Quiz, the majority of my post was not directed at you specifically, but was a venting of frustrations I have with the current state of the profession as a whole (though I do think you are off-base saying that the barriers to entry into the profession are low; NCARB has ensured that they are not.)
My larger point is that saying there are too many professionals just seems like a cop out. Firms are adapting and thriving. (The list of consultants involved in the Vignoly Van Andel project on the front page of archinect both speaks to the success of the project and economic viability within the profession.) I would rather firms look toward how to expand or adapt their services rather than contract simply to meet a perceived market demand. (Easier said than done, I understand.)
won - the 'barriers to entry' ARE low - because, in part, it's very easy for firms of all sorts to set up shop and offer architectural services. Engineering firms are doing it simply by hiring one architect. Construction firms are doing it simply by hiring one architect. Interior design firms are doing it -- often without an architect on staff. As is evident by the many posts here on archinect, lots of graduate architects have set up shop to offer 'design' services without the benefit of having a license.
While it may be difficult to obtain a license, it's not difficult - or all that expensive - to compete with traditional architectural firms. This, in turn, continues to keep fees low.
I agree with you that those firms that are willing to expand or adapt their services will be more competitive than those that don't. However, the proportion of people in this industry who think that way is very small. While that is a depressing thought, there is opportunity there for some.
1 - many fields both have healthier margins, more reasonable hours and do not require as much, skill, knowledge or credentials as architecture --- that is, it is easier to make money in them --- we have a tough sell --- something not much in demand, not considered essential, and with too high an upfront investment on our part
2 - the value of our contribution is often considered secondary or tertiary with respect to its criticality for the completion of the project by clients or our collaborators, even the ones who understand the 'value of an architect,' except in very specific cases.
3 - if we speak of adding "other services", what does this mean? the "valuable" services tend to require a specific technical expertise that architects cannot just 'pick up' without returning to school for a fundamentally different (more quantitative) education --- much of what we often "add" are variations on what we already do --- high level, conceptual, qualitative problem solving --- the sort of additional services most other design constituencies also offer, or at least can credibly claim
4 - other, more lucrative, (more recognized as essential) design constituencies offer more modest, constrained, specific, essential technical value to projects --- it is not nebulous, ethereal or difficult to verbalize or quantify --- interior architecture may be the exception, but then the deliverables are not as complex or time-consuming as an architect's deliverables (in most,not all, instances)
this seems a bit like an intractable problem --- even if you can make it with enough ingenuity and elbow grease, the reality is that that same effort yields more success in other fields ---
how does our profession have to change to make it the more lucrative option?
won - the 'barriers to entry' ARE low - because, in part, it's very easy for firms of all sorts to set up shop and offer architectural services.
I think this is a matter of perception - is the glass half-empty or half-full? I agree that if firms are opening up that are unlicensed and offering services that are identical to those of a traditional architecture practice, yes, that poses an unfair advantage that dilutes the credibility of traditional practice. But what I am seeing is a number of highly specialized firms that do not require licensure opening up and filling a gap in the market - energy consultants, real estate development planning, strategic planning, design-build, etc. Often times these firms are working on very low overhead and can offer a proportionately competitive fee. This is the changing face of practice. While this is absolutely a threat to traditional practice, it also is offering opportunity for growth in new areas that address market needs.
I tend to agree with won here - I do think that it takes a significant amount of resources to become licensed. Many choose not to, such as myself, because the path takes too long with too little reward.
Competition and Skills - I've gone on about this many times, but it has been a while ;-)....the problem with architecture and fees, as I see it, is that the profession has dumbed everyone down to the same basic fees - there is no differentiation out there.
I can't think of one profession, certainly not ones that require advanced degrees, that work in this manner. Look at graphic design, some are making a ton, others are making nothing, and it is because of talent. Marketing/ad companies have learned that quality design is valuable. They educate their clients, and viola, value is tangible and fees reflect that. Dr's, lawyers, accountants, on and on, work this way.
But architecture has done a great job of promoting "everyone is equal", an "architect is an architect", thereby reducing everyone to a common denominator. The only tangible value that is licensure, which we all know is more or less a dime a dozen and of truly little value to the regular world.
Only a few out there, namely stararchitect's, have managed to differentiate themselves and capitalize on their names.
So why would a client not go seek the cheapest solution if it is all equal? Until there is some differentiation on the talent side, the side where things are not equal, there will continue to be a decline and squeeze of fees. Shit, nowadays you can find people hungry enough to work for minimum wage (sad, very sad, but a reality), how do you tell a client to pay more if they are getting the same thing? You can't.
i would say that what a graphic designer or marketing person does has a key difference.
the graphic designer is not selling services as though she/he will both design and also build or oversee the building of the sophisticated web architecture of a mature website, --- or fabricate the interactive displays at a commercial scale necessary to realize the project.
the marketing person does not sell their services as though they will research the market, develop the marketing target demographics and the marketing concepts, and then organize the supply chain logistics and oversee production in order to ensure, "the marketing vision."
rather each of these professions serves a well-defined role within a larger project framework
in comparison, it seems our profession continues to suffer the vestiges of the master builder paradigm instead of serving a well-defined, vital function in a larger apparatus
The demand for architectural design services is intrinsically tied to the demand for new development, and it waxes and wanes with economic growth. I believe architects themselves have minimal control or influence over these cycles, and beating ourselves up about it, or looking for "solutions" to reinvent our industry are a waste of time. Quite simply, when the economy is expanding, we have plenty of work, we are in demand, and salaries increase. When the economy contracts, salaries stagnate or drop, firms can't support all the staff they have and they lay folks off.
In the course of a 25-year career, I survived numerous down cycles without being laid off, until last summer. My most recent firm has one-quarter the staff it had in 2007. The one before that has 15% of its 2007 staff, and the one before that probably around 60%. I made good salaries for most of my career, topping out at around 95K in 2007. After the layoff, I decided to open my own firm, something I never thought I wanted. Now my only regret is not doing it 10 years ago.
2011 Salary report for AIA set to be released on July 2011. I guess they are currently compiling the statistics, but they only do them every three years, so I am interested in how the economy will have effected the mean.
Know what...I am going to cruise the craigslist ads, find more of these kinds of ads and send them an email ridiculing their expectations. There's just too many morons paying peanuts for the work we do
So I've heard it again, one of the reasons the salaries are essentially dropping, and not just in architecture, is because service jobs are leaking to the third world countries. That's the globalization for you, them bastards stealing American jobs. But the reality is that globalization is not going away and until we get it balanced out, and that means that a CAD monkey in India is paid as much as CAD monkey in USA, and until their buying power is equal to ones in USA, those bastards will continue stealing "our" jobs. So what can you do until that happens? You can keep bitching about it or you can pick up your stuff and move to India, or China or other forsaken place when rent is $50 per month.
"You can keep bitching about it or you can pick up your stuff and move to India, or China or other forsaken place when rent is $50 per month."
Or open your own practice and send the automated work to India. After all, countries like China and India have the people who can do automated work like CAD, programming etc. but they have less creativity, communication skills and vision.
i was talking with someone that said in the future he thinks that licensed architects will probably make more.
the economy has shaken a lot of people out of the field and schools aren't that technical anymore. his reasoning was that since most people actually learn how to build stuff when they're on the job (not at school) and there are going to be less and less old-school architects that know how to put things together, it will be a lot harder to learn everything you need to know for the licensing exam. that, he said, and the fact that more and more responsiblities are being placed on the architect in terms of legal issues and revised codes (I wouldn't know but I'll take his word).
basically, since its going to be harder and harder to get a license, the profession will be less saturated than it is with licensed professionals, and thus they can command higher fees.
less old-school architects that know how to put things together
Assuming anyone really needs to know how to detail an asbestos wall panel assembly or build a wooden double-hung non-insulated window from scratch.
"Old school" architects are just as vulnerable as those green around the gills due to demands from newer and or higher-performance building methods and technologies. Even as we speak, there's probably some jerk engineer dreaming up of a new triple-paned curtain wall made out of hardiboard, bits of indiscernible metal and filled with unicorn farts.
So unless your entire practice consists of historic restoration and retrofits, you better brush up on your Owens-Corning's 'Insulaitng with unicorn farts and wads of cash' manual.
this is true, but i think you misunderstand. old-school was the word i used, but its not a direct quote. i think what he meant to say is that there are going to be less qualified people to teach the unqualified people. i almost have a degree and i know nothing. the less people around to show me how things are done, the less I'll probably know. the less i know, the longer it'll take me to get licensed.
so i'm guessing he's implying a larger gap between 'real' architects and cad monkeys, both with the same arch degree.
there have to be examples of what happens to our profession as the empire shrinks that would offer perspective. 1930's here? post-war UK? post market crash Japan?
i see the guys point, but it does not seem to take into account the downward pressure on salaries as a result of globalization. the pressures our industry is facing are being faced by many professions right now, even ones considered to be more lucrative and stable.
even if his point is true for whatever sort of local market conditions or specialty he/she has, i think, generally, a lot more people would have to be forced out of the profession for architects to be in demand --- even then, we do compete in a global market and there are lots of architects overseas who would probably gladly step in and fill the void.
makes sense. a more globalized world also creates more opportunity. you win it some places and lose it in others.
on a related note, animation companies have been outsourcing the grunt work to asian countries for years. looney tunes were drawn out frame by frame and painted in the u.s. suring the early-mid 20th century, but shows like the simpsons were keyframed here and sent to Korea for everything else in between (although i have no clue how this works now that they all use computers.
but then again, you don't see a huge demand for cartoonists in the u.s. so i guess i just proved myself wrong.
however, even the big architectural firms in europe need to employ an american firm when doing projects in the usa. the building industry doesn't really function through email.
japan's economy never recovered after the crash in early 1990's.
BUT the govt has been pumping cash into construction as economic stimulus project for last 20 years so it isn't comparable. Also, although japan is 3rd biggest economy now it is only the size of one or two states in usa, so even in a recession it is not so bad. construction slowed but never died.
totally out of blue, but maybe look to the life of eastern europe after the wall came down for the level of economic disaster....? that was not a good time and still isn't for many.
however, even the big architectural firms in europe need to employ an american firm when doing projects in the usa. the building industry doesn't really function through email.
This is very true but a good chuck of architectural fee is in the pre-construction phases of the project which can be easily outsourced. If nothing changes in next 20 years in terms of global wage equality, US will see a flood of licensed architects who will be rubber-stamping US based projects designed in African, Asian or South American design firms.
It's really interesting to see that always after a long period of republican as a president, the average income fall down, than democratic come back and the average income goes up.
Architect Salary Increasing?
Quiz, the majority of my post was not directed at you specifically, but was a venting of frustrations I have with the current state of the profession as a whole (though I do think you are off-base saying that the barriers to entry into the profession are low; NCARB has ensured that they are not.)
My larger point is that saying there are too many professionals just seems like a cop out. Firms are adapting and thriving. (The list of consultants involved in the Vignoly Van Andel project on the front page of archinect both speaks to the success of the project and economic viability within the profession.) I would rather firms look toward how to expand or adapt their services rather than contract simply to meet a perceived market demand. (Easier said than done, I understand.)
quick question - why do you all think the current licensing process is too convoluted and burdensome?
won - the 'barriers to entry' ARE low - because, in part, it's very easy for firms of all sorts to set up shop and offer architectural services. Engineering firms are doing it simply by hiring one architect. Construction firms are doing it simply by hiring one architect. Interior design firms are doing it -- often without an architect on staff. As is evident by the many posts here on archinect, lots of graduate architects have set up shop to offer 'design' services without the benefit of having a license.
While it may be difficult to obtain a license, it's not difficult - or all that expensive - to compete with traditional architectural firms. This, in turn, continues to keep fees low.
I agree with you that those firms that are willing to expand or adapt their services will be more competitive than those that don't. However, the proportion of people in this industry who think that way is very small. While that is a depressing thought, there is opportunity there for some.
good discussion --- four comments:
1 - many fields both have healthier margins, more reasonable hours and do not require as much, skill, knowledge or credentials as architecture --- that is, it is easier to make money in them --- we have a tough sell --- something not much in demand, not considered essential, and with too high an upfront investment on our part
2 - the value of our contribution is often considered secondary or tertiary with respect to its criticality for the completion of the project by clients or our collaborators, even the ones who understand the 'value of an architect,' except in very specific cases.
3 - if we speak of adding "other services", what does this mean? the "valuable" services tend to require a specific technical expertise that architects cannot just 'pick up' without returning to school for a fundamentally different (more quantitative) education --- much of what we often "add" are variations on what we already do --- high level, conceptual, qualitative problem solving --- the sort of additional services most other design constituencies also offer, or at least can credibly claim
4 - other, more lucrative, (more recognized as essential) design constituencies offer more modest, constrained, specific, essential technical value to projects --- it is not nebulous, ethereal or difficult to verbalize or quantify --- interior architecture may be the exception, but then the deliverables are not as complex or time-consuming as an architect's deliverables (in most,not all, instances)
this seems a bit like an intractable problem --- even if you can make it with enough ingenuity and elbow grease, the reality is that that same effort yields more success in other fields ---
how does our profession have to change to make it the more lucrative option?
won - the 'barriers to entry' ARE low - because, in part, it's very easy for firms of all sorts to set up shop and offer architectural services.
I think this is a matter of perception - is the glass half-empty or half-full? I agree that if firms are opening up that are unlicensed and offering services that are identical to those of a traditional architecture practice, yes, that poses an unfair advantage that dilutes the credibility of traditional practice. But what I am seeing is a number of highly specialized firms that do not require licensure opening up and filling a gap in the market - energy consultants, real estate development planning, strategic planning, design-build, etc. Often times these firms are working on very low overhead and can offer a proportionately competitive fee. This is the changing face of practice. While this is absolutely a threat to traditional practice, it also is offering opportunity for growth in new areas that address market needs.
I tend to agree with won here - I do think that it takes a significant amount of resources to become licensed. Many choose not to, such as myself, because the path takes too long with too little reward.
Competition and Skills - I've gone on about this many times, but it has been a while ;-)....the problem with architecture and fees, as I see it, is that the profession has dumbed everyone down to the same basic fees - there is no differentiation out there.
I can't think of one profession, certainly not ones that require advanced degrees, that work in this manner. Look at graphic design, some are making a ton, others are making nothing, and it is because of talent. Marketing/ad companies have learned that quality design is valuable. They educate their clients, and viola, value is tangible and fees reflect that. Dr's, lawyers, accountants, on and on, work this way.
But architecture has done a great job of promoting "everyone is equal", an "architect is an architect", thereby reducing everyone to a common denominator. The only tangible value that is licensure, which we all know is more or less a dime a dozen and of truly little value to the regular world.
Only a few out there, namely stararchitect's, have managed to differentiate themselves and capitalize on their names.
So why would a client not go seek the cheapest solution if it is all equal? Until there is some differentiation on the talent side, the side where things are not equal, there will continue to be a decline and squeeze of fees. Shit, nowadays you can find people hungry enough to work for minimum wage (sad, very sad, but a reality), how do you tell a client to pay more if they are getting the same thing? You can't.
i would say that what a graphic designer or marketing person does has a key difference.
the graphic designer is not selling services as though she/he will both design and also build or oversee the building of the sophisticated web architecture of a mature website, --- or fabricate the interactive displays at a commercial scale necessary to realize the project.
the marketing person does not sell their services as though they will research the market, develop the marketing target demographics and the marketing concepts, and then organize the supply chain logistics and oversee production in order to ensure, "the marketing vision."
rather each of these professions serves a well-defined role within a larger project framework
in comparison, it seems our profession continues to suffer the vestiges of the master builder paradigm instead of serving a well-defined, vital function in a larger apparatus
too many unemployed architects out there!!!
The demand for architectural design services is intrinsically tied to the demand for new development, and it waxes and wanes with economic growth. I believe architects themselves have minimal control or influence over these cycles, and beating ourselves up about it, or looking for "solutions" to reinvent our industry are a waste of time. Quite simply, when the economy is expanding, we have plenty of work, we are in demand, and salaries increase. When the economy contracts, salaries stagnate or drop, firms can't support all the staff they have and they lay folks off. In the course of a 25-year career, I survived numerous down cycles without being laid off, until last summer. My most recent firm has one-quarter the staff it had in 2007. The one before that has 15% of its 2007 staff, and the one before that probably around 60%. I made good salaries for most of my career, topping out at around 95K in 2007. After the layoff, I decided to open my own firm, something I never thought I wanted. Now my only regret is not doing it 10 years ago.
2011 Salary report for AIA set to be released on July 2011. I guess they are currently compiling the statistics, but they only do them every three years, so I am interested in how the economy will have effected the mean.
Know what...I am going to cruise the craigslist ads, find more of these kinds of ads and send them an email ridiculing their expectations. There's just too many morons paying peanuts for the work we do
Check out our latest feature article by Chris Hildrey, it covers issues similar to those discussed here.
I will know if at least my salary is increasing, in about 2 hours....my review is at 2:00....wish me luck.
So I've heard it again, one of the reasons the salaries are essentially dropping, and not just in architecture, is because service jobs are leaking to the third world countries. That's the globalization for you, them bastards stealing American jobs. But the reality is that globalization is not going away and until we get it balanced out, and that means that a CAD monkey in India is paid as much as CAD monkey in USA, and until their buying power is equal to ones in USA, those bastards will continue stealing "our" jobs. So what can you do until that happens? You can keep bitching about it or you can pick up your stuff and move to India, or China or other forsaken place when rent is $50 per month.
"You can keep bitching about it or you can pick up your stuff and move to India, or China or other forsaken place when rent is $50 per month."
Or open your own practice and send the automated work to India. After all, countries like China and India have the people who can do automated work like CAD, programming etc. but they have less creativity, communication skills and vision.
i was talking with someone that said in the future he thinks that licensed architects will probably make more.
the economy has shaken a lot of people out of the field and schools aren't that technical anymore. his reasoning was that since most people actually learn how to build stuff when they're on the job (not at school) and there are going to be less and less old-school architects that know how to put things together, it will be a lot harder to learn everything you need to know for the licensing exam. that, he said, and the fact that more and more responsiblities are being placed on the architect in terms of legal issues and revised codes (I wouldn't know but I'll take his word).
basically, since its going to be harder and harder to get a license, the profession will be less saturated than it is with licensed professionals, and thus they can command higher fees.
i'd like to be optimistic and believe this :-)
less old-school architects that know how to put things together
Assuming anyone really needs to know how to detail an asbestos wall panel assembly or build a wooden double-hung non-insulated window from scratch.
"Old school" architects are just as vulnerable as those green around the gills due to demands from newer and or higher-performance building methods and technologies. Even as we speak, there's probably some jerk engineer dreaming up of a new triple-paned curtain wall made out of hardiboard, bits of indiscernible metal and filled with unicorn farts.
So unless your entire practice consists of historic restoration and retrofits, you better brush up on your Owens-Corning's 'Insulaitng with unicorn farts and wads of cash' manual.
this is true, but i think you misunderstand. old-school was the word i used, but its not a direct quote. i think what he meant to say is that there are going to be less qualified people to teach the unqualified people. i almost have a degree and i know nothing. the less people around to show me how things are done, the less I'll probably know. the less i know, the longer it'll take me to get licensed.
so i'm guessing he's implying a larger gap between 'real' architects and cad monkeys, both with the same arch degree.
there have to be examples of what happens to our profession as the empire shrinks that would offer perspective. 1930's here? post-war UK? post market crash Japan?
i see the guys point, but it does not seem to take into account the downward pressure on salaries as a result of globalization. the pressures our industry is facing are being faced by many professions right now, even ones considered to be more lucrative and stable.
even if his point is true for whatever sort of local market conditions or specialty he/she has, i think, generally, a lot more people would have to be forced out of the profession for architects to be in demand --- even then, we do compete in a global market and there are lots of architects overseas who would probably gladly step in and fill the void.
makes sense. a more globalized world also creates more opportunity. you win it some places and lose it in others.
on a related note, animation companies have been outsourcing the grunt work to asian countries for years. looney tunes were drawn out frame by frame and painted in the u.s. suring the early-mid 20th century, but shows like the simpsons were keyframed here and sent to Korea for everything else in between (although i have no clue how this works now that they all use computers.
but then again, you don't see a huge demand for cartoonists in the u.s. so i guess i just proved myself wrong.
however, even the big architectural firms in europe need to employ an american firm when doing projects in the usa. the building industry doesn't really function through email.
japan's economy never recovered after the crash in early 1990's.
BUT the govt has been pumping cash into construction as economic stimulus project for last 20 years so it isn't comparable. Also, although japan is 3rd biggest economy now it is only the size of one or two states in usa, so even in a recession it is not so bad. construction slowed but never died.
totally out of blue, but maybe look to the life of eastern europe after the wall came down for the level of economic disaster....? that was not a good time and still isn't for many.
however, even the big architectural firms in europe need to employ an american firm when doing projects in the usa. the building industry doesn't really function through email.
This is very true but a good chuck of architectural fee is in the pre-construction phases of the project which can be easily outsourced. If nothing changes in next 20 years in terms of global wage equality, US will see a flood of licensed architects who will be rubber-stamping US based projects designed in African, Asian or South American design firms.
highly doubtful.
xenophobia before breakfast is not good for stomach.
leads to shit like we saw in norway and oklahoma. let's not go that route. architects at the very least should know better.
It's really interesting to see that always after a long period of republican as a president, the average income fall down, than democratic come back and the average income goes up.
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.