someday we'll all work for justin. way to go kid. do it, the way you put it in perspective, sounds great.

'good design' is difficult to define...

I highly recommend it. If I knew what I know now back when I was choosing a master's program, I would have done the Columbia program (but ended up turning down C altogether for UCLA).

I am considering getting another degree in redev. The program I am looking at is only for pros in the biz (min 5 years experience), mostly online and the overall schedule is flexible. It ain't cheap, though.

So do it while you can, but also know there are options out there.

orhan's right...we'll all be working for you. and that's probably the biggest caveat to what you are proposing. in other words, if you add a degree like an mba or the msred that you're talking about then there's a strong chance that you'll find being an architect as the least attractive career option. and at that point you're only a hair away from following the golden path over to goldman sachs & all those 7 figure holiday bonuses. not that that's a bad thing...but there's lots of people who started out by wanting to be architects.

if your priority is becoming an architect...then you might do just as well by supplementing your arch education with only a handful of business classes (rather than investment the money & years in a full degree). you'll gain a better understanding of the process and you'll meet plenty of enterprising business people interested in working with you.

lastly, sashimi64, if i'm not mistaken you are still in your first year or two of undergrad, correct? although it's good to be thinking of these things when you're young. be careful not to get too far ahead of yourself. most of the people in mba or business grad programs have worked a few years and are closer to 30 years old. i'd strongly recommend getting a few years of professional experience before attempting the graduate degree. you'll have much more credibility with your grad school peers this way. if you must stay on the over-achiever track, then make it a goal to finish idp & become a licensed architect in your twenties...and then hit the real estate dev grad program ready to roll.

puddles-You're right. I think getting licensed before I attain a MSRED is the way to go, so I don't get distracted because my goal is to become an architect. And while it is nice to work for goldman sachs, I think on the long run, I will opt for what I enjoy doing most. Although becoming an architect is not easy, it is somethign I have a passion for. I see the RSDEV not as a deviation from my goals, but hopefully something that will allow me to have greater control in projects in the future, not to mention the connections that I could gain by attaining a MSRED. My other option is to go for the M.arch 2, which is also likely because I love to teach, but again, I have a lot of time to worry about this.


And lastly, does anyone know of any good design-oriented development firms out there? Are there any dev projects that are geared towards the homeless and poor? Or does RSDEV always have to focus on the rich?


thanks for the advice guys! greatly appreciated

i see no reason to get an architecture license, let alone a degree if this is the way you want to go. the developer basically tells the architect what they want based on what the developers' tenants want. ie more visibility, parking close to the store, bright colors etc...i recommend you develop your sense of style and your ability to mix in some off the cuff architectural observations. and read your boma.

ughhhhhh boma... you had to bring that up.

i agree though. work a bit in architecture and then see if you want to make the bridge/jump. hard to play for both teams at the same time. try working FOR a developer after you graduate even. that might be interesting... or not.

you might be less likely to find a designer/developer because there's an inherent conflict of interest. you might be better off looking for someone that does design/build very well.

ants hit it... conflict of interest... you work in a larger development firm, you will find that perhaps you are one of the VERY few who have assigned design such a value...

perhaps you'll find out in your first business class, cash is king, all those ideas, thoughts, time and effort you put into your design are not comparable and thus seen as irrevellevent and not worthwhile to the business man. so how do you learn anything when all the programs want to teach to ignore what you want to know...

there's a historical divide in the theory/goal of each practice...
it's like a CO2 tax...can we ever compare our apples to their oranges?


maybe you could take a look at a firm similar to OPTIMA...big developers with a bit of a design conscience, specially there houses out in arizona... wouldn't it be ridiculously awesome to have the capital to just build a mutli-million dollar house in arizona without a client and then turn around a sell it!

the conflict of interest seem to lie in whose money to take...if the architect and the developer can agree on a target market (neo-modernists, urban yuppie loft-loving dwellers, french countryside folks, etc), then on paper, the relationship could be better than the stereotype...(simplistic, i know)

just to touch upon the unending task of trying to define 'good design'...i think that's why sustainability is becoming marketable and more widespread and are catching the interests of designers, it seems the easiest to translate in to what we call good...it's a great slogan...who wants to disagree with doing good for the earth? ;)...

the real estate/design/build route that acfa suggested is also killer...this is what my boss is currently doing...he's always searching the listings for houses to buy, remodel and then sell...

so the degree in real estate development is great on top of your b.arch...add a general contracting license to that...then a degree in marketing/advertising...fuck i'm scared of you...just don't build crap buildings...

work for a developer. write exciting emails like this one:

I was not pleased with Tom's report today that you've determined that the overflow drains are installed/functioning properly. It's obvious per a simple field inspection that even the slightest of surface water is flowing underneath the retaining dam-rings of the overflow drains. I even showed this to Tom on the roof over two weeks ago. That's not how it's supposed to function. With the exception of snow or rain directly above, we cannot have the overflow conductors collecting and distributing anything but excessive collections of ponding and snowmelt.

Typical levels of surface water runoff are to flow into the city storm system, through the primary conductors only, and not through the overflows and onto our sidewalks.

As a separate and compounding problem, it may also be that some of the primary roof drains are not installed at the proper elevations with relation to the overflow drains. But you'll have to investigate and inspect.

Please have this addressed immediately during this mild weather.

office i work at... maily work for mall development companies.
one manager from a development company, used to work at the office i am working at. he has architectural license.

i heard.. most of managers at that particular development company, have either architectural license, or realtor license...

anyway, why is it "master of science in Real Estate Development"?
real estate development has nothing to do with science???
shouldn't it be "Master of Business in Real Estate Development"?

just wondering

thoughts on masters real estate programs in general:

-they are very finance intensive, there is not a lot of practical "building" related material involved
-since they are finance intensive they tend to attract those that need an impressive degree on their resume to land the big job at the investment bank or private equity firm
-again with the finance: many graduates know how to proforma a deal to death but are not prepared to manage cost and schedule during construction, this can only be learned through experience
-although there is a hint of entrepreneurialism(sp?) in the cirriculum most of the people you're sitting with will end up working for someone else for the rest of their career, most likely a large national development company which still function much like a good ole boys club
-if you want to do your own design/build/development thing it's probably best to get some basic finance education through extended university or something similar; when trying to get construction financing (which is really the value added by developers) the experience of the project team is more important than the number of degrees the borrowers have on their resumes
-if you're looking to see what developers are learning it's probably cheaper, faster and more efficient to learn on your own through the extension program of your local college or by checking out the Urban Land Institute which really is a great organization and fantastic resource

I'm basing this off my previous work experience in construction financing and my knowledge of the USC MRED program but I would assume that it applies to MIT and NYU's programs as well as the others out there.

I would second tlmII idea of looking into ULI. I cannot think of one developer I have worked with who has gone through a master in real estate development program? I do know quite a few with varied backgrounds - architects, english majors, computer science, lawyers, realtors . . . My impression to being a successful developer is similar to being a successful architect - network.

for a developer your network consists of funding sources (municipalities, equity investors and/or banks (access to debt) that are willing to fund your projects) and political connections.

wow great advice, thanks a lot everyone.

i have a lot of time to worry about this later. It was just interesting to think about what I could put my B.arch to use later on in life.

While I'm interested in the MSRED, it doesn't mean I'm not interested in becoming an architect anymore. I think it'll be interesting to do both. I love architecture too much to not pursue the B.arch so I'll stick with that for now.

there just seems to be so much irresponsible development today that perhaps something could be done to mitigate its effects.

while there seems to be a conflict of interest between the developer and architect, it also seems like if one were to understand how developers think with also knowledge in the power of design, one can better convince people why good design can be economically efficient and perhaps even cheaper than simply building retail boxes. Just as dammson suggested, "good design" such as sustainability is cheaper and a positive externality to society. While building concrete boxes for walmart is cheap, in the long run, more expensive to operate and its costs to society are high. I think development has the potential to show the value of "good" design to people concerned only with making money because "good design" can be cheap. I'm sure there are dev firms out there that at least take this point of view, but it is probably rare, since most developers aren't trained from a design point of view. correct me if i'm wrong..these are simply assumptions

and like postal said, with a knowledge in resdev, maybe it is easier to then know how to gain capital and money for architects to develop projects that they normally wouldn't have the money for. there always seems to be a struggle in the budget.

wow optima has a firm in arizona. since I live in arizona,I could see if I could work for them during the summer..see what it's like..

thanks a lot!

you need to read about discounted cash flow...