I graduated with my B.Arch. just last May (2006). I have been working in a medium sized firm, with great benifits, and nice people, but we aren't creating "Architecture." Nothing I work on, or help to design has any place or purpose. We put fake windows on our buildings and don't hesitate to build a "Mission Revival" or "French" style building in Chicago or any other place that it wouldn't belong. I was even told today, after questioning my boss about a specific design decision, that the goal of the project I am currently working on is to have complete documents by the end of January, and what it looks like doesn't matter.
I know that I work for a "Client Oriented" firm, but I was taught to DESIGN. I was taught to find the best possible solution to a design problem, and that designs should have place and purpose. I personally like to focus on the experience of the architecture and tend to design by imagined moments.
Am I just experiences the differences between school and life? Is there something I can do? I'm suffocating from the soulessness.
If you feel this strongly about it, go find a design firm and tell them EXACTLY THIS. They will appreciate your passion for the importance of design. Architecture does NOT need to be like this... find a few firms that you do admire and apply.
I cannot emphasise enough how much this experience - if prolonged - will impede your design abilities. Find a job that suits you better - do not compromise.
get out while you still have the conscious.. or in this case a soul. if not you will begin to become them, and you won't realize it. imagine it like a zombie movie. shit, wait.. they all die at the end anyways, don't they?
Maybe. don't quit ouright, anyway - competitions (no matter what Rem says) are a way for design-oriented clients to find design oriented architects - I work in a nice, quite progressive, and in some ways demanding firm - not much independent designing, though. or chance to really be creative about anything much - I like the place, the "job" and the people, but do all the competitions I can on my own, look for chances for getting clients and hopefully eventually start my own firm.
Sometimes a job is just a job - can't be for the rest of your life if you have any ambition, but the experience straight out of school might be such a rude awakening (considering "Architecture" whatever that is)that don't jump to any conclusions just yet. Good benefits and nice people are pretty important too.
unless you're very lucky, you will have 'real world' experiences that fly in the face of what you were conditioned to expect in school. no question. it's not pretty, but it's fact.
HOWEVER
this person: I was even told today, after questioning my boss about a specific design decision, that the goal of the project I am currently working on is to have complete documents by the end of January, and what it looks like doesn't matter.
...is either a complete hack or just couldn't be bothered to take the time to ask your question. probably both. this was not an answer you want to get from anyone through whom you want to learn about the profession of architecture. reminds me of the mantra of one of my first bosses: 'don't think. draw.'
this is not being client/service oriented at all, despite what they may be feeding you. this is a betrayal of his ethical responsibility to not only his client but to you - his responsibility, if he's taken on a mentoring role - and to the public at large. the general public has to live with the dreck that he is going to put out in the world long after the developer has depreciated it and moved on.
start looking around for a real architect. not a design star, mind you, just someone who cares.
Exactly. You don't need to find a star, just a firm that cares.
My second major job out of college was for a firm that did tenant fit out spaces for fun cafes, restaurants and retail. It was fun design work, though definitely not meant for the ages, as all these places would remodel in ten years. But it was fun to try to encapsulate what the client's mission was into a build-out.
My last job was doing institutional work, for churches, private schools, small museums. This was by no means cutting edge work but was quality - I never felt at that firm that we weren't "fighting the good fight" in trying to deliver a good design that served the client's needs and the community's setting.
My point is to emphasize what Steven said: It doesn't have to be a star. Perhaps look to your local AIA - firms who have won local AIA awards recently probably do decent work, firms who are respected in your local architectural community, (you could ask your current coworkers about his, but tread carefully if you don't want them to know you are looking for another job), firms that work with local institutions like private schools, or perhaps that specialize in medical facilities (which these days are looking more and more like spas).
As has been said: get out of here if you can. You know in your heart this is not the way it should be, and you can only help yourself by looking for somewhere that isn't making you spiritually ill every day. Good luck.
Its all subjective. The general public likes fake mediterranean and fake victorians. It sucks, but that's the reality. Your firm is providing a service to these types of clients.
I'd leave today. Architecture can be enough of a burden working at a firm that provides half decent work, if you care, and obviously you do, you'll just get more frustrated and jaded.
Save your sanity. As LB and SW note, there are tons of solid design firms out there that aren't 'famous' but do good work and care.
On a side note - I would think it would be pretty easy to determine what type of work a company does by their portfolio, yes? So I question why you went to work for them in the first place if you knew what type of work they did?
I've no experience in the U.S, but I definitely feel for you. Recently, a series of articles were published in my country about the decline of architecture - - even the impeding death of architecture back there. It's sad really, there is an an exodus of architects/architecture graduates back home: Most of them, trying to search for better opportunities, be it in terms of salary or exposure.
The first few years off college are indeed disheartening, I would suggest, just like the others that you "get out" while you still have the passion and the drive. Get out before you succumb to the so-called realities of architecture and become one of them. You're very lucky you're in the U.S and given the volume of projects and the number of architects, you are bound to find one who remains true to the spirit and ideals of architecture and design.
look, this is only your first job. my first job out of school i was making ten bucks an hour drawing video store prototypes. your first job, like your first car, is supposed to suck. it will a couple of years of experience and learning to build real buildings before you can move up to the next level. build a strong portfolio of construction documents, and keep up on your reading in your own time. take roadtrips and go see great buildings. enter into a competition or build some furniture. and seek out good artists and designers in your area and get to know them. when the time is right, when your experience is sufficient and you become more independant and confident in your professional work, then make the switch. don't burn any bridges, you are laying the foundations for your network, and it is this more than anything that will take you to the place where you want to be.
architecture is a wide field - there are jobs and Jobs as there is architecture and Architecture, and these things can coexist - make the best of your situation now and move on when you feel there is nothing keeping you anymore (or nothing to learn) - don't rush to some boutique-firm doing "challenging" architecture just for the sake of it. And working in an "average firm" usually does not sifle the feeble creative flower we all have in our soul - if it does, it was on its way out anyway. so don't worry.
I am in the same position as you, Sarah. I just graduated with my B.Arch in May and started full-time this summer after interning a few months before. After graduating, I wanted to move on to greater things, but a relationship limited my possibilities. Now, after a few months of full-time work I feel trapped. Our firm, like yours, is highly client-oriented. I have a great passion for architecture and feel that there is more out there for me. I sometimes get angry that I cannot design with artistic ambition. And some times I feel bipolar because the learning experience is great here. And then there are the times where I dream that I can influence the firm, educating my colleagues about the poetry of forms and spaces and bring them from drab to rad. You and me and likely everyone else in this discussion have a passion to make change within the built environment. I guess you don’t have to work for a starchitect to create beautiful things. Educate your bosses; educate your colleagues; educate your community; and use YOUR creativity to give places purpose whether it be at the firm in Chicago, for some egotistic starchitect, or for your own practice. Good luck!
sounds fascist to me, that whole education of the masses thing.
ain't gonna happen and really should not happen, at least not for art. got tonnes of same message in school and it sounds alright on the face of it, but really is about changing the world to suit your image, ennit...good way to get a god complex, i think.
i think you gots to educate where warranted, and that does not include yelling at people for going to wal-mart, or for thinking victorian is a style. nick kristoff seems to know when it is time to educate...give hima bit of a read, maybe if you gots it in you...
steven has it right. yo boss is a bit of a wanker. move on.
If I were you I would get my basic skills mastered as an intern and make myself useful, ie. employable and irrestably marketable - because even if you were to look for a different job the first thing they will look at from recent grads is whether they can use CAD and make themselves profitable BEFORE considering other attributes such as design skills, longterm goals, etc. Because whether you work for a starchitect/mcarchitect/boutique or any non-client-oriented firms, you'll probably be learning the same thing for the first couple of years. But by all means, keep your head above the water, continue to educate yourself and find that special firm that wont make you cry out for help!
well playing devil's advocate, another important thing to consider is that in a lot of offices there are some projects that everyone puts their soul into, there are some projects that are just for making cash, and then there are some that have been dragging on forever and the boss just wants to get done with it ASAP.
that said, maybe its for you to observe what their attitude is with other projects too - if all the projects are like this, then maybe its time to run. But of course, dont burn bridges - the market might get really slow tomorrow and one might be looking for part-time work.
There's an uncomfortable undercurrent in this thread - a firm that is "Client Oriented" need not be lumped automatically into the realm of design hacks. Many of the "issues" we face as a profession arise from the tendency of too many in our profession to ignore the client's legitimate needs and wants.
i think i was the first to use the word hack and i didn't say client-oriented = hack. i said (or was trying to say) that this guy's a hack and that any claims that what he's selling is client-oriented seems like b.s. to me.
this:
the goal of the project I am currently working on is to have complete documents by the end of January,
- sounds like project-management gone astray, not architecture and not serving the client.
and i'll bang my drum again: our stakeholders include more than the clients with whom we interact directly. even if you want to think of us solely as a service profession, it is our professional and ethical responsibility to serve clients, users, the general public, etc. if this guy has taken on an intern, he has also agreed to serve as a mentor.
...and, maybe a stretch, we can count ourselves among the stakeholders as well...
First, Thank you all for responding. It is really nice to get some advice from people in the field without having to worry about playing politics at the same time.
Second, I took the job because I had had a two summer internship that wasn't that bad, the environment is nice, aside from the actual work, and at the time, work was hard to find in Dallas.
he means he thinks you are one of those architectural heathens who thinks modernism has value, and all or some of your problems may stem from an unwillingness to see that you have been blinded by your education.
or at least that is how it reads to me. in which case am inclined to disagree. is a different kettle of fish altogether.
Im not sure if this was mentioned SarahHamilton, but there is a clear and precise manner in which you could find an environment that suits you to your ideals and needs in this profession. That I believe is attitude and also understanding of what you are seeking. In other words, know yourself and what it is you can live with and without. Then seek (as has been said) the firm that will give you those things. Be realistic, but also allow yourself to express what it is you are seeking in your work. Whether it is to learn (be mentored) or just simply work on a design team that allows you to express and use all those skills you acquired at school, whilst learning what it takes to get a design through to construction. I may be reiterating what has already been said....
however, the one thing I think most of us know, but never verbalize is that.....that we need to know who we are and what WE want from the experience (each condition is unique).
i am reminded of the plight of ann boleyn, who was charged with high treason after being unable to produce a male heir to henry VIII. after being found guilty by the king's synchophant prosecuters, she was unwilling to admit any guilt regarding sorcery, adultery or plotting the king's death. she also refused to grant henry a divorce which would have had the consequence of illegitimizing her daughter elizabeth.(yes queen elizabeth) in the end she had the last laugh by confessing her sins, non of which included the sins that she had been found guilty of, to the archbishop who had been her family's priest and had a hand in doing her in. the archbishop then had to carry the knowledge of her innocence and his and his accomplices guilt to his grave. she was beheaded by the way.
While the state of design in our profession is a sad reality in many ways, it also brings to light an issue I have with college education. They teach everyone to be a "designer," which you refer to. Design is maybe 10% of a project. I feel for your concerns about what your employer is churning out, but also suggest you realize the reality of the profession, regardless of architectural quality.
That said, from my experience the problem isn't architects so much, but moreso the developers and city P&Z departments that demand such idiocy. The absolute worst is presenting a design to a city for review and before they even look at it start talking about what was built in the next town over and how that's what they want. I loathe going before planning review boards.
I'll even cut your boss some slack about the "get CD's done by the end of January" comment. Depending on the schedule and model permit date, many projects get hammered out just for permit and construction start and then "designed" by addendum. Have been forced into that situation by clients on everything from a public school to a retail center. We have a instant gratification culture that doesn't have time for design sometimes.
if "client-oriented" means getting out the documents by the end of january, no matter what the building looks like...then yes, we're talking hack here.
it's a great experience you're having -- you're learning what not to do.
keep your head up, start searching NOW for a new job, and quit right after your 1-year anniversary because it's better for your resume
I'm a she, actually, and I meant that when I was in a similar position I was startled when I thought about it. I did some reading, and thought about why those things were so important. Why no blind windows? I mean, really... why are they so bad? I am not saying they are good, I just found it useful to think about how quickly I had learned to be deeply offended by something, because of a particular movement that, as much as you might think it has merit, is really another style.
Or if it isn't just another style, if _space_ is really that important, for example, or spatial transparency or tell-the-tale details or whatever, could it ever make peace with ornament?
Could it ever make peace with what people who haven't been trained as we have want?
Why no ornament? Why no faux styles? What really would be less faux? How much of this is about honesty, and how well does that really relate to a hotel or whatever? Is "good" design really any more "honest"? Reitveld's Shroeder house was after all masonry blocks covered with stucco to look solid. Is that bad? I am not against modernism per se, just the knee-jerk kow tow that some of us have been taught. It's worth examining the roots of one's aesthetic values, especially as they slide into morality and make your working life tough.
Whether or not the designs have a place or a purpose might have something to do with what you think the place and purpose ought to be. And pondering that question kept me distracted while I tried to get out of a similar position. It's hard to find another job, after all. You'll need something to occupy yourself so you don't go nuts until that happens.
And responding to jump,
"sounds fascist to me, that whole education of the masses thing. "
not sure about fascim, but it seemed worth another pass through the brain before you go off to tell the majority of the world that what they think is pretty, is in fact crap.
I agree with Kablakistan's last post. At least it evinces someone asking questions and decent questions too. However, it presupposes a sincere interest in aesthetic issues that seems to be lacking in Sarah Hamilton's workplace, which strikes me as cynical / despairing. I've worked in environments like that and soulless is just it: the almost complete divorcing of profit-motivation from other human aspirations. In that sort of environment, I'd say that things get better with time; once one's working at a level in which you, as an employee, start to get some control over the overall process. To understand all is to forgive all, sort of thing. And you don't need to stop thinking or loose your perspective just because your working environment isn't conducive. But it's a war of attrition nonetheless and to be avoided if at all possible. I remember my first few weeks at my current office: finding it so refreshing to be able to actually discuss architecture with my peers again in a sincere manner. Wow! What a difference! These people still care!
The problem with blind windows is that they don't have a funtion. They are soley ornament and nothing else. Windows are created to allow in light and/or to see through; they are portals. We are architects and problem solvers. Why not design the window to function as it was intended, or design it out. If you can do neither, then why not use a more traditional peice of ornament, something that was vreated for the purpose of ornament be it brick work or such. Using "blind" windows shows an inability to design and solve problems.
Styles I see no problem with, because, as was said, in fact everything is a style of some sort, whether it has been named by historians or not. But if you are going to use a spicific style, then stay true to the style. Don't put arches in a greek revival building.
Ornament is fine as long as it is part of a style. Corynthian columns would cease to be Corynthian without they're ornament. But when you are using ornament as a way to avoid designing your way out of a problem, then thats just taking the easy way out.
As for place, I am a bit of a regionalist. It has nothing to do with style really. As far as I am concerned, any style can be adapted to its environment through materials, ect. If you tweak the style, while staying true to the style, you can mamke it work almost anywear, unless that style is specific to a place. Adobe homes were created for a desert environment, and don't work so well in a wet and cold climate; niether does a steeped pitch roof belong in the desert. You will end up with a very high electric bill every month trying to cool your building because the roof will actually absorb MORE sun than the flat roof with the high parapets.
Purpose and hon esty in design go hand in hand. Using brick on the Schroeder House is fine because stucco and brick are both similar in material. Using concrete would also have been ok, but to build it with something like steel, and then stucco it would have been false. In a perfect world, we would have and endless supply of materials and money, and could always use the exact material we want. But we can't. So I believe you should at least use a material that acts in a similar fashion and has similar properties. Don't pretend that brick can work in tension, ect.
And, as for Fascism.
Mussolini had no interest in architecture what so ever. No matter how hard Terragni and the boys tried, he would not choose a "National Architecture" to symbolize the movement. And after the fall of Fascism, their Architectural style was flipped to be the antithesis of "Fascist" architecture.
oh, we don't need to speak about musolini to talk about fascism.
perhaps fascism is not the word, in any case. what worries me is this idea that architects are superior to everyone else, and that the world would really be much better if only we could have our way. it is a common theme in architecture theory and history, that one, from way way way back (see gelernter's "sources of architectural form" to see how far back). and it doesn't work, not really. more worrying, the mental leap from education to coercion is not so far, and the latter in fact is the desire of so many architects (hence books like the "edifice complex" by sudjic are so easily possible to write)...
what really bugs me is that the education in question is often about aesthetics, not important stuff, like lack of housing for the poor in miami, or the genocide in darfur. drives me nuts that we are so shallow...
that a brick is good in tension is pretty hard to pretend, but i like the idea of it. the rest, well, it don't bother me so much if a piece of glass covers an aperture or not. i am much more interested in how people use buildings than what they look like. and there is an enormous amount of great architecture that earns its spurs simply by breaking the rules. everything by michelangelo just to start with...
as an aside, mussolini built an enormous amount of infrastructure and architecture, as a purposeful extension of his political ambitions. his personal architect was one marcello piacentini. and with terragni and pagano, and others, italy was permanently transformed, for better or for worse. but in any case, mussolini was undeniably very interested in architecture.
Is the REAL WORLD really this souless?
I graduated with my B.Arch. just last May (2006). I have been working in a medium sized firm, with great benifits, and nice people, but we aren't creating "Architecture." Nothing I work on, or help to design has any place or purpose. We put fake windows on our buildings and don't hesitate to build a "Mission Revival" or "French" style building in Chicago or any other place that it wouldn't belong. I was even told today, after questioning my boss about a specific design decision, that the goal of the project I am currently working on is to have complete documents by the end of January, and what it looks like doesn't matter.
I know that I work for a "Client Oriented" firm, but I was taught to DESIGN. I was taught to find the best possible solution to a design problem, and that designs should have place and purpose. I personally like to focus on the experience of the architecture and tend to design by imagined moments.
Am I just experiences the differences between school and life? Is there something I can do? I'm suffocating from the soulessness.
If you feel this strongly about it, go find a design firm and tell them EXACTLY THIS. They will appreciate your passion for the importance of design. Architecture does NOT need to be like this... find a few firms that you do admire and apply.
I cannot emphasise enough how much this experience - if prolonged - will impede your design abilities. Find a job that suits you better - do not compromise.
switch jobs.
yup.
get out while you still have the conscious.. or in this case a soul. if not you will begin to become them, and you won't realize it. imagine it like a zombie movie. shit, wait.. they all die at the end anyways, don't they?
dude, what a shitty place to work. go somewhere else.
The world needs you not to buckle under the pressure to just tell yourself 'oh well, I guess this is the real world'.
Find a new place to work.
Maybe. don't quit ouright, anyway - competitions (no matter what Rem says) are a way for design-oriented clients to find design oriented architects - I work in a nice, quite progressive, and in some ways demanding firm - not much independent designing, though. or chance to really be creative about anything much - I like the place, the "job" and the people, but do all the competitions I can on my own, look for chances for getting clients and hopefully eventually start my own firm.
Sometimes a job is just a job - can't be for the rest of your life if you have any ambition, but the experience straight out of school might be such a rude awakening (considering "Architecture" whatever that is)that don't jump to any conclusions just yet. Good benefits and nice people are pretty important too.
words of wisdom (or cynicism) from a design tutour:
'this IS the real world, out there its all fake'
this may or may not be true, depends on your expectations.
competitions on the side can only last you for so long, find a new job before you start to compromise your principals.
unless you're very lucky, you will have 'real world' experiences that fly in the face of what you were conditioned to expect in school. no question. it's not pretty, but it's fact.
HOWEVER
this person:
I was even told today, after questioning my boss about a specific design decision, that the goal of the project I am currently working on is to have complete documents by the end of January, and what it looks like doesn't matter.
...is either a complete hack or just couldn't be bothered to take the time to ask your question. probably both. this was not an answer you want to get from anyone through whom you want to learn about the profession of architecture. reminds me of the mantra of one of my first bosses: 'don't think. draw.'
this is not being client/service oriented at all, despite what they may be feeding you. this is a betrayal of his ethical responsibility to not only his client but to you - his responsibility, if he's taken on a mentoring role - and to the public at large. the general public has to live with the dreck that he is going to put out in the world long after the developer has depreciated it and moved on.
start looking around for a real architect. not a design star, mind you, just someone who cares.
Exactly. You don't need to find a star, just a firm that cares.
My second major job out of college was for a firm that did tenant fit out spaces for fun cafes, restaurants and retail. It was fun design work, though definitely not meant for the ages, as all these places would remodel in ten years. But it was fun to try to encapsulate what the client's mission was into a build-out.
My last job was doing institutional work, for churches, private schools, small museums. This was by no means cutting edge work but was quality - I never felt at that firm that we weren't "fighting the good fight" in trying to deliver a good design that served the client's needs and the community's setting.
My point is to emphasize what Steven said: It doesn't have to be a star. Perhaps look to your local AIA - firms who have won local AIA awards recently probably do decent work, firms who are respected in your local architectural community, (you could ask your current coworkers about his, but tread carefully if you don't want them to know you are looking for another job), firms that work with local institutions like private schools, or perhaps that specialize in medical facilities (which these days are looking more and more like spas).
As has been said: get out of here if you can. You know in your heart this is not the way it should be, and you can only help yourself by looking for somewhere that isn't making you spiritually ill every day. Good luck.
Its all subjective. The general public likes fake mediterranean and fake victorians. It sucks, but that's the reality. Your firm is providing a service to these types of clients.
I'd leave today. Architecture can be enough of a burden working at a firm that provides half decent work, if you care, and obviously you do, you'll just get more frustrated and jaded.
Save your sanity. As LB and SW note, there are tons of solid design firms out there that aren't 'famous' but do good work and care.
On a side note - I would think it would be pretty easy to determine what type of work a company does by their portfolio, yes? So I question why you went to work for them in the first place if you knew what type of work they did?
I've no experience in the U.S, but I definitely feel for you. Recently, a series of articles were published in my country about the decline of architecture - - even the impeding death of architecture back there. It's sad really, there is an an exodus of architects/architecture graduates back home: Most of them, trying to search for better opportunities, be it in terms of salary or exposure.
The first few years off college are indeed disheartening, I would suggest, just like the others that you "get out" while you still have the passion and the drive. Get out before you succumb to the so-called realities of architecture and become one of them. You're very lucky you're in the U.S and given the volume of projects and the number of architects, you are bound to find one who remains true to the spirit and ideals of architecture and design.
look, this is only your first job. my first job out of school i was making ten bucks an hour drawing video store prototypes. your first job, like your first car, is supposed to suck. it will a couple of years of experience and learning to build real buildings before you can move up to the next level. build a strong portfolio of construction documents, and keep up on your reading in your own time. take roadtrips and go see great buildings. enter into a competition or build some furniture. and seek out good artists and designers in your area and get to know them. when the time is right, when your experience is sufficient and you become more independant and confident in your professional work, then make the switch. don't burn any bridges, you are laying the foundations for your network, and it is this more than anything that will take you to the place where you want to be.
I totally second that.
architecture is a wide field - there are jobs and Jobs as there is architecture and Architecture, and these things can coexist - make the best of your situation now and move on when you feel there is nothing keeping you anymore (or nothing to learn) - don't rush to some boutique-firm doing "challenging" architecture just for the sake of it. And working in an "average firm" usually does not sifle the feeble creative flower we all have in our soul - if it does, it was on its way out anyway. so don't worry.
I am in the same position as you, Sarah. I just graduated with my B.Arch in May and started full-time this summer after interning a few months before. After graduating, I wanted to move on to greater things, but a relationship limited my possibilities. Now, after a few months of full-time work I feel trapped. Our firm, like yours, is highly client-oriented. I have a great passion for architecture and feel that there is more out there for me. I sometimes get angry that I cannot design with artistic ambition. And some times I feel bipolar because the learning experience is great here. And then there are the times where I dream that I can influence the firm, educating my colleagues about the poetry of forms and spaces and bring them from drab to rad. You and me and likely everyone else in this discussion have a passion to make change within the built environment. I guess you don’t have to work for a starchitect to create beautiful things. Educate your bosses; educate your colleagues; educate your community; and use YOUR creativity to give places purpose whether it be at the firm in Chicago, for some egotistic starchitect, or for your own practice. Good luck!
sounds fascist to me, that whole education of the masses thing.
ain't gonna happen and really should not happen, at least not for art. got tonnes of same message in school and it sounds alright on the face of it, but really is about changing the world to suit your image, ennit...good way to get a god complex, i think.
i think you gots to educate where warranted, and that does not include yelling at people for going to wal-mart, or for thinking victorian is a style. nick kristoff seems to know when it is time to educate...give hima bit of a read, maybe if you gots it in you...
steven has it right. yo boss is a bit of a wanker. move on.
If I were you I would get my basic skills mastered as an intern and make myself useful, ie. employable and irrestably marketable - because even if you were to look for a different job the first thing they will look at from recent grads is whether they can use CAD and make themselves profitable BEFORE considering other attributes such as design skills, longterm goals, etc. Because whether you work for a starchitect/mcarchitect/boutique or any non-client-oriented firms, you'll probably be learning the same thing for the first couple of years. But by all means, keep your head above the water, continue to educate yourself and find that special firm that wont make you cry out for help!
if all goes well i'll be receiving my b.arch this year. if this is what i'm in for, i'll pass...
you should really change jobs
well playing devil's advocate, another important thing to consider is that in a lot of offices there are some projects that everyone puts their soul into, there are some projects that are just for making cash, and then there are some that have been dragging on forever and the boss just wants to get done with it ASAP.
that said, maybe its for you to observe what their attitude is with other projects too - if all the projects are like this, then maybe its time to run. But of course, dont burn bridges - the market might get really slow tomorrow and one might be looking for part-time work.
and yes, its really important to have that 'first shitty job' straight outta school, to drop one down into the reality pit.
There's an uncomfortable undercurrent in this thread - a firm that is "Client Oriented" need not be lumped automatically into the realm of design hacks. Many of the "issues" we face as a profession arise from the tendency of too many in our profession to ignore the client's legitimate needs and wants.
Now, having said that ... dude, move on!
i think i was the first to use the word hack and i didn't say client-oriented = hack. i said (or was trying to say) that this guy's a hack and that any claims that what he's selling is client-oriented seems like b.s. to me.
this:
the goal of the project I am currently working on is to have complete documents by the end of January,
- sounds like project-management gone astray, not architecture and not serving the client.
and i'll bang my drum again: our stakeholders include more than the clients with whom we interact directly. even if you want to think of us solely as a service profession, it is our professional and ethical responsibility to serve clients, users, the general public, etc. if this guy has taken on an intern, he has also agreed to serve as a mentor.
...and, maybe a stretch, we can count ourselves among the stakeholders as well...
Perhaps it might help to think about how many of your grievances are related to violations of commandments from the Modern Movement?
First, Thank you all for responding. It is really nice to get some advice from people in the field without having to worry about playing politics at the same time.
Second, I took the job because I had had a two summer internship that wasn't that bad, the environment is nice, aside from the actual work, and at the time, work was hard to find in Dallas.
Third, Kablakistan, what do you mean?
he means he thinks you are one of those architectural heathens who thinks modernism has value, and all or some of your problems may stem from an unwillingness to see that you have been blinded by your education.
or at least that is how it reads to me. in which case am inclined to disagree. is a different kettle of fish altogether.
Im not sure if this was mentioned SarahHamilton, but there is a clear and precise manner in which you could find an environment that suits you to your ideals and needs in this profession. That I believe is attitude and also understanding of what you are seeking. In other words, know yourself and what it is you can live with and without. Then seek (as has been said) the firm that will give you those things. Be realistic, but also allow yourself to express what it is you are seeking in your work. Whether it is to learn (be mentored) or just simply work on a design team that allows you to express and use all those skills you acquired at school, whilst learning what it takes to get a design through to construction. I may be reiterating what has already been said....
however, the one thing I think most of us know, but never verbalize is that.....that we need to know who we are and what WE want from the experience (each condition is unique).
my $.02 cents
i am reminded of the plight of ann boleyn, who was charged with high treason after being unable to produce a male heir to henry VIII. after being found guilty by the king's synchophant prosecuters, she was unwilling to admit any guilt regarding sorcery, adultery or plotting the king's death. she also refused to grant henry a divorce which would have had the consequence of illegitimizing her daughter elizabeth.(yes queen elizabeth) in the end she had the last laugh by confessing her sins, non of which included the sins that she had been found guilty of, to the archbishop who had been her family's priest and had a hand in doing her in. the archbishop then had to carry the knowledge of her innocence and his and his accomplices guilt to his grave. she was beheaded by the way.
ask Trichelle
While the state of design in our profession is a sad reality in many ways, it also brings to light an issue I have with college education. They teach everyone to be a "designer," which you refer to. Design is maybe 10% of a project. I feel for your concerns about what your employer is churning out, but also suggest you realize the reality of the profession, regardless of architectural quality.
That said, from my experience the problem isn't architects so much, but moreso the developers and city P&Z departments that demand such idiocy. The absolute worst is presenting a design to a city for review and before they even look at it start talking about what was built in the next town over and how that's what they want. I loathe going before planning review boards.
I'll even cut your boss some slack about the "get CD's done by the end of January" comment. Depending on the schedule and model permit date, many projects get hammered out just for permit and construction start and then "designed" by addendum. Have been forced into that situation by clients on everything from a public school to a retail center. We have a instant gratification culture that doesn't have time for design sometimes.
oh yeah mdler....nice!
This thread needs Vindpust
if "client-oriented" means getting out the documents by the end of january, no matter what the building looks like...then yes, we're talking hack here.
it's a great experience you're having -- you're learning what not to do.
keep your head up, start searching NOW for a new job, and quit right after your 1-year anniversary because it's better for your resume
I'm a she, actually, and I meant that when I was in a similar position I was startled when I thought about it. I did some reading, and thought about why those things were so important. Why no blind windows? I mean, really... why are they so bad? I am not saying they are good, I just found it useful to think about how quickly I had learned to be deeply offended by something, because of a particular movement that, as much as you might think it has merit, is really another style.
Or if it isn't just another style, if _space_ is really that important, for example, or spatial transparency or tell-the-tale details or whatever, could it ever make peace with ornament?
Could it ever make peace with what people who haven't been trained as we have want?
Why no ornament? Why no faux styles? What really would be less faux? How much of this is about honesty, and how well does that really relate to a hotel or whatever? Is "good" design really any more "honest"? Reitveld's Shroeder house was after all masonry blocks covered with stucco to look solid. Is that bad? I am not against modernism per se, just the knee-jerk kow tow that some of us have been taught. It's worth examining the roots of one's aesthetic values, especially as they slide into morality and make your working life tough.
Whether or not the designs have a place or a purpose might have something to do with what you think the place and purpose ought to be. And pondering that question kept me distracted while I tried to get out of a similar position. It's hard to find another job, after all. You'll need something to occupy yourself so you don't go nuts until that happens.
And responding to jump,
"sounds fascist to me, that whole education of the masses thing. "
not sure about fascim, but it seemed worth another pass through the brain before you go off to tell the majority of the world that what they think is pretty, is in fact crap.
That's all.
mdler: who is
you can take this with a grain of salt but, in general, when i hear the word 'pretty' used, i'm already expecting crap. ;)
I agree with Kablakistan's last post. At least it evinces someone asking questions and decent questions too. However, it presupposes a sincere interest in aesthetic issues that seems to be lacking in Sarah Hamilton's workplace, which strikes me as cynical / despairing. I've worked in environments like that and soulless is just it: the almost complete divorcing of profit-motivation from other human aspirations. In that sort of environment, I'd say that things get better with time; once one's working at a level in which you, as an employee, start to get some control over the overall process. To understand all is to forgive all, sort of thing. And you don't need to stop thinking or loose your perspective just because your working environment isn't conducive. But it's a war of attrition nonetheless and to be avoided if at all possible. I remember my first few weeks at my current office: finding it so refreshing to be able to actually discuss architecture with my peers again in a sincere manner. Wow! What a difference! These people still care!
Well, I've thought about what Kablak has said.
The problem with blind windows is that they don't have a funtion. They are soley ornament and nothing else. Windows are created to allow in light and/or to see through; they are portals. We are architects and problem solvers. Why not design the window to function as it was intended, or design it out. If you can do neither, then why not use a more traditional peice of ornament, something that was vreated for the purpose of ornament be it brick work or such. Using "blind" windows shows an inability to design and solve problems.
Styles I see no problem with, because, as was said, in fact everything is a style of some sort, whether it has been named by historians or not. But if you are going to use a spicific style, then stay true to the style. Don't put arches in a greek revival building.
Ornament is fine as long as it is part of a style. Corynthian columns would cease to be Corynthian without they're ornament. But when you are using ornament as a way to avoid designing your way out of a problem, then thats just taking the easy way out.
As for place, I am a bit of a regionalist. It has nothing to do with style really. As far as I am concerned, any style can be adapted to its environment through materials, ect. If you tweak the style, while staying true to the style, you can mamke it work almost anywear, unless that style is specific to a place. Adobe homes were created for a desert environment, and don't work so well in a wet and cold climate; niether does a steeped pitch roof belong in the desert. You will end up with a very high electric bill every month trying to cool your building because the roof will actually absorb MORE sun than the flat roof with the high parapets.
Purpose and hon esty in design go hand in hand. Using brick on the Schroeder House is fine because stucco and brick are both similar in material. Using concrete would also have been ok, but to build it with something like steel, and then stucco it would have been false. In a perfect world, we would have and endless supply of materials and money, and could always use the exact material we want. But we can't. So I believe you should at least use a material that acts in a similar fashion and has similar properties. Don't pretend that brick can work in tension, ect.
And, as for Fascism.
Mussolini had no interest in architecture what so ever. No matter how hard Terragni and the boys tried, he would not choose a "National Architecture" to symbolize the movement. And after the fall of Fascism, their Architectural style was flipped to be the antithesis of "Fascist" architecture.
KILL THE BRICK!!!
oh, we don't need to speak about musolini to talk about fascism.
perhaps fascism is not the word, in any case. what worries me is this idea that architects are superior to everyone else, and that the world would really be much better if only we could have our way. it is a common theme in architecture theory and history, that one, from way way way back (see gelernter's "sources of architectural form" to see how far back). and it doesn't work, not really. more worrying, the mental leap from education to coercion is not so far, and the latter in fact is the desire of so many architects (hence books like the "edifice complex" by sudjic are so easily possible to write)...
what really bugs me is that the education in question is often about aesthetics, not important stuff, like lack of housing for the poor in miami, or the genocide in darfur. drives me nuts that we are so shallow...
that a brick is good in tension is pretty hard to pretend, but i like the idea of it. the rest, well, it don't bother me so much if a piece of glass covers an aperture or not. i am much more interested in how people use buildings than what they look like. and there is an enormous amount of great architecture that earns its spurs simply by breaking the rules. everything by michelangelo just to start with...
as an aside, mussolini built an enormous amount of infrastructure and architecture, as a purposeful extension of his political ambitions. his personal architect was one marcello piacentini. and with terragni and pagano, and others, italy was permanently transformed, for better or for worse. but in any case, mussolini was undeniably very interested in architecture.
soon enough you'll realize school was a big load of...fluff.. and return there.
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.