Hey, ok so. Was curious about some thing. Im looking at architecture firms and what not, to apply to and I come across an engineering firm that does some really cool buildings. I really kind of like what they were doing witch were just simple geometric ish buildings that look really modern. And I was going to call them and ask if they needed a entry level architect but after examining their web page I noticed that they didn't have any architects on board, at east none that were AIA members... soo should I try my luck or would you thing that that wouldn't need an entry level architect let alone an architect? im really curious as to how different things are over there?
Any thoughts, commets, experiences with architects in engineering firms?
i think they make some robots. robots that make coffee for you, robots that fly, even robots to make robots (cut scene to terminator 3).... but mainly buildings.
I see a number of advantages and disadvantages to working in the firm you described.
Think about your overall career objectives. Will working at this firm hinder your abilities to transfer to a traditional architecture firm later? Or, will you gain skills that are relevant to architecture and allow you to stand out from other candidates who have worked as architectural CAD monkeys for their entire careers?
Find out who makes the design decisions. Since you are trained as an architect, would you have more opportunities to be involved with the design at this engineering firm that you would at a traditional architecture firm? In large architectural firms, you may have to wait years until they will let your design anything.
Structural design experience may prove valuable to your career. Sure, you probably studied structures in school, but you will learn a lot more from putting that knowledge to work. For example, I briefly worked for a single family residential architect who drew and sized all of the structural framing plans for every project. I gained a lot of knowledge about how buildings work from these exercises.
The same goes for MEP systems - first-hand knowledge will make you a better architect. However, you should be careful not to get pigeon-holed into a role that you really are not interested in.
Finally, make sure to check IDP's requirements for work in a related field but NOT under the supervision of a registered architect. You may not be able to receive full credit for the time you spend at the firm.
Good luck, and please keep us posted on your decision.
I used to work for a structural engineering firm and only the people that had engineering degrees were allowed to design, but that's understandable. I was a CAD monkey. Sure I got to work on some interesting projects and even got to see, er, draw some cutting edge structural tech, but it was very diffivult to transfer to an actual architectural firm. Most of them didn't value my experience and said I was overpaid (which I really wasn't--so they must have been looking for a BAC slave).
You can get some IDP credits, but you're only allowed about 200hours (it's been a while since I checked the info out so the number may be a bit off)
I agree 100% w/ DCA above; You should go in and have an informational interview with them to find out who at the firm did the stuff you liked and whether you could work with them. He's right about the potential design opportunities, the engineers may give you a level of design input that would take a long time to achieve at a comporable architectural office full of people with aesthetic opinions.
I would definitely leave the option of working for an engineering office open, but only if you know what your goals are and they know them. I wouldn't go in there and be a CAD monkey. At least in smaller Arch firms, during the CAD stage you are dealing with the entire building and may have some input into the building. In an engineering firm, CAD serves a different purpose and they may have separate "CAD operators." I would research the IDP criteria and even if you can only get 235 training units, it might be a very valuable experience. If there was a registered architect that you will be working directly under, I would say definitely check it out. If there isn't, make sure the interview is just as much you figuring out what they're about as they are trying to find out about you.
architecture firm vs eng. firm
Hey, ok so. Was curious about some thing. Im looking at architecture firms and what not, to apply to and I come across an engineering firm that does some really cool buildings. I really kind of like what they were doing witch were just simple geometric ish buildings that look really modern. And I was going to call them and ask if they needed a entry level architect but after examining their web page I noticed that they didn't have any architects on board, at east none that were AIA members... soo should I try my luck or would you thing that that wouldn't need an entry level architect let alone an architect? im really curious as to how different things are over there?
Any thoughts, commets, experiences with architects in engineering firms?
does the engineering firm make robots? i like robots
i think they make some robots. robots that make coffee for you, robots that fly, even robots to make robots (cut scene to terminator 3).... but mainly buildings.
I see a number of advantages and disadvantages to working in the firm you described.
Think about your overall career objectives. Will working at this firm hinder your abilities to transfer to a traditional architecture firm later? Or, will you gain skills that are relevant to architecture and allow you to stand out from other candidates who have worked as architectural CAD monkeys for their entire careers?
Find out who makes the design decisions. Since you are trained as an architect, would you have more opportunities to be involved with the design at this engineering firm that you would at a traditional architecture firm? In large architectural firms, you may have to wait years until they will let your design anything.
Structural design experience may prove valuable to your career. Sure, you probably studied structures in school, but you will learn a lot more from putting that knowledge to work. For example, I briefly worked for a single family residential architect who drew and sized all of the structural framing plans for every project. I gained a lot of knowledge about how buildings work from these exercises.
The same goes for MEP systems - first-hand knowledge will make you a better architect. However, you should be careful not to get pigeon-holed into a role that you really are not interested in.
Finally, make sure to check IDP's requirements for work in a related field but NOT under the supervision of a registered architect. You may not be able to receive full credit for the time you spend at the firm.
Good luck, and please keep us posted on your decision.
I used to work for a structural engineering firm and only the people that had engineering degrees were allowed to design, but that's understandable. I was a CAD monkey. Sure I got to work on some interesting projects and even got to see, er, draw some cutting edge structural tech, but it was very diffivult to transfer to an actual architectural firm. Most of them didn't value my experience and said I was overpaid (which I really wasn't--so they must have been looking for a BAC slave).
You can get some IDP credits, but you're only allowed about 200hours (it's been a while since I checked the info out so the number may be a bit off)
I agree 100% w/ DCA above; You should go in and have an informational interview with them to find out who at the firm did the stuff you liked and whether you could work with them. He's right about the potential design opportunities, the engineers may give you a level of design input that would take a long time to achieve at a comporable architectural office full of people with aesthetic opinions.
I would definitely leave the option of working for an engineering office open, but only if you know what your goals are and they know them. I wouldn't go in there and be a CAD monkey. At least in smaller Arch firms, during the CAD stage you are dealing with the entire building and may have some input into the building. In an engineering firm, CAD serves a different purpose and they may have separate "CAD operators." I would research the IDP criteria and even if you can only get 235 training units, it might be a very valuable experience. If there was a registered architect that you will be working directly under, I would say definitely check it out. If there isn't, make sure the interview is just as much you figuring out what they're about as they are trying to find out about you.
Unless its Arup - and you're working with Cecil Balmond - you're better off working for an architect.
Engineers QUANTIFY things, they calculate, measure and define.
Architects QUALITATE things, they manipulate light, materials and space.
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.