i was recently hired by a starchitect firm, and upon informing my current employer of my new opportunity, i didn't receive the response i thought i would. i was expecting approval and a pat on the back, but what i received was disapproval and condescension. am i missing something? i am well aware of the time requirements, and lack luster compensation of my new position, but to me it is worth the exposure to the projects and people. do i just have a different set of priorities than the people i currently work with or is there a bigger picture that i'm missing? i don't understand why anyone who is passionate about the field would pass up an opportunity like this. wtf?
i wouldnt worry what a former employer thinks, why bother? if you are happy with your choice - good on you. i have worked in famous firms in germany and holland, and studied and worked in australia. you cannot overestimate the value of working on new exciting projects!!!!
its what most students dreamed of - those that dont get their could be just a bit jealous, hence no pats on the back.
Why do you get so poorly compensated working for a starchitect? It just doesn’t make any sense. In other fields people would do anything to work for a starlawyer, a starsurgeon, a staraccounting firm like PWC not only for the name that looks good on your resume, but also for the generous compensation. Yet in architecture we failed once again to be an upscale profession and still live in middle ages where slavery was pretty normal.
it's a tradeoff, and depends entirely on the individual and what you are looking to get out of the job, and if you feel it is worth it. i work for a starchitect and work insane hours, and get paid rather poorly. however, i have design freedom, work on great projects, am able to experiment and research, get my work published regularly, and will leave this office with a very strong portfolio and resume. i don't plan on making a career here, but do plan on making a career out of what i take from here.
i'm with chino on this, but ppl should also be aware that you can get paid well even in famous offices - and you get it by fighting for it. of course they will offer low salaries because alot of ppl accept those contracts, but if you really have something to offer and proof yourself it goes up to normal corporate rates. ppl just have to push for it.
1. what kind of firm did you work for? this will tell you all you need to know about what kind of firm you are going to.
2. in the chance that the firm you are leaving does do good work, but does not have the noteriety[sp] that lets say Gehry, Morphosis or others have. my question is, why leave, why leave the other firm only to find that when you get to this starchitect the grass is greener where you were?
every office has its good and bad points. imho leaving an office after say 2 years to go somewhere better know, where you like their work more - is a good thing. but true enough so things you will like less - thats life.
working for free at starchitect for internship was one of the better professional moves i've done. learned a lot, worked with great people, etc. however, the lack of money ala jaja's complaint still bothers me. working at the highest profile places requires talent and a lot of hard work and determination, so it ought to pay well too. or at the very least pay as much as crappy corporate places. i understand the business side of it perfectly well, and why it works out the way it does, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with it.
i'm getting sick of this "it's a tradeoff" mentality. it certainly is a tradeoff, but there SHOULDN'T BE A TRADEOFF. and accepting it only perpetuates the problem.
in any case, typically only those who have worked for a starchitect seem impressed with others who work there. also, your office may have valued you so highly that they were upset to see you leave. depending on how you approached leaving, they may have felt as though you were saying that they weren't good enough for you, and be upset with what they perceive as your arrogance.
i think is generally ok for design firms to pay less, they do make less money, as long as you can make a living out of it...but noone should work for free, ever, it's just feeding the notion of inters, which is absolut crap.
i agree no one should work for free, including me. as i said, i'm still upset that i didn't get paid, even though it ultimately was worth it. but i don't blame the architect i worked for, they would have paid me, and paid well, if they could. it isn't the notion of interns that's crap really, it's the external forces pressed upon the profession that creates the notion of interns that's crap. the only way great design gets done, by and large, is by taking the same budget for a crap project and trying to stretch it to make a great one. great design firms HAVE to spend a great deal more time on work than more generic firms do, because they're working outside the boundaries of industry standards. either they're working with newer, more expensive materials, or they're using standard cheap materials in new ways. which is either going to require more time and energy to assemble/construct, or it's going to cost more in the designer's time to figure out how to use cheap materials in a cheap way. either way, since clients refuse to pay more for quality, it ultimately costs the architect more, so they can't afford to pay employees as well, can't provide benefits, etc.
certainly, this is only a generalization, but i haven't seen anything (except maybe what rem is trying to do) to dispute it.
anyway, i don't agree with you richard, it's not ok for design firms to pay less. but my point is, i don't think it's their fault specifically, in so much as it's the entire profession's fault.
The top law firms charge much more money to (celeb) clients than the average law firm for the same reason what heterachy mentioned. They have to spend much more time and money in research apposed to a standard case. This actually applies to all professions and the clients know that, therefore they are willing to pay more. There is no client that is willing to pay a standard fee for a 15 hour dangerous surgery. Micheal Jackson knows he has to pay a huge amount of money to his lawyer to ensure a high level of representation in court. No client is that ignorant to hire a starchitect on a low budget and expect a Guggenheim Bilbao type of building. If they did and starchitects would actually agree on designing the ultimate on a low budged, than the profession of architecture has absolutely sunk to an all time low point.
i would say that it is at at least 95% low point then.
'low budget' is a very relative term for one thing. if clients were as un-ignorant as you say, then why would so many starchitects have to hire interns and not pay them, underpay their regular employees, etc.? i know that most starchitects make less than most principles at corporate firms. how can that be explained if starchitects are being as fairly for extra work as the lawyers and doctors you mention?
I think it has to do with the architect itself. Any client including you is willing to pay less for more whether it is food, a house, airfare, a car, you name it. Only difference is that most professions are not willing to cut down on costs. If architects had the same mentality as all other professionals, we would not be starving. Architects are willing to sell a BMW for the price of a Toyota and if clients are aware of that, they are not going to pay the actually retail price. And that is the big problem in architecture. Once the damage has been done, there is no turning back.
i agree with you completely and entirely except for the part about no turning back. we HAVE to start turning back. we need to re-strenghten our organization and stop bending over for clients (pardon the term, but it is apt).
it is NOT too late. it is never too late. or at least, it is only too late if we believe it is too late. and i do not believe that it is too late.
Just look at project managers in architecture. They make plenty of money, because they WANT to make money. Project managers don’t lower their fee just for a commission, because they know that that would be the end of the profession. So, the whole “there is no money on architecture†is just plain bullshit, because everyone (pm’s, contractors etc.) is making money except architects.
absolutely. there is an enormous amount of money in construction. i think that in general architects have lost confidence in themselves because they are no longer the 'master builder'. the construction process has become so complicated that it neccessitates a major division of labor and expertise. but for whatever reason, architects have let every other involved entity and profession take a huge chunk of the money pie without defending their own slice. as i said above, we really need to strengthen our organization and defend ourselves. we need to reestablish our identity and raise our heads.
has anyone thought about compensation being a direct result of the amount of liability?
doctors and lawyers have huge liability
on a project, engineers are liable for the structure and systems-they get paid big dollars for this.
contractors are liable for the project itself-if you have leaks, problems, etc., the contractor is the one to blame-they get paid high dollars for this.
upon signing a contract, the contractor takes repsonsiblility for all issues coming out of construction regardless if contract documents are at fault.
what are the architects liable for? does anyone get sued for bad design?
that may have something to do with the compensation side and what owners are looking at-the one that has more liability gets more compensation.
this is a concern to me as i am switching from construction over to architecture with the realization that my pay may be cut in half (not counting the 4 years i will go unpaid while in school and the loss of income that will result in).
but i agree that architects need to take back the reins, but with that will be increasing the liability they take on.
Are project managers liable? How about fashion designers, information-architects, advertising company, graphic and web designers or anything in the ICT industry? Probably not, but they make tons of money.
project managers where? in construction? yes-although i may not be personally liable, my company is for the mistakes i make, which means i can't make mistakes.
fashion designers- most are not paid big bucks-only the ones that become famous and convince people that a t-shirt is worth $100. Stop buying t-shirts that cost $100, and I'm sure they won't make as much money.
Information architects- people that write computer code i am guessing you are referring to-are liable-their codes better work and not make companies systems crash and help the companies make money-otherwise they are out of business. why do you think so many go out of business?
as far as advertising etc., you will probably find that most incoming are not paid big bucks, but an advertisers responsibility is to sell the clients product-if they are good-they get paid more money. but there is liability there-they better continue doing good or they are out the door.
but as an architect, we are not necessarily affecting the companies bottom line-our building will not necessarily make a company profitable. We have a different guideline we are working under. you are comparing apples to oranges.
first, explain to me exactly how liable lawyers are. if they're as liable as you say, comparing them to doctors etc, then i have an entirely incorrect view of their profession. doctor's however, i will give you with no problem. most doctors deserve everything they get. not all, but most.
however, architects are certainly very liable. we're liable for everything in the construction documents. that's why they have to be stamped. to say that "upon signing a contract, the contractor takes repsonsiblility for all issues coming out of construction regardless if contract documents are at fault.
what are the architects liable for? does anyone get sued for bad design?" is ridiculous, ignorant, and demeaning. if an architect screws up something in the documents, they're help responsible. potentially to the tune of millions if they really screw up.
at least everywhere that i know of in the states, that is the case.
am i off my rocker here? by all means, inform me if i do. but if salaries are based on liability, then architects sure as hell ought to be making more than lawyers.
sorry this sounds so gruf, i'm in a bad mood.
and i think you're absolutely wrong about architects not affecting a company's bottom line. how can you possibly say that? besides the obvious practical reasons that it affects their bottom line, there's the massive amount of PR, public image, etc. there's also the fact that study after study shows that employees working in better designed spaces (a subjective term, i know) tend to be more productive. multiply a mere half a percent in productivity by the number of employees in a major company, and you'll see a BIG change in your bottom dollar.
and most of the liability you're talking about with all these other jobs is merely the liability of doing your job. which everyone, in every job, has to deal with. it's a non issue. obviously, if you don't do your job, whatever it is, then you're probably not going to keep getting work.
Speaking of “employees working in better designed spaces tend to be more productive ''.........a client the other day didn't bought the idea that well designed offices are beneficial for the productivity, because we as architects work in poorly looking, badly designed, over crowed offices. He has a point.
jaja: very good point. that must be the reason i'm so unproductive.. :)
actually, that's something that has always fascinated me, why do architect's offices and architecture buildings at universities tend to suck so bad? perhaps this deserves a new thread? :)
i agree with you on the fact that employees in a better environment do a better job-but the numbers aren't there-companies see numbers and that is a hard item to measure-not that it isn't measureable, but most companies won't take the time to do so.
as i said before, i think architects do need to take the reins back.
but as far as accountability, it's not currently there. i just came off of a job where the cd's were horrible, and a lot of it was the architects fault-and they didn't feel the brunt of the pain-we did- when the costs went up-we were blamed, and we were held accountable, even though it wasn't our screw up. i won't get in to all of the details.
but contractors are more liable down to the small thing-if someone slips close to our construction site we can be sued. there is constant liability.
buy anyway, why am i going in to architecture? because i do believe in the profession. it is a real job-but i think it does have its problems. i've always wanted to design, but i enjoy construction too and intend to do both.
you all were asking the question why architects don't make more-and i was giving you a logical response from an alternative point of view. you can argue that point-that's why i put it out there. its about proving your worth to the people paying the bills-and my statement points out what many people think outside of the field. that's the challenge we have and we have to find a way to overcome it. but through the years, an architect's liability has diminished-this came with the division of labor-now you have construction managers-the architect isn't doing it anymore-now you have seperate engineers-architects aren't responsible for that anymore. etc, etc
sorry you are having a bad day-cheer up-it could always be worse
joe: i understand the stakes of law. but perhaps you could explain how it's a liability in the same sense that doctors and architects face liability. that is, if a doctor screws up, they get sued for massive money. so they buy liability insurance. if an architect screws up, they can get sued for massive money. so they build in liability contingency to their fee.
i was not under the impression that lawyers were legally liable for anything. if they lose their suit, even due to incompetence, there isn't much anyone can do. but i'm not a lawyer, so if someone has a good answer, please share.
fyi: liability=1 a : obligated according to law or equity
in any case though, i still disagree that architects face any less liability that doctors or lawyers. obviously it depends on the size of the job they're working on, but as architects, we are responsible for that job. that could mean a 'liability' of millions upon millions of dollars.
tinydancer: as i said earlier, i'm sorry for being snappy. i think that your view is certainly valid, but i guarantee that the view is different from the other side of the architect/contractor fence. i couldn't agree with you more that architects have to do a better job of proving their worth to the public. in general, i think the public has no idea what an architect really does any more. when they find out we don't do engineering/construction management/etc as much as we used to, they do sort of what you're doing, psychologically devalue the whole profession by a degree. the problem with your thought "but through the years, an architect's liability has diminished-this came with the division of labor-now you have construction managers-the architect isn't doing it anymore-now you have seperate engineers-architects aren't responsible for that anymore. etc, etc" is that architects have let loose those responsibilities because we have had to pick up a great deal of other new responsibilities. people tend to focus on the fact that architects no longer are the 'master builder' and all that entails, but they don't notice all of the code/coordination/legal/etc/etc issues that we've had to pick up. the modern architect has to know more than the architect of any time in the past. and yet somehow, people have LESS respect for the profession.
i'll be interested to hear your opinions on the issue in about 6-7 years, when you're out of school and have been practicing for a couple of years. to be frank, i had no idea what all being an architect entailed until the last year or so. i grew up with a construction/materials background in my family, perpetually hearing complaints about architects and how dumb they are. indeed, that was one motivation for pursuing architecture. to out-do all those idiot architects. having worn the shoe for a couple of years now, it certainly feels different on the other foot.
joe: i know you're right about doctors, i wasn't implying anything else i don't think. architects are the same way.
i had been under the impression that lawyers couldn't be sued for negligence, except under extenuating circumstances, because the nature of the profession is such that everything is subjective, and subject to interpretation. however, i did a little more research and i think that i've proven myself wrong. according to the aba, legal liability insurance has become more common, due to increased instances of lawyers being sued for malpractice, but is still not required (as i'm pretty sure it is for doctors). it seems kind of fuzzy, but it looks like it's more or less the same sort of liability that architects and doctors face. so unless someone else has any good info on it, i concede that lawyere do indeed face liability issues. though i still hold firm that they are not as inherently liable as architects, which is the meat of my earlier argument with tiny dancer's first post.
no such thing as taking something too far. :) just means you're learning more.
interesting. nice to have friends who are lawyers. :) with the way i behave myself, i could really use them. and very good point about 'who writes the laws'.
if only architects wrote the laws... then again, maybe not. :)
i have an interview for an entry level position lined up tomorrow and my guts are in knots. my current job blows so i'll worry about advancement and what not later. good luck to the rest of you.
heterarchy- I have to disagree with your commente "all of the code/coordination/legal/etc/etc issues that we've had to pick up"
In every contract I have had and on the cd's as well, it states that the drawings must be followed but the contractor is responsible for making sure everything is per code. If we do something per the drawings and get an inspection and it is not per code, we have to fix it.
I do agree architects do a lot of the coordination. The legal I am not sure what you are refering to.
You may be right-in a few years I may see differently, but the perspective I have now is as stated above. And that is the view of most people in my current profession.
where do you work? what state? i have had the exact opposite experience. it's my understanding that the contractor isn't responsible for anything other than constructing the building according to the architect's construction/contract documents. i asked around my office earlier today to confirm that my understanding was correct, and received an affirmative. i work in healthcare, and figuring out codes is something i'm always attempting to do.
either my firm's doing too much work, or your working with bad architects.
anyone out there with a little more experience/knowledge able to clear this up?
The firm I work for is getting sued because the construction manager screwed up. The CM told the client the project was under budget, so the client started adding in the alternates. When the project was finished it was way over budget. This happened because the CM told the client they could upgrade the finishes and spent the contingency.
Now this was clearly the CM's fault, but we are getting sued. Lawyers typically will name all parties involved in the project in the law suit because most will just settle. It's cheaper to settle out of court.
My boss told me once that a major CM firm was coming up with a new idea called Program Management. Basically the idea was that they were just going to do paperwork and oversee other CM's which were actually overseeing all of the other trades. They felt they could make big $$$ with NO liability, because they weren't actually doing anything.
heterarchy- i also work in healthcare, in texas. I know about the codes issue. but the architects i've worked with don't know any of them.
also, concerning payment vs. liability, you also have to consider construction makes more probably also because of risk-every time i walk onto a jobsite, my life is at risk. you don't think much about it until you've seen a crane fall.
we definitely don't completely understand all the code issues, but on big, complex projects we get it about 90% right and then run it by a code consultant to get it to 100%. if it's a small job, we usually get it either 95 or 100% on our own. but whatever we don't catch, we're definitely responsible for. usually we can catch during construction and issue an asi or pr, if we don't catch it then, then we have to pay.
i'm surprised to hear such different reports about this.
May 5, 05 2:58 pm ·
·
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.
starchitect jobs all that?
i was recently hired by a starchitect firm, and upon informing my current employer of my new opportunity, i didn't receive the response i thought i would. i was expecting approval and a pat on the back, but what i received was disapproval and condescension. am i missing something? i am well aware of the time requirements, and lack luster compensation of my new position, but to me it is worth the exposure to the projects and people. do i just have a different set of priorities than the people i currently work with or is there a bigger picture that i'm missing? i don't understand why anyone who is passionate about the field would pass up an opportunity like this. wtf?
what starchitect?
i wouldnt worry what a former employer thinks, why bother? if you are happy with your choice - good on you. i have worked in famous firms in germany and holland, and studied and worked in australia. you cannot overestimate the value of working on new exciting projects!!!!
its what most students dreamed of - those that dont get their could be just a bit jealous, hence no pats on the back.
good luck
Why do you get so poorly compensated working for a starchitect? It just doesn’t make any sense. In other fields people would do anything to work for a starlawyer, a starsurgeon, a staraccounting firm like PWC not only for the name that looks good on your resume, but also for the generous compensation. Yet in architecture we failed once again to be an upscale profession and still live in middle ages where slavery was pretty normal.
it's a tradeoff, and depends entirely on the individual and what you are looking to get out of the job, and if you feel it is worth it. i work for a starchitect and work insane hours, and get paid rather poorly. however, i have design freedom, work on great projects, am able to experiment and research, get my work published regularly, and will leave this office with a very strong portfolio and resume. i don't plan on making a career here, but do plan on making a career out of what i take from here.
i'm with chino on this, but ppl should also be aware that you can get paid well even in famous offices - and you get it by fighting for it. of course they will offer low salaries because alot of ppl accept those contracts, but if you really have something to offer and proof yourself it goes up to normal corporate rates. ppl just have to push for it.
the questions i have are these;
1. what kind of firm did you work for? this will tell you all you need to know about what kind of firm you are going to.
2. in the chance that the firm you are leaving does do good work, but does not have the noteriety[sp] that lets say Gehry, Morphosis or others have. my question is, why leave, why leave the other firm only to find that when you get to this starchitect the grass is greener where you were?
every office has its good and bad points. imho leaving an office after say 2 years to go somewhere better know, where you like their work more - is a good thing. but true enough so things you will like less - thats life.
CJarch, are you just showing off?
Who is the stararchitect? Do tell
working for free at starchitect for internship was one of the better professional moves i've done. learned a lot, worked with great people, etc. however, the lack of money ala jaja's complaint still bothers me. working at the highest profile places requires talent and a lot of hard work and determination, so it ought to pay well too. or at the very least pay as much as crappy corporate places. i understand the business side of it perfectly well, and why it works out the way it does, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with it.
i'm getting sick of this "it's a tradeoff" mentality. it certainly is a tradeoff, but there SHOULDN'T BE A TRADEOFF. and accepting it only perpetuates the problem.
in any case, typically only those who have worked for a starchitect seem impressed with others who work there. also, your office may have valued you so highly that they were upset to see you leave. depending on how you approached leaving, they may have felt as though you were saying that they weren't good enough for you, and be upset with what they perceive as your arrogance.
i think is generally ok for design firms to pay less, they do make less money, as long as you can make a living out of it...but noone should work for free, ever, it's just feeding the notion of inters, which is absolut crap.
i agree no one should work for free, including me. as i said, i'm still upset that i didn't get paid, even though it ultimately was worth it. but i don't blame the architect i worked for, they would have paid me, and paid well, if they could. it isn't the notion of interns that's crap really, it's the external forces pressed upon the profession that creates the notion of interns that's crap. the only way great design gets done, by and large, is by taking the same budget for a crap project and trying to stretch it to make a great one. great design firms HAVE to spend a great deal more time on work than more generic firms do, because they're working outside the boundaries of industry standards. either they're working with newer, more expensive materials, or they're using standard cheap materials in new ways. which is either going to require more time and energy to assemble/construct, or it's going to cost more in the designer's time to figure out how to use cheap materials in a cheap way. either way, since clients refuse to pay more for quality, it ultimately costs the architect more, so they can't afford to pay employees as well, can't provide benefits, etc.
certainly, this is only a generalization, but i haven't seen anything (except maybe what rem is trying to do) to dispute it.
anyway, i don't agree with you richard, it's not ok for design firms to pay less. but my point is, i don't think it's their fault specifically, in so much as it's the entire profession's fault.
The top law firms charge much more money to (celeb) clients than the average law firm for the same reason what heterachy mentioned. They have to spend much more time and money in research apposed to a standard case. This actually applies to all professions and the clients know that, therefore they are willing to pay more. There is no client that is willing to pay a standard fee for a 15 hour dangerous surgery. Micheal Jackson knows he has to pay a huge amount of money to his lawyer to ensure a high level of representation in court. No client is that ignorant to hire a starchitect on a low budget and expect a Guggenheim Bilbao type of building. If they did and starchitects would actually agree on designing the ultimate on a low budged, than the profession of architecture has absolutely sunk to an all time low point.
i would say that it is at at least 95% low point then.
'low budget' is a very relative term for one thing. if clients were as un-ignorant as you say, then why would so many starchitects have to hire interns and not pay them, underpay their regular employees, etc.? i know that most starchitects make less than most principles at corporate firms. how can that be explained if starchitects are being as fairly for extra work as the lawyers and doctors you mention?
i hear you jaja. i'm so tired of ppl saying it's a trade off.
I think it has to do with the architect itself. Any client including you is willing to pay less for more whether it is food, a house, airfare, a car, you name it. Only difference is that most professions are not willing to cut down on costs. If architects had the same mentality as all other professionals, we would not be starving. Architects are willing to sell a BMW for the price of a Toyota and if clients are aware of that, they are not going to pay the actually retail price. And that is the big problem in architecture. Once the damage has been done, there is no turning back.
i agree with you completely and entirely except for the part about no turning back. we HAVE to start turning back. we need to re-strenghten our organization and stop bending over for clients (pardon the term, but it is apt).
it is NOT too late. it is never too late. or at least, it is only too late if we believe it is too late. and i do not believe that it is too late.
Just look at project managers in architecture. They make plenty of money, because they WANT to make money. Project managers don’t lower their fee just for a commission, because they know that that would be the end of the profession. So, the whole “there is no money on architecture†is just plain bullshit, because everyone (pm’s, contractors etc.) is making money except architects.
absolutely. there is an enormous amount of money in construction. i think that in general architects have lost confidence in themselves because they are no longer the 'master builder'. the construction process has become so complicated that it neccessitates a major division of labor and expertise. but for whatever reason, architects have let every other involved entity and profession take a huge chunk of the money pie without defending their own slice. as i said above, we really need to strengthen our organization and defend ourselves. we need to reestablish our identity and raise our heads.
has anyone thought about compensation being a direct result of the amount of liability?
doctors and lawyers have huge liability
on a project, engineers are liable for the structure and systems-they get paid big dollars for this.
contractors are liable for the project itself-if you have leaks, problems, etc., the contractor is the one to blame-they get paid high dollars for this.
upon signing a contract, the contractor takes repsonsiblility for all issues coming out of construction regardless if contract documents are at fault.
what are the architects liable for? does anyone get sued for bad design?
that may have something to do with the compensation side and what owners are looking at-the one that has more liability gets more compensation.
this is a concern to me as i am switching from construction over to architecture with the realization that my pay may be cut in half (not counting the 4 years i will go unpaid while in school and the loss of income that will result in).
but i agree that architects need to take back the reins, but with that will be increasing the liability they take on.
Are project managers liable? How about fashion designers, information-architects, advertising company, graphic and web designers or anything in the ICT industry? Probably not, but they make tons of money.
project managers where? in construction? yes-although i may not be personally liable, my company is for the mistakes i make, which means i can't make mistakes.
fashion designers- most are not paid big bucks-only the ones that become famous and convince people that a t-shirt is worth $100. Stop buying t-shirts that cost $100, and I'm sure they won't make as much money.
Information architects- people that write computer code i am guessing you are referring to-are liable-their codes better work and not make companies systems crash and help the companies make money-otherwise they are out of business. why do you think so many go out of business?
as far as advertising etc., you will probably find that most incoming are not paid big bucks, but an advertisers responsibility is to sell the clients product-if they are good-they get paid more money. but there is liability there-they better continue doing good or they are out the door.
but as an architect, we are not necessarily affecting the companies bottom line-our building will not necessarily make a company profitable. We have a different guideline we are working under. you are comparing apples to oranges.
first, explain to me exactly how liable lawyers are. if they're as liable as you say, comparing them to doctors etc, then i have an entirely incorrect view of their profession. doctor's however, i will give you with no problem. most doctors deserve everything they get. not all, but most.
however, architects are certainly very liable. we're liable for everything in the construction documents. that's why they have to be stamped. to say that "upon signing a contract, the contractor takes repsonsiblility for all issues coming out of construction regardless if contract documents are at fault.
what are the architects liable for? does anyone get sued for bad design?" is ridiculous, ignorant, and demeaning. if an architect screws up something in the documents, they're help responsible. potentially to the tune of millions if they really screw up.
at least everywhere that i know of in the states, that is the case.
am i off my rocker here? by all means, inform me if i do. but if salaries are based on liability, then architects sure as hell ought to be making more than lawyers.
sorry this sounds so gruf, i'm in a bad mood.
and i think you're absolutely wrong about architects not affecting a company's bottom line. how can you possibly say that? besides the obvious practical reasons that it affects their bottom line, there's the massive amount of PR, public image, etc. there's also the fact that study after study shows that employees working in better designed spaces (a subjective term, i know) tend to be more productive. multiply a mere half a percent in productivity by the number of employees in a major company, and you'll see a BIG change in your bottom dollar.
and most of the liability you're talking about with all these other jobs is merely the liability of doing your job. which everyone, in every job, has to deal with. it's a non issue. obviously, if you don't do your job, whatever it is, then you're probably not going to keep getting work.
why are you going in to architecture? it seems like you don't even think it is a real job?
Speaking of “employees working in better designed spaces tend to be more productive ''.........a client the other day didn't bought the idea that well designed offices are beneficial for the productivity, because we as architects work in poorly looking, badly designed, over crowed offices. He has a point.
jaja: very good point. that must be the reason i'm so unproductive.. :)
actually, that's something that has always fascinated me, why do architect's offices and architecture buildings at universities tend to suck so bad? perhaps this deserves a new thread? :)
i agree with you on the fact that employees in a better environment do a better job-but the numbers aren't there-companies see numbers and that is a hard item to measure-not that it isn't measureable, but most companies won't take the time to do so.
as i said before, i think architects do need to take the reins back.
but as far as accountability, it's not currently there. i just came off of a job where the cd's were horrible, and a lot of it was the architects fault-and they didn't feel the brunt of the pain-we did- when the costs went up-we were blamed, and we were held accountable, even though it wasn't our screw up. i won't get in to all of the details.
but contractors are more liable down to the small thing-if someone slips close to our construction site we can be sued. there is constant liability.
buy anyway, why am i going in to architecture? because i do believe in the profession. it is a real job-but i think it does have its problems. i've always wanted to design, but i enjoy construction too and intend to do both.
you all were asking the question why architects don't make more-and i was giving you a logical response from an alternative point of view. you can argue that point-that's why i put it out there. its about proving your worth to the people paying the bills-and my statement points out what many people think outside of the field. that's the challenge we have and we have to find a way to overcome it. but through the years, an architect's liability has diminished-this came with the division of labor-now you have construction managers-the architect isn't doing it anymore-now you have seperate engineers-architects aren't responsible for that anymore. etc, etc
sorry you are having a bad day-cheer up-it could always be worse
you're very right tiny dancer, i will try to be more diplomatic and cheer up. but first i have to get some work done. sigh. :)
joe: i understand the stakes of law. but perhaps you could explain how it's a liability in the same sense that doctors and architects face liability. that is, if a doctor screws up, they get sued for massive money. so they buy liability insurance. if an architect screws up, they can get sued for massive money. so they build in liability contingency to their fee.
i was not under the impression that lawyers were legally liable for anything. if they lose their suit, even due to incompetence, there isn't much anyone can do. but i'm not a lawyer, so if someone has a good answer, please share.
fyi: liability=1 a : obligated according to law or equity
in any case though, i still disagree that architects face any less liability that doctors or lawyers. obviously it depends on the size of the job they're working on, but as architects, we are responsible for that job. that could mean a 'liability' of millions upon millions of dollars.
tinydancer: as i said earlier, i'm sorry for being snappy. i think that your view is certainly valid, but i guarantee that the view is different from the other side of the architect/contractor fence. i couldn't agree with you more that architects have to do a better job of proving their worth to the public. in general, i think the public has no idea what an architect really does any more. when they find out we don't do engineering/construction management/etc as much as we used to, they do sort of what you're doing, psychologically devalue the whole profession by a degree. the problem with your thought "but through the years, an architect's liability has diminished-this came with the division of labor-now you have construction managers-the architect isn't doing it anymore-now you have seperate engineers-architects aren't responsible for that anymore. etc, etc" is that architects have let loose those responsibilities because we have had to pick up a great deal of other new responsibilities. people tend to focus on the fact that architects no longer are the 'master builder' and all that entails, but they don't notice all of the code/coordination/legal/etc/etc issues that we've had to pick up. the modern architect has to know more than the architect of any time in the past. and yet somehow, people have LESS respect for the profession.
i'll be interested to hear your opinions on the issue in about 6-7 years, when you're out of school and have been practicing for a couple of years. to be frank, i had no idea what all being an architect entailed until the last year or so. i grew up with a construction/materials background in my family, perpetually hearing complaints about architects and how dumb they are. indeed, that was one motivation for pursuing architecture. to out-do all those idiot architects. having worn the shoe for a couple of years now, it certainly feels different on the other foot.
today, most believe that an architect is no more than conductor.
joe: i know you're right about doctors, i wasn't implying anything else i don't think. architects are the same way.
i had been under the impression that lawyers couldn't be sued for negligence, except under extenuating circumstances, because the nature of the profession is such that everything is subjective, and subject to interpretation. however, i did a little more research and i think that i've proven myself wrong. according to the aba, legal liability insurance has become more common, due to increased instances of lawyers being sued for malpractice, but is still not required (as i'm pretty sure it is for doctors). it seems kind of fuzzy, but it looks like it's more or less the same sort of liability that architects and doctors face. so unless someone else has any good info on it, i concede that lawyere do indeed face liability issues. though i still hold firm that they are not as inherently liable as architects, which is the meat of my earlier argument with tiny dancer's first post.
no such thing as taking something too far. :) just means you're learning more.
interesting. nice to have friends who are lawyers. :) with the way i behave myself, i could really use them. and very good point about 'who writes the laws'.
if only architects wrote the laws... then again, maybe not. :)
good luck at FOG
CJarch
Total Entries: 9
Total Comments: 50
04/27/05 16:59
i have an interview for an entry level position lined up tomorrow and my guts are in knots. my current job blows so i'll worry about advancement and what not later. good luck to the rest of you.
oh, that comment that i posted was from the Any one work at Gehry's? thread.
heterarchy- I have to disagree with your commente "all of the code/coordination/legal/etc/etc issues that we've had to pick up"
In every contract I have had and on the cd's as well, it states that the drawings must be followed but the contractor is responsible for making sure everything is per code. If we do something per the drawings and get an inspection and it is not per code, we have to fix it.
I do agree architects do a lot of the coordination. The legal I am not sure what you are refering to.
You may be right-in a few years I may see differently, but the perspective I have now is as stated above. And that is the view of most people in my current profession.
and i can't tell you how many times I have called an architect to ask a question concerning codes that they don't have the answer to it.
where do you work? what state? i have had the exact opposite experience. it's my understanding that the contractor isn't responsible for anything other than constructing the building according to the architect's construction/contract documents. i asked around my office earlier today to confirm that my understanding was correct, and received an affirmative. i work in healthcare, and figuring out codes is something i'm always attempting to do.
either my firm's doing too much work, or your working with bad architects.
anyone out there with a little more experience/knowledge able to clear this up?
The firm I work for is getting sued because the construction manager screwed up. The CM told the client the project was under budget, so the client started adding in the alternates. When the project was finished it was way over budget. This happened because the CM told the client they could upgrade the finishes and spent the contingency.
Now this was clearly the CM's fault, but we are getting sued. Lawyers typically will name all parties involved in the project in the law suit because most will just settle. It's cheaper to settle out of court.
My boss told me once that a major CM firm was coming up with a new idea called Program Management. Basically the idea was that they were just going to do paperwork and oversee other CM's which were actually overseeing all of the other trades. They felt they could make big $$$ with NO liability, because they weren't actually doing anything.
heterarchy- i also work in healthcare, in texas. I know about the codes issue. but the architects i've worked with don't know any of them.
also, concerning payment vs. liability, you also have to consider construction makes more probably also because of risk-every time i walk onto a jobsite, my life is at risk. you don't think much about it until you've seen a crane fall.
my dad writes computer code. I think he gets paid around 106k.
we definitely don't completely understand all the code issues, but on big, complex projects we get it about 90% right and then run it by a code consultant to get it to 100%. if it's a small job, we usually get it either 95 or 100% on our own. but whatever we don't catch, we're definitely responsible for. usually we can catch during construction and issue an asi or pr, if we don't catch it then, then we have to pay.
i'm surprised to hear such different reports about this.
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.