Almost daily there are comments in various threads about how and why we make little money compared to other professions. Mostly it is comprised of venting our frustrations and funny/sarcastic comments. I realize that there are various individual ways to make money such as investment, talent/luck, an innovative idea, & etc. I wonder, though, if there is really anything we can change as a whole within the current business model of an Architect, that could make our compensation much more fair.
The first thing my professor of my first studio said was, "If you're here because you think Architects make money, please leave this class." I thought it was great because I've always been the starving artist type. In the real world though, it is frustrating to see the discrepancy between the level of education & experience vs. compensation.
Lately, I've started to think that there really isn't anything that could be done about it because it is systematic. The nature of our profession doesn't allow for $$$ to be our priority. There are many factors contributing for our low compensation, and I think it will be interesting to list these and try to see if there really is a solution. I'll start off.
1. Our responsibilities of the impact on community and the natural environment has no incentive to the client. Generally, this responsibility is without compensation.
-Without a legal responsibility or financial incentive, most clients will not care about the impact a building can make. How can we change that?
2. When the owner/client is different than tenant/occupant, the quality of architecture generally suffers (and therefore our fees).
-In these cases, a required post-occupancy survey seems appropriate.
think and sell ( market ) architecture as product. Graves, Starck, Bauhaus, etc -- yes this -- but the thing that must be conquered CONTEXT.
How to forget resale value -- how do we convince that taking a RISK in design is like buying ART ?
People buy tradition because it sells - appreciated - because tradition is status/culture boyant.
People DO NOT WANT TO RISK THEIR IDENTITIES -- think typical midlife crisis dad in strictly Darwinian terms. How do we make a house a peacock ?
Not too much digression is necessary to understand that it is in the Pied-a-terre market (studios) in our metropolitan markets that offer INDIVIDUALISIC opportunities for the interior architect.
And that, at the same time, it is within the SECOND HOME MARKET, that we should sell DESIGN RISK to those who can ( obviously ) afford to take a risk or to.
first we have to take on more risk whether it is in on the construction side or development. with more risk you widen your net of service provided and should be able to generate more revenue. Contractors are currently redefining there industry. If you talk to most they prefer a negotiated contract as opposed to a bid job. I know of one large contractor who is very interested in incorporating design build process where we give them our drawings early in the process and they act more as an executive architect and contractor. They called it managing their risk, however they were convinced they could save 20% on there bottom line because of efficiency.
Secondly, we have to become more efficient. We should be embracing the new BIM technology, and use it to find ways to do less work, and more design.
architects don't make money because we don't take any risks. not financial ones anyway.
recently a developer bought a small piece of land here in tokyo for x million dollars, hired a quite good firm to do a snazzy design, and flipped the place for 2x million dollars. the architects were paid a small fraction of the x million dollars but believed that it was their value-adding work that let the developer make a profit. which is true, but beside the point.
my partner is a developer so i get to see the things he has to do to make the projects possible and it is not easy and it is not without risk. whatever the size of the project, both he and his investors are putting up far more money than the architects. and they deserve to reap the benefits thereof.
even if you waived fees in exchange for a bit of the profit you would never make much. 5 to 10 percent of the job, not including land price, lawyers fees, and cetera, simply doesn't make a dent in comparison to the total investment...it is a hard pill to swallow but is the way it goes.
tinsec - I agree that architecture can be like art, even though not everyone will agree. I had a great chance a couple years ago to be able to visit Louis Kahn's Fisher House. The owners still had a framed sketch by Louis Kahn that showed a little L-shaped lady for a little L-shaped room. The owners said that the sketch was worth more than the house. Is the physically built house not a work of art?
I think this is another aspect of how the separation of design and construction has impacted the view of architecture.
-by the way, I have no idea what you mean by "conquer context."
Data & Jump - To start integrating construction & development back into the architectural profession is a huge shift from the current business model. I agree that this is the path to go, but does that mean that the current business model of the professional Architect out-dated? Also, wasn't the financial risk & liability separated from our practice for a reason?
From a pure economics standpoint, not altering our business models, we have to look at simple laws of supply and demand. If there are less architects to go around, the clients will have to pay more for the services they demand until an equilibrium is found. Why do you think pharmicists are making $90k right out of college? Simple, there is huge demand and few grads.
Unfortunately comparing architecture to pharmicists isn't fair because the gov't has many more laws protecting their profession than ours. So the second part to increase pay is to protect our profession. Lobby for laws requiring strict definitions of who can produce architectural drawings. Do not allow "design build" or contractors/engineers ursurping our profession.
"A" -- your second paragraph brings up a similar idea to the first letter to the editor in the April 2006 Residential Architect. The author of that letter similarly called for the requirement of an architect's stamp on EVERYTHING that gets built -- the idea being that architect's value and place would advance.
I'm not against design-build, contractors, or engineers building buildings of their own design.
Increasing governmental layers of regulation....has that often worked out well? Usually that approach follows the law of unintended consequences. Besides, I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly do not want the main reason that the masses would hire an architect to be centered around compliance with a new law stating that architects are singularly capable of designing buildings. They're not.
americans won't pay for design, the majority anyway. and when you boil it down, capitalism and the structure in place to get things built.
when you have contractors/builders and developers who offer the "same" service as architects, but at a fraction of the cost, of course most people will go with the builder.
until americans start to appreciate design and fully understand what architects bring to the table i don't see this changing. nevermind the architects that whore themselves out. we just lost a job because our client wanted us to sell the drawings to him once they were done, that's just crazy. what's even more crazy is he found some dope to do it. its bad enough to lose business to money hungry developers, but to be whored out by a peer is just wrong.
Not sure about the US, but in some countries lawyers make money because their fees are set by their regulating bodies - meaning that (1) they compete on quality / availability rather than on price, and (2) they can make a mint.
These fees tend to be linked to specific documents or appearances, however, so ther would need to be some complicated adjustments for size and complexity of architectural projects.
Every bottle of pills a pharmacist produces has a set dispensing fee, why don’t architects get 10% of every house built? A house in suburbia is the professional equivalent of going to Mexico to buy pills without the involvement of a pharmacist.
The moron real estate agent gets 7%, the developer that builds the lowest common denominator gets at least 15-30%, the staff architect with a rubber stamp… a pathetic salary. If the headache this gives you results in a prescription, look the other way while the person filling the bottle pulls in $120k.
As I watch the endless discussions regarding pay (how much should we receive, what we deserve, why don't we get paid fairly)...a saying came to mind. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
I sit in my cubical in my 350+ corporate firm and wonder…"top school? Check. Six figure debt? Check. Prior experience? 3 years, check. Licensed? Check. Salary: 42,000. WTF!!!?"
Why should I waste anymore time on architecture as a source of income? I can go to law school, triple my income, reduce my workload, and actually be able to afford architecture as a hobby! As long as the 'whores' mentioned above exist in this industry, there will be no change in our salaries. Period. I can take my six-figure debt from grad school, rack up another 100k for law school and my starting salary at any of the major law firms in new york, DC, houston, etc. will top 135K+bonus. In five years of back-breaking work, I could easily break 250K/yr. Why should we limit ourselves to this outdated {80hrs/wk no pay} paradigm when we can take control of the process from the outside and implement our projects? Its time that we stop hiding behind this starving artist, "money is evil" attitude that seeps through the design world like a cancer - stifling ambition and progress, regulating us into indentured servitude to developers and businessmen the world over. If I have to be a greedy, bloodsucking corporate lawyer for 5 years in order to get the cash for my first project, I'll do it. I am tired of working for idiots and hypocrites. No mas. I apologize in advance for the ranting nature of the post....
Rim Joist, I read that article too. I think the author's idea of having EVERY project stamped by an architect -- is heading in the wrong direction. One of the author's points was it would create more work for architects, therefore increasing fees. Many people see architects as "plan stamper's" already. If they have to have an architect's stamp to build a garden shed what are they going to think? Besides, who wants more work if it involves little crappy projects that we would lose money and pull out our hair on? And we think the people that come to us with their floor plans already all drawn up, looking for a stamp are annoying now, just wait.
just this easter, my uncle reminisced about having his tool and die shop built. he architected the plans himself and then took them to get stamped. Doesn't the public know this is not cool?
I think the whole "architect as protector of public HS&W" bit was taken too far. People think architects design buildings for seismic loads, fire rescue, the triangle in the kitchen thing, for back-to-back ultra plumbing, and handicap toilet stalls. They think we draft plans in order to get permits, not because thru drawing, one DESIGNS SPACE and discovers relationships, and applies theory and substance. Let's tone down the HS&W stuff, and bring on the idea of art, play up the experience of architecture. And not with those silly AIA commercials either.
Many people know what architecture is, they have been to Europe, Chicago; they know who I.M. Pei and FLW are, but yet they don't put two and two together. Because the mind defaults to current day, average architect as plan drawer, blueprint maker. Maybe that is all we are.
think to who founded our profession. architecture was until recently the purview of the wealthy. i don't mean only the wealthy could afford to live in architecture. i mean only the wealthy could afford to be architects.
in many ways that situation hasn't really changed...funny, no? i love the irony of our situation.
personally i am happy with competition from engineers and contractors. In japan (where i live and work) the contractor's are licenced and qualified as much as architects are, and there is no separation between engineer and architect (most architects here do their own structural sets). we all do the same exam, more or less. but the thing is the builders will seldom compete with me, for the reason strawbeary points out. our client base is entirely different.
imo, protectionism is an incentive for complacency more than anything. but even if we had all the building projects in the world it doesn't follow that we will make any more money.
I started this thread to see if anyone else agrees that it is just the nature of the profession and our culture. I'm not saying there really isn't anything to do about it, but that it is somewhat natural that it worked out this way within the business model and role of the contemporary architect. And no I'm not talking about Gehry or Zaha, but the other 99.999& of architects out there.
I feel that we are still in transition. Whereas almost all other professions have made changes to their professions with the technology and profiting from it, we are slow to embrace change. In the medical profession, technology has gained them respect and profit along with it. We use technology as a way to save time. In the end, it doesn't really benefit anyone except streamline the design process that is way too hurried in the first place.
I remember someone saying that architects make horrible businessmen because we enjoy what we do. Of course, overall we don't enjoy getting paid what we do, but we do enjoy making good architecture, whether or not it is profitable. Profitability has infiltrated almost all other professions, except architecture. Should this change?
I always laugh when people blame our situation on the American "culture." Yes, generally speaking I think Europe has a better designed built environment. Are Europeans more enlightened when it comes to design, probably. Do architects in Europe earn more than their counterparts in the USA, NO.
OldFogey has a good point. I agree it's an economics thing, but still see it as a law of supply & demand issue. I also don't necessarily approve of making everything require a stamp. That's false creation of demand. I'd prefer to just graduate less architects, thin out our own herd, and possibly the cut-throat nature of this business will lessen.
Let me throw this out there... If we agree that our fees are so low because of insufficient demand... and we blame this on a general disinterest within our society... then I think we should encourage every Brad Pitt/Martha Stewart/Dwell Magazine that comes along. I've seen many threads that scoff at stuff like this. But the more suburban yuppies that can be converted from the McMansion lifestyle, the greater the demand will be for our services.
i don't, for a moment, believe we have "low fees because of insufficient demand" ... we have low fees because we, as a profession, have such a difficult time saying "no" and walking away from work that offers insufficient compensation.
let me share a true example: about a year ago, our firm quoted a fair fee on a really nice project. the client -- a somewhat unsophisticated type -- was "shocked" by what we wanted to be paid and told us he would find another firm. last week, he called back -- after a year of screwing around, trying to get the project underway, he finally got the message (after it was hammered in to him by his bankers and financiers) that he really needed a design firm with genuine expertise and a strong track record in his particular building type to help him pull the deal together ... now, he wants us to be a part of the project. of course, a year has passed, we're really busy and we're going to raise the fee even higher.
Quiz, I hear what you're saying, but it's hard for me to believe that the only thing holding wages down is our inablility to say no. Your example seems to be the exception to the rule. Wouldn't a huge demand push up fees across the industry? If little kids hung posters of their favorite architects instead of their favorite ball players, we might command higher salaries. And then we'd have groupies, too. Mmmmm.... groupies....
I have an average size practice and make very good money, doing nice projects. One thing that strikes me about all of these threads- no one has mentioned service. I think that my clients expect an architect to come up with creative design that works- that's why they hire an architect. They also expect it to stand up, be on budget, not let the rain water in. They EXPECT that- that is what architects are SUPPOSED to do. But what keeps my clients coming back every time and never questioning my fees is that we make it SO EASY for them! Of course the final product is wonderful, and works well. But the whole process was smooth, no budget bumps, we worked well with the contractor, got all of the required approvals, etc. We made their lives easier. We provided top notch service, and they are willing to pay for that without question.
I don't think the quality of service is the issue here. I think its a given that most architecture firms strive for the best service. Its just that the client and the architecture firm might have a different view of what "quality" means. To some clients, "quality" means minimum requirements at a cheap price done as soon as possible (which by the way can be influenced by our culture. Not neccessarily American). To some architecture firms "quality" means good design.
By 'service', I don't mean the quality of the architectural services, although that is a given that it should by of a high standard. I mean 'service' as in do you return their emails right away, do you respect their budget, do you make their life easy by guiding them thru the process, do you work with the contractor to make the project go smoothly, do you follow up with the vendors to make sure they actually ordered the stuff, do you go to the site promptly if there is a problem, do you make sure the contractor follows up on the punchlist, do you anticipate the needs of your clients by responding before they realized they had a problem? In retail, it would be the Nordstram model- yes they have good products, but it is the service that makes their customers loyal, and will make them pay more for the product.
archie, that works for repeat customers, but consider getting a new client with that strategy. And the also consider raising your fee for a client's second project under the premise of "well we did good on the last one, didn't we?"
funny story, a few weeks ago an architect in our firm did an exceptional job at design and drawings for a project. She blew the fee and wanted to draft a letter to explain that the design went above and beyond the scope of initial service, working with the owner's suppliers took a lot of effort etc, and needed more fee. After discussing this with the principal, he was doubtful that the owner would pay up, saying he had requested "bare bones" design and drawing and good luck if she thought he was going to pay any more. She declared that if he wanted bare bones drawings, she would come in over the weekend, and sabotage her own design and drawings to fit what he wanted to pay for!
I thought that was hilarious. Don't think she actually did it.
I'm not trying to disagree with you archie, maybe you've been lucky with your clients and I've been unlucky with mine. For example, the firm I work at has a repeat client that likes to work with us. We give him great service, and he knows it. One time there was a problem at the job site, and I was there the same day with a hard hat and by the end of the day had a solution faxed to him. But every time he works with us, he wants the same thing: the bare minimum to get permits. I know for a fact we don't make any money off of his projects, but we do it anyway. Is this the architect's fault for accepting the work? Is this the fault of the client not seeing the value of good architecture? Or is it that no one really cares about good architecture except architects and the clients are taking advantage of that?
Good points, Philarch and Strawbeary, but my point is that if 95% of your clients are repeat clients, you save a heck of a lot on marketing costs. My firm has grown over 25% every year, very profitably. Our clients do most of our marketing thru referrals, and we charge on the high end of our fees. Our new clients are likely to be a client who saw one of our projects, found out who designed it, and they hire us with no competitive bidding based on our work. We are attracting clients who are willing to pay well for superior service. We work for some developers, but ones who are willing to pay more for better design and services, not the ones who want to screw the architect. We would not be a good match for the bare bones client who wants minimal service and does not want to pay. Our clients value good architecture, but they could find good architecture from many other architects. They keep coming back to us because the service aspect is a plus. We tend to have pretty well educated clients- facilities people, in house real estate departments, university facility departments, etc.
Philarch, you have to make money on project. Your pricinpals owe it to the staff; you cannot sustain a practice if you are not making money, putting money in pension plans, buying new equipment, etc. If you do not make money on a client, you need to find a new client.
Apr 21, 06 6:02 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.
Can We Do Anything About It?
Almost daily there are comments in various threads about how and why we make little money compared to other professions. Mostly it is comprised of venting our frustrations and funny/sarcastic comments. I realize that there are various individual ways to make money such as investment, talent/luck, an innovative idea, & etc. I wonder, though, if there is really anything we can change as a whole within the current business model of an Architect, that could make our compensation much more fair.
The first thing my professor of my first studio said was, "If you're here because you think Architects make money, please leave this class." I thought it was great because I've always been the starving artist type. In the real world though, it is frustrating to see the discrepancy between the level of education & experience vs. compensation.
Lately, I've started to think that there really isn't anything that could be done about it because it is systematic. The nature of our profession doesn't allow for $$$ to be our priority. There are many factors contributing for our low compensation, and I think it will be interesting to list these and try to see if there really is a solution. I'll start off.
1. Our responsibilities of the impact on community and the natural environment has no incentive to the client. Generally, this responsibility is without compensation.
-Without a legal responsibility or financial incentive, most clients will not care about the impact a building can make. How can we change that?
2. When the owner/client is different than tenant/occupant, the quality of architecture generally suffers (and therefore our fees).
-In these cases, a required post-occupancy survey seems appropriate.
think and sell ( market ) architecture as product. Graves, Starck, Bauhaus, etc -- yes this -- but the thing that must be conquered CONTEXT.
How to forget resale value -- how do we convince that taking a RISK in design is like buying ART ?
People buy tradition because it sells - appreciated - because tradition is status/culture boyant.
People DO NOT WANT TO RISK THEIR IDENTITIES -- think typical midlife crisis dad in strictly Darwinian terms. How do we make a house a peacock ?
Not too much digression is necessary to understand that it is in the Pied-a-terre market (studios) in our metropolitan markets that offer INDIVIDUALISIC opportunities for the interior architect.
And that, at the same time, it is within the SECOND HOME MARKET, that we should sell DESIGN RISK to those who can ( obviously ) afford to take a risk or to.
or two
to me there are two methods to increase pay.
first we have to take on more risk whether it is in on the construction side or development. with more risk you widen your net of service provided and should be able to generate more revenue. Contractors are currently redefining there industry. If you talk to most they prefer a negotiated contract as opposed to a bid job. I know of one large contractor who is very interested in incorporating design build process where we give them our drawings early in the process and they act more as an executive architect and contractor. They called it managing their risk, however they were convinced they could save 20% on there bottom line because of efficiency.
Secondly, we have to become more efficient. We should be embracing the new BIM technology, and use it to find ways to do less work, and more design.
not much faith in bim personally...
architects don't make money because we don't take any risks. not financial ones anyway.
recently a developer bought a small piece of land here in tokyo for x million dollars, hired a quite good firm to do a snazzy design, and flipped the place for 2x million dollars. the architects were paid a small fraction of the x million dollars but believed that it was their value-adding work that let the developer make a profit. which is true, but beside the point.
my partner is a developer so i get to see the things he has to do to make the projects possible and it is not easy and it is not without risk. whatever the size of the project, both he and his investors are putting up far more money than the architects. and they deserve to reap the benefits thereof.
even if you waived fees in exchange for a bit of the profit you would never make much. 5 to 10 percent of the job, not including land price, lawyers fees, and cetera, simply doesn't make a dent in comparison to the total investment...it is a hard pill to swallow but is the way it goes.
Hmm, interesting comments.
tinsec - I agree that architecture can be like art, even though not everyone will agree. I had a great chance a couple years ago to be able to visit Louis Kahn's Fisher House. The owners still had a framed sketch by Louis Kahn that showed a little L-shaped lady for a little L-shaped room. The owners said that the sketch was worth more than the house. Is the physically built house not a work of art?
I think this is another aspect of how the separation of design and construction has impacted the view of architecture.
-by the way, I have no idea what you mean by "conquer context."
Data & Jump - To start integrating construction & development back into the architectural profession is a huge shift from the current business model. I agree that this is the path to go, but does that mean that the current business model of the professional Architect out-dated? Also, wasn't the financial risk & liability separated from our practice for a reason?
We are all victims of the same atrocious professional environment.
Individually we are nothing.
Together we stand as a revolutionary force.
The powers that be must be overthrown, the time is NOW.
From a pure economics standpoint, not altering our business models, we have to look at simple laws of supply and demand. If there are less architects to go around, the clients will have to pay more for the services they demand until an equilibrium is found. Why do you think pharmicists are making $90k right out of college? Simple, there is huge demand and few grads.
Unfortunately comparing architecture to pharmicists isn't fair because the gov't has many more laws protecting their profession than ours. So the second part to increase pay is to protect our profession. Lobby for laws requiring strict definitions of who can produce architectural drawings. Do not allow "design build" or contractors/engineers ursurping our profession.
"A" -- your second paragraph brings up a similar idea to the first letter to the editor in the April 2006 Residential Architect. The author of that letter similarly called for the requirement of an architect's stamp on EVERYTHING that gets built -- the idea being that architect's value and place would advance.
I'm not against design-build, contractors, or engineers building buildings of their own design.
Increasing governmental layers of regulation....has that often worked out well? Usually that approach follows the law of unintended consequences. Besides, I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly do not want the main reason that the masses would hire an architect to be centered around compliance with a new law stating that architects are singularly capable of designing buildings. They're not.
You can't force everyone to love us.
the main reason? culture.
americans won't pay for design, the majority anyway. and when you boil it down, capitalism and the structure in place to get things built.
when you have contractors/builders and developers who offer the "same" service as architects, but at a fraction of the cost, of course most people will go with the builder.
until americans start to appreciate design and fully understand what architects bring to the table i don't see this changing. nevermind the architects that whore themselves out. we just lost a job because our client wanted us to sell the drawings to him once they were done, that's just crazy. what's even more crazy is he found some dope to do it. its bad enough to lose business to money hungry developers, but to be whored out by a peer is just wrong.
Not sure about the US, but in some countries lawyers make money because their fees are set by their regulating bodies - meaning that (1) they compete on quality / availability rather than on price, and (2) they can make a mint.
These fees tend to be linked to specific documents or appearances, however, so ther would need to be some complicated adjustments for size and complexity of architectural projects.
Every bottle of pills a pharmacist produces has a set dispensing fee, why don’t architects get 10% of every house built? A house in suburbia is the professional equivalent of going to Mexico to buy pills without the involvement of a pharmacist.
The moron real estate agent gets 7%, the developer that builds the lowest common denominator gets at least 15-30%, the staff architect with a rubber stamp… a pathetic salary. If the headache this gives you results in a prescription, look the other way while the person filling the bottle pulls in $120k.
As I watch the endless discussions regarding pay (how much should we receive, what we deserve, why don't we get paid fairly)...a saying came to mind. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
I sit in my cubical in my 350+ corporate firm and wonder…"top school? Check. Six figure debt? Check. Prior experience? 3 years, check. Licensed? Check. Salary: 42,000. WTF!!!?"
Why should I waste anymore time on architecture as a source of income? I can go to law school, triple my income, reduce my workload, and actually be able to afford architecture as a hobby! As long as the 'whores' mentioned above exist in this industry, there will be no change in our salaries. Period. I can take my six-figure debt from grad school, rack up another 100k for law school and my starting salary at any of the major law firms in new york, DC, houston, etc. will top 135K+bonus. In five years of back-breaking work, I could easily break 250K/yr. Why should we limit ourselves to this outdated {80hrs/wk no pay} paradigm when we can take control of the process from the outside and implement our projects? Its time that we stop hiding behind this starving artist, "money is evil" attitude that seeps through the design world like a cancer - stifling ambition and progress, regulating us into indentured servitude to developers and businessmen the world over. If I have to be a greedy, bloodsucking corporate lawyer for 5 years in order to get the cash for my first project, I'll do it. I am tired of working for idiots and hypocrites. No mas. I apologize in advance for the ranting nature of the post....
WHORES?
did someone say WHORES?????
You want first rate whores who will make building documentation look like factory line work????????
THEN bring in the BIM architects!
Rim Joist, I read that article too. I think the author's idea of having EVERY project stamped by an architect -- is heading in the wrong direction. One of the author's points was it would create more work for architects, therefore increasing fees. Many people see architects as "plan stamper's" already. If they have to have an architect's stamp to build a garden shed what are they going to think? Besides, who wants more work if it involves little crappy projects that we would lose money and pull out our hair on? And we think the people that come to us with their floor plans already all drawn up, looking for a stamp are annoying now, just wait.
just this easter, my uncle reminisced about having his tool and die shop built. he architected the plans himself and then took them to get stamped. Doesn't the public know this is not cool?
I think the whole "architect as protector of public HS&W" bit was taken too far. People think architects design buildings for seismic loads, fire rescue, the triangle in the kitchen thing, for back-to-back ultra plumbing, and handicap toilet stalls. They think we draft plans in order to get permits, not because thru drawing, one DESIGNS SPACE and discovers relationships, and applies theory and substance. Let's tone down the HS&W stuff, and bring on the idea of art, play up the experience of architecture. And not with those silly AIA commercials either.
Many people know what architecture is, they have been to Europe, Chicago; they know who I.M. Pei and FLW are, but yet they don't put two and two together. Because the mind defaults to current day, average architect as plan drawer, blueprint maker. Maybe that is all we are.
its all we ever were.
think to who founded our profession. architecture was until recently the purview of the wealthy. i don't mean only the wealthy could afford to live in architecture. i mean only the wealthy could afford to be architects.
in many ways that situation hasn't really changed...funny, no? i love the irony of our situation.
personally i am happy with competition from engineers and contractors. In japan (where i live and work) the contractor's are licenced and qualified as much as architects are, and there is no separation between engineer and architect (most architects here do their own structural sets). we all do the same exam, more or less. but the thing is the builders will seldom compete with me, for the reason strawbeary points out. our client base is entirely different.
imo, protectionism is an incentive for complacency more than anything. but even if we had all the building projects in the world it doesn't follow that we will make any more money.
I started this thread to see if anyone else agrees that it is just the nature of the profession and our culture. I'm not saying there really isn't anything to do about it, but that it is somewhat natural that it worked out this way within the business model and role of the contemporary architect. And no I'm not talking about Gehry or Zaha, but the other 99.999& of architects out there.
I feel that we are still in transition. Whereas almost all other professions have made changes to their professions with the technology and profiting from it, we are slow to embrace change. In the medical profession, technology has gained them respect and profit along with it. We use technology as a way to save time. In the end, it doesn't really benefit anyone except streamline the design process that is way too hurried in the first place.
I remember someone saying that architects make horrible businessmen because we enjoy what we do. Of course, overall we don't enjoy getting paid what we do, but we do enjoy making good architecture, whether or not it is profitable. Profitability has infiltrated almost all other professions, except architecture. Should this change?
Money isnt everything in life..........there's ALSO art
I always laugh when people blame our situation on the American "culture." Yes, generally speaking I think Europe has a better designed built environment. Are Europeans more enlightened when it comes to design, probably. Do architects in Europe earn more than their counterparts in the USA, NO.
OldFogey has a good point. I agree it's an economics thing, but still see it as a law of supply & demand issue. I also don't necessarily approve of making everything require a stamp. That's false creation of demand. I'd prefer to just graduate less architects, thin out our own herd, and possibly the cut-throat nature of this business will lessen.
Strawbeary, Old Fogey, and Jump... great posts -- all of which I fully agree with...
Got some bonafide individualism evidenced here with you three... (so prepare to be voted off the island)
Let me throw this out there... If we agree that our fees are so low because of insufficient demand... and we blame this on a general disinterest within our society... then I think we should encourage every Brad Pitt/Martha Stewart/Dwell Magazine that comes along. I've seen many threads that scoff at stuff like this. But the more suburban yuppies that can be converted from the McMansion lifestyle, the greater the demand will be for our services.
i don't, for a moment, believe we have "low fees because of insufficient demand" ... we have low fees because we, as a profession, have such a difficult time saying "no" and walking away from work that offers insufficient compensation.
let me share a true example: about a year ago, our firm quoted a fair fee on a really nice project. the client -- a somewhat unsophisticated type -- was "shocked" by what we wanted to be paid and told us he would find another firm. last week, he called back -- after a year of screwing around, trying to get the project underway, he finally got the message (after it was hammered in to him by his bankers and financiers) that he really needed a design firm with genuine expertise and a strong track record in his particular building type to help him pull the deal together ... now, he wants us to be a part of the project. of course, a year has passed, we're really busy and we're going to raise the fee even higher.
Quiz, I hear what you're saying, but it's hard for me to believe that the only thing holding wages down is our inablility to say no. Your example seems to be the exception to the rule. Wouldn't a huge demand push up fees across the industry? If little kids hung posters of their favorite architects instead of their favorite ball players, we might command higher salaries. And then we'd have groupies, too. Mmmmm.... groupies....
I have an average size practice and make very good money, doing nice projects. One thing that strikes me about all of these threads- no one has mentioned service. I think that my clients expect an architect to come up with creative design that works- that's why they hire an architect. They also expect it to stand up, be on budget, not let the rain water in. They EXPECT that- that is what architects are SUPPOSED to do. But what keeps my clients coming back every time and never questioning my fees is that we make it SO EASY for them! Of course the final product is wonderful, and works well. But the whole process was smooth, no budget bumps, we worked well with the contractor, got all of the required approvals, etc. We made their lives easier. We provided top notch service, and they are willing to pay for that without question.
I don't think the quality of service is the issue here. I think its a given that most architecture firms strive for the best service. Its just that the client and the architecture firm might have a different view of what "quality" means. To some clients, "quality" means minimum requirements at a cheap price done as soon as possible (which by the way can be influenced by our culture. Not neccessarily American). To some architecture firms "quality" means good design.
By 'service', I don't mean the quality of the architectural services, although that is a given that it should by of a high standard. I mean 'service' as in do you return their emails right away, do you respect their budget, do you make their life easy by guiding them thru the process, do you work with the contractor to make the project go smoothly, do you follow up with the vendors to make sure they actually ordered the stuff, do you go to the site promptly if there is a problem, do you make sure the contractor follows up on the punchlist, do you anticipate the needs of your clients by responding before they realized they had a problem? In retail, it would be the Nordstram model- yes they have good products, but it is the service that makes their customers loyal, and will make them pay more for the product.
archie, that works for repeat customers, but consider getting a new client with that strategy. And the also consider raising your fee for a client's second project under the premise of "well we did good on the last one, didn't we?"
funny story, a few weeks ago an architect in our firm did an exceptional job at design and drawings for a project. She blew the fee and wanted to draft a letter to explain that the design went above and beyond the scope of initial service, working with the owner's suppliers took a lot of effort etc, and needed more fee. After discussing this with the principal, he was doubtful that the owner would pay up, saying he had requested "bare bones" design and drawing and good luck if she thought he was going to pay any more. She declared that if he wanted bare bones drawings, she would come in over the weekend, and sabotage her own design and drawings to fit what he wanted to pay for!
I thought that was hilarious. Don't think she actually did it.
I'm not trying to disagree with you archie, maybe you've been lucky with your clients and I've been unlucky with mine. For example, the firm I work at has a repeat client that likes to work with us. We give him great service, and he knows it. One time there was a problem at the job site, and I was there the same day with a hard hat and by the end of the day had a solution faxed to him. But every time he works with us, he wants the same thing: the bare minimum to get permits. I know for a fact we don't make any money off of his projects, but we do it anyway. Is this the architect's fault for accepting the work? Is this the fault of the client not seeing the value of good architecture? Or is it that no one really cares about good architecture except architects and the clients are taking advantage of that?
Good points, Philarch and Strawbeary, but my point is that if 95% of your clients are repeat clients, you save a heck of a lot on marketing costs. My firm has grown over 25% every year, very profitably. Our clients do most of our marketing thru referrals, and we charge on the high end of our fees. Our new clients are likely to be a client who saw one of our projects, found out who designed it, and they hire us with no competitive bidding based on our work. We are attracting clients who are willing to pay well for superior service. We work for some developers, but ones who are willing to pay more for better design and services, not the ones who want to screw the architect. We would not be a good match for the bare bones client who wants minimal service and does not want to pay. Our clients value good architecture, but they could find good architecture from many other architects. They keep coming back to us because the service aspect is a plus. We tend to have pretty well educated clients- facilities people, in house real estate departments, university facility departments, etc.
Philarch, you have to make money on project. Your pricinpals owe it to the staff; you cannot sustain a practice if you are not making money, putting money in pension plans, buying new equipment, etc. If you do not make money on a client, you need to find a new client.
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.