which one would that be? would it be my agreeing with your point that we need to work together throughout the process and not at the end or would it be my correction of your statements regarding un-licensed interns designing architecture? i tell you what, why don't you tell me what other things i am apparently not fit to comment on, seeing as how the general consensus seems to agree with many of the statements i have made.
you lurk and lurk and decide now is the time for you to join the fray, will this be the only topic you have an opinion on? if so perhaps you should say thank you and go on your way.
well in my office we have around 9 interior designers, four of whom are men. three of whom are principals. we have a huge materials library full of fabric and carpet samples. its very festive. the fabric and carpet and furniture reps are always bringing in delicious treats for our office. the architecture reps never bring anything.
Thanks, beta and dsc and others for defending architecture as a field of study/profession that also encompasses the field of interior design. The opposite is most definitely not true.
Of course, there are days when I'm embarassed that I'm allowed to call myself an architect.
PS My partner has a BArch but is ASID, not RA. And he's definitely better at architecture than I am!
And I still like jump's first comment best: There is a lot of vitriol here simply directed toward stupid people, be they interior designers or architects or Karl Rove.
While I agree with my fellow architects on a certain level about many of the issues stated above - specifically, the fact that we are the ones who are liable at the end of the day, which is why we are entitled to more professional allowances and probably more salary - I would say that it is the arrogance with which many have stated these points that causes me the most dismay. I think that this perpetuates a stereotype about architect's attitude towards interior designers that causes threads like this to be made in the first place.
Also, I might remind you that on projects such as an interior renovation or fit-out, which compromise a large portion of "architectural" projects these days, a licensed architect is only necessary at the final stage of the design. And by this I mean signing the drawings.
but and a big but here, the architect is still professional liable for the documents signed and that the documents are designed to the requisite codes. this i know you know.
I certainly do know this, I do the code reviews. It sucks too, I wish I could do the space planning instead!
The irony of this post is that in my previous one I actually wrote that I would shut up for a while but it somehow got deleted, so now i don't have to :o)
OK, I've been thinking about this, and I think that a good bit of the architects hating on interior designers is spawned from jealousy. REally, when you think about it, they get to take half of the design opportunities, about 1/10th of the paperwork, and none of the liability. I think as architects (and interns), we feel that if we trudge through the shit work, there should be some good design work left over for us at the end of the day to make up for it, but the interior designers have gone and snagged it. And that makes our jobs shitty. And what makes it even shittier is when those interior designers don't realize how good they have it, and try to infringe on the design bits that we consider to be 'ours'.
funny video. and they say architects are full of it ;-)
i think wonderK makes good points. its all about the quality of people you work with. poor beta, he maybe just ain't done a project that attracts the real talent yet...and maybe someone neglected to define scope...pobre, pobrecito.
i should also say that while i believe in fuzzy borders, i don't believe an interior designer is equivalent to an architect, mostly for the issues of liability...for the rest, well design is design. it ain't that hard and it ain't even remotely special...and there is no natural hierarchy inolved. that is where the pissing comes in.
Interior design is a distinct occupation, but, while bad taste might be offensive, there is no evidence that anyone has been killed by a bad color scheme – this occupation requires no licensure to protect the public. On the other hand, a 30,000 square foot tenant build-out requires a broad range of architectural skills, including knowledge of structural, mechanical, and electrical design to coordinate and integrate those components into a comprehensive working whole that incorporates all the elements of life safety (NCARB). Architects are educated, trained and examined for those skills. Interior designers are not.
The bottom line: Architects are not jealous of interior architects/designers; it is a simple fact that the standards for the interior design profession cannot be compared to the standards for the architectural profession, since interior designers do not practice architecture. End of story.
those things are all essential parts of the architects purview. but i sense that many above are not upset over interior designers who don't understand that limit of their scope (really, how many ID's really don't get that you can't move a structural wall, or remove a fire door? gotta be bottom of the barrel sort of person and not representative of the profession). seems more to be that the interior designers are trying to design over top of the architects vision...and that is what pisses them off...it's a turf thing.
I find it interesting that bridgetown and bristolkid have chosen not to respond to betadine's extra long post on working w/ ID's. Could it be that you have no response/defense, particularly for the actions of non-NCIDQ designers and "decorator" colleagues? :)
I'm an intern archt finishing up my IDP, married to an interior designer studying for her NCIDQ test. We've had this discussion ourselves, and it pretty much was the same as this thread. (the argumentative attitudes included) In the end I brought up several points which she couldn't refute. Let me also preface by mentioning that i work at a firm with ID and landscape teams. They both do good work, and contribute much to our projects and our firm. HOWEVER, both teams are comprised of acredited school graduates and licensed individuals.
1. College to Certification. bristolkid, it seems from your description that your program is quite comprehensive. But, just as I was suprised to learn the difference in 5yr & 4+2 schools, I'm sure you came across dubious programs in search of a school to enter. It seems there is an acreditation body for ID schools. Is there a distinction for graduates that come from an accredited school and not? Is graduation from an acredited school a requirement to sit for the NCIDQ test? Finally, what does the NCIDQ certification give you? If it is similar to the LEED process in that it represents a certain level of experience/knowledge and provides a benchmark to qualify the profession, I applaud it. But, I find it puzzleing that it isn't required in all states to practice ID. In the building profession, and even among ID's themselves, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on whether its needed, if its important to hold, and what it means. I also question the amount of preparation/experience req for the test, and the nature of the test. My wife and others have seemingly qualified to take the test w/out working directly in a ID field, but in a related field. She also tells me stories from her study group of people passing the test after some cramming and taking in a prep class.
2. Decorator vs Designer. It seems there is an agreement on both sides here on the destinction between the decorator and designer. My wife and her colleagues are playfully (sometimes seriously) offended at being called a pillow tosser ie decorator. What is your profession doing to differentiate these two? What's the difference between IIDA and ASID? What is required to be a member of either association, and is the NCIDQ required fo membership?(if not why not, isn't it the qualifying certification of your profession?) Doesn't this ambiguity cause confusion for the client, and a lack of respect in the design/building community?
3. Liability, life safety etc etc. bridgetown, I have no doubt that experienced, qualified, and not stupid ID's can lead a project on most any scale. However, as codes, building process, liability laws, insurance/bonding currently stand are you equipped to take on what the registered architect does? As mentioned there has been a move in several states by designers for licensure and increased role/power in building. I don't think that RA's would have an issue if your education system (as a whole, not individual schools), experience, certification, liability/risk/insurance, was on par with their own. As it stands today your profession does not completely fulfill any of these vital areas. When the day comes that you can say yes to the above, the question arises that I finally posed to my wife.
At that point, aren't you pretty much an architect practicing interior design? :)
I'd like a response from designers, if only to educate me/us on the questions that I brought up, so that we may all be better informed of your profession.
Also, I might remind you that on projects such as an interior renovation or fit-out, which compromise a large portion of "architectural" projects these days, a licensed architect is only necessary at the final stage of the design. And by this I mean signing the drawings.
TECHNICALLY, that stamp and seal says that the drawings were prepared under the supervision of the architect, not that the architect swooped in at the end. indicating that, while maybe not around constantly, maybe the architect would be necessary before the end...
this is what my interior designer did: designed a lighting scheme OVERTOP of the lighting scheme I already designed, approved by the owner, engineered by the electrical engineer, fine tuned to meet energy code, when she didn't even understand the space. How do I know she didn't understand the space? After she presented her design and owner agreed to go with her scheme, she called later and asked me if the ceiling was sloped in that room and how high it was and what the material was and could she paint the columns red? The space is a single room, very strong architecture, a single sloped wood ceiling on a glass box. My lighting design was sparkly, light, airy. Her's was a huge clunky mission style pendant, and several smaller pendants with STRIPED fabric shades.
What I do: CAD her lighting plan from her redlines, send to engineer, call engineer to introduce these last minute changes. The engineer even felt bad for me, saying that my scheme would have been really cool - even the engineer got it! NEw lighting scheme doesn't meet code as there is now a light fixture evey two feet, on multiple switches too, wall sconces everywhere (to put some "design" those walls). I have to call ID and explain energy codes and tell her she needs to cut X amount of watts and to get back to me asap. Never returns my calls. Is ALWAYS out of the office. Doesn't work on Fridays because designing all week EXHAUSTS her. Finally I get to talk to her, it still takes a week to get the lighting scheme within code, we fought every step of the way. Meanwhile, she's added significant design time for both me and the engineer to get her retarded ideas to work.
We know that there are good interior designers and bad ones. And this is a bad one. Problem is, they are VERY well known and do work all over the country, winning "awards" and such and have an impressive portfolio of clients and work. The client thinks she is fantastic.
Aww, that's a sad story, Strawbeary. :( I'm kinda hoping for some IDs to answer, though? What does a GOOD designer do? How is it supposed to work? What are they studying/thinking about?
Strawbeary's post reminds me, architects and engineers butt heads often, but there is at least a grudging respect between the two even if at the end of the day they disagree. I do not see the same thing between architects and interior designers/decorators. While part of it may be traditional - in that traditionally engineers have been seen as equals, I think more of it stems from engineers have a degree of responsibilty that interior designers just can't have by the nature of their field. The fact that if a girder is poorly connected, or an electrical service is improperly sized (etc...) - that has implications far in excess of if the "mood" of the room is off. And while architects are, for better or worse, in charge of not only the "mood" of the space (and can get smack from the engineers when they want to challenge their engineering to improve it) they are also responsible for everything coming together at the end of the day. It is our understanding of all of these systems while keeping in mind the aesthetic of the structure and our responsibility that, rightly, puts us in a position of authority over the other diciplines in building. When a person coming in (be it engineer or designer) questions the integration of the whole design (and Strawbeary's example is perfect) for whatever reason without having the ability to understand its ramifications upon the entire structure, they are going to piss off the people who do understand - and have to put their name to it at the end of the day. When someone does have that ability, and has fufilled the rituals to prove it, they are no longer a designer, they're an architect.
In saying, when you earn the respect, you get the respect. Architects respect other architects because they know what they've been through (at least until they prove that such respect is unwarranted.) Designers, not having the same requirements or responsibilities of architects (or even engineers) have to prove themselves individually to earn the respect of those with greater responsibilty. I think everyone here would say that if they find an interior designer worth their salt, they would have respect for that person - but there are plenty of people out there calling themselves designers (and with no-one to effectively prevent them from doing so) that come in thinking otherwise which ruins it for kids like bristol.
I’m sorry so many of you have had such negative experiences with interior designers. As an interior design student, I’ll share some of my experiences. I have a BS in a rather technical field from a heavy hitting university and am now getting a post bachelor’s certificate in ID which is a 3 year program. In it, we learn hand drafting, CAD, hand and computer rendering, building codes, etc. I spend the waking part of my life working on projects. It is not too academic which is unfortunate because the theory that my architect friends learned, albeit esoteric at times, enabled them to think critically and elevate their understanding of people, social constructions, and cities. This, I believe, creates a huge disparity between the educated and the uneducated, ie architects and decorators.
Interior design is a fledgling profession, trying very hard to gain the respect that many (but certainly not all) of us deserve. The ASID was not founded until 1975. One must pass the NCIDQ, graduate from an accredited interior design school and have more than 2 years of full time employment to be eligible for the exam. Yes, there are many acronyms for other ID professional affiliations. This is unfortunate as it is confusing. No, it’s not as rigorous as the hurdles architects must pass, that is why I reserve much respect for them.
I my work experience, I have interned at large architecture firm and worked for a small residential interior design firm. The small firm usually was the first to be contacted by a client when they wanted a remodel. We assessed the project and determined if an architect was needed. The architect then would bring the contractor they worked with onto the job. The lowly ID assistant (me) worked as project manager being the primary liason between the client and contractor. I tried to stay out of the architect’s way but held many meetings to work with them. In the end, the ID specifies all surface materials, hardware, furniture, and window treatments, places orders and tracks them. We work closely with the architect to determine ceiling height, and window placement but they have the final say.
I commercial projects, IDs can get sued if their handrail, ramp slope, door strike, etc. don't comply with ADA guidelines.
One thing to add, specifying custom sofas may seem annoyingly domestic but the first one I did came in looking like my floodwatch pants I had as a nerd in middle school. There is actually a fashion to how long the skirts are.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that some of us are professional in the way we treat others on the project. Working with anything less leads to nothing but frustration. We all need to pay rent and school loans and large projects employ lots of people. SO if someone isn't treating you with respect or they are annoying self-promoters, don't work with them. And yes, I still have a lot to learn.
1. A reminder: I'm a graduate student, not a licensed or even practicing professional. llll seems to be a little farther down the educational path than I am. I think the fact that both of us are members of this forum speaks heavily to our dedication to our profession and of our reverence for architecture.
2. One correction: a degree from an accredited university is not required to sit for the NCIDQ exam. At my school, the undergrad program is CIDA (formerly FIDER) accredited, but the grad program is not. But as I mentioned before, my program is one that is rooted deeply in structure and building systems, not throw pillows and window treatments.
3. Yes, interior designers do have it made, but that doesn't mean we should have it made or even want to have it made. I wish that interior designers were held legally responsible for their actions. The lack of accountability in any profession, especially ones where lives are potentially on the line, is the reason why people take Fridays off and swoop in at the last minute to drop ugly chandeliers in the middle of completed rooms and remove load-bearing walls to improve "flow."
4. Again, this time from Myriam, the ol' "what exactly makes you think your profession is worth the paper your business cards are printed on" question. Out of any complex situation evolves specialization. Time was, a doctor sat in a candlelit room, fetched his own goddamn scalpel, and anesthetized patients with a shot of brandy. But times change, and so today, we have anesthesiologists and registered nurses. On a project, the same is true. The process of building anything requires so much complexity and coordination that specialists, such as interior designers, have evolved. llll is right; we are a fledgling profession, one that is desperate for respect. But until we have universal governing bodies that fine people for calling themselves "interior designers" when they are in fact "interior decorators," we will continue to have hacks in our midst. If you're still wondering why I aspire to be an interior designer and not an architect, I'll refer to the post that started this discussion, where I explain myself pretty clearly.
5. Are architects capable of doing and educated to do an interior designer's work? Absolutely. Is the opposite true? Only in limited cases (Bridgetown seems to be pretty confident in this capacity). Let's take it back to the OR. Could a successful, experienced nurse do the work of a surgeon? I betcha in limited cases, the right one could. Now I'm not saying a nurse could perform brain surgery or reattach a severed limb (i.e. build a skyscraper), but I bet that a good one might be able to set a broken leg and stitch someone back up (i.e. build a 2-story house).
5. I think Crowbert nailed it...there are a lot of amateurs out there operating as interior designers, and there's no central authority to stop them. It ruins it for all of us: because architects don't wanna be sidled with some diva who skips meetings and ruins their designs with tacky last-minute ornamentation, and me because I don't want to be lumped in with non-professionals who waltz around the job site in ascots using words like "FAB-ulous!" and "HOT!" It's bad business for everyone.
here is my view; you cant be a competent or different designer without an architecture education.(exceptions are pssible)... take a look at some of our century's important architects; they design everything in any scale not only buildings, better than ind. or int. designers...
First of all, please do not read into my query with a supposed attitude on my part. I am asking in all honesty, because I don't know what interior designers do. I never really thought about them before this post. So you can please refrain from assuming I'm looking down on you--I don't even know who you are or what you do, and that's all I'm asking. I'm not asking 'who do you think you are?!', I'm asking, 'who are you?'. i.e., 'huh? what's all this about?'
If you want me to respect you, fine, just tell me what you do, as I have no clue. I *did* read your original post, and it didn't tell me that, so I asked. You have talked about specialization a number of times, but WHAT do you specialize in? WHAT do you DO? I have no problem with understanding the value of specialization. I just got off the phone with my HVAC guy who's gonna design the nuts and bolts of a system for an apt I'm doing. Fine with me. But HOW would I use YOU? What does your job entail?
Ok, first my credentials. I'm a licensed architect. Barc and a masters (ColumbiaU). practiced as an architect for 12 years. hired to be Design Director for an Interiors group at a big corporate firm.
I told them I didn't know anything about the "Interiors" industry but they hired me anyway. they wanted someone to contribute overall design oversight, coordination with architectural projects, and design vision. They had people who knew "furniture". We do small to large projects (600,000-1 mil sf), stand alone and part of Architectural scope.
I've been doing this for 6 years.
positive things I have learned:
- An Interiors business model is typically more profitable, not because of scope but because of a much more rigorous way of controlling process, a fast initiative to nail the major design components, less liability, and shorter schedules.
- Much better understanding at the programming phase as to what questions to ask about the nature of work and how the facility aligns with business objectives. Ex. Are you highly collaborative team based or is the work concentrated and heads down? This question may have huge implications on the design of the project.
- There is an understanding of how furniture - systems or loose can relate to space and how it is enhanced by the proper furniture selection.
- Color, my god architects seem to be allergic to color.
- Material detailing, yes down to the upholstery and carpet weave. We custom color carpet on just about every project we do at no upcharge to the client.
Negatives -
- Interior designer education is woefully flawed. This is where the main problem exists. There are so many programs that have no relationship to architecture programs and suffer because of it. Whether the ID's like it or not, Interior Design is a subset of Architecture and the education system should reflect this. There has to be a better understanding of the bigger picture.
- lousy sketchers. Quit trying to do realistic hand renderings. Sketch ideas not the end state.
- no sense of history or theory. It becomes very difficult to align on concepts if the person doesn't even know what a golden mean is or who Louis Kahn is.
- Everything is based on the "Plan" very little thought about the creation of space. Mainly because so many projects are in typical 9-10' ceiling office buildings and the differences in spaces become very nuanced. But the thought process is missing.
Other than that the reps throw much better parties and Interior Designer's seem to be much happier than architects. and Necon is a trip.
Bristolkid, saying that a competent interior designer could adequately design a two-story house (as you did in your first point #5) is on the same level of hubris as the people who you said you didn't want to be associated with in your second point #5. I know if I encountered an interior designer who said they could design a house just like an architect, I would really doubt they knew what they were talking about, because when have interior designers had to learn about site placement, weather protection, seismic forces, power and service requirements, etc, etc, etc...
See - your offhanded remark about how designing a house, an area of construction many architects pursue as a career - as simple enough that anyone can do, irritates us to no end. It really is not that easy and when people say it is - whether its interior designers or reality TV giving them that impression - we can only try our best not to throw down a 15 page 24x36 set (which is a relatively simple house) and go, "Really, this is something you could dash off, eh?"
having just spent a lot of time reading the entire thread...i am interested in the thrust and perry of this arguement despite it taking personal attacks...
first as far as the licensing...licensing is to protect the public...not a profession!! AIA is still learning this. why should a ID get licensed...there is NO possible threat to the public! that is why a non-licensed person can do even commercial projects as long as they do not add exits or change structure...(at least in my state)
i agree with what seim said:
"I believe this statement shows a lack of understanding of what architecture is and what an architect does and how she/he goes about creating it. We do not design or decorate the exterior of buildings with no conception of space. The conception of Architecture is intrinsically tied to the nature of space and yes interior space is part and parcel of this definition. This by no means precludes an Interior designer or Interior Architect from creating, adding to or having an affect on the Architecture. It also doesn't stop one from altering or changing the architecture. I believe the disagreements and ill feelings begin when this is done for a new project without any understanding of the intent."
i think it got burried in the posts...i design a room...and i have to think about color, light, materials, fabrics, textures, etc. other wise those metal building people are the real architects...and ID fill 'em all up!
i have not had a good experience (while dealing with the some of the best in my area). one of the most common things is that there opinion counts more than mine... b/c it is more comprehenible to the client. i blame myself for that! i need to find how to truly explain and get the trust the ID has! at the same time my job is not to had each thing over to some one else that i SHOULD be doing. sometimes i get tired of details when that is a major part of the building!
perhaps we need to be a little leniant on an ID student who claims to be able to design a two story house. I am sure you can draw floor plans with properly sized spaces, comtemplate room adjacencies, circulation, private/public, window size in proportion, design with the intent of people living there and furniture being placed the in space etc, all that neat designerly shit. ----- Just know that that isn't the half of it and is exactly what I was hitting at in my earlier post about what architects think ID "stole" or are stealing from them, if anything. Those things, the art in architecture. All of those things are architecture, and things architects consider. ID want the architect to figure out all the technical stuff and they design the space and make it pretty. (what "other" stuff, you ask?) Exactly.
Crowbert and everyone else, please don't take my statement out of context. And I apologize if I'm way off base on this topic.
I never said that any competent interior designer could design a 2-story house. I said "only in limited cases" could this happen. I'm not talking about a garden-variety interior designer building the Taj Mahal; I'm talking someone conscientious and exceptional...someone with years of experience working with architects on building projects. Someone who knows code, infrastructure, and building systems. And if I'm STILL wrong about that, please tell me and I'll apologize.
Wamp mentioned a while back - with some caveats - that "I have no doubt that experienced, qualified, and not stupid ID's can lead a project on most any scale." That's all I'm trying to say.
let me describe my experience of the interior design field:
4 year b.s. degree in interior design and am a current march student.
I worked for 2 years at a large architecutre/interiors/urban planning firm.
Most of the projects that i worked on were very large (500,000+ sf) buildings with very large project teams, and the project architect, pm and lead interior designer were right together, figuring out the building as equal teammates. The knowledge of the inteiror designer is valued as sometimed buildings were designed from the inside out. When deadlines were looming, you bet we helped each other out - The interiors department also had their own projects which were large and small, and we had our drawings stamped by the partner (like everyone else)
I do have not worked on a residential project, therefore i have rarely dealt with the client (being a junior designer), and that guide for dealing with an interior designer sounded like it was meant for a client looking for a residental interior designer.
I think that interior is just a specialization of architecture, and the schools and accreditation systems and tests should reflect that. I think that the field is working to make itself for respectable- hence the exam (which is changing so that you have to have a degree from an accredited school to sit for the exam), the legal separation of decorators from designers (in most states).
I decided on a March program vs. an interiors program in order to broaden my skills, develop better conceptual thinking/theory (which is lacking at id schools) and to avoid the inevitable glass ceiling that many interior designers currently face.
Don't worry about being too hard on me, Strawbeary. After all, I was the one who titled a 500-word post "One Interior Designer Fights Back," ending it with the phrase, "Fire at will." I asked for all this discussion, and I'm glad it's happening. It's been very enlightening, and frankly, has forced me to possibly reconsider my course of study.
So what can I bring to the table? Since I can't speak for all IDs, I'll only speak for myself. Before going back to school, I worked as a client account manager for 5+ years in the Internet. Internet advertising and website design, to be specific, at some pretty heavy-hitting companies. And if there's one thing that the Internet has taught me, it's that design is a whole hell of a lot more about usability than it is about aesthetics. I think this is a point lost on all designers, not just IDs. I believe in utility. An interior can be exquisitely designed from a visual perspective, but if it can't be easily lived in, then it is of no use. I aspire to be the kind of designer that will help make an interior more usable, as well as more visually inviting. Whether that entails lighting placement, room flow, I'm honestly not sure. I'm not there yet.
As I mentioned in my first paragraph, I'm starting to have second thoughts about my ID choice. Am I better off becoming an architect?
It would be worth remembering that only 3% to 5%(depending what source you're looking at) of all housing in the US has any architect involvement at all. Most is "designed" by builders and developers, who often have no design training at all. There's a big diference between something being designed "competently" and designed well. So I won't argue with thebristolkid that some interior designers could competently design housing. In fact it's probably the case that some interior designers can design it well.
But the thread started out with this interior design student bemoaning the lack apparent of "reverence" that architects have for interior designers. I think many posters have done a good job in explaining why.
Personally I view interior design as a subset of architecture. Obviously if someone decides to specialize in a small area of a discipline - whether it is as "interior designer" or "green building consultant" or "high security facilities expert" - there is some opportunity for that person to become much more well-versed in their area than the average generalist designer or architect. They might even have some innate or developed talent in this area that makes them particularly well-suited and more qualified in that area than their average architect counterpart. In that sense their inolvement with many projects can be invaluable.
But, as has been touched on in this thread, the facts remain that most of what is taught in interior desgn programs is also included in architecture programs, and that most architects by necessity gain professional experience with interior design just because they are also expected by many clients to do a certain amount of this in-house.
And the licensing standards for interior designers - such as they are, in the states that have any - recognize this, which is why it is very easy for architects to become licensed as interior designers (in some states, as Aluminate points out, all architects are immediately granted interior design licenses when they fill out a form and pay a fee. In others they must petition to sit for that NCIDQ exam, based on their more-than-equivalent education and training.)
Ever since we took advantage of this and legally put "and Interior Design" at the end of our firm name we've had many fewer clients wanting to bring in an outside designer to do the interiors. We've never had any unhappy clients yet with the interiors that we've done - which is why I have a hard time feeling great "reverence" for those who solely study and practice interior design.
One of the schools at which I teach sometimes has separate, highly-regarded architecture and interior design departments. But this is not always the case - it has to do with shifting interest and perceptions. A number of times over the years the interior design major has been combined with architecture, in years when there has been less demand for separate programs. In those periods, the curriculum that has been used for all students in the combined program has been the architecture curriculum. In the periods of time when interior design has its own department the curriculum for the interior designers drops structures, math and physics, environmental systems (HVAC/MEP), and architecture history and theory, and replaces them with history of furniture, courses on watercolor and color pencil rendering techniques, and "theory of interiors". So basically interior design students are getting a sub-set of architecture, with a few specialized, non-technical courses.
It does seem to be the case that interior designers and students are taught to believe that they're automatically capable of doing what an architect does. I don't quite understand why this idea is so prevalent. I think it might be helpful to add some sort of comprehensive architectural construction document set project, or even a design-build hands-on construction project to interior design scool programs, to address just what's involved.
I have worked in a couple architecture firm situations where interior designers with many years of experience talked their way into being hired as project managers, only to quickly become overwhelmed and exposed as inexperienced with/incapable of doing or managing what is really involved. In one case the poor woman kept telling the principals that a small commercial project was well underway and chugging along, and when the 90% completion date arrived it turned out there were no sections, no MEP coordination, no window, door, plumbing or electrical schedules (just finishes), and no specifications - and not only had they not been started but she didn't even know they were supposed to exist! The project was then turned over to me - at the time a 2nd year intern - for completion.
Most of us have these kinds of first-person experiences. That means that even if there are some highly qualified interiors people out there, there are a LOT who are not.
I would concede that there probably ARE a lot of qualified, talented interior designers out there. Many of them probably do not work in settings that would bring them into contact with architecture firms at all (such as those retained by large companies to continually update corporate interiors.) Interior designers also average higher salaries during the early and middle parts of their careers, with less training - which means more earning years. so there are a lot of great things to be said for that career path.
I never said that any competent interior designer could design a 2-story house. I said "only in limited cases" could this happen. I'm not talking about a garden-variety interior designer building the Taj Mahal; I'm talking someone conscientious and exceptional...someone with years of experience working with architects on building projects. Someone who knows code, infrastructure, and building systems. And if I'm STILL wrong about that, please tell me and I'll apologize.
I don't get it... if you want to be this ONE elusive interior designer who can do all that, and have that kind of knowledge and ability that it takes years to get, then why not just take the shortcut and get an actual architecture education?
Also, you mentioned in your original post (or somewhere way up there) that you chose interiors because you usually end up being more fascinated by pictures of interiors than by the buildings they're in. But... how many of those interiors you're fascinated by were designed by the building architect anyway? Or at least, the most essential qualities of them probably were: spatial arrangement, light quality; the things we percieve in spaces.
I have worked with interior designers before but never really figured out what they do. Now I work for a small residential office and frankly, almost from day one of the desing of a house we have the interiors in mind as well; we switch scales back and forth comfortably in design, because each scale (human, building, finger, eye, foot, urban street, etc) impacts the other. This is the fun of design. I can't imagine working on any single subset of that and being satisfied--and a good architect to me is an architect who is thinking of all those things at once, and allowing them all to inform each other and the final design.
Therefore it seems to be that an interior designer would only be necessary to either a bad architect (in which case, again, why would you want to be there working under a bad architect, trying to make his crappy, unthought-out spaces actually live-able?) or on a very large project where everything is parcelled out in sections b/c no one person can think about it all (in which case, wouldn't you want to be working on something that's going to have more of an impact in shaping people's lives?).
But then again, I'm only just now learning what interior designers do, so I mean these are all just my first thoughts banging around my head. (Thanks, modo!)
Also, for what it's worth, I think many architects would make the same statement about being more grabbed by interiors pics than by building pics. The inside of a space--the occupied part--is very powerful to anyone in building design.
i love a good interior designer. the only things better than a good interior designer are the hot product reps that call so frequently on interior designers. nothing better to take my eye from the drawing board than a nice looking carpet rep walking by in a tight, short skirt. you gotta love that mohawk carpet.
i love a good architect. the only thing better than a good architect with his hipster horn-rimmed glasses are his sexy neo-rococo buildings he proclaims to look so good juxtaposed to the rigid modern backdrop mid-centery modern classics. Nothing better to take my eye off the fabric swatches than a nice looking architect walking by in a black turtleneck, you gotta love his arrogance.
If you really are curious, rather than poke around arch. programs, you should poke around a good arch office. Arch programs are gonna be more concerned with the concept and the building envelope... by necessity, you don't end up getting all the way down to colored concrete flooring very often in school. You start with the larger design principles and kind of slowly refine it downwards, on out into your professional life. so you get into that more in actual practice. maybe check out a good, classy res. arch office.
llll ...... very nice! I can certainly respect a response like that. Unfortunately, I wear neither glasses nor black turtlenecks. more into jeans and cotton t-shirts, more natural you know? kinda like a oil-rubbed hardwood floor versus some factory-finished bamboo. i do; however, admire the neo-rococo buildings and their gilded surfaces ....
One Interior Designer Fights Back
which one would that be? would it be my agreeing with your point that we need to work together throughout the process and not at the end or would it be my correction of your statements regarding un-licensed interns designing architecture? i tell you what, why don't you tell me what other things i am apparently not fit to comment on, seeing as how the general consensus seems to agree with many of the statements i have made.
you lurk and lurk and decide now is the time for you to join the fray, will this be the only topic you have an opinion on? if so perhaps you should say thank you and go on your way.
well in my office we have around 9 interior designers, four of whom are men. three of whom are principals. we have a huge materials library full of fabric and carpet samples. its very festive. the fabric and carpet and furniture reps are always bringing in delicious treats for our office. the architecture reps never bring anything.
Thanks, beta and dsc and others for defending architecture as a field of study/profession that also encompasses the field of interior design. The opposite is most definitely not true.
Of course, there are days when I'm embarassed that I'm allowed to call myself an architect.
PS My partner has a BArch but is ASID, not RA. And he's definitely better at architecture than I am!
And I still like jump's first comment best: There is a lot of vitriol here simply directed toward stupid people, be they interior designers or architects or Karl Rove.
vado, you need to have a brick rep over, they always bring donuts.
vado retro - interior designer of destruction.
doesnt sound as good as architect of destruction. which is what i am...
The Edelman leather rep brought me a treat last time!
No not a whip, sadly.
OK, I would like to add the following:
While I agree with my fellow architects on a certain level about many of the issues stated above - specifically, the fact that we are the ones who are liable at the end of the day, which is why we are entitled to more professional allowances and probably more salary - I would say that it is the arrogance with which many have stated these points that causes me the most dismay. I think that this perpetuates a stereotype about architect's attitude towards interior designers that causes threads like this to be made in the first place.
Also, I might remind you that on projects such as an interior renovation or fit-out, which compromise a large portion of "architectural" projects these days, a licensed architect is only necessary at the final stage of the design. And by this I mean signing the drawings.
but and a big but here, the architect is still professional liable for the documents signed and that the documents are designed to the requisite codes. this i know you know.
I certainly do know this, I do the code reviews. It sucks too, I wish I could do the space planning instead!
The irony of this post is that in my previous one I actually wrote that I would shut up for a while but it somehow got deleted, so now i don't have to :o)
Hehe, the guy in the video is hilarious.
OK, I've been thinking about this, and I think that a good bit of the architects hating on interior designers is spawned from jealousy. REally, when you think about it, they get to take half of the design opportunities, about 1/10th of the paperwork, and none of the liability. I think as architects (and interns), we feel that if we trudge through the shit work, there should be some good design work left over for us at the end of the day to make up for it, but the interior designers have gone and snagged it. And that makes our jobs shitty. And what makes it even shittier is when those interior designers don't realize how good they have it, and try to infringe on the design bits that we consider to be 'ours'.
funny video. and they say architects are full of it ;-)
i think wonderK makes good points. its all about the quality of people you work with. poor beta, he maybe just ain't done a project that attracts the real talent yet...and maybe someone neglected to define scope...pobre, pobrecito.
i should also say that while i believe in fuzzy borders, i don't believe an interior designer is equivalent to an architect, mostly for the issues of liability...for the rest, well design is design. it ain't that hard and it ain't even remotely special...and there is no natural hierarchy inolved. that is where the pissing comes in.
Interior design is a distinct occupation, but, while bad taste might be offensive, there is no evidence that anyone has been killed by a bad color scheme – this occupation requires no licensure to protect the public. On the other hand, a 30,000 square foot tenant build-out requires a broad range of architectural skills, including knowledge of structural, mechanical, and electrical design to coordinate and integrate those components into a comprehensive working whole that incorporates all the elements of life safety (NCARB). Architects are educated, trained and examined for those skills. Interior designers are not.
The bottom line: Architects are not jealous of interior architects/designers; it is a simple fact that the standards for the interior design profession cannot be compared to the standards for the architectural profession, since interior designers do not practice architecture. End of story.
those things are all essential parts of the architects purview. but i sense that many above are not upset over interior designers who don't understand that limit of their scope (really, how many ID's really don't get that you can't move a structural wall, or remove a fire door? gotta be bottom of the barrel sort of person and not representative of the profession). seems more to be that the interior designers are trying to design over top of the architects vision...and that is what pisses them off...it's a turf thing.
I find it interesting that bridgetown and bristolkid have chosen not to respond to betadine's extra long post on working w/ ID's. Could it be that you have no response/defense, particularly for the actions of non-NCIDQ designers and "decorator" colleagues? :)
I'm an intern archt finishing up my IDP, married to an interior designer studying for her NCIDQ test. We've had this discussion ourselves, and it pretty much was the same as this thread. (the argumentative attitudes included) In the end I brought up several points which she couldn't refute. Let me also preface by mentioning that i work at a firm with ID and landscape teams. They both do good work, and contribute much to our projects and our firm. HOWEVER, both teams are comprised of acredited school graduates and licensed individuals.
1. College to Certification. bristolkid, it seems from your description that your program is quite comprehensive. But, just as I was suprised to learn the difference in 5yr & 4+2 schools, I'm sure you came across dubious programs in search of a school to enter. It seems there is an acreditation body for ID schools. Is there a distinction for graduates that come from an accredited school and not? Is graduation from an acredited school a requirement to sit for the NCIDQ test? Finally, what does the NCIDQ certification give you? If it is similar to the LEED process in that it represents a certain level of experience/knowledge and provides a benchmark to qualify the profession, I applaud it. But, I find it puzzleing that it isn't required in all states to practice ID. In the building profession, and even among ID's themselves, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on whether its needed, if its important to hold, and what it means. I also question the amount of preparation/experience req for the test, and the nature of the test. My wife and others have seemingly qualified to take the test w/out working directly in a ID field, but in a related field. She also tells me stories from her study group of people passing the test after some cramming and taking in a prep class.
2. Decorator vs Designer. It seems there is an agreement on both sides here on the destinction between the decorator and designer. My wife and her colleagues are playfully (sometimes seriously) offended at being called a pillow tosser ie decorator. What is your profession doing to differentiate these two? What's the difference between IIDA and ASID? What is required to be a member of either association, and is the NCIDQ required fo membership?(if not why not, isn't it the qualifying certification of your profession?) Doesn't this ambiguity cause confusion for the client, and a lack of respect in the design/building community?
3. Liability, life safety etc etc. bridgetown, I have no doubt that experienced, qualified, and not stupid ID's can lead a project on most any scale. However, as codes, building process, liability laws, insurance/bonding currently stand are you equipped to take on what the registered architect does? As mentioned there has been a move in several states by designers for licensure and increased role/power in building. I don't think that RA's would have an issue if your education system (as a whole, not individual schools), experience, certification, liability/risk/insurance, was on par with their own. As it stands today your profession does not completely fulfill any of these vital areas. When the day comes that you can say yes to the above, the question arises that I finally posed to my wife.
At that point, aren't you pretty much an architect practicing interior design? :)
I'd like a response from designers, if only to educate me/us on the questions that I brought up, so that we may all be better informed of your profession.
TECHNICALLY, that stamp and seal says that the drawings were prepared under the supervision of the architect, not that the architect swooped in at the end. indicating that, while maybe not around constantly, maybe the architect would be necessary before the end...
I don't think I really know what Int. Designers do. Or are expected to do, I guess. What makes you feel necessary? I'm curious and want to learn.
That could be said about architects, too (and has on this forum many times).
Yes, it has. Couldn't it be said about anyone? How do any of us know what anyone else does unless we ask? What's your point, trace.
this is what my interior designer did: designed a lighting scheme OVERTOP of the lighting scheme I already designed, approved by the owner, engineered by the electrical engineer, fine tuned to meet energy code, when she didn't even understand the space. How do I know she didn't understand the space? After she presented her design and owner agreed to go with her scheme, she called later and asked me if the ceiling was sloped in that room and how high it was and what the material was and could she paint the columns red? The space is a single room, very strong architecture, a single sloped wood ceiling on a glass box. My lighting design was sparkly, light, airy. Her's was a huge clunky mission style pendant, and several smaller pendants with STRIPED fabric shades.
What I do: CAD her lighting plan from her redlines, send to engineer, call engineer to introduce these last minute changes. The engineer even felt bad for me, saying that my scheme would have been really cool - even the engineer got it! NEw lighting scheme doesn't meet code as there is now a light fixture evey two feet, on multiple switches too, wall sconces everywhere (to put some "design" those walls). I have to call ID and explain energy codes and tell her she needs to cut X amount of watts and to get back to me asap. Never returns my calls. Is ALWAYS out of the office. Doesn't work on Fridays because designing all week EXHAUSTS her. Finally I get to talk to her, it still takes a week to get the lighting scheme within code, we fought every step of the way. Meanwhile, she's added significant design time for both me and the engineer to get her retarded ideas to work.
We know that there are good interior designers and bad ones. And this is a bad one. Problem is, they are VERY well known and do work all over the country, winning "awards" and such and have an impressive portfolio of clients and work. The client thinks she is fantastic.
Aww, that's a sad story, Strawbeary. :( I'm kinda hoping for some IDs to answer, though? What does a GOOD designer do? How is it supposed to work? What are they studying/thinking about?
I just want to know can one sue and interior decorator for claiming....they designed the whole project?
Strawbeary's post reminds me, architects and engineers butt heads often, but there is at least a grudging respect between the two even if at the end of the day they disagree. I do not see the same thing between architects and interior designers/decorators. While part of it may be traditional - in that traditionally engineers have been seen as equals, I think more of it stems from engineers have a degree of responsibilty that interior designers just can't have by the nature of their field. The fact that if a girder is poorly connected, or an electrical service is improperly sized (etc...) - that has implications far in excess of if the "mood" of the room is off. And while architects are, for better or worse, in charge of not only the "mood" of the space (and can get smack from the engineers when they want to challenge their engineering to improve it) they are also responsible for everything coming together at the end of the day. It is our understanding of all of these systems while keeping in mind the aesthetic of the structure and our responsibility that, rightly, puts us in a position of authority over the other diciplines in building. When a person coming in (be it engineer or designer) questions the integration of the whole design (and Strawbeary's example is perfect) for whatever reason without having the ability to understand its ramifications upon the entire structure, they are going to piss off the people who do understand - and have to put their name to it at the end of the day. When someone does have that ability, and has fufilled the rituals to prove it, they are no longer a designer, they're an architect.
In saying, when you earn the respect, you get the respect. Architects respect other architects because they know what they've been through (at least until they prove that such respect is unwarranted.) Designers, not having the same requirements or responsibilities of architects (or even engineers) have to prove themselves individually to earn the respect of those with greater responsibilty. I think everyone here would say that if they find an interior designer worth their salt, they would have respect for that person - but there are plenty of people out there calling themselves designers (and with no-one to effectively prevent them from doing so) that come in thinking otherwise which ruins it for kids like bristol.
I’m sorry so many of you have had such negative experiences with interior designers. As an interior design student, I’ll share some of my experiences. I have a BS in a rather technical field from a heavy hitting university and am now getting a post bachelor’s certificate in ID which is a 3 year program. In it, we learn hand drafting, CAD, hand and computer rendering, building codes, etc. I spend the waking part of my life working on projects. It is not too academic which is unfortunate because the theory that my architect friends learned, albeit esoteric at times, enabled them to think critically and elevate their understanding of people, social constructions, and cities. This, I believe, creates a huge disparity between the educated and the uneducated, ie architects and decorators.
Interior design is a fledgling profession, trying very hard to gain the respect that many (but certainly not all) of us deserve. The ASID was not founded until 1975. One must pass the NCIDQ, graduate from an accredited interior design school and have more than 2 years of full time employment to be eligible for the exam. Yes, there are many acronyms for other ID professional affiliations. This is unfortunate as it is confusing. No, it’s not as rigorous as the hurdles architects must pass, that is why I reserve much respect for them.
I my work experience, I have interned at large architecture firm and worked for a small residential interior design firm. The small firm usually was the first to be contacted by a client when they wanted a remodel. We assessed the project and determined if an architect was needed. The architect then would bring the contractor they worked with onto the job. The lowly ID assistant (me) worked as project manager being the primary liason between the client and contractor. I tried to stay out of the architect’s way but held many meetings to work with them. In the end, the ID specifies all surface materials, hardware, furniture, and window treatments, places orders and tracks them. We work closely with the architect to determine ceiling height, and window placement but they have the final say.
I commercial projects, IDs can get sued if their handrail, ramp slope, door strike, etc. don't comply with ADA guidelines.
One thing to add, specifying custom sofas may seem annoyingly domestic but the first one I did came in looking like my floodwatch pants I had as a nerd in middle school. There is actually a fashion to how long the skirts are.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that some of us are professional in the way we treat others on the project. Working with anything less leads to nothing but frustration. We all need to pay rent and school loans and large projects employ lots of people. SO if someone isn't treating you with respect or they are annoying self-promoters, don't work with them. And yes, I still have a lot to learn.
OK, a few responses, now that I'm awake again:
1. A reminder: I'm a graduate student, not a licensed or even practicing professional. llll seems to be a little farther down the educational path than I am. I think the fact that both of us are members of this forum speaks heavily to our dedication to our profession and of our reverence for architecture.
2. One correction: a degree from an accredited university is not required to sit for the NCIDQ exam. At my school, the undergrad program is CIDA (formerly FIDER) accredited, but the grad program is not. But as I mentioned before, my program is one that is rooted deeply in structure and building systems, not throw pillows and window treatments.
3. Yes, interior designers do have it made, but that doesn't mean we should have it made or even want to have it made. I wish that interior designers were held legally responsible for their actions. The lack of accountability in any profession, especially ones where lives are potentially on the line, is the reason why people take Fridays off and swoop in at the last minute to drop ugly chandeliers in the middle of completed rooms and remove load-bearing walls to improve "flow."
4. Again, this time from Myriam, the ol' "what exactly makes you think your profession is worth the paper your business cards are printed on" question. Out of any complex situation evolves specialization. Time was, a doctor sat in a candlelit room, fetched his own goddamn scalpel, and anesthetized patients with a shot of brandy. But times change, and so today, we have anesthesiologists and registered nurses. On a project, the same is true. The process of building anything requires so much complexity and coordination that specialists, such as interior designers, have evolved. llll is right; we are a fledgling profession, one that is desperate for respect. But until we have universal governing bodies that fine people for calling themselves "interior designers" when they are in fact "interior decorators," we will continue to have hacks in our midst. If you're still wondering why I aspire to be an interior designer and not an architect, I'll refer to the post that started this discussion, where I explain myself pretty clearly.
5. Are architects capable of doing and educated to do an interior designer's work? Absolutely. Is the opposite true? Only in limited cases (Bridgetown seems to be pretty confident in this capacity). Let's take it back to the OR. Could a successful, experienced nurse do the work of a surgeon? I betcha in limited cases, the right one could. Now I'm not saying a nurse could perform brain surgery or reattach a severed limb (i.e. build a skyscraper), but I bet that a good one might be able to set a broken leg and stitch someone back up (i.e. build a 2-story house).
5. I think Crowbert nailed it...there are a lot of amateurs out there operating as interior designers, and there's no central authority to stop them. It ruins it for all of us: because architects don't wanna be sidled with some diva who skips meetings and ruins their designs with tacky last-minute ornamentation, and me because I don't want to be lumped in with non-professionals who waltz around the job site in ascots using words like "FAB-ulous!" and "HOT!" It's bad business for everyone.
I studied "interior architecture" for 4 years...
here is my view; you cant be a competent or different designer without an architecture education.(exceptions are pssible)... take a look at some of our century's important architects; they design everything in any scale not only buildings, better than ind. or int. designers...
bristolkid, I'd like to correct your point #4.
First of all, please do not read into my query with a supposed attitude on my part. I am asking in all honesty, because I don't know what interior designers do. I never really thought about them before this post. So you can please refrain from assuming I'm looking down on you--I don't even know who you are or what you do, and that's all I'm asking. I'm not asking 'who do you think you are?!', I'm asking, 'who are you?'. i.e., 'huh? what's all this about?'
If you want me to respect you, fine, just tell me what you do, as I have no clue. I *did* read your original post, and it didn't tell me that, so I asked. You have talked about specialization a number of times, but WHAT do you specialize in? WHAT do you DO? I have no problem with understanding the value of specialization. I just got off the phone with my HVAC guy who's gonna design the nuts and bolts of a system for an apt I'm doing. Fine with me. But HOW would I use YOU? What does your job entail?
Also, kudos to lll, who has helped answer it.
ie GET OFF YOUR PERSECUTED HIGH HORSE AND JUST TELL ME WHAT THE HELL INTERIOR DESIGN IS!!!!!
:)
sorry, losing patience with this thread... it doesn't make much sense to me
Ok, first my credentials. I'm a licensed architect. Barc and a masters (ColumbiaU). practiced as an architect for 12 years. hired to be Design Director for an Interiors group at a big corporate firm.
I told them I didn't know anything about the "Interiors" industry but they hired me anyway. they wanted someone to contribute overall design oversight, coordination with architectural projects, and design vision. They had people who knew "furniture". We do small to large projects (600,000-1 mil sf), stand alone and part of Architectural scope.
I've been doing this for 6 years.
positive things I have learned:
- An Interiors business model is typically more profitable, not because of scope but because of a much more rigorous way of controlling process, a fast initiative to nail the major design components, less liability, and shorter schedules.
- Much better understanding at the programming phase as to what questions to ask about the nature of work and how the facility aligns with business objectives. Ex. Are you highly collaborative team based or is the work concentrated and heads down? This question may have huge implications on the design of the project.
- There is an understanding of how furniture - systems or loose can relate to space and how it is enhanced by the proper furniture selection.
- Color, my god architects seem to be allergic to color.
- Material detailing, yes down to the upholstery and carpet weave. We custom color carpet on just about every project we do at no upcharge to the client.
Negatives -
- Interior designer education is woefully flawed. This is where the main problem exists. There are so many programs that have no relationship to architecture programs and suffer because of it. Whether the ID's like it or not, Interior Design is a subset of Architecture and the education system should reflect this. There has to be a better understanding of the bigger picture.
- lousy sketchers. Quit trying to do realistic hand renderings. Sketch ideas not the end state.
- no sense of history or theory. It becomes very difficult to align on concepts if the person doesn't even know what a golden mean is or who Louis Kahn is.
- Everything is based on the "Plan" very little thought about the creation of space. Mainly because so many projects are in typical 9-10' ceiling office buildings and the differences in spaces become very nuanced. But the thought process is missing.
Other than that the reps throw much better parties and Interior Designer's seem to be much happier than architects. and Necon is a trip.
Bristolkid, saying that a competent interior designer could adequately design a two-story house (as you did in your first point #5) is on the same level of hubris as the people who you said you didn't want to be associated with in your second point #5. I know if I encountered an interior designer who said they could design a house just like an architect, I would really doubt they knew what they were talking about, because when have interior designers had to learn about site placement, weather protection, seismic forces, power and service requirements, etc, etc, etc...
See - your offhanded remark about how designing a house, an area of construction many architects pursue as a career - as simple enough that anyone can do, irritates us to no end. It really is not that easy and when people say it is - whether its interior designers or reality TV giving them that impression - we can only try our best not to throw down a 15 page 24x36 set (which is a relatively simple house) and go, "Really, this is something you could dash off, eh?"
That's why we get upset.
having just spent a lot of time reading the entire thread...i am interested in the thrust and perry of this arguement despite it taking personal attacks...
first as far as the licensing...licensing is to protect the public...not a profession!! AIA is still learning this. why should a ID get licensed...there is NO possible threat to the public! that is why a non-licensed person can do even commercial projects as long as they do not add exits or change structure...(at least in my state)
i agree with what seim said:
"I believe this statement shows a lack of understanding of what architecture is and what an architect does and how she/he goes about creating it. We do not design or decorate the exterior of buildings with no conception of space. The conception of Architecture is intrinsically tied to the nature of space and yes interior space is part and parcel of this definition. This by no means precludes an Interior designer or Interior Architect from creating, adding to or having an affect on the Architecture. It also doesn't stop one from altering or changing the architecture. I believe the disagreements and ill feelings begin when this is done for a new project without any understanding of the intent."
i think it got burried in the posts...i design a room...and i have to think about color, light, materials, fabrics, textures, etc. other wise those metal building people are the real architects...and ID fill 'em all up!
i have not had a good experience (while dealing with the some of the best in my area). one of the most common things is that there opinion counts more than mine... b/c it is more comprehenible to the client. i blame myself for that! i need to find how to truly explain and get the trust the ID has! at the same time my job is not to had each thing over to some one else that i SHOULD be doing. sometimes i get tired of details when that is a major part of the building!
perhaps we need to be a little leniant on an ID student who claims to be able to design a two story house. I am sure you can draw floor plans with properly sized spaces, comtemplate room adjacencies, circulation, private/public, window size in proportion, design with the intent of people living there and furniture being placed the in space etc, all that neat designerly shit. ----- Just know that that isn't the half of it and is exactly what I was hitting at in my earlier post about what architects think ID "stole" or are stealing from them, if anything. Those things, the art in architecture. All of those things are architecture, and things architects consider. ID want the architect to figure out all the technical stuff and they design the space and make it pretty. (what "other" stuff, you ask?) Exactly.
Crowbert and everyone else, please don't take my statement out of context. And I apologize if I'm way off base on this topic.
I never said that any competent interior designer could design a 2-story house. I said "only in limited cases" could this happen. I'm not talking about a garden-variety interior designer building the Taj Mahal; I'm talking someone conscientious and exceptional...someone with years of experience working with architects on building projects. Someone who knows code, infrastructure, and building systems. And if I'm STILL wrong about that, please tell me and I'll apologize.
Wamp mentioned a while back - with some caveats - that "I have no doubt that experienced, qualified, and not stupid ID's can lead a project on most any scale." That's all I'm trying to say.
so back to the question, what can you, as an interior designer, bring to the table that is unique and valuable?
(I know it seems like we are being hard on you, but it is all in the name of good forum discussion.)
Read my earlier post. there are positives to the speciaized services of an Interior design. All is predicated on talent, dedication, and creativity.
As for designing houses (or any built structures). Definitely not.
I don't think heart surgeons should perform brain surgery either.
let me describe my experience of the interior design field:
4 year b.s. degree in interior design and am a current march student.
I worked for 2 years at a large architecutre/interiors/urban planning firm.
Most of the projects that i worked on were very large (500,000+ sf) buildings with very large project teams, and the project architect, pm and lead interior designer were right together, figuring out the building as equal teammates. The knowledge of the inteiror designer is valued as sometimed buildings were designed from the inside out. When deadlines were looming, you bet we helped each other out - The interiors department also had their own projects which were large and small, and we had our drawings stamped by the partner (like everyone else)
I do have not worked on a residential project, therefore i have rarely dealt with the client (being a junior designer), and that guide for dealing with an interior designer sounded like it was meant for a client looking for a residental interior designer.
I think that interior is just a specialization of architecture, and the schools and accreditation systems and tests should reflect that. I think that the field is working to make itself for respectable- hence the exam (which is changing so that you have to have a degree from an accredited school to sit for the exam), the legal separation of decorators from designers (in most states).
I decided on a March program vs. an interiors program in order to broaden my skills, develop better conceptual thinking/theory (which is lacking at id schools) and to avoid the inevitable glass ceiling that many interior designers currently face.
Don't worry about being too hard on me, Strawbeary. After all, I was the one who titled a 500-word post "One Interior Designer Fights Back," ending it with the phrase, "Fire at will." I asked for all this discussion, and I'm glad it's happening. It's been very enlightening, and frankly, has forced me to possibly reconsider my course of study.
So what can I bring to the table? Since I can't speak for all IDs, I'll only speak for myself. Before going back to school, I worked as a client account manager for 5+ years in the Internet. Internet advertising and website design, to be specific, at some pretty heavy-hitting companies. And if there's one thing that the Internet has taught me, it's that design is a whole hell of a lot more about usability than it is about aesthetics. I think this is a point lost on all designers, not just IDs. I believe in utility. An interior can be exquisitely designed from a visual perspective, but if it can't be easily lived in, then it is of no use. I aspire to be the kind of designer that will help make an interior more usable, as well as more visually inviting. Whether that entails lighting placement, room flow, I'm honestly not sure. I'm not there yet.
As I mentioned in my first paragraph, I'm starting to have second thoughts about my ID choice. Am I better off becoming an architect?
It would be worth remembering that only 3% to 5%(depending what source you're looking at) of all housing in the US has any architect involvement at all. Most is "designed" by builders and developers, who often have no design training at all. There's a big diference between something being designed "competently" and designed well. So I won't argue with thebristolkid that some interior designers could competently design housing. In fact it's probably the case that some interior designers can design it well.
But the thread started out with this interior design student bemoaning the lack apparent of "reverence" that architects have for interior designers. I think many posters have done a good job in explaining why.
Personally I view interior design as a subset of architecture. Obviously if someone decides to specialize in a small area of a discipline - whether it is as "interior designer" or "green building consultant" or "high security facilities expert" - there is some opportunity for that person to become much more well-versed in their area than the average generalist designer or architect. They might even have some innate or developed talent in this area that makes them particularly well-suited and more qualified in that area than their average architect counterpart. In that sense their inolvement with many projects can be invaluable.
But, as has been touched on in this thread, the facts remain that most of what is taught in interior desgn programs is also included in architecture programs, and that most architects by necessity gain professional experience with interior design just because they are also expected by many clients to do a certain amount of this in-house.
And the licensing standards for interior designers - such as they are, in the states that have any - recognize this, which is why it is very easy for architects to become licensed as interior designers (in some states, as Aluminate points out, all architects are immediately granted interior design licenses when they fill out a form and pay a fee. In others they must petition to sit for that NCIDQ exam, based on their more-than-equivalent education and training.)
Ever since we took advantage of this and legally put "and Interior Design" at the end of our firm name we've had many fewer clients wanting to bring in an outside designer to do the interiors. We've never had any unhappy clients yet with the interiors that we've done - which is why I have a hard time feeling great "reverence" for those who solely study and practice interior design.
One of the schools at which I teach sometimes has separate, highly-regarded architecture and interior design departments. But this is not always the case - it has to do with shifting interest and perceptions. A number of times over the years the interior design major has been combined with architecture, in years when there has been less demand for separate programs. In those periods, the curriculum that has been used for all students in the combined program has been the architecture curriculum. In the periods of time when interior design has its own department the curriculum for the interior designers drops structures, math and physics, environmental systems (HVAC/MEP), and architecture history and theory, and replaces them with history of furniture, courses on watercolor and color pencil rendering techniques, and "theory of interiors". So basically interior design students are getting a sub-set of architecture, with a few specialized, non-technical courses.
It does seem to be the case that interior designers and students are taught to believe that they're automatically capable of doing what an architect does. I don't quite understand why this idea is so prevalent. I think it might be helpful to add some sort of comprehensive architectural construction document set project, or even a design-build hands-on construction project to interior design scool programs, to address just what's involved.
I have worked in a couple architecture firm situations where interior designers with many years of experience talked their way into being hired as project managers, only to quickly become overwhelmed and exposed as inexperienced with/incapable of doing or managing what is really involved. In one case the poor woman kept telling the principals that a small commercial project was well underway and chugging along, and when the 90% completion date arrived it turned out there were no sections, no MEP coordination, no window, door, plumbing or electrical schedules (just finishes), and no specifications - and not only had they not been started but she didn't even know they were supposed to exist! The project was then turned over to me - at the time a 2nd year intern - for completion.
Most of us have these kinds of first-person experiences. That means that even if there are some highly qualified interiors people out there, there are a LOT who are not.
I would concede that there probably ARE a lot of qualified, talented interior designers out there. Many of them probably do not work in settings that would bring them into contact with architecture firms at all (such as those retained by large companies to continually update corporate interiors.) Interior designers also average higher salaries during the early and middle parts of their careers, with less training - which means more earning years. so there are a lot of great things to be said for that career path.
I don't get it... if you want to be this ONE elusive interior designer who can do all that, and have that kind of knowledge and ability that it takes years to get, then why not just take the shortcut and get an actual architecture education?
Also, you mentioned in your original post (or somewhere way up there) that you chose interiors because you usually end up being more fascinated by pictures of interiors than by the buildings they're in. But... how many of those interiors you're fascinated by were designed by the building architect anyway? Or at least, the most essential qualities of them probably were: spatial arrangement, light quality; the things we percieve in spaces.
I have worked with interior designers before but never really figured out what they do. Now I work for a small residential office and frankly, almost from day one of the desing of a house we have the interiors in mind as well; we switch scales back and forth comfortably in design, because each scale (human, building, finger, eye, foot, urban street, etc) impacts the other. This is the fun of design. I can't imagine working on any single subset of that and being satisfied--and a good architect to me is an architect who is thinking of all those things at once, and allowing them all to inform each other and the final design.
Therefore it seems to be that an interior designer would only be necessary to either a bad architect (in which case, again, why would you want to be there working under a bad architect, trying to make his crappy, unthought-out spaces actually live-able?) or on a very large project where everything is parcelled out in sections b/c no one person can think about it all (in which case, wouldn't you want to be working on something that's going to have more of an impact in shaping people's lives?).
But then again, I'm only just now learning what interior designers do, so I mean these are all just my first thoughts banging around my head. (Thanks, modo!)
Also, for what it's worth, I think many architects would make the same statement about being more grabbed by interiors pics than by building pics. The inside of a space--the occupied part--is very powerful to anyone in building design.
Anyone know someone in Penn's MARCH department that I can talk to?
Hasselhoff
i love a good interior designer. the only things better than a good interior designer are the hot product reps that call so frequently on interior designers. nothing better to take my eye from the drawing board than a nice looking carpet rep walking by in a tight, short skirt. you gotta love that mohawk carpet.
i love a good architect. the only thing better than a good architect with his hipster horn-rimmed glasses are his sexy neo-rococo buildings he proclaims to look so good juxtaposed to the rigid modern backdrop mid-centery modern classics. Nothing better to take my eye off the fabric swatches than a nice looking architect walking by in a black turtleneck, you gotta love his arrogance.
If you really are curious, rather than poke around arch. programs, you should poke around a good arch office. Arch programs are gonna be more concerned with the concept and the building envelope... by necessity, you don't end up getting all the way down to colored concrete flooring very often in school. You start with the larger design principles and kind of slowly refine it downwards, on out into your professional life. so you get into that more in actual practice. maybe check out a good, classy res. arch office.
llll ...... very nice! I can certainly respect a response like that. Unfortunately, I wear neither glasses nor black turtlenecks. more into jeans and cotton t-shirts, more natural you know? kinda like a oil-rubbed hardwood floor versus some factory-finished bamboo. i do; however, admire the neo-rococo buildings and their gilded surfaces ....
That's what my prom date said...
hey liberty what ever happened to that donghia rep you were tryin to hook me up with???
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.