This is due largley to our profession's laziness in curbing the loss of our professional responsibilities. Here is a list of examples where we lost responsility as well as a decent fee:
1. Preliminary estimates were once completed by architects. And they charged a separate fee for it. Now they are completed by estimating firms.
2. Structural design was once the forte of architects. Now that has fallen on a structural engineer's shoulders, along with our fee.
3. Mechanical & electrical systems were once under the auspicious eyes of architects. Although I must point out, the systems have greatly grown in complexity. Architects have refused to learn the new technologies. Therefore the loss of that fee.
4.Construction administration. Now this was a huge loss. Basically the architects had grown weary of getting their shoes dirty. But an project management firm is willing to do it for a "nominal' fee. On average a PM can earn 90,000 for running an average 10 million dollar project.
5. Security. Given today's atmosphere, its a big money maker. Yet not a single architect is willing to add this to his/her services> So hence we have a "security consultant" grabbing a 1% of construction cost fee.
6. Technology. Unfortunately architects have lost this one, as well. Sure we know that we need to plug in a computer to get it to work. But is it worth say 100,000?? Yep, that's what a consultant will charge on a 10 million dollar project.
7.Civil, well now why can't we do this one as well. I mean we do have a site planning exam on the ARE. So why can't we expand on this as well.
Basically, it is our predecessors who we can blame for all of this!! They have taken the money from our pockets by their own mistakes. Now we must pay the consequences, by taking entry level CAD jockey jobs at minimum wage as soon as we graduate. Mind you we will also have to bartend at nights to make the rent by the end of the month.
Now here is a list of actions we can take to turn back this downward spiral. So that we may regain our once prominent position in society.
1.Back in the 1920s the illustrious AIA made issued a statement with regards to ethical concerns about design/build. The statement called for an end to architects building their own projects, because it does not hold the interestd of the client. This statement basically created the “contractor”. Now in my experience I have dealt with both good contractors as well as real scum. Mostly the latter. Ladies & Gentlemen we need to take this back. Back in the earlier part of the century, did contracotrs build buildings? No!! Architects were the ones who supplied the job supers for each construction project. They were the ones who reported directly back to the architect. Thereby eliminating any potential conflicts. We need to revive this idea. And give back to our profession what was once rightfully ours!! How many of us have argued the validity with contractors only to find that they have been given a change order with an additional 15% on top of cost. This 15% could have been eliminated, as well as all of the time lost. We do not have to live this way! We have the ability to make a difference. Next time a client comes up to you for a project, ask him or her if they also want you to build it. That's all it takes. Simple.
2. Reduce the architecture school populations. I say we need to reduce the graduation rate of architects to curb the entry of people who really have no right being architects. I mean if all of us think back to our graduating class, I am sure we could easily eliminate half of them. This needs to be addressed by our non-existent NCARB. I hope all of you can pressure them to decrease the student population at out schools. Write your local board chairman, & demand they curb the student class rates. Let us be honest. Back in 1900 there were about 145 architects per million. Now in the year 2006, we are reaching levels of 1000 per million. It is the law of supply & demand. Less architects, the higher the fees.
3. Stop the attacks by interior designers. They are not architects!! They are simply paint color & flooring selectors. They have no business in architecture. All it takes is a pulse and a set of eyes to become an interior designer. Check your local architecture licensing board, and make sure they do not have an interior designer on it. If they do, write the chairman & immediately ask for their removal. They are not licensed. They are not liable. They have no business being on a professional board, made up of members who have both.
4.Do not work for free! Your actions are detrimental to our profession. If you have a chance to work for REM. Nothing personal, just a random choice. Make sure he pays you! Otherwise get a different job. Now this is for the people who are well off . You too should ask for compensation. Your acceptance of such a position will diminish your value as a person. Last time I checked the only person who works for free is either a volunteer and/or a slave. Not an employee! You chose who you want to be.
5. Continual re-examination. Most of us who studied for the ARE know it was tough. Yet once you get it, you are basically scott-free for the rest of your life. This is absurd. Given the rapid rate of change in society, I ask that a refresher examination be given every 5 years. I understand the requirements of CEUS. (Continual education units) But give me a break!! Everyone knows that if you show up to a lunch-n-learn you will get free CEUS as well as a decent meal. All courtesy of a write off by the manufacturer who is trying to sell his product. Most of us studied for the ARE, so then why shouldn't we study again every five years. I would also ask that we make it mandatory to pass the exam in three attempts. After that you license should be suspended. I'm sure most practitioners would start to study.
6. Single family homes/additions. Come on, everyone knows that this market is litterly defunct. Most of us know at least one or two people who moonlight with these jobs just to make ends meet. This should fall under the requirements of a licensed architect. Not someone who could simply draft. Everyone should write their local legislator & push for single family homes/addition to be signed by a licensed architect. Otherwise the public's safety will be in danger.
7. Business. This should be a learning requirement for most architecture schools. And I'm not talking about macro-economics. I am speaking about a class, where a practicing architect comes into class, and tells you about billing, re-imbursibles, etc. This is what we need. We DO NOT need some tenured professor who dreads teaching any class to tell us about macro-economic issues which are already out of date. I might be inclined though to have an economics course which does talk about economic conditions as they apply to the construction & engineering industry. Ask your local dean to start teaching students real business classes, instead of “core requirements”
I believe this is all that needs to be done to bring us back to the true image of an architect.
Now all it takes is your perseverance. And action!
Feel free to email this to all of your architect colleagues. We need a communal changefor this to work.
But if you don't want to work. Feel free to become an interior designer, or go into some other career.
-we should maybe advertise architecture as something you cannot live without
-an architect should be smarter then a structural engineer (so the "artist" ones must go)
-an architects should be a software programmer as well (so the "artist" ones must go); software cost too much and there are never exactly what we need.
-do more paperwork than nice drawings.
We need more pressure towards community involvement. There should be professional requirements regarding community process for all buildings that have civic consequence. This suggests the development of architects that have skills at handling community participation and at incorporating ideas from the general populace - especially the future users of our buildings.
Architects should be trained to engage an individual client, a neighborhood group, a design review board, a board of selectmen, etc. (enough of design in the monastery tower)
Also we should consider it a responsibility to perform marketing research as a part of our design process, including a solid basis in statistics (understanding of population sampling), survey composition, and analysis of such results as they relate to building preferences and potential impact on a particular neighborhood, city, society, etc. - this could also provide value that developers might be interested in paying for.
Standaman>
Maybe you are right. But come on now. Do you honestly believe that IEs or our consultants love architects. I think not. All is fair in love & war. And I'm sorry to say this. But the manifesto for me was a declaration of war.
BLK>
I agree with you in some respect. But I also do value the people who produce beautiful drawings. I must say when I see a lebbeus drawing I definately excites my visual appetite. But in my opinion, I see him under the title of artist, designer, and/or installation specialist. But not architect. Now if he was able to build one of his drawings. Well then I would accept him as one of us.
Now in terms of showing the public that architecture is one of life's necessities. Well I think Europe is up on this one. But America is lacking. The almighty "American Jesus" aka. the dollar bill reigns supreme here. Now if we were to keep our architectural dialogues to only our colleagues, while at the same time speaking in financial terms to our clients. I think only then will America start to change. The average american does not care about how a space is created. All they know & see is Home & garden homes everywhere. So in following with the herd they follow like sheep. If you want to change the public, you need to bring "good design" propaganda up to speed. The publications need to be at the same level as Home & Garden. Then and only then will America change. So let us keep our design intentions. Yet we need to chose our battles wisely.
Gabe>
I couldnt agree more with your community involvement. It is an area which needs strengthening in our training. But then again who provides our training??
Teachers thats who. Teachers who in fact are also chasing the elusive golden egg. They too want to be the starchitect. But since they have certain financial responsibilites (families, bills, etc.), they stay in the teaching profession until they either hit the lottery or the big commission. Both are statistically void of ever becoming a reality.
I say bring in the guys who build in our schools, and have them teach a studio with a wannabe starchitect. I am almost sure that a worthy product will be created by this combinations. Both of these perspectives will in actuality show students the dichotomy of the real world. And hopefully once they graduate, they will have a full understanding of what it trully means to be an architect.
I hope this helps the ongoing conversation.
Let us try to keep the fight alive, so that one day our successors will live the lives we only dreamed off.
kalata, kalata
i totally agree with the general frustration of your argument, although i do have a few suggestions on ways to reconsider this fight.
#1
we need to breed better consultants. i don't think that the complexity of current projects allows architects to take over the roles of structural and mechanical engineer, any more than it is feasible to take over construction of a project (at least beyond the level of the single family house). how do we increase the level of design responsibility within our consultant pool. that is a big question. maybe architects should aid in developing the broader concept of the architectural engineer, becoming involved in necessitating a stronger design basis for our consultant compadres. this might also begin to destroy the myth that architects are idle dreamers and engineers are the ones that make the dream a reality.
#2
construction managers have definitely taken a large chunk of the power away from architects, but why has this occured. because construction as an industry is a mess. buildings have become insanely complex and needlessly so. why isn't there a set of real building system products that actually resolve coordination issues rather than multiplying them. architects need to become involved in taking back the development of building systems and begin tailoring it to their needs. until this happens, the construction manager will exist...because the architect is severely overworked already...and why? because the bulk of their time is spent coordinating building systems that are thought of in terms of a million pieces. why is this the case? because building systems are not designed for architecture. they are insular industries with little knowledge about what it is they truly fit into in terms of a larger holistic environment.
#3
the current education of an architect is grossly maladjusted to the realities of the profession. but why is this? because theory and design are divorced from the realities of construction and the building industry. NCARB maybe should require that every class is based in exploring some reality of the building profession and a consultant versed in that aspect should be part of the jury. and why do we only study precedents in terms of photos. there should be a stronger commitment to building knowledge through truly examining what has been built before and why. asking questions about how a starchitect resolved or didn't resolve a plumbing issue, or a structural issue.
there is a rich history out there that for some reason we choose to ignore.
Futureboy,
Your addition to this conversation is an interesting one. I greatly appreciated your insight. Its a different way of looking at some of my issues.
But with respect to #1. Why do "we" have to breed better consultants? Shouldn't they work for us? I understand your view, yet I feel they should be under our direct control if we are to breed them. Of course they are "our" consultants in terms of contracts. But unless they are under the same roof as us, we can not impress a design sense to them. Maybe the solution lies in presenting our design sense first to them, rather than first presenting our problems to them. This might be the first step in the right direction.
For #2. I disagree. We need to make time for this. Is it not the construction phase the part that makes our designs real? We need to stop our complaining about this, and start to take responsibility for our actions.
For#3. I strongly agree with you. The system is defunct. And I like your analysis on the starchitect. It might be worth exploring.
Well, it's the same situation in Europe as you described it in the US.
The reason why : I think, the people who pay for the buildings changed.
Monarchs, the early industrial magnates, whoever wanted to represent something with HIS building, private clients who wanted to show that they know about latest trends and styles, they were willing to pay for our service, because they felt related to the building.
Today it's more or less about the annual rate of return an investor gets from the project. The (personal) relation to the project is not existent.
So the only thing important is, that the building works, that it's finished within the tightest budget possible,etc.
So why bothering about architecture, if its about buildings.
And your discussions about changing education, or whatever won't change a thing.
We are no contractors or structural engineers, we are architects. And if our service is not appreciated in a society, where cultural values change in general, we should not reduce the number of students as you suggested. Because maybe some of them end up trying to change this situation by caring about the built environment, caring about the city, etc..
Architects can and must change. I mean our profession. But we must not forget, the architect is (or should be) the one who gathers all information about a project (function, structure, material, economy, etc. )and draws the lines so he is still needed.
Ben van Berkel from un studio said that an architect has become a social scientist - more involved in coordonating a network of professionals and energies.
It is a good starting point i guess if we want to rebuild our social and economical status (if really ever was one).
great rant. I must say I agree with some of the statements but I also believe that alot of what applied 80+ years ago doesn't apply now. I have to co-sign Structural Engineers calculations and I must say that even for the smallest and near mundane project these can be sizeable. Alot of these professions I agree should be retained under the role of an architect but I believe more importantly that they should be done under the duress of an architect. One of the things that still sickens me was the publishing back in the 60s of contracts without the use of architects...it literally shot a hole in our feet and one which we are seeing the repercusions of. Globally though there needs to be a re-education of the public of the value of architects, beyond the esoteric artist...and it needs to happen now.
for the record the profession i believe are complete bullshit
civil engineers (i work for one)
interior decorators (i'm in the middle when it comes to in designer/architects)
planners should be shot on sight
project managers that do construction - shot as well
QS and land surveyors should have a basic architectural vs construction background - tired of having to teach them how to read drawings - seriously!
I'm sure there's more out there - but its saturday night and I need a buzz ta
okay, attempt one to resurrect.
back to above points kalata...possibly with construction we need to consolidate risk so that contractors have a responsibility to the design similar to the japanese model, where contractors are contractually obligated to complete details as developed between themselves and the architects. their expertise actually is brought into the discussion as part of the design process and assigned liability, versus the sharp divide in the american system.
i believe the japanese system is not fully funcitonal nor able to be completely implemented in the US, but to rethink this relationship would be a powerful motivator.
i still think part of the problem is the current state of building systems as well...they typically increase rather than decrease coordination issues.
i was very disappoined reading this. i was looking for something with soul or a conscious, or hell, some design theory. this isn't the architect's manifesto, but the architect's business manifesto. you sound like a greedy developer, not a creative visionary architect.
"Back in 1900 there were about 145 architects per million. Now in the year 2006, we are reaching levels of 1000 per million. It is the law of supply & demand. Less architects, the higher the fees."
Back before the popularization of the automobile. Back before the average lifespan passed 60 yrs of age. Back before suburbia, disposable income, jetsetting,Disneyland, Las Vegas -- you name it.
The ratios you speak of are meaningless. It's a different planet from where we were in 1900 -- and we would probably need MORE architects were it not for the ueber-standardization mentality that kicked in right around 1900, or shortly after.
Limiting the amount of people going in to a profession is not good for the profession, or society -- particularly when such decisions are based on statistics that are meaningless.
Good job Futureboy(JB) I do agree that the discussion must go on.
Now you made mention of the japanese style of discussing details between architects and contractors is quite interesting. Now I have a question about that. Who ultimately makes the decision and carries the liability with the detail? Is it the architect or the contractor.
Now Mr FrankLloydMike.
I am not one for starting a flame game. But I do suggest you first finish school, and start working in the real world before making such uneducated comments. You have no idea how architecture works beyond the walls of Wentworth in Boston, Mass. What you should do first; is actually speak with real practicioners so that you may get a full understanding of what it "real"ly means to be an architect.
Tinsec,
Interesting idea about the whole uber-standardization. Yet your comment seems ambivalent. Here you are calling for more architects to increase our societal role. But then you state the whole world has been standardized. With that couldnt one assume, we need less architects?? I mean if we are living in the age of standard, then who really needs an architect? We could just have a few who design for the masses. You need to be clear in your view before calling for a contradicting view. Now if you argued for general architectural education for the masses, well then there I could agree with you. But calling for everyone to be an architect actually is defeated by your own "uber-standardization" view of the world.
architechnophilia,
Thanks for the feedback. I especially like the long line on the firing squad.
But I was not aware that the 60s was our worst moment. Do you have any backup material on this??? Do you know who was behind this? Was there a specific lobby we can blame and/or an organization.
Real good stuff coming thru here. Keep it up.
Now I would like to pose a different question for all of you.
If you were given the chance to change something about our profession, what would it be? Now this could include anything. Schooling, exam, teachers, etc.? Now if you say fees, please be very specific. What about the fees bothers you, besides them being low. Maybe we could use this as a kickstart to a new thread.
fklata, i don't want a flame game either and admit my tone before was needlessly harsh. however, i have worked in two different architectural offices (which i know is not a lot), but i do have some understanding (however limited) of how things want. don't get me wrong. i want a revolution of how architects practice, what the scope of our (or more accurately your and someday mine as well) work is, and how the other folks in the building industry interact with us. i guess my difference is that i feel like architects have less and less of an impact on shaping our built environment through the planning process. realistically though, i think, times have changed greatly since 1900 and even since the times when more architects performed the duties now more commonly the responsibility of various engineers. there are so many more regulations, technologies and considerations now that architects cannot possibly do it all alone. that's not to say that architects shouldn't play a larger role. however, you're calling for much greater responsibility on the part of architects (engineering, mechanical, all single family design...) and at the same time fewer architects. where would we have the time? it would only result in less time spent on developing quality design and less time given to planning. architects need to play a greater role in planning and shaping the built environment, rather than continuing down the path we're on to insignificance as the tools of developers with a regard only for the bottom line. i'm not saying you're wrong, only that i disagree with your overall focus and some of the details of what you say. i may not be an architect yet, fklata, but i need only look at the drawings in front of me here at work and out my window to prove my point.
i should also say that i agree that architects should (and deserve to) make more money than they do and that i'm very interested to see what types of changes other folks hope to see in the profession and culture, even if i disagree with some of the details. it's a compelling thread.
1. and not only that, a buona fide design test should be instituted. No more basic knowledge of codes, but the addition thorough knowledge of the structural, plumbing, electrical, mechanical codes. A testing of design sense is years over due. People need to be weeded out that can't design past the basic elements of the building code. Who wants to see all those ugly developer buildings, who?
2. The architect should take over the developer arena. Why should those know nothings make all the money. Let's take over.
3. Interior Designers are stealing our money, plain and simple. There was a time architects designed their own interiors and furniture for crying out loud. Let's take it back.
4. The AIA needs more control to help police our situation. Someone needs to stop the bleeding, now!!!
Standards need to set. Let's do it now and place them high.
FrankLloydMike,
First I want to commend you on your latest post. Its seems that I may have misjudged you initially, as you might have this discussion. I agree with your view on defining the complexity of today's architectural world. But rather than run from it, I say we embrace it. Jump feet first into the fire!! We need to take on the responsibilites of this complex world, or as you say. We will end up going down this ever shortening road to non-existence.
Now it appears that a large amount of people are split on my notion of decreasing the student populations.
Let us explore this in further detail.
1. Many argue that more architectural training would increase society's appreciation for architecture. Although there is a possibility of this becoming real; I am of the opinion that this is nearly impossible. My reason is as follows:
How many of us have been forced to take a class in either college or hs? Now did that class leave a lasting impression on us? Enough of an impact where our lives would change. Here's a quick example.
Note: One of the partners in this couple went thru architecture school up until third year, but then quit and became a computer engineer.
Let's say you are a young couple looking to purchase a small starter home as you move towards starting your own family. The wife is pregnant.
Now you are forced to make a decision. A) purchase a typical cape cod which provides you the bare minimum in space requirement. The extra you save on moving into the existing will act as a deposit towards your child's college fund. NOte this house has nothing aestetically pleasing in it.
or you can chose B)
Buy the cape cod & do a complete redo. Redo the entire house and basically give the project its own style. Now you do not have any money left to start the college fund for your new child. Actually, to finance the whole project, you piggybacked another loan to actually complete the construction.
Now which one would actually happen? And which one is the wiser choice.
Look I agree that architecture needs to be exposed to the general public. But will they really care when it hampers their own finances and/or family lives.
That is why I say limit our numbers. So that the ones who do care will be rightfully paid as per the supply vs demand formula.
Ok I hope that clears up my position for all of you.
Look I would love a world where every single client gives me a program and says do whatever you want. But that doesnt happen. And do you know why??? Simple. Because if I say I want to do the building my way, he simply says. Joe Schmoo down the street is an architect who will do what I want for half the fee.
Case closed> We need to get rid of the Schmoos in the architecture industry.
Now for CF.
I like the question about the ugly developer buildings. You know who likes it. Simple. The building owner because he made a hug profit by cutting out the architect's fee.
2. I fully agree> Now lets get to work!!
3.We need to start our own resistance towards these people> Maybe if someone created a lobbying letter which can be sent to our "representatives" in our local government. Only then maybe something would change.
4. They are literally non-existent. You know why. Because their lawyers are architects. And that is something which should not happen. You cant send a seal to go & play in a pool of sharks. We need representation with a serious bite. Other groups which we should follow. The oil lobbyists for example have a great system. Now if only we hd a similar one. My my what a great world that would be.
Maybe we should start a new version of the AIA...does anyone else agree? Maybe an international body? Or is that too much?
1. Architecture can only be 'rescued' by its 'product*'.
2. Good 'product' is produced by architects with the belief that architecture can only be 'rescued' by its product.
3. The 'product' can only be created by architects with a higher level of control.
4. The only way that architects can have more control is not by doing more, it is by controlling more, i.e. it is architect as developer. Because everyone is dependent on whoever controls the money.
Clause: the developer role is primarily involved in the production of commercial/retail and residential buildings. Architecture is at its strongest, always, when it comes to civic, cultural and social buildings.
My intention is that by taking more control of the poroduction of reidential and commercial buildings, by far the majority of whats built, the rest will take care of itself.
There needs to be greater protection of the function of architects. I am sick and tired of other professions hijacking our name. In a country where I cant call myself an architect, even though I have a degree, and work as an architect, some monkey web-designer can call themselves 'information architects'. We recently had 3 companies tender to build our website. i refused the company that called themselves informaiton architect on that basis.
Interior decorators are a waste of space.
* Product used in the sense of the finished building and the sum of its parts.
Architects should and will take control of design by legislating design standards into building codes. Yes legislating. These will be national laws that will require a benchmark for quality design in material, construction, concept, and dare I say ambiance. Yes, that will stand. It is high time that architects show the world that we have been singled out by trial of fire to give the world a more unified vision and realty. This is what we are, this is what we do. Let's get the ball rolling, the sooner the better for a brighter world tomorrow!
"I am sick and tired of other professions hijacking our name. In a country where I cant call myself an architect, even though I have a degree, and work as an architect, some monkey web-designer can call themselves 'information architects'."
Exactly --- even I spended 3 years at the acadamy ,got myself an application develober status, mainly deal with new building methods I would never call myself architect even I can in this contry.
Resons are many but if you know how many different trades took advanteage of the "architect" title and know how arogant they use foras and newsgroups to promote "pattern languages" somthing that has NOTHING to do with architecture , but is a theorie about object-oriented programming, if you ever thought you was in good company with "architects" and suddenly found out that what they was talking about was software "architecture" , and belive it or not when you find out that some "real" architects, acturly did _not_ find out that all the theorie was about anything else but real architecture No, I call myself Designer ------ then if you know how many "Designers" there are .....
i'm with old fogey. and, even beyond his point, can you imagine even getting the architects together to agree on design standards?! makes my head spin.
what you'd get after years of contentious committees is something even more mediocre than we already see and you'd have regulated out the amazingly good along with the garbage.
Any reference to the outcome of what architects do as a 'product' is getting the discussion off in the wrong direction.
We are service providers in the best sense of those words.
Commodification of our services is a good part of what is wrong with the public's view of our profession.
If our level of service is higher (and, as importantly, is known to be higher) than a competitor, we can command higher fees. This differentiation can be in the form of exceptional design, specilization, level of professionalism, satisfaction of clients, etc.
When we talk about our services as a product (or worse yet, our 'drawings' as a product), we've bought into the commodification.
Any reference to the outcome of what architects do as a 'product' is getting the discussion off in the wrong direction.
We are service providers in the best sense of those words.
Commodification of our services is a good part of what is wrong with the public's view of our profession.
If our level of service is higher (and, as importantly, is known to be higher) than a competitor, we can command higher fees. This differentiation can be in the form of exceptional design, specilization, level of professionalism, satisfaction of clients, etc.
When we talk about our services as a product (or worse yet, our 'drawings' as a product), we've bought into the commodification.
In 1900 you didnt even need an architect to design or build most structures in the USA. The trades of the era operated on proven designs, rules of thumb and builder reputation.
I highly doubt limiting architects in schools will solve a thing. In fact its the architecture schools themselves that are defunct. They have zigged while the world has zagged.
As for zagging, the simple reality of liability has driven not only the decentralization of the building design profession but almost all others as well. No architect could possibly handle all the design components you've listed, and no insurer would want to underwrite such an undertaking without lic. proffesionels from each sector on the team.
As for contracting, from someone who has been very involved in it from residential through industrial, I can assure you that the financial, diplomatic, contractual and technical aspects are over the heads of most architects and tempting as it may be to join in good times for designers, the downturns will leave you wrecked, most likely bankrupt.
Theres too many products, methods, trades, leagal issues, labor issues, lawyers and the like to do it right unless you do it full time - that goes for builders who want to be designers and designers who want to build. Very few survive as independant architects, and even less as builders.
Whats your tolerance? Would you throw up if you realized all your curtain wall angle clips where set 1/2" proud and now your glazier wants a 25% premium or voids the subcontract on a job where your already only anticipating a 10% margin if all goes well, while the client's lawyer is eagerly wanting to liquidate your home and wife's new car? Or would you just blow your head off?
substitute 'service' for 'product' if you like - does'nt make a difference... when you've worked for developers, as a developer, without developers, you soon realise that despite what we think of what we do, those with the control, the money, view the end result as a 'product'. I am aware of the connotations of that word so lets not get hung up about it...
I believe in differentiation as a tool to exert some influence over your competitors, and to influence the outcome of selected building types, but for the vast majority of buildings, houisng and commercial, it will not make enough difference.
We have to be able to lead by example, and to be able to lead means having both the control and the risk. Thats the only way.
substitute 'service' for 'product' if you like - does'nt make a difference... when you've worked for developers, as a developer, without developers, you soon realise that despite what we think of what we do, those with the control, the money, view the end result as a 'product'. I am aware of the connotations of that word so lets not get hung up about it...
I believe in differentiation as a tool to exert some influence over your competitors, and to influence the outcome of selected building types, but for the vast majority of buildings, houisng and commercial, it will not make enough difference.
We have to be able to lead by example, and to be able to lead means having both the control and the risk. Thats the only way.
May 21, 06 7:22 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.
The Architect's Manifesto.
The Architect's Manifesto!!
Ladies & Gentlemen,
Architecture is Dying!!!
This is due largley to our profession's laziness in curbing the loss of our professional responsibilities. Here is a list of examples where we lost responsility as well as a decent fee:
1. Preliminary estimates were once completed by architects. And they charged a separate fee for it. Now they are completed by estimating firms.
2. Structural design was once the forte of architects. Now that has fallen on a structural engineer's shoulders, along with our fee.
3. Mechanical & electrical systems were once under the auspicious eyes of architects. Although I must point out, the systems have greatly grown in complexity. Architects have refused to learn the new technologies. Therefore the loss of that fee.
4.Construction administration. Now this was a huge loss. Basically the architects had grown weary of getting their shoes dirty. But an project management firm is willing to do it for a "nominal' fee. On average a PM can earn 90,000 for running an average 10 million dollar project.
5. Security. Given today's atmosphere, its a big money maker. Yet not a single architect is willing to add this to his/her services> So hence we have a "security consultant" grabbing a 1% of construction cost fee.
6. Technology. Unfortunately architects have lost this one, as well. Sure we know that we need to plug in a computer to get it to work. But is it worth say 100,000?? Yep, that's what a consultant will charge on a 10 million dollar project.
7.Civil, well now why can't we do this one as well. I mean we do have a site planning exam on the ARE. So why can't we expand on this as well.
Basically, it is our predecessors who we can blame for all of this!! They have taken the money from our pockets by their own mistakes. Now we must pay the consequences, by taking entry level CAD jockey jobs at minimum wage as soon as we graduate. Mind you we will also have to bartend at nights to make the rent by the end of the month.
Now here is a list of actions we can take to turn back this downward spiral. So that we may regain our once prominent position in society.
1.Back in the 1920s the illustrious AIA made issued a statement with regards to ethical concerns about design/build. The statement called for an end to architects building their own projects, because it does not hold the interestd of the client. This statement basically created the “contractor”. Now in my experience I have dealt with both good contractors as well as real scum. Mostly the latter. Ladies & Gentlemen we need to take this back. Back in the earlier part of the century, did contracotrs build buildings? No!! Architects were the ones who supplied the job supers for each construction project. They were the ones who reported directly back to the architect. Thereby eliminating any potential conflicts. We need to revive this idea. And give back to our profession what was once rightfully ours!! How many of us have argued the validity with contractors only to find that they have been given a change order with an additional 15% on top of cost. This 15% could have been eliminated, as well as all of the time lost. We do not have to live this way! We have the ability to make a difference. Next time a client comes up to you for a project, ask him or her if they also want you to build it. That's all it takes. Simple.
2. Reduce the architecture school populations. I say we need to reduce the graduation rate of architects to curb the entry of people who really have no right being architects. I mean if all of us think back to our graduating class, I am sure we could easily eliminate half of them. This needs to be addressed by our non-existent NCARB. I hope all of you can pressure them to decrease the student population at out schools. Write your local board chairman, & demand they curb the student class rates. Let us be honest. Back in 1900 there were about 145 architects per million. Now in the year 2006, we are reaching levels of 1000 per million. It is the law of supply & demand. Less architects, the higher the fees.
3. Stop the attacks by interior designers. They are not architects!! They are simply paint color & flooring selectors. They have no business in architecture. All it takes is a pulse and a set of eyes to become an interior designer. Check your local architecture licensing board, and make sure they do not have an interior designer on it. If they do, write the chairman & immediately ask for their removal. They are not licensed. They are not liable. They have no business being on a professional board, made up of members who have both.
4.Do not work for free! Your actions are detrimental to our profession. If you have a chance to work for REM. Nothing personal, just a random choice. Make sure he pays you! Otherwise get a different job. Now this is for the people who are well off . You too should ask for compensation. Your acceptance of such a position will diminish your value as a person. Last time I checked the only person who works for free is either a volunteer and/or a slave. Not an employee! You chose who you want to be.
5. Continual re-examination. Most of us who studied for the ARE know it was tough. Yet once you get it, you are basically scott-free for the rest of your life. This is absurd. Given the rapid rate of change in society, I ask that a refresher examination be given every 5 years. I understand the requirements of CEUS. (Continual education units) But give me a break!! Everyone knows that if you show up to a lunch-n-learn you will get free CEUS as well as a decent meal. All courtesy of a write off by the manufacturer who is trying to sell his product. Most of us studied for the ARE, so then why shouldn't we study again every five years. I would also ask that we make it mandatory to pass the exam in three attempts. After that you license should be suspended. I'm sure most practitioners would start to study.
6. Single family homes/additions. Come on, everyone knows that this market is litterly defunct. Most of us know at least one or two people who moonlight with these jobs just to make ends meet. This should fall under the requirements of a licensed architect. Not someone who could simply draft. Everyone should write their local legislator & push for single family homes/addition to be signed by a licensed architect. Otherwise the public's safety will be in danger.
7. Business. This should be a learning requirement for most architecture schools. And I'm not talking about macro-economics. I am speaking about a class, where a practicing architect comes into class, and tells you about billing, re-imbursibles, etc. This is what we need. We DO NOT need some tenured professor who dreads teaching any class to tell us about macro-economic issues which are already out of date. I might be inclined though to have an economics course which does talk about economic conditions as they apply to the construction & engineering industry. Ask your local dean to start teaching students real business classes, instead of “core requirements”
I believe this is all that needs to be done to bring us back to the true image of an architect.
Now all it takes is your perseverance. And action!
Feel free to email this to all of your architect colleagues. We need a communal changefor this to work.
But if you don't want to work. Feel free to become an interior designer, or go into some other career.
Take care & Good Luck
The Architect
suggestion for next revision:
Maybe less blacklisting of our enemies and more about how to compete with "good design?"
-we should maybe advertise architecture as something you cannot live without
-an architect should be smarter then a structural engineer (so the "artist" ones must go)
-an architects should be a software programmer as well (so the "artist" ones must go); software cost too much and there are never exactly what we need.
-do more paperwork than nice drawings.
my vision.
In addition...
We need more pressure towards community involvement. There should be professional requirements regarding community process for all buildings that have civic consequence. This suggests the development of architects that have skills at handling community participation and at incorporating ideas from the general populace - especially the future users of our buildings.
Architects should be trained to engage an individual client, a neighborhood group, a design review board, a board of selectmen, etc. (enough of design in the monastery tower)
Also we should consider it a responsibility to perform marketing research as a part of our design process, including a solid basis in statistics (understanding of population sampling), survey composition, and analysis of such results as they relate to building preferences and potential impact on a particular neighborhood, city, society, etc. - this could also provide value that developers might be interested in paying for.
What's so great about aristocracy anyway?
Standaman>
Maybe you are right. But come on now. Do you honestly believe that IEs or our consultants love architects. I think not. All is fair in love & war. And I'm sorry to say this. But the manifesto for me was a declaration of war.
BLK>
I agree with you in some respect. But I also do value the people who produce beautiful drawings. I must say when I see a lebbeus drawing I definately excites my visual appetite. But in my opinion, I see him under the title of artist, designer, and/or installation specialist. But not architect. Now if he was able to build one of his drawings. Well then I would accept him as one of us.
Now in terms of showing the public that architecture is one of life's necessities. Well I think Europe is up on this one. But America is lacking. The almighty "American Jesus" aka. the dollar bill reigns supreme here. Now if we were to keep our architectural dialogues to only our colleagues, while at the same time speaking in financial terms to our clients. I think only then will America start to change. The average american does not care about how a space is created. All they know & see is Home & garden homes everywhere. So in following with the herd they follow like sheep. If you want to change the public, you need to bring "good design" propaganda up to speed. The publications need to be at the same level as Home & Garden. Then and only then will America change. So let us keep our design intentions. Yet we need to chose our battles wisely.
Gabe>
I couldnt agree more with your community involvement. It is an area which needs strengthening in our training. But then again who provides our training??
Teachers thats who. Teachers who in fact are also chasing the elusive golden egg. They too want to be the starchitect. But since they have certain financial responsibilites (families, bills, etc.), they stay in the teaching profession until they either hit the lottery or the big commission. Both are statistically void of ever becoming a reality.
I say bring in the guys who build in our schools, and have them teach a studio with a wannabe starchitect. I am almost sure that a worthy product will be created by this combinations. Both of these perspectives will in actuality show students the dichotomy of the real world. And hopefully once they graduate, they will have a full understanding of what it trully means to be an architect.
I hope this helps the ongoing conversation.
Let us try to keep the fight alive, so that one day our successors will live the lives we only dreamed off.
FK
kalata, kalata
i totally agree with the general frustration of your argument, although i do have a few suggestions on ways to reconsider this fight.
#1
we need to breed better consultants. i don't think that the complexity of current projects allows architects to take over the roles of structural and mechanical engineer, any more than it is feasible to take over construction of a project (at least beyond the level of the single family house). how do we increase the level of design responsibility within our consultant pool. that is a big question. maybe architects should aid in developing the broader concept of the architectural engineer, becoming involved in necessitating a stronger design basis for our consultant compadres. this might also begin to destroy the myth that architects are idle dreamers and engineers are the ones that make the dream a reality.
#2
construction managers have definitely taken a large chunk of the power away from architects, but why has this occured. because construction as an industry is a mess. buildings have become insanely complex and needlessly so. why isn't there a set of real building system products that actually resolve coordination issues rather than multiplying them. architects need to become involved in taking back the development of building systems and begin tailoring it to their needs. until this happens, the construction manager will exist...because the architect is severely overworked already...and why? because the bulk of their time is spent coordinating building systems that are thought of in terms of a million pieces. why is this the case? because building systems are not designed for architecture. they are insular industries with little knowledge about what it is they truly fit into in terms of a larger holistic environment.
#3
the current education of an architect is grossly maladjusted to the realities of the profession. but why is this? because theory and design are divorced from the realities of construction and the building industry. NCARB maybe should require that every class is based in exploring some reality of the building profession and a consultant versed in that aspect should be part of the jury. and why do we only study precedents in terms of photos. there should be a stronger commitment to building knowledge through truly examining what has been built before and why. asking questions about how a starchitect resolved or didn't resolve a plumbing issue, or a structural issue.
there is a rich history out there that for some reason we choose to ignore.
Futureboy,
Your addition to this conversation is an interesting one. I greatly appreciated your insight. Its a different way of looking at some of my issues.
But with respect to #1. Why do "we" have to breed better consultants? Shouldn't they work for us? I understand your view, yet I feel they should be under our direct control if we are to breed them. Of course they are "our" consultants in terms of contracts. But unless they are under the same roof as us, we can not impress a design sense to them. Maybe the solution lies in presenting our design sense first to them, rather than first presenting our problems to them. This might be the first step in the right direction.
For #2. I disagree. We need to make time for this. Is it not the construction phase the part that makes our designs real? We need to stop our complaining about this, and start to take responsibility for our actions.
For#3. I strongly agree with you. The system is defunct. And I like your analysis on the starchitect. It might be worth exploring.
FK
Well, it's the same situation in Europe as you described it in the US.
The reason why : I think, the people who pay for the buildings changed.
Monarchs, the early industrial magnates, whoever wanted to represent something with HIS building, private clients who wanted to show that they know about latest trends and styles, they were willing to pay for our service, because they felt related to the building.
Today it's more or less about the annual rate of return an investor gets from the project. The (personal) relation to the project is not existent.
So the only thing important is, that the building works, that it's finished within the tightest budget possible,etc.
So why bothering about architecture, if its about buildings.
And your discussions about changing education, or whatever won't change a thing.
We are no contractors or structural engineers, we are architects. And if our service is not appreciated in a society, where cultural values change in general, we should not reduce the number of students as you suggested. Because maybe some of them end up trying to change this situation by caring about the built environment, caring about the city, etc..
Architects can and must change. I mean our profession. But we must not forget, the architect is (or should be) the one who gathers all information about a project (function, structure, material, economy, etc. )and draws the lines so he is still needed.
Ben van Berkel from un studio said that an architect has become a social scientist - more involved in coordonating a network of professionals and energies.
It is a good starting point i guess if we want to rebuild our social and economical status (if really ever was one).
great rant. I must say I agree with some of the statements but I also believe that alot of what applied 80+ years ago doesn't apply now. I have to co-sign Structural Engineers calculations and I must say that even for the smallest and near mundane project these can be sizeable. Alot of these professions I agree should be retained under the role of an architect but I believe more importantly that they should be done under the duress of an architect. One of the things that still sickens me was the publishing back in the 60s of contracts without the use of architects...it literally shot a hole in our feet and one which we are seeing the repercusions of. Globally though there needs to be a re-education of the public of the value of architects, beyond the esoteric artist...and it needs to happen now.
for the record the profession i believe are complete bullshit
civil engineers (i work for one)
interior decorators (i'm in the middle when it comes to in designer/architects)
planners should be shot on sight
project managers that do construction - shot as well
QS and land surveyors should have a basic architectural vs construction background - tired of having to teach them how to read drawings - seriously!
I'm sure there's more out there - but its saturday night and I need a buzz ta
okay, attempt one to resurrect.
back to above points kalata...possibly with construction we need to consolidate risk so that contractors have a responsibility to the design similar to the japanese model, where contractors are contractually obligated to complete details as developed between themselves and the architects. their expertise actually is brought into the discussion as part of the design process and assigned liability, versus the sharp divide in the american system.
i believe the japanese system is not fully funcitonal nor able to be completely implemented in the US, but to rethink this relationship would be a powerful motivator.
i still think part of the problem is the current state of building systems as well...they typically increase rather than decrease coordination issues.
i was very disappoined reading this. i was looking for something with soul or a conscious, or hell, some design theory. this isn't the architect's manifesto, but the architect's business manifesto. you sound like a greedy developer, not a creative visionary architect.
"Back in 1900 there were about 145 architects per million. Now in the year 2006, we are reaching levels of 1000 per million. It is the law of supply & demand. Less architects, the higher the fees."
Back before the popularization of the automobile. Back before the average lifespan passed 60 yrs of age. Back before suburbia, disposable income, jetsetting,Disneyland, Las Vegas -- you name it.
The ratios you speak of are meaningless. It's a different planet from where we were in 1900 -- and we would probably need MORE architects were it not for the ueber-standardization mentality that kicked in right around 1900, or shortly after.
Limiting the amount of people going in to a profession is not good for the profession, or society -- particularly when such decisions are based on statistics that are meaningless.
Good job Futureboy(JB) I do agree that the discussion must go on.
Now you made mention of the japanese style of discussing details between architects and contractors is quite interesting. Now I have a question about that. Who ultimately makes the decision and carries the liability with the detail? Is it the architect or the contractor.
Now Mr FrankLloydMike.
I am not one for starting a flame game. But I do suggest you first finish school, and start working in the real world before making such uneducated comments. You have no idea how architecture works beyond the walls of Wentworth in Boston, Mass. What you should do first; is actually speak with real practicioners so that you may get a full understanding of what it "real"ly means to be an architect.
Tinsec,
Interesting idea about the whole uber-standardization. Yet your comment seems ambivalent. Here you are calling for more architects to increase our societal role. But then you state the whole world has been standardized. With that couldnt one assume, we need less architects?? I mean if we are living in the age of standard, then who really needs an architect? We could just have a few who design for the masses. You need to be clear in your view before calling for a contradicting view. Now if you argued for general architectural education for the masses, well then there I could agree with you. But calling for everyone to be an architect actually is defeated by your own "uber-standardization" view of the world.
architechnophilia,
Thanks for the feedback. I especially like the long line on the firing squad.
But I was not aware that the 60s was our worst moment. Do you have any backup material on this??? Do you know who was behind this? Was there a specific lobby we can blame and/or an organization.
Real good stuff coming thru here. Keep it up.
Now I would like to pose a different question for all of you.
If you were given the chance to change something about our profession, what would it be? Now this could include anything. Schooling, exam, teachers, etc.? Now if you say fees, please be very specific. What about the fees bothers you, besides them being low. Maybe we could use this as a kickstart to a new thread.
So lets have some fun.
fklata, i don't want a flame game either and admit my tone before was needlessly harsh. however, i have worked in two different architectural offices (which i know is not a lot), but i do have some understanding (however limited) of how things want. don't get me wrong. i want a revolution of how architects practice, what the scope of our (or more accurately your and someday mine as well) work is, and how the other folks in the building industry interact with us. i guess my difference is that i feel like architects have less and less of an impact on shaping our built environment through the planning process. realistically though, i think, times have changed greatly since 1900 and even since the times when more architects performed the duties now more commonly the responsibility of various engineers. there are so many more regulations, technologies and considerations now that architects cannot possibly do it all alone. that's not to say that architects shouldn't play a larger role. however, you're calling for much greater responsibility on the part of architects (engineering, mechanical, all single family design...) and at the same time fewer architects. where would we have the time? it would only result in less time spent on developing quality design and less time given to planning. architects need to play a greater role in planning and shaping the built environment, rather than continuing down the path we're on to insignificance as the tools of developers with a regard only for the bottom line. i'm not saying you're wrong, only that i disagree with your overall focus and some of the details of what you say. i may not be an architect yet, fklata, but i need only look at the drawings in front of me here at work and out my window to prove my point.
i should also say that i agree that architects should (and deserve to) make more money than they do and that i'm very interested to see what types of changes other folks hope to see in the profession and culture, even if i disagree with some of the details. it's a compelling thread.
I agree fkalata:
1. and not only that, a buona fide design test should be instituted. No more basic knowledge of codes, but the addition thorough knowledge of the structural, plumbing, electrical, mechanical codes. A testing of design sense is years over due. People need to be weeded out that can't design past the basic elements of the building code. Who wants to see all those ugly developer buildings, who?
2. The architect should take over the developer arena. Why should those know nothings make all the money. Let's take over.
3. Interior Designers are stealing our money, plain and simple. There was a time architects designed their own interiors and furniture for crying out loud. Let's take it back.
4. The AIA needs more control to help police our situation. Someone needs to stop the bleeding, now!!!
Standards need to set. Let's do it now and place them high.
FrankLloydMike,
First I want to commend you on your latest post. Its seems that I may have misjudged you initially, as you might have this discussion. I agree with your view on defining the complexity of today's architectural world. But rather than run from it, I say we embrace it. Jump feet first into the fire!! We need to take on the responsibilites of this complex world, or as you say. We will end up going down this ever shortening road to non-existence.
Now it appears that a large amount of people are split on my notion of decreasing the student populations.
Let us explore this in further detail.
1. Many argue that more architectural training would increase society's appreciation for architecture. Although there is a possibility of this becoming real; I am of the opinion that this is nearly impossible. My reason is as follows:
How many of us have been forced to take a class in either college or hs? Now did that class leave a lasting impression on us? Enough of an impact where our lives would change. Here's a quick example.
Note: One of the partners in this couple went thru architecture school up until third year, but then quit and became a computer engineer.
Let's say you are a young couple looking to purchase a small starter home as you move towards starting your own family. The wife is pregnant.
Now you are forced to make a decision. A) purchase a typical cape cod which provides you the bare minimum in space requirement. The extra you save on moving into the existing will act as a deposit towards your child's college fund. NOte this house has nothing aestetically pleasing in it.
or you can chose B)
Buy the cape cod & do a complete redo. Redo the entire house and basically give the project its own style. Now you do not have any money left to start the college fund for your new child. Actually, to finance the whole project, you piggybacked another loan to actually complete the construction.
Now which one would actually happen? And which one is the wiser choice.
Look I agree that architecture needs to be exposed to the general public. But will they really care when it hampers their own finances and/or family lives.
That is why I say limit our numbers. So that the ones who do care will be rightfully paid as per the supply vs demand formula.
Ok I hope that clears up my position for all of you.
Look I would love a world where every single client gives me a program and says do whatever you want. But that doesnt happen. And do you know why??? Simple. Because if I say I want to do the building my way, he simply says. Joe Schmoo down the street is an architect who will do what I want for half the fee.
Case closed> We need to get rid of the Schmoos in the architecture industry.
Now for CF.
I like the question about the ugly developer buildings. You know who likes it. Simple. The building owner because he made a hug profit by cutting out the architect's fee.
2. I fully agree> Now lets get to work!!
3.We need to start our own resistance towards these people> Maybe if someone created a lobbying letter which can be sent to our "representatives" in our local government. Only then maybe something would change.
4. They are literally non-existent. You know why. Because their lawyers are architects. And that is something which should not happen. You cant send a seal to go & play in a pool of sharks. We need representation with a serious bite. Other groups which we should follow. The oil lobbyists for example have a great system. Now if only we hd a similar one. My my what a great world that would be.
Maybe we should start a new version of the AIA...does anyone else agree? Maybe an international body? Or is that too much?
1. Architecture can only be 'rescued' by its 'product*'.
2. Good 'product' is produced by architects with the belief that architecture can only be 'rescued' by its product.
3. The 'product' can only be created by architects with a higher level of control.
4. The only way that architects can have more control is not by doing more, it is by controlling more, i.e. it is architect as developer. Because everyone is dependent on whoever controls the money.
Clause: the developer role is primarily involved in the production of commercial/retail and residential buildings. Architecture is at its strongest, always, when it comes to civic, cultural and social buildings.
My intention is that by taking more control of the poroduction of reidential and commercial buildings, by far the majority of whats built, the rest will take care of itself.
There needs to be greater protection of the function of architects. I am sick and tired of other professions hijacking our name. In a country where I cant call myself an architect, even though I have a degree, and work as an architect, some monkey web-designer can call themselves 'information architects'. We recently had 3 companies tender to build our website. i refused the company that called themselves informaiton architect on that basis.
Interior decorators are a waste of space.
* Product used in the sense of the finished building and the sum of its parts.
Architects should and will take control of design by legislating design standards into building codes. Yes legislating. These will be national laws that will require a benchmark for quality design in material, construction, concept, and dare I say ambiance. Yes, that will stand. It is high time that architects show the world that we have been singled out by trial of fire to give the world a more unified vision and realty. This is what we are, this is what we do. Let's get the ball rolling, the sooner the better for a brighter world tomorrow!
Set the standards high, people.
"I am sick and tired of other professions hijacking our name. In a country where I cant call myself an architect, even though I have a degree, and work as an architect, some monkey web-designer can call themselves 'information architects'."
Exactly --- even I spended 3 years at the acadamy ,got myself an application develober status, mainly deal with new building methods I would never call myself architect even I can in this contry.
Resons are many but if you know how many different trades took advanteage of the "architect" title and know how arogant they use foras and newsgroups to promote "pattern languages" somthing that has NOTHING to do with architecture , but is a theorie about object-oriented programming, if you ever thought you was in good company with "architects" and suddenly found out that what they was talking about was software "architecture" , and belive it or not when you find out that some "real" architects, acturly did _not_ find out that all the theorie was about anything else but real architecture No, I call myself Designer ------ then if you know how many "Designers" there are .....
i'm with old fogey. and, even beyond his point, can you imagine even getting the architects together to agree on design standards?! makes my head spin.
what you'd get after years of contentious committees is something even more mediocre than we already see and you'd have regulated out the amazingly good along with the garbage.
Haha! That would be heaven. I could just see myself relaxing on the sofa with a cold one. It would help the economy too.
Any reference to the outcome of what architects do as a 'product' is getting the discussion off in the wrong direction.
We are service providers in the best sense of those words.
Commodification of our services is a good part of what is wrong with the public's view of our profession.
If our level of service is higher (and, as importantly, is known to be higher) than a competitor, we can command higher fees. This differentiation can be in the form of exceptional design, specilization, level of professionalism, satisfaction of clients, etc.
When we talk about our services as a product (or worse yet, our 'drawings' as a product), we've bought into the commodification.
Any reference to the outcome of what architects do as a 'product' is getting the discussion off in the wrong direction.
We are service providers in the best sense of those words.
Commodification of our services is a good part of what is wrong with the public's view of our profession.
If our level of service is higher (and, as importantly, is known to be higher) than a competitor, we can command higher fees. This differentiation can be in the form of exceptional design, specilization, level of professionalism, satisfaction of clients, etc.
When we talk about our services as a product (or worse yet, our 'drawings' as a product), we've bought into the commodification.
In 1900 you didnt even need an architect to design or build most structures in the USA. The trades of the era operated on proven designs, rules of thumb and builder reputation.
I highly doubt limiting architects in schools will solve a thing. In fact its the architecture schools themselves that are defunct. They have zigged while the world has zagged.
As for zagging, the simple reality of liability has driven not only the decentralization of the building design profession but almost all others as well. No architect could possibly handle all the design components you've listed, and no insurer would want to underwrite such an undertaking without lic. proffesionels from each sector on the team.
As for contracting, from someone who has been very involved in it from residential through industrial, I can assure you that the financial, diplomatic, contractual and technical aspects are over the heads of most architects and tempting as it may be to join in good times for designers, the downturns will leave you wrecked, most likely bankrupt.
Theres too many products, methods, trades, leagal issues, labor issues, lawyers and the like to do it right unless you do it full time - that goes for builders who want to be designers and designers who want to build. Very few survive as independant architects, and even less as builders.
I forgot to add.......RISK
Whats your tolerance? Would you throw up if you realized all your curtain wall angle clips where set 1/2" proud and now your glazier wants a 25% premium or voids the subcontract on a job where your already only anticipating a 10% margin if all goes well, while the client's lawyer is eagerly wanting to liquidate your home and wife's new car? Or would you just blow your head off?
substitute 'service' for 'product' if you like - does'nt make a difference... when you've worked for developers, as a developer, without developers, you soon realise that despite what we think of what we do, those with the control, the money, view the end result as a 'product'. I am aware of the connotations of that word so lets not get hung up about it...
I believe in differentiation as a tool to exert some influence over your competitors, and to influence the outcome of selected building types, but for the vast majority of buildings, houisng and commercial, it will not make enough difference.
We have to be able to lead by example, and to be able to lead means having both the control and the risk. Thats the only way.
substitute 'service' for 'product' if you like - does'nt make a difference... when you've worked for developers, as a developer, without developers, you soon realise that despite what we think of what we do, those with the control, the money, view the end result as a 'product'. I am aware of the connotations of that word so lets not get hung up about it...
I believe in differentiation as a tool to exert some influence over your competitors, and to influence the outcome of selected building types, but for the vast majority of buildings, houisng and commercial, it will not make enough difference.
We have to be able to lead by example, and to be able to lead means having both the control and the risk. Thats the only way.
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.