but trace, gehry gets paid waaaay more than i do. so does renzo. and there are plenty of photographers i know who are incredible but can barely make a living.
of course value is determined in architecture - it just depends on who you are, where you've gotten to, etc. and, as you've pointed out, it doesn't favor the young (in terms of being able to jump quickly in and make more off the apparent demonstration of talent). it favors the old. and cranky. and geezerly...
Greg, are you the founder of a 120 person firm? If you are, I'd guess your salary would be similar.
Yes, there are broke photogs, but the point is that there are also those making fortunes (not for owning a very large business, as anyone at the top of a large business will be paid as such) for their talents and skills.
I feel like there are two topics being discussed here and we must begin to differentiate between them. I’ll concede the point that all of our built environment and structures can be construed as “architecture”, but after that, I begin to draw a line and at some point we have to begin to separate true “Architecture” from (what Keith C. above calls) “Commodity”. The impetus behind what drives the creation of a project must be considered when evaluating a project it on its merits or its shortcomings. There are projects that begin with the concept of creating something and utilizing all of the creative energy and concepts that we learned in architectural school. This is what architecture is. Then there are the “commodity” projects. These are the projects that might be stamped by an architect, but an architect didn’t design them, at least not the fundamental concept. That was created by an accountant or an investment broker. Sure, an architect put a façade on it. Dressed it up to give the appearance of what it was supposed to mimic. Judge these by what they were intended to do – make money, fairly easy metric to apply, but don’t categorize them as “Architecture”. Again, I’ll admit that there may not be a clear line where one can clearly differentiate between where “Architecture” ends and “commodity” begins but at least we can begin to honestly discuss the value both.
Kaz, I think that's a great point. Maybe we can call them "Architecture" and "architecture". So then the question for me is %'s, how much of the work out there is capital A work and how much is small a?
I do think the media gravitates to the A work (for a variety of reasons), so we see a disproportionate amount of these high profile projects which it is not an accurate reflection of the practice as a whole (in my opinion).
trace I agree with you. developers are not creative in general, and architects work at their will, this is a problem that can only be overcome if the architect is the developer. If we are going to have an impact in the future we need to invent projects not just shape them. The traditional business model is not going to lead to a better society period. We need to affect the decisions of what to build and where to build it (through careful reasoning and research) not just how to build it and what form it takes on.
When the architect is the devloper, the same financial considerations apply. The difference is that the architect thinks he is more savvy than the developer in terms of understanding the market, a delusion which is usually corrected upon completion of the project.
The future of the Architecture profession is being compromised by the AIA in at least 2 important ways:
1. The AIA has been negligent in enforcing the legal use of the name “Architect”. The word Architect is rapidly losing meaning. While searching through several employment websites for Architect jobs, I’m constantly bewildered/depressed with the abundance of ads requesting a “Java Architect, “IT Architect”, “Software Architect”, “Systems Architect”…etc. and those jobs often offer six-figure salaries. Where is the AIA’s enforcement policy?
Now, if some poor fool happens to inappropriately use a variation of the word Architect while assembling a set of house plans - while working out of his bedroom, or is working with an expired license – all Hell will break loose and the AIA will fine them into submission…………..meanwhile, the word Architect is rapidly losing meaning while they stand idle.
2. Not only has our AIA been negligent in enforcing the use of the name "Architect" - they also ACTIVELY promote outsourcing the production of construction documents to countries such as India. That practice not only robs US Architects of jobs – it also limits the ability of young Architects to earn on-the-job experience by assembling construction documents. How’s that a good idea for developing future Architects in the US?
Just what services does the AIA provide for its members? How are they protecting the profession? What's their vision for the future? The AIA has become a weak social organization and a waste of money. I'm done with the AIA.
I suggest you discuss these concerns with your local AIA chapters and if they don't provide reasonable answers - discontinue membership.
These are indeed tough times for experienced Architects, but the future for young Architects isn't promising either.
Unsurprisingly, this is the second time today that I've heard someone talk about how the AIA regulates the use of the word architect. This isn't true. The AIA can't regulate anything; they're a club. The term architect is protected in its usage by each state's licensing board. If you don't like software designers using the term architect, you can pressure your state chapter AIA to pressure their state's board, or you can pressure the board directly.
Sorry for boring you, but why is this unsurprising to hear twice today?
Individual Architects haven't got the ability to pressure their State licensing boards. The AIA represents the Architectural community and should recognize its obligation to protect the profession by voicing concerns and pressuring State licensing boards to enforce the standards - yet the AIA has refused to even recognize the problem.
Shouldn't part of the role of the AIA be to protect the profession? Is it merely a social networking organization?
The AIA is a vehicle to promote the interests of large corporate firms, not individual architects. It has no teeth to fine or otherwise prosecute the unlicensed other than to deny them a license should they apply.
I agree that the use of the term "architect" has gotten out of hand. I usually send an e-mail to the publication in question. For instance several years ago, the NYT had an article where they called the superintendent of a building the "architect" of a project. I pointed out both to the author and editor the legal definition of the term architect and what I thought was some rather sloppy reporting. I think it undoubtedly has had an impact on the general public perception (and hence value) of what we do.
Any of you self practitioners out there know what I mean when you sit down with a new client and their builder has been telling them that you simply "draw up the plans" and "get the building permit"...
Just new to this forum a few days ago, but so far it is quite good. This thread has especially caught my interest and has some great discussion. I feel that I might be able to chime in a bit as well. Being a recent grad (April, 2011, from the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada) I am seeing firsthand how hard it is getting to be to get into the profession. I've been putting out resumes for months and had only 2 interviews.
As to the future of the profession, we actually discussed this in our professional practice class and we all felt that things need to change. We need to identify opportunities that are largely untapped to be successful. Traditional practice evolved for and was designed for a world that no longer exists. We as 'architects' (or design professionals for those of us not registered who cannot call ourselves the aforementioned title) need to realize that we can no longer let the status quo continue. We are trained to solve problems, and while I do not think we can change things overnight we should be working toward a solution that brings us back to importance and significance.
I do have to agree with the discussion of the loss f the importance of an architect to people and the rise of the developer. Levitt-town was a good push to affirming this but it started before that. In Canada, you don't even need an architect for most housing projects (under 6000sqft, 3 stories, less than 3 attached residences); leading to a plethora of developers and home builders that do not use an architect but rather employ technologists to design as they are cheaper and less demanding. In the residential field here architects are dropping to 1% of the market share, of which that percent is primarily multimillion dollar houses. So we have 99% of the residential market untapped, a huge opportunity for design-build in my opinion, (and I am part owner of a home building company to achieve this for myself).
As to the parking discussion... The primary driver of the need for parking is the auto-centric design of the modern North American city. To reduce parking needs we need to be realistic about the realities of our cities. We cannot change the existing infrastructure, so we need to start changing the way the car is perceived. In most cities it is seen as a necessity (mostly because of planning policies and developer driven suburban sprawl). We need to work to develop denser complete communities that are walkable and provide the amenities we have come to expect within walking distance. We also need to invest in public transit and mass transit options to connect across cities. Currently some cities do not even have a functioning transit system. We need to work to provide real workable alternatives that make driving less attractive.
For example, if I can get to work via a train in 20 minutes or drive in 10, I'll drive. However, if it now takes me 40 minutes to drive and I can take a train for 20 or an express bus for 25, and it costs me more to park each month than a transit pass, I'm more likely to take transit and use my car for pleasure. It is just a matter of changing opinions through legislation, which unfortunately doesn't always happen.
Anyway, I do see a future for architects, we just need to reinvent ourselves and reassert our importance to the social, cultural and political future of our society.
It's unsurprising, goldenoldie, in that it's totally common across the profession to not understand what the AIA is. And if we IN the profession don't understand it, how can we expect the non-architect public to?
Maybe we should just all stop paying dues to the AIA and see if that changes anything. I think they may already be feeling the pinch, or at least they are starting to realize that recent graduates aren't joining. Otherwise, why would they be willing to let recent grads join for free?
brian - giving recent grads a free membership actually been their policy for at least 15 years. i think they're feeling the pinch, but it's from more licensed members, especially uber small firms and people below an associate level in large firms (who have stopped paying part of the fees). overall, though, the numbers haven't dropped as much as you might think.
the aia's issue over the last 3+ years was the executive leadership. honestly, they had the wrong person (in chris mcentee, who came from the medical world. whole different world) and i'm not sure they have the right person now. one would hope, having been in the publishing world, mr. ivy would know how to communicate a positive, unified message about the profession. sadly, we're not hearing it, no?
Phil, beautifully put: ''Architecture is not a public affair anymore. That is, it is not focused in the public realm and respectively it is not understood by the public realm.''
How can we gain relevant public projects? EI: schools, courthouses, libraries, town halls, prisons, public housing, etc.? The designs in the USA for these typologies in the last 15 - 20 years have for the most part been absolutely atrocious - no thought or creativity at all.
to be the advocate for the devil....when was architecture ever understood by "the public"?
our built history is what has survived a winnowing of centuries and not really evidence of a better time for architects as far as i can tell - and what has survived has survived because of private cash and private desire, not because of public intervention.
somehow i don't think our profession is dwindling either. we face competition where perhaps there was none before, but that is only because our general purpose buildings are now at a level to compete with architecture (isn't that the point of learning from las vegas?) and not because we have lost the respect of the elite class who were always our patrons...
there is lots of reason to be more confident with what we do. Architects are amazing on a regular basis. look at bjarke Ingels in New York city. perfectly understandable and very creative at the same time. that is at least one future for us all (to be wildly creative and populist without resorting to the faintly pompous signage that the pomos went for ). there are other examples.
the recession has made it hard to be positive and that i understand. but i don't see it as a problem with the work we do. maybe we need to find ways to show our value in the market place more - it seems that won't happen too much by receding into a protectionist stance. if things are so bad, what have we got to lose by aiming higher?
will's response is so eloquently done, there's no need to add to it.
so, brian, the aia should be reinforcing our ability (at our best) to bring "a human-centered, design-based approach to helping organizations in the public and private sectors innovate and grow." (and i completely stole the last part from ideo, but only because i'm brain dead right now. too much writing in one day). something in that ball park.
will that kind of approach please every architect (ala an eisenman or kipnis)? of course not. but it's the territory most clients understand and live in. and if we're trying to connect with them...
the other thing the aia should push more is results based design - yes, we all do work that brings intangibles to the equation (10ft high or 10.5ft high? that is the question), but if you want to improve our overall lot in life, we have to be able to quantify what kinds of values our designs bring.
Bjarke is a outlier, and certainly not the norm. Out of the already few individuals who regularly listen to/watch TED, how many are interested in architecture? While I totally agree we should make sustainability/ecology desirable, he's preaching to the choir by speaking at TED. How do we involve johnny q. public and raise visibility in a manner that is effective yet not seen as merely self-serving?
I think if we have architecturally robust and functional yet desirable public architecture, that those projects inform and feed into the private sector. If you grow up with an architecturally amazing school, then perhaps you come to expect the same quality from your office and home.
don't be surprised with the fact that in 2008 the construction industry was 10% of overall GDP, whereas now its less than 6%. a staggering decline!!! architecture majors have the highest levels of unemployment 14% among bachelor's graduates ages 22-26. the projected increase in construction spending according to AIA National will be 2.1 % this year alone.
let's consider what life would be like without architects as the economy recovers. does pent up demand create the need for design expertise in the construction of new buildings - civic, commercial, or for homes? do existing buildings get adapted for reuse to serve new functions and meet critical new environmental standards. we all know how our infrastructure needs to be addressed, that public spaces in cities and small towns need renovation and modernization - if we don't know - then the ramifications will affect more than just the architecture profession - everyone will lose out the missed opportunity to improve our communities and aging infrastructure. architects are vital to the health and well- being of our neighborhoods, cities, and communities. during the recession of 90's many young architects left the profession because of bleak job prospects that they became the "Lost Generation". the gap left a void of young talent in the design and construction sector when the conditions improved. if this happens again, it will hamper our global competitiveness in design and construction. according to a 2010 AIA survey, more than 70% of unemployed architects plan to return to the profession. given the challenges that many of our cities and regions across the country face, we should encourage students to engage in architecture and related design disciplines - the worst thing that could happen for a student that is passionate about architecture would be to abandon the career plans simply because the industry has been adversely and disproportionately affected by the overall recent economic woes. remember - talented individuals have selected architecture as a profession so that they may have the opportunity to improve the built environment (architecture) locally and for others around the globe to do so as well.
Evolution of Architecture as a Profession
Change the relationship.
but trace, gehry gets paid waaaay more than i do. so does renzo. and there are plenty of photographers i know who are incredible but can barely make a living.
of course value is determined in architecture - it just depends on who you are, where you've gotten to, etc. and, as you've pointed out, it doesn't favor the young (in terms of being able to jump quickly in and make more off the apparent demonstration of talent). it favors the old. and cranky. and geezerly...
Greg, are you the founder of a 120 person firm? If you are, I'd guess your salary would be similar.
Yes, there are broke photogs, but the point is that there are also those making fortunes (not for owning a very large business, as anyone at the top of a large business will be paid as such) for their talents and skills.
Position,
terrific post - I commend those who can make on-the-spot, clever metaphors on important matters that really drives the point home
Architecture is the canary in the coal mine for the way our whole society is headed.
I feel like there are two topics being discussed here and we must begin to differentiate between them. I’ll concede the point that all of our built environment and structures can be construed as “architecture”, but after that, I begin to draw a line and at some point we have to begin to separate true “Architecture” from (what Keith C. above calls) “Commodity”. The impetus behind what drives the creation of a project must be considered when evaluating a project it on its merits or its shortcomings. There are projects that begin with the concept of creating something and utilizing all of the creative energy and concepts that we learned in architectural school. This is what architecture is. Then there are the “commodity” projects. These are the projects that might be stamped by an architect, but an architect didn’t design them, at least not the fundamental concept. That was created by an accountant or an investment broker. Sure, an architect put a façade on it. Dressed it up to give the appearance of what it was supposed to mimic. Judge these by what they were intended to do – make money, fairly easy metric to apply, but don’t categorize them as “Architecture”. Again, I’ll admit that there may not be a clear line where one can clearly differentiate between where “Architecture” ends and “commodity” begins but at least we can begin to honestly discuss the value both.
Kaz, I think that's a great point. Maybe we can call them "Architecture" and "architecture". So then the question for me is %'s, how much of the work out there is capital A work and how much is small a?
I do think the media gravitates to the A work (for a variety of reasons), so we see a disproportionate amount of these high profile projects which it is not an accurate reflection of the practice as a whole (in my opinion).
trace I agree with you. developers are not creative in general, and architects work at their will, this is a problem that can only be overcome if the architect is the developer. If we are going to have an impact in the future we need to invent projects not just shape them. The traditional business model is not going to lead to a better society period. We need to affect the decisions of what to build and where to build it (through careful reasoning and research) not just how to build it and what form it takes on.
Unless of course, the developer is a lousy Architect..
When the architect is the devloper, the same financial considerations apply. The difference is that the architect thinks he is more savvy than the developer in terms of understanding the market, a delusion which is usually corrected upon completion of the project.
Thats the other issue - the market is an idiot
The future of the Architecture profession is being compromised by the AIA in at least 2 important ways:
1. The AIA has been negligent in enforcing the legal use of the name “Architect”. The word Architect is rapidly losing meaning. While searching through several employment websites for Architect jobs, I’m constantly bewildered/depressed with the abundance of ads requesting a “Java Architect, “IT Architect”, “Software Architect”, “Systems Architect”…etc. and those jobs often offer six-figure salaries. Where is the AIA’s enforcement policy?
Now, if some poor fool happens to inappropriately use a variation of the word Architect while assembling a set of house plans - while working out of his bedroom, or is working with an expired license – all Hell will break loose and the AIA will fine them into submission…………..meanwhile, the word Architect is rapidly losing meaning while they stand idle.
2. Not only has our AIA been negligent in enforcing the use of the name "Architect" - they also ACTIVELY promote outsourcing the production of construction documents to countries such as India. That practice not only robs US Architects of jobs – it also limits the ability of young Architects to earn on-the-job experience by assembling construction documents. How’s that a good idea for developing future Architects in the US?
Just what services does the AIA provide for its members? How are they protecting the profession? What's their vision for the future? The AIA has become a weak social organization and a waste of money. I'm done with the AIA.
I suggest you discuss these concerns with your local AIA chapters and if they don't provide reasonable answers - discontinue membership.
These are indeed tough times for experienced Architects, but the future for young Architects isn't promising either.
Unsurprisingly, this is the second time today that I've heard someone talk about how the AIA regulates the use of the word architect. This isn't true. The AIA can't regulate anything; they're a club. The term architect is protected in its usage by each state's licensing board. If you don't like software designers using the term architect, you can pressure your state chapter AIA to pressure their state's board, or you can pressure the board directly.
Sorry for boring you, but why is this unsurprising to hear twice today?
Individual Architects haven't got the ability to pressure their State licensing boards. The AIA represents the Architectural community and should recognize its obligation to protect the profession by voicing concerns and pressuring State licensing boards to enforce the standards - yet the AIA has refused to even recognize the problem.
Shouldn't part of the role of the AIA be to protect the profession? Is it merely a social networking organization?
The AIA is a vehicle to promote the interests of large corporate firms, not individual architects. It has no teeth to fine or otherwise prosecute the unlicensed other than to deny them a license should they apply.
I agree that the use of the term "architect" has gotten out of hand. I usually send an e-mail to the publication in question. For instance several years ago, the NYT had an article where they called the superintendent of a building the "architect" of a project. I pointed out both to the author and editor the legal definition of the term architect and what I thought was some rather sloppy reporting. I think it undoubtedly has had an impact on the general public perception (and hence value) of what we do.
Any of you self practitioners out there know what I mean when you sit down with a new client and their builder has been telling them that you simply "draw up the plans" and "get the building permit"...
For residential work, "tailor" would often be far more accurate than "architect".
Just new to this forum a few days ago, but so far it is quite good. This thread has especially caught my interest and has some great discussion. I feel that I might be able to chime in a bit as well. Being a recent grad (April, 2011, from the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada) I am seeing firsthand how hard it is getting to be to get into the profession. I've been putting out resumes for months and had only 2 interviews.
As to the future of the profession, we actually discussed this in our professional practice class and we all felt that things need to change. We need to identify opportunities that are largely untapped to be successful. Traditional practice evolved for and was designed for a world that no longer exists. We as 'architects' (or design professionals for those of us not registered who cannot call ourselves the aforementioned title) need to realize that we can no longer let the status quo continue. We are trained to solve problems, and while I do not think we can change things overnight we should be working toward a solution that brings us back to importance and significance.
I do have to agree with the discussion of the loss f the importance of an architect to people and the rise of the developer. Levitt-town was a good push to affirming this but it started before that. In Canada, you don't even need an architect for most housing projects (under 6000sqft, 3 stories, less than 3 attached residences); leading to a plethora of developers and home builders that do not use an architect but rather employ technologists to design as they are cheaper and less demanding. In the residential field here architects are dropping to 1% of the market share, of which that percent is primarily multimillion dollar houses. So we have 99% of the residential market untapped, a huge opportunity for design-build in my opinion, (and I am part owner of a home building company to achieve this for myself).
As to the parking discussion... The primary driver of the need for parking is the auto-centric design of the modern North American city. To reduce parking needs we need to be realistic about the realities of our cities. We cannot change the existing infrastructure, so we need to start changing the way the car is perceived. In most cities it is seen as a necessity (mostly because of planning policies and developer driven suburban sprawl). We need to work to develop denser complete communities that are walkable and provide the amenities we have come to expect within walking distance. We also need to invest in public transit and mass transit options to connect across cities. Currently some cities do not even have a functioning transit system. We need to work to provide real workable alternatives that make driving less attractive.
For example, if I can get to work via a train in 20 minutes or drive in 10, I'll drive. However, if it now takes me 40 minutes to drive and I can take a train for 20 or an express bus for 25, and it costs me more to park each month than a transit pass, I'm more likely to take transit and use my car for pleasure. It is just a matter of changing opinions through legislation, which unfortunately doesn't always happen.
Anyway, I do see a future for architects, we just need to reinvent ourselves and reassert our importance to the social, cultural and political future of our society.
It's unsurprising, goldenoldie, in that it's totally common across the profession to not understand what the AIA is. And if we IN the profession don't understand it, how can we expect the non-architect public to?
Maybe we should just all stop paying dues to the AIA and see if that changes anything. I think they may already be feeling the pinch, or at least they are starting to realize that recent graduates aren't joining. Otherwise, why would they be willing to let recent grads join for free?
brian - giving recent grads a free membership actually been their policy for at least 15 years. i think they're feeling the pinch, but it's from more licensed members, especially uber small firms and people below an associate level in large firms (who have stopped paying part of the fees). overall, though, the numbers haven't dropped as much as you might think.
the aia's issue over the last 3+ years was the executive leadership. honestly, they had the wrong person (in chris mcentee, who came from the medical world. whole different world) and i'm not sure they have the right person now. one would hope, having been in the publishing world, mr. ivy would know how to communicate a positive, unified message about the profession. sadly, we're not hearing it, no?
Gregory - Thanks for clearing it up. I thought this was more of a one-time thing but I never really paid attention to it while I was still in school.
Regarding the new leadership, what would you want the 'positive, unified message' to be?
Phil, beautifully put: ''Architecture is not a public affair anymore. That is, it is not focused in the public realm and respectively it is not understood by the public realm.''
I totally agree that architecture has become invisible, even for all the hoopla circa 2007 about 'Starchitects'. For some unknown reason, we've stopped doing relevant public work [the US pavilion at the World Expo is a good case in point: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/02/defending_the_usa_pavilion?page=full ].
What are some ways we can gain public visibility?
How can we gain relevant public projects? EI: schools, courthouses, libraries, town halls, prisons, public housing, etc.? The designs in the USA for these typologies in the last 15 - 20 years have for the most part been absolutely atrocious - no thought or creativity at all.
Thoughts?
to be the advocate for the devil....when was architecture ever understood by "the public"?
our built history is what has survived a winnowing of centuries and not really evidence of a better time for architects as far as i can tell - and what has survived has survived because of private cash and private desire, not because of public intervention.
somehow i don't think our profession is dwindling either. we face competition where perhaps there was none before, but that is only because our general purpose buildings are now at a level to compete with architecture (isn't that the point of learning from las vegas?) and not because we have lost the respect of the elite class who were always our patrons...
there is lots of reason to be more confident with what we do. Architects are amazing on a regular basis. look at bjarke Ingels in New York city. perfectly understandable and very creative at the same time. that is at least one future for us all (to be wildly creative and populist without resorting to the faintly pompous signage that the pomos went for ). there are other examples.
the recession has made it hard to be positive and that i understand. but i don't see it as a problem with the work we do. maybe we need to find ways to show our value in the market place more - it seems that won't happen too much by receding into a protectionist stance. if things are so bad, what have we got to lose by aiming higher?
will's response is so eloquently done, there's no need to add to it.
so, brian, the aia should be reinforcing our ability (at our best) to bring "a human-centered, design-based approach to helping organizations in the public and private sectors innovate and grow." (and i completely stole the last part from ideo, but only because i'm brain dead right now. too much writing in one day). something in that ball park.
will that kind of approach please every architect (ala an eisenman or kipnis)? of course not. but it's the territory most clients understand and live in. and if we're trying to connect with them...
the other thing the aia should push more is results based design - yes, we all do work that brings intangibles to the equation (10ft high or 10.5ft high? that is the question), but if you want to improve our overall lot in life, we have to be able to quantify what kinds of values our designs bring.
Bjarke is a outlier, and certainly not the norm. Out of the already few individuals who regularly listen to/watch TED, how many are interested in architecture? While I totally agree we should make sustainability/ecology desirable, he's preaching to the choir by speaking at TED. How do we involve johnny q. public and raise visibility in a manner that is effective yet not seen as merely self-serving?
I think if we have architecturally robust and functional yet desirable public architecture, that those projects inform and feed into the private sector. If you grow up with an architecturally amazing school, then perhaps you come to expect the same quality from your office and home.
don't be surprised with the fact that in 2008 the construction industry was 10% of overall GDP, whereas now its less than 6%. a staggering decline!!! architecture majors have the highest levels of unemployment 14% among bachelor's graduates ages 22-26. the projected increase in construction spending according to AIA National will be 2.1 % this year alone.
let's consider what life would be like without architects as the economy recovers. does pent up demand create the need for design expertise in the construction of new buildings - civic, commercial, or for homes? do existing buildings get adapted for reuse to serve new functions and meet critical new environmental standards. we all know how our infrastructure needs to be addressed, that public spaces in cities and small towns need renovation and modernization - if we don't know - then the ramifications will affect more than just the architecture profession - everyone will lose out the missed opportunity to improve our communities and aging infrastructure. architects are vital to the health and well- being of our neighborhoods, cities, and communities. during the recession of 90's many young architects left the profession because of bleak job prospects that they became the "Lost Generation". the gap left a void of young talent in the design and construction sector when the conditions improved. if this happens again, it will hamper our global competitiveness in design and construction. according to a 2010 AIA survey, more than 70% of unemployed architects plan to return to the profession. given the challenges that many of our cities and regions across the country face, we should encourage students to engage in architecture and related design disciplines - the worst thing that could happen for a student that is passionate about architecture would be to abandon the career plans simply because the industry has been adversely and disproportionately affected by the overall recent economic woes. remember - talented individuals have selected architecture as a profession so that they may have the opportunity to improve the built environment (architecture) locally and for others around the globe to do so as well.
remember? - design matters!
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.