from a job or by a client for a variety of reasons beyond your control (recession, politics, your skillset not being a good fit for the culture, pandemic etc.).
Being a good AOR is a equally about having excellent communication, having a great team of consultants and a good contractor as it is about being proficient in building systems, architectural details and complex waterproofing/building assemblies. It builds a fairly wide skillset in being good at structural concepts, assemblies, detailing to understanding electrical loads 480/277V, 208/120 V panels, relay circuits, energy calcs to net zero buildings depending on how complex of a project you are handling (there are 50 more things you can add here). Having a good grasp of physics, math and problem solving coupled with soft skills like staying calm & professional, leading meetings is also something you build and is a great asset in being a good AOR. If you are not good at these things, you get exposed very quickly in CA where contractors are change order happy and have a field day over your set and its uncoordination. There is also the bright side that when you do get the sets right, the most referrals I have gotten are from contractors back to new clients.
Being a good designer is equally important (but not valued by every client though a lot of clients cant tell a good AOR from a bad AOR either) though it definitely is in demand if you are catering to high income luxury brands, custom residential and institutional clients. Skillsets though are very different to an executive architect - being good at sketching, quickly coming up with innovative buildable concepts. 3d modelling and rendering is useful skillset to quickly test a lot of massing concepts, but it is usually outsourced. Its important (at least I feel) to be a semi-decent designer to be a good AOR. I have seen people like Peter Marino bill themselves at crazy lawyer level rates like 1200$/hr to clients so its certainly possible. But most normal architects who bill in 150 - 400$/hr range have to justify a lot of their time billing to clients in the design phases if hourly even on very high end projects.
Its also helpful to be in place where you get to learn a lot of the business side of things like rate multipliers, proposals, building relationships with a set of vendors, consultants you can use. There is more than one way to be in business - one general tip I found useful in my career was to be yourself, trust your strengths and find a niche where you can be super efficient and highly billable instead of trying to be good/average at a lot of things. You have to listen to your clients and what they value and spend those times doing those things whether you are a designer or an AOR or both.
the job offer you have is worth infinitely more than the hypothetical ones you don't.
try it and if you decide after a year or two that you still miss high design (you might and that would be good!) then you will be able to find a job in such a firm with a much better awareness what goes into executing the design.
In the countries listed on the website where architectural services are offered, "architect" is not a protected title nor is there a practice act that requires a person to be licensed to practice architecture. Canada is not one of those countries nor is Australia.
I wasn't offering architectural services in UK either. In strict legal term, the architectural services are offered in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark (which includes Greenland). In the UK, it is essentially a title law. So, I just use the title "building designer". What have they said, otherwise? What am I saying contrary? Attention to detail is important. The countries where I offer architectural services do not have any architectural licensing. The UK, like Canada and Australia, are not among them. Unless they just started an actual architectural licensing and licensing board in the 4 countries, in the last few months, it's not likely an issue.
May 22, 23 5:32 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
I might have misread your comment--the double/triple negative confused me: "...architect is not a protected title...Canada is not one of those countries."
The first sentence referred to four countries where architectural services are offered because licensing laws as we know them in the U.S. does not exist. There, the services are appropriately called architectural services even when they are most likely going to be of the exempt type projects that I already provide.
The second sentence referred to two (but not limited to) countries that were not among those four.
May 23, 23 2:15 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
Makes sense, and I wasn't setting out to prove you wrong, I was just surprised at what I understood your point to be. Reading comprehension has always been challenging for me, right below speaking!
Designer or AOR - career stability
I am an Architectural Designer with three years of experience…..I have been laid off from a top design firm due to the slowdown of projects in the office and lately I have been thinking in how unstable and easy is to get replaced as a young designer. So I just got a job offer from a top well known AOR firm and I wonder if being away from design and more involved into the technical, Construction drawings and administration could potentially increase my skills and be more valuable to a design firm in case of switching back to design…. Any advices?
The technical and Construction documents are what people pay you for not making sketches a pre-school child can do. While design is good and actually being good at that. You need to be good with the stuff the client couldn't do themselves like the technical and difficult stuff. The stuff that warrants a 4+ year college education. Get good with the technical, professional, and ability to put together and facilitate the preparation of professional quality competently prepared technical drawings, specifications, and other PROFESSIONAL documents. That's where the money is in the architectural/building design. Get good with that and good with "design" then you'll be more valuable and the desire to retain you would increase. You'll need to get into developing project management and leadership skills as well.
Rick, have you ever fam
OP you should disregard this advice. He's never worked in an office.
If you turn around and give essentially the same answer, you should be disregarded as well. By the way, I am a building designer and the business owner so I OWN the office and work from it. I just not some dumb fuck who spends thousands of dollars a month to rent a commercial space suitable for have a half dozen to a dozen employees when you don't need that. You can't just jump from 1-2 individual to a dozen employees unless you get a lot of money and the time to vett through resumes/applications, picking good fit for your "middle" staff (the supervisory staff/managers, and staff up. You're not talking something you can just afford to do out of pocket. That's major loan type stuff like a half million or more and you need to secure over a million dollars in retainer fees or you better have some angel investor in your back pocket. There has never been one single client and prospective client that I have ever talked to who is looking for "design" so much that it is #1 thing.
In the U.S., there's a reason why there is that "starving artist" thing. While good design skill and being creative is good. They aren't looking for parti scribbles.
Unless you are a starchitect... which means, unless you're rich, privileged, and essentially a celebrity, you're not going to be one. Starchitects represents only an extreme minority of the profession. Licensed or not. Bottom line: you won't be one and fancy design skills isn't going to be the bread and butter and top reason you are hired/contracted by clients.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying developing design skills are not worth it. It will be the technical and professional knowledge and skills, not you're sketching but your ability to communicate, professional guidance, and ability to manage and lead a project team to execute and complete a project. There will not be any absolute solution to not getting your employment terminated. However, it is these skills that need to be built, not just "designing" that makes a person more valuable to keep as an employee or of value to a client.
Every damn student/graduate are taught to "design". That's what your art school program teaches. What they don't really do good at is teaching how to manage and execute project in a real professional setting. So everyone's a fucking "designer" so what the hell makes you stand out and offer an employer that 90% of the rest do not possess?
Before dissing someone, read what was written and if what was written, you could have written something like:
"First, what _________ written, here is largely true and should not be blindly dismissed. Second, ________ had not worked for an architect so caution should be made in not blindly following _________ advice."
That would have been a more professional and appropriate response from you.
The bottom line of my point to the OP is what "reallynotmyname" wrote below.
For example: A firm principal once told me very bluntly that "designers are a dime a dozen, but good technical people are much harder to find".
Exactly. Architecture art school is basically teaching how to design think but often there is too much focus on that front. Too much grading weight on the artistic qualities but not enough attention towards preparing the complete education and skillset training and development to execute an idea and concept to project completion, and the evaluation holistically the knowledge and skills on all facets of the process not just the designing but also project management, technical, etc.
Too often, "project completion" is seen as just the end of the designing phase which is basically the completion of SD/DD phase. That's where a lot of studio projects essentially end at.
The curriculum basically pumps out "designers" not professionals making my point "everyone's a fucking designer...".
My point is the OP needs to develop these other areas not just the "designing" skills. I wouldn't give up and let the design skills go but it's the rest of the skill sets to further professional development. If he or she is good at design then make these other areas good as well while keeping up his/her design skill. It's like not just focusing on building up biceps but holistically your entire body.
Richard Balkins wrote:
"For example: A firm principal once told me very bluntly that "designers are a dime a dozen, but good technical people are much harder to find".
Funny. All the firm owners I know say the exact opposite.
We don't care if you can draft or the programs you know. We care how you think and if you can be creative. We'll teach you the drafting an the programs.
Chad, I quoted a statement from "reallynotmyname".
@chad I’m curious how you would apply this over a range of experience levels. The “we’ll teach you” comments make me think this is really about entry level people, to which I’d agree creative thinking is a bigger sell for firms in my experience…. Probably because there is no such thing as a good technical person at an entry level (only people with potential)
I agree on the various points but there is a truth to that argument as well as yours. Keep in mind, you have every single graduate.... proclaimed "designers".
Your argument is fine for entry-level positions. That is not where anyone wants to be career-wise if you want career stability and that includes financial stability. You need value beyond design skill. Considering 90% of architects are all coming from glorified art schools called architecture schools where "designing" is essentially THE curriculum. Of course, to varying quality, many already think and are creative (to varying degrees) but those are far more common than those that can do the technical and produce the bread and butter and can lead/manage a project from concept to completion.
It is those skills that elevate you from entry-level staff to associate/senior associate to potentially a Principal (where business leadership skills and procuring projects is your job) as well as skills along the way where you work and talk to clients and resolve problems.
Paraphrasing what I said, "everyone's a designer, what do you offer and provide beyond that?"
..
For most young designers, the answer to the question in bold is probably none. If you want to advance your career, you don't want to stick with "none" as your answer. You may find difficulties getting taught those skills.
There are three parts to learning. The theories and principles (the 'books' theory) and then practicing (applying the theories and principles). The third part is "assessing". These three parts are iterative as well. The first and the last are things you will likely need to take initiative. The last happens after you practice but the employer isn't doing that for you. You have to assess for yourself. No one can really do that for you. They can provide valuable observations but your enlightenment will come when assess for yourself.
Before that, you need to practice and even make mistakes but ideally in a controlled environment where you can make a mistake and correct it without anyone getting harmed. Before you practice, you need to know theories and principles including best practices and observations experienced individuals have had over the course of their career. There are resources where you can do this on your own time.
Career development is your responsibility for yourself, not the employer's. It is nice when they help you but don't expect it.
If I was hiring, the quality of self-initiative to learn is a quality I would look for. They are the ones who'll be studying and learning on their break time and on their personal time not just sitting on their rear end waiting for their boss to take them by their hands through their career.
If you want something other than "none" to the question in bold, you need to take the initiative and learn. Starting with the principles and theories. Bosses don't have time to start you at first grade. You need to get some of those grades done on your own or with a mentor who is not your boss but is willing to help you out as a guide but the work is yours to do.
Yes, you can practice what you learn independently but I am suggesting you apply what you learn in the supervised work environment.
natematt wrote:
"@chad I’m curious how you would apply this over a range of experience levels. The “we’ll teach you” comments make me think this is really about entry level people, to which I’d agree creative thinking is a bigger sell for firms in my experience…. Probably because there is no such thing as a good technical person at an entry level (only people with potential)"
I would apply it over a wide range of experience levels. Limiting the idea of 'we'll teach you' to just entry level people is a mistake.
This profession is constantly changing and as such people with a great deal of experience in one area can easily learn new related skills if their firm is willing to teach them. Nearly everyone has potential to improve. It makes everyone better.
Most employers aren't going to teach that. Not every employer is good at teaching or have the patience to teach someone because it is costing them more to teach someone than it was to have done the work themselves especially if they have to start teaching someone from the very most basic level (like "first-grade" level). Some do not have the time or patience, or both.
You are right if the firm is willing to learn but that also means the "student-employee" needs to also be and have self-initiative to learn and do it (on their own time so they aren't wasting their employer's money not doing their job as an employee). At some point, when you demonstrate that you have an understanding of a subject matter, the employer may then be able to help you further your understanding. Technical skills are another beast but you learn it independently.
Richard - not true.
Yes there is a base level of knowledge that is needed however good firms are willing to invest in their team members and teach them how they like to do things.
Everyone in this profession is constantly learning new things. This applies from the student intern all the way up the a senior partner. If a firm isn't willing to invest in their team members and teach then the firm is going to fail.
There's a difference between investing in helping team members develop but that's not the same as hand holding you through everything. They don't have the time to devote to employees as a teacher in a school has to devote to students. Pretty much no employer has that kind of time. If they spent that amount of time, how the hell do they get any work done or procure projects?
There's a certain amount of energy and commitment toward helping employees learn. That I agree with.
However, the majority of energy and commitment to learning and development must be and necessarily borne by the employee. The employee must be more autodidactic in this stage than he/she was as some student in a classroom. This isn't the classroom environment anymore.
This is fundamentally true with absolutely every occupation that exists not just architecture.
Teaching and hand holding are not the same thing. Also you have no employees.
How many hours a day... hours a week do you or your employers, individually, spend teaching employees. How many hours are they giving employees lectures and daily classroom type instruction like a professor? Does your firm have a dedicated professor at the office? I doubt they put *that* much effort. Mentoring is not the same as teaching. It's guidance and such but ultimately, the employees have to put their effort in studying, reading, etc. ie. learning with self-initiative.
Teaching involves giving detailed instruction. Teaching the theories and principles with a curriculum. That's what in the working environment and employers call "hand holding" because the employee isn't taking initiative and applying autodidactic studying to practice on his or her own time. Employers are concerned with deadlines and work getting done (through managing projects and oversight to directly working on the projects, to talking to contractors, clients, etc.), and procuring work. That alone is a full-time job. Teaching is a full-time job whether you teach a classroom of one or a classroom of dozens.
Mentoring isn't the same as being a teacher. Yes, you may instill things a person may learn from, but so does the authors of books. Anyway, I think we just have different terms for what we are describing.
I think you have a very narrow definition of teaching. Mentoring is not the same as teaching, however teaching is a part of mentoring. Here are few examples of teaching we do at our firm . . . .
All of these occur during work hours. We don't charge our client's for most of these (item three we'll bill out some of the time to the project).
For the time, ignore my previous response as it is written before I have read response your above.
Your firm does what I would refer to as mentoring and also help by investing in employees getting continuing education. If your firm was where I am or I lived in your area, the firm you are at would be a firm that I would consider working at. This isn't something all firms provide and is exceptional. Some may provide some investment for employees to further their skills. However, it is still important for employees to be more autodidactic in this stage. Young entry-level employees, what they think of in the terms teaching, it's going to be the classroom environment or something like that where the curriculum is defined and they follow a syllabus and curriculum. Not that way. If one wants to develop their career and steer it, they have to be more of a self-learner and take the reins to steer the horse that is their career. Mentoring and some instruction at the beginning would be great and ideal and should be norm but as time goes on, the student learns to steer the horse and use the reins and do so independently.
What I am getting at is, "breaking the habit of dependence on others to giving personal detailed teaching and instruction and become more self-driven and independent. Firms can help along this path but firms aren't necessarily going to steer a person's career. Where this employee's career going to be in 10 or 20 years, who knows. The employee is going to have to steer their career. Take the helm.
I think my firm dose a combination of mentoring and teaching. On a side note: teaching doesn't create dependence on others - quite the opposite.
I don't recall the number of employees your firm has. Medium to larger firms may have the human resources to support this but smaller firms usually will not.
I'm not saying your firm makes them dependent. It is that some young people entering the profession, that the firm would be providing that. My comment is not an evaluation of your firm. I can see some limited level of teaching when you have the human resources to do so.
If I were to hire an employee and do that, it would consume too much time mentoring and instruction/teaching to procure projects and get work done. There's a certain level of human resources needed to successfully do what your firm provides.
Our firm has 12 people. We don't have just one person who mentors or teaches. Everyone does that. This includes the newer staff. We learn from each other.
@chad - I was going to comment back, but it is not worth reading all that's happened since my comment. 100% agreed on the "Nearly everyone has potential to improve. It makes everyone better. " comment though.
Don't worry about it natematt, I totally understand.
I agree but you need like that to do it. If you are a sole-propietor or firm of 5 or less, it would be extremely hard to have that on everyone's back.
If I added employees right now, and were to provide mentorship and such, it would likely be taking over 20 hour a week. Closer to 30-40 hour a week. I would have to add experienced business partners and then new employees because otherwise, I would have to be working 80+ hours a week to manage to get the work done, procure work, and mentor & teach, etc.
There has to be a sufficient number of employees/partners to be able to manage that. Otherwise, you can easily burn out even with good intentions. Your firm is on the scale to do what they are offering. Ideally 10+ employees/partners.
I wouldn't take that many hours. It's more about the culture of your firm and how you structure the review / design process of projects. I'd estimate that I only spend 3-5 hours a month teaching team mates and that's when I'm assisting them with project tasks.
Ok.
I generally call that mentoring (which of course can involve some teaching) than a teaching role. My earlier point was for the OP should not expect the kind and teaching role from employers like what he/she might expect from a classroom. they just aren't going to be *that* devoted.
They may surely help you develop along the way but ultimately it would be the OP's responsibility to develop and learn, take the initiative, and be much more self-driven and autodidactic about their continuing learning. Don't expect some formal classroom-style teaching from employers. It is more appropriate to understand the learning environment where you and your colleagues are learning by "osmosis" (ie. listening, observing, brief inquiries over time, etc.). Different environment than the classroom.
I do entirely support what your firm is doing. The 3-5 hours a month or a week is much more doable to do and foster that culture. I can agree with and would support adopting such if I were to add employees. That's more doable.
As for funding some of the training, that's more a budgetary matter but plausible if one doesn't go overzealous with spending. Smaller the firm, more budget constraint but not beyond doable.
For you to think that teaching is only done in formal classroom style setting is a very antiquated view. No one promoted or stated that type of a learning environment to be provided by employers.
Fair point.
I suspect the person being relatively "young' in the profession might assume "teaching" in the context of a "classroom" style setting because that is their frame of reference because that is how most in this country gets their education.... didactically not autodidactically. They go through grade school didactically. They go through college didactically.
So, what other frame of reference would they have?
Most aren't substantial autodidactic learners such as myself. They didn't get their architecture degree autodidactically. They don't grant architecture degrees in this country to self-taught learners of the architecture curriculum.
That is why I brought that up.
Respectfully Rick you're out of your depth here.
Architecture programs typically teach in a combination of didactically and autodidactically. A lot of classes are taught through group and studio projects where you learn while doing. A professor is only there to guide you. They aren't in front of the class saying 'now this is how you layout a classroom, watch me and imitate'. Any fresh architectural grad would be experienced in this and understand that the majority of their learning experiences in a firm will be the same.
In addition, architects still learn via structured lecture courses via conferences.
Ok. Fair point you make. In any case, I'll argue that the OP should expect the learning environment in the office to be more like the studios courses not the subject courses with a strong emphasis of autodidactic learning. Revit learning, for example, is going to take time and not just the little seminars on it but personal time developing those skills. Project Management principles are going to be something you'll learn in mentorship, self-learning, and practice. Business management / administration, same thing. You can get the books and study but sooner or later, you have to practice. In any case, that's just only a portion of my overall point in my post on MAY 22, 23 @ 1:45 PM. Don't expect the employer to help. Some do. Some don't. In the end, you have to learn these things to advance your career with or without the help of the firm/employer.
Designers who know something about construction documents and admin. are indeed more valuable then those who don't. Your thought about designers being easily replaced is correct.
A firm principal once told me very bluntly that "designers are a dime a dozen, but good technical people are much harder to find".
A 2-3 stint in an AOR shop would probably be good for you. If the place is drawing up projects for prominent design architects, you may be able to network with them and eventually navigate back to a mid-level position at one of the design architects' firms.
Agreed with above. With 3 years’ experience, you’re really going to be limiting your value and employment options if you don’t get some broader experience. That said, I might opt for a firm that just does both myself, but whatever pays the bill and builds the skills.
You've got your 3 years at a (presumptive) well-known design firm; that's a great start. But you've also learned a tough lesson that those firms go through a much more acute boom-and-bust cycle that can have harsh consequences, like lay-offs. Taking a position to deeply learn the in's and out's of putting together a great document set that will be used on-site is a really useful counterpoint to that experience. And more than likely, they will have a good support system for allowing you to get your license while employed there. I'd say go for it. Focus on learning as much as you can and writing your exams. Once that's done you'll be able to show that you were successful in two very different firms, and you'll have leverage to make another lateral move into a better role further down the line.
It is good to also have a good look at your skills: Can you make it to the top at one of the starchitect firms?
The communication, presentation, style points, business development, academic connections, chemistry with the namesake founder ... not everyone has that skillset to rise to the top. It's perfectly fine not to have that skillset - there're only that many Principal positions and they tend to stick around for a long time.
If you don't think you can make it to that level of security, gaining technical skills will be a fantastic next step.
It should be something you learn anyway, but if you stick to producing renders and schematic diagrams for starchitects who do not produce construction drawings, there is a chance that you might be competing with fresh graduates with a comparable skill level five years down the road - but who are on lower wages.
Balkins have you ever actually had anything built besides that community theater that clearly didn't meet code?
Le Courvoisier, you don't know what you are talking about. Most projects that I work on are with regard to private citizens and I don't discuss their projects on a public web forum, especially with people who hide from accountability by using aliases. Use your real name so you can be held accountable in the court of law when you do commit libel... yes, the court of law, perhaps is the only legitimate place remaining where facts matter.
Besides, I don't have buildings or things built. The client has things built. That's their role not the role of architects and designers. You should know the difference between having things designed or built, from designing or building. So whose money?
PS: Here's you're double Frank Gehry award:
..
.
Apologies to Archinect admins and moderators.
The short answer to your question is that I have designed multiple projects that were subsequently built.
www.astoriabuildingdesign
when can I buy your pre-designed house plans Rick. Oh… no provinces in Australia or the UK FYI..
“Besides, I don't have buildings or things built. The client has things built. That's their role not the role of architects and designers. You should know the difference between having things designed or built, from designing or building. So whose money?”
This is more vague than inaccurate. Without really getting into it, this is an industry typical simplification of a statement. No architect, contractor, owner, or even layperson misunderstands this.
Provinces, in Canada. That is why the word province is used.
Nate, fair point but still, I did ultimately answered it with a very brief answer specifically to it .
Luvu, website will be reworked on before I set that up. It just not on highest priority at this time.
Thank you for pointing that out and it'll be corrected. I'll do that later today when I am at the computer that I have the login info to do that
Being a good designer and AOR both are valuable parts of the profession. Unfortunately layoffs/leaving jobs is a part of the career and life - you can be the most talented, hardworking person and be doing a great job and can be fired from a job or by a client for a variety of reasons beyond your control (recession, politics, your skillset not being a good fit for the culture, pandemic etc.).
Being a good AOR is a equally about having excellent communication, having a great team of consultants and a good contractor as it is about being proficient in building systems, architectural details and complex waterproofing/building assemblies. It builds a fairly wide skillset in being good at structural concepts, assemblies, detailing to understanding electrical loads 480/277V, 208/120 V panels, relay circuits, energy calcs to net zero buildings depending on how complex of a project you are handling (there are 50 more things you can add here). Having a good grasp of physics, math and problem solving coupled with soft skills like staying calm & professional, leading meetings is also something you build and is a great asset in being a good AOR. If you are not good at these things, you get exposed very quickly in CA where contractors are change order happy and have a field day over your set and its uncoordination. There is also the bright side that when you do get the sets right, the most referrals I have gotten are from contractors back to new clients.
Being a good designer is equally important (but not valued by every client though a lot of clients cant tell a good AOR from a bad AOR either) though it definitely is in demand if you are catering to high income luxury brands, custom residential and institutional clients. Skillsets though are very different to an executive architect - being good at sketching, quickly coming up with innovative buildable concepts. 3d modelling and rendering is useful skillset to quickly test a lot of massing concepts, but it is usually outsourced. Its important (at least I feel) to be a semi-decent designer to be a good AOR. I have seen people like Peter Marino bill themselves at crazy lawyer level rates like 1200$/hr to clients so its certainly possible. But most normal architects who bill in 150 - 400$/hr range have to justify a lot of their time billing to clients in the design phases if hourly even on very high end projects.
Its also helpful to be in place where you get to learn a lot of the business side of things like rate multipliers, proposals, building relationships with a set of vendors, consultants you can use. There is more than one way to be in business - one general tip I found useful in my career was to be yourself, trust your strengths and find a niche where you can be super efficient and highly billable instead of trying to be good/average at a lot of things. You have to listen to your clients and what they value and spend those times doing those things whether you are a designer or an AOR or both.
This is as valid for AORs as it is for being a good professional building designer serving clients.
the job offer you have is worth infinitely more than the hypothetical ones you don't.
try it and if you decide after a year or two that you still miss high design (you might and that would be good!) then you will be able to find a job in such a firm with a much better awareness what goes into executing the design.
Rick is claiming to to be an architect in canada now, in addition to scandinavia?
Nope.
In the countries listed on the website where architectural services are offered, "architect" is not a protected title nor is there a practice act that requires a person to be licensed to practice architecture. Canada is not one of those countries nor is Australia.
Rick, this site says otherwise: https://raic.org/raic/becoming...
I wasn't offering architectural services in UK either. In strict legal term, the architectural services are offered in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark (which includes Greenland). In the UK, it is essentially a title law. So, I just use the title "building designer". What have they said, otherwise? What am I saying contrary? Attention to detail is important. The countries where I offer architectural services do not have any architectural licensing. The UK, like Canada and Australia, are not among them. Unless they just started an actual architectural licensing and licensing board in the 4 countries, in the last few months, it's not likely an issue.
I might have misread your comment--the double/triple negative confused me: "...architect is not a protected title...Canada is not one of those countries."
Fair enough. It was two separate sentences.
The first sentence referred to four countries where architectural services are offered because licensing laws as we know them in the U.S. does not exist. There, the services are appropriately called architectural services even when they are most likely going to be of the exempt type projects that I already provide.
The second sentence referred to two (but not limited to) countries that were not among those four.
Makes sense, and I wasn't setting out to prove you wrong, I was just surprised at what I understood your point to be. Reading comprehension has always been challenging for me, right below speaking!
No prob.
Post your work Richard
Just the drawing title block will do Rick
Most architects obtain their title through years of study, mentorship, work experience, and examination.
Most architects do not knowingly search in vain for obscure interpretations of the title in far-flung countries where they have never stepped foot.
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.