We've had some threads here recently on being self-employed: here and here and one on networking. Now I'm curious to hear stories from in-house designers (architects especially, but other creative experts like graphic designers or of course interior designers).
Running a firm is often held up as the ultimate achievement in architectural employment, but I'm interested to hear from people who might be considered at the opposite end of the employment spectrum: those working in a non-creative organization as the in-house creativity expert.
This might include governmental work - any architects in permit departments or historic review departments of city governments? Do you feel a divide between your work and the traditional architects who come to use your department's services?
Any in-house designers in construction firms, doing the design work for your employers/co-workers to then build - do coworkers respect your ideas, or have you had to come up with ways to communicate your ideas' worth effectively with them?
What are the pros and cons of being "the creative one" in the room full of pragmatists? My friend vado retro once told me at his previous job he "got to be the weirdest guy in the room" and that position held enormous appeal for me! But I also spoke to a woman recently (graphic designer in a medical communications firm) who found her "creative one" status to be too uncomfortable - she was looking for another job, though not after having learned a ton in what was her first job out of school.
Those who have experience in being the in-house designer, I'd love to hear your stories and think it would offer valuable insight for those soon to be entering the job market in May. Thanks.
prior to going to architecture school, when some friends and I had a consulting company for technology concerns (read: software + hardware), we needed marketing materials and a website. So, I had to make those. It was fun having one more outlet to fuel my creativity (although not billable for what we did), but it was hard for a couple of reasons:
The non-creative types never put much thought into how long these kinds of things take. I found that curious, because our clients (who hired us for technology) always had the same mystified complaints: that should take how long?!? So, it was hard to balance the creative things I was doing (writing + design) with normal stuff, like building/managing networks and writing code.
Trying to get others in this environment to take a stand on what they liked was hard. Visually, they were usually pretty accommodating and receptive, but sometimes not so much. For instance, if you handed them 3 options for something and said, "PICK," it turned into a debate amongst everyone at the company. Yet, if you only presented one option, people started making small suggestions, instantly becoming experts. There was no consistency in this respect.
There was NO one in the office to really bounce ideas off of. I found this the most difficult part of taking on this kind of work. Granted, people had varying opinions (see above; sometimes one person had varying opinions), but no useful feedback. Along with this feeling of "creative isolation", I found that I had no one to turn to for resources, either. If I needed a good place to find a high resolution photo of a computer or WHATEVER, the other people in the office wouldn't know where to look.
so, granted, doing marketing stuff and web design doesn't necessarily translate into the most creative design (primary focus = selling), but that was my experience. This also wasn't my primary job focus; even I shifted more of my time and energy into the computer-end of things. I think this situation would be easier now that I've had some formal design training and I have greater exposure to resources.
I guess I qualify since I am one of two in the "architectural division" in an engineering firm. Since the other architect is much older, he doesn't have any knowledge of CAD or graphic programs (which is not something I disrespect in any way). So on top of everything else I'm doing, I've somehow become the in-house graphic designer as well.
The pros that I can think of right now are:
1.You have a unique set of skills within company
2.You have a unique perspective on architecture
3.Contribute on interesting projects
4.Exposure to different perspectives and approaches to architecture
5.Engineering allows time for thorough research (come on architects, we can learn from this!)
The cons are:
1.They may not realize how much resources it takes to perform a certain task
2.There are some differing opinions on approaches (architects tend to think of the big picture while engineers may think of the precise task at hand)
3. Constantly having to explain that there is more to architecture than structure or meeting some other performance criteria.
I'm not an "in-house designer", but I am currently in a non-traditional architecture related position. I work for my local municipal government in the Capital Improvements Department as a Senior Capital Projects Coordinator. I've been doing this for just over 2 years now. When I was hired it was as a 3 year position (pending renewal of a $.01 sales tax that passed last month). I probably won't be here past 3 years or so (if I hold out that long) as I'm currently planning to apply to Ph.D. programs next year. I came into this job with the intention of learning how public sector projects work from the inside and then using that knowledge back in the private sector after a few years. It has been great experience learning the ins-and-outs of the project development process as well as making tons of contacts with local architects and contractors. I spend more time on construction sites than I would as a "regular" architect and thus have learned a lot of practical construction stuff. I've also really learned how to handle contractors in a non-combative manner.
Essentially my job is similar to being an owner's representative. I'm involved from the very beginning to the very end of projects. I work with the user groups to develop programs and budgets. I hire the architects and the construction managers/general contractors. On some projects the extent of my design input is limited to being a critic for the chosen architects. On some projects I'm a little more involved, helping out with things like life-cycle costing and materials selections. There are also larger urban design or master planning type projects where I've designed the overall master plan and then worked with architects to develop various phases. And there are also some smaller projects that I'll draw up to an SD/DD level and then pass off to one of our architecture firms to complete CDs. The most important part of my job is mediating between the different points of view of the architect, contractor, and user groups. I often have to translate from architect/contractor language into layperson language. The difficult times are when I have to make the architect make changes to their designs as a result of budget or user group concerns, even when I know that it adversely affects their design intentions.
The good parts of the job are the contacts that I've made, the salary (over $20K more than I was making previously), the hours (8am-5pm), the variety of project types and sizes (from playgrounds, to pools, to public housing, to large recreation centers), the great experience for later in my career, and the fact that I've been able to do a few competitions after hours since I'm not CADing all day long.
The bad parts are the BUREAUCRACY, the fact that I miss doing real architecture, and the BUREAUCRACY.
l8r, how did you ed up being the one doing marketing - were you selected or did you volunteer? Was it because you already had more creative experience than your partners?
It seems architects are often considered to be graphically intelligent, and while we may me moreso than the average Joe, the graphic designers here would no doubt consider us, um, less than totally sophisticated when it comes to graphic design. I know I am.
Does anyone work for Sodexho or any other facilities management type company? Surely they employ architects too.
Also, I always thought working in the Capital Improvements field would be fun because you'd be hiring architects so you could select the good ones! Is that true, architphil?
Also, while this may be a broad generalization, from Philarch: architects tend to think of the big picture while engineers may think of the precise task at hand I think it's a reality. And I guess I think we architects should exploit hat: we think holistically, and that's what our clients should pay us for.
I'm looking for more responses....if anyone has more to say....
Due to my transition out of the field of architecture, I've ended up frequently being the graphics person in the architecture firm. The biggest challenge of this for me is that many architects (including of course, my boss) look down on graphic design as being an easier profession. They think that any architect could of course do graphic design as well. So I am recognized verbally as the authority on such things, but when it gets down to doing something, the people in charge do not respect my authority or knowledge at all. Sometimes my boss will try to dictate a specific thing, like "Use Times New Roman, uppercase" and it's usually bad. If I try to tell him this, saying gently "You know, actually, it's hard to read that. Serifs are generally better for title or sentance case, but if you want to go big and bold, a sans-serif would be better," not even mentioning my objections to TNR, I get told, "That doesn't make any sense. Just do it like I want it." It gets very frustrating to be asked one's opinion, or given a task with the understanding that it is a design task, but be dictated to at every turn.
The other problem is, as others have noted above, time. Again because of the superiority complex my boss has with regards to architecture, he thinks that a graphic design task which he regards as inheritly easy but actually has a lot of subtlety to it, should be done in ten minutes.
Strawbeary, I had almost exactly the same opportunity shortly before I left my old job and came to start my own firm instead. (More on that later, I have to run to school to pick up my son.)So Philarch I'm not considering such a move right now, but it is an area of the profession I've always been curious about.
lb... the ability to select the good architects is true to a certain... we, for instance, have a list of 7-9 architects that are on 5 year continuing service contracts... we can choose from that list...
we really only use two of those architects on a regular basis and i would consider them some of the best in town... i have pretty much solely worked with one firm on my major projects and i consider them to be the best "design" firm in town...
our continuing service contracts are coming up for renewal in june/july so we'll be selecting a new round of people to work with... we'll probably be keeping the two that we use on a regular basis and then replacing the rest of the list with fresh blood... i'm looking forward to the selection process and have a couple of younger design oriented firms that are going to be submitting for the contracts...
on small projects (less than $250K construction and $25K design fee) we can pretty much hire anyone that we want so we've been using some different people recently to sorta test-drive them before the contracts come up for renewal...
i'm the lead architect in a government office doing design work and CA. It's not the typical municipal work instead major development projects. Its a small team [3 architects] with a bunch of other professionals engineers, QS, etc etc.
Just as a clarification - I probably didn't explain the "graphic design" very well. Usually it is concerned with accurate 3d models of complex structural systems or building envelopes. It is not something a graphic designer would be able to handle due to the required precision and understanding of systems. The structural engineers have a better understanding than I do of the systems, but don't always have the three dimensional capacity. So it does put "architects" at an advantage since we do have the required understanding conceptually (not always the technical aspect), physically and the tools for graphic communication. I do enjoy this work because I learn a lot from it, but I try to do this only as side work to larger projects.
As for my statement about architects being holistic thinkers while engineers are detail-oriented, I meant it not as a generalization but as our roles. Meaning that an engineer is capable of thinking holistically and architects can think very detailed. It just happens that sometimes we think a certain way due to our "roles" during the process.
So the switch for me (still deciding whether or not this will be permanent or temporary) has let me think a little differently and broaden the way I view architecture. Which is always a plus.
:: big budgets, design approvals, no one uneasy about giving you the keys to ferrari, a chance to expose country to higher standards, redefining (improving & updating) building practices, administering the contracts of projects you've designed, extensive portfolio of varied projects.
cons:: slow approvals for expenditures, fair trade, use of local practices, difficulty in adhering to contract penalties, higher prices, etc etc
They work their staff hard, pay them like crazy, and give them free coffee.
it seems like the starbucks model out of seattle has not only found the solution for coffee but for architecture too (ie give us what we want, lots of it and at the right price | damnit)
Well there ya go, Old Fogey, with that job post you may have just uncovered some of my curiosity about this type of work. I mean I don't want to work for the CIA (!!!!scary!!!!) but I AM interested in seeing things from a different point of view. Working for a government agency would be seeing things from an "inside" that has always been closed, in my experience.
re: putting together two stores a week for Starbuck's, I've heard similar stories from other retail architects. Relentless schedule, and as you said none of the concern for contextual specifics that we are typically trained to appreciate as architects. Thanks for all your comments.
Strawbeary, before I left Philly I had an opportunity to join a design/build firm in the far suburbs. I would have been the only architect on staff, supervising two draftspeople, and working with a construction crew of 15-20, and basically only answering to the owner of the company. I loved the idea of being "Director of Design" - I admit, I was feeling somewhat title drunk when I considered the job! But I think it would have been a great job, and fun, with the opportunity for a lot of control, plus $15K more than I had been making. But ultimately though the job sounded great I couldn't bring myself to move to near-rural Pennsylvania.
architechno, what do you mean by "fair trade" is a con? I might have a different understanding of those words than what you mean.
liberty - I did the marketing because no one else thought they were capable. Or, rather, we all agreed I was the most capable, for what it was worth at the time. The perception of capability didn't stem from prior work experience; I knew these guys my whole life (practically), and we all just decided that, since we were keeping things in-house, I would be the best suited to lead the marketing/promo stuff and they would be the worst. So no prior work experience there (outside of the fact that they knew I drew things in high school). Oh, and I could also write the best. Hah.
I came up with the overall vision for materials, from web to written, based on how we decided we would distribute materials, and to whom. I *did* ask outside people for some help, but this was from friends, and done gratis. This outsourced work really consisted of conversations about what font they would recommend if I gave them a few buzzwords, and some resources for stock photos. I was so green at the time I was formatting materials in MS WORD (we didn't have anything for design layout) and working with images in Macromedia Fireworks (that we acquired from a one-off web project we coded). ick.
re: what you said about graphic intelligence (running the risk of diverting the intent of this thread)-
graphic designers may see architects as less graphically sophisticated, but architectural graphics serve a very different purpose than the abundance of graphic design applications once you pass through the threshold of simple communication. Ultimately, the architect needs to convey design intent through detail, generally relying on convention. these purposes and conventions are somewhat ingrained - standardized, if you will.
bash gehry all you want (hey, I won't stop you), but his architectural merit aside, hasn't he pioneered new methods of the graphical communication of design intent (or at least championed and publicized them) based on necessity?
Apr 10, 07 11:34 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
The adventures of the "in-house designer"
We've had some threads here recently on being self-employed:
here
and here
and one on networking. Now I'm curious to hear stories from in-house designers (architects especially, but other creative experts like graphic designers or of course interior designers).
Running a firm is often held up as the ultimate achievement in architectural employment, but I'm interested to hear from people who might be considered at the opposite end of the employment spectrum: those working in a non-creative organization as the in-house creativity expert.
This might include governmental work - any architects in permit departments or historic review departments of city governments? Do you feel a divide between your work and the traditional architects who come to use your department's services?
Any in-house designers in construction firms, doing the design work for your employers/co-workers to then build - do coworkers respect your ideas, or have you had to come up with ways to communicate your ideas' worth effectively with them?
What are the pros and cons of being "the creative one" in the room full of pragmatists? My friend vado retro once told me at his previous job he "got to be the weirdest guy in the room" and that position held enormous appeal for me! But I also spoke to a woman recently (graphic designer in a medical communications firm) who found her "creative one" status to be too uncomfortable - she was looking for another job, though not after having learned a ton in what was her first job out of school.
Those who have experience in being the in-house designer, I'd love to hear your stories and think it would offer valuable insight for those soon to be entering the job market in May. Thanks.
prior to going to architecture school, when some friends and I had a consulting company for technology concerns (read: software + hardware), we needed marketing materials and a website. So, I had to make those. It was fun having one more outlet to fuel my creativity (although not billable for what we did), but it was hard for a couple of reasons:
The non-creative types never put much thought into how long these kinds of things take. I found that curious, because our clients (who hired us for technology) always had the same mystified complaints: that should take how long?!? So, it was hard to balance the creative things I was doing (writing + design) with normal stuff, like building/managing networks and writing code.
Trying to get others in this environment to take a stand on what they liked was hard. Visually, they were usually pretty accommodating and receptive, but sometimes not so much. For instance, if you handed them 3 options for something and said, "PICK," it turned into a debate amongst everyone at the company. Yet, if you only presented one option, people started making small suggestions, instantly becoming experts. There was no consistency in this respect.
There was NO one in the office to really bounce ideas off of. I found this the most difficult part of taking on this kind of work. Granted, people had varying opinions (see above; sometimes one person had varying opinions), but no useful feedback. Along with this feeling of "creative isolation", I found that I had no one to turn to for resources, either. If I needed a good place to find a high resolution photo of a computer or WHATEVER, the other people in the office wouldn't know where to look.
so, granted, doing marketing stuff and web design doesn't necessarily translate into the most creative design (primary focus = selling), but that was my experience. This also wasn't my primary job focus; even I shifted more of my time and energy into the computer-end of things. I think this situation would be easier now that I've had some formal design training and I have greater exposure to resources.
I guess I qualify since I am one of two in the "architectural division" in an engineering firm. Since the other architect is much older, he doesn't have any knowledge of CAD or graphic programs (which is not something I disrespect in any way). So on top of everything else I'm doing, I've somehow become the in-house graphic designer as well.
The pros that I can think of right now are:
1.You have a unique set of skills within company
2.You have a unique perspective on architecture
3.Contribute on interesting projects
4.Exposure to different perspectives and approaches to architecture
5.Engineering allows time for thorough research (come on architects, we can learn from this!)
The cons are:
1.They may not realize how much resources it takes to perform a certain task
2.There are some differing opinions on approaches (architects tend to think of the big picture while engineers may think of the precise task at hand)
3. Constantly having to explain that there is more to architecture than structure or meeting some other performance criteria.
I'm not an "in-house designer", but I am currently in a non-traditional architecture related position. I work for my local municipal government in the Capital Improvements Department as a Senior Capital Projects Coordinator. I've been doing this for just over 2 years now. When I was hired it was as a 3 year position (pending renewal of a $.01 sales tax that passed last month). I probably won't be here past 3 years or so (if I hold out that long) as I'm currently planning to apply to Ph.D. programs next year. I came into this job with the intention of learning how public sector projects work from the inside and then using that knowledge back in the private sector after a few years. It has been great experience learning the ins-and-outs of the project development process as well as making tons of contacts with local architects and contractors. I spend more time on construction sites than I would as a "regular" architect and thus have learned a lot of practical construction stuff. I've also really learned how to handle contractors in a non-combative manner.
Essentially my job is similar to being an owner's representative. I'm involved from the very beginning to the very end of projects. I work with the user groups to develop programs and budgets. I hire the architects and the construction managers/general contractors. On some projects the extent of my design input is limited to being a critic for the chosen architects. On some projects I'm a little more involved, helping out with things like life-cycle costing and materials selections. There are also larger urban design or master planning type projects where I've designed the overall master plan and then worked with architects to develop various phases. And there are also some smaller projects that I'll draw up to an SD/DD level and then pass off to one of our architecture firms to complete CDs. The most important part of my job is mediating between the different points of view of the architect, contractor, and user groups. I often have to translate from architect/contractor language into layperson language. The difficult times are when I have to make the architect make changes to their designs as a result of budget or user group concerns, even when I know that it adversely affects their design intentions.
The good parts of the job are the contacts that I've made, the salary (over $20K more than I was making previously), the hours (8am-5pm), the variety of project types and sizes (from playgrounds, to pools, to public housing, to large recreation centers), the great experience for later in my career, and the fact that I've been able to do a few competitions after hours since I'm not CADing all day long.
The bad parts are the BUREAUCRACY, the fact that I miss doing real architecture, and the BUREAUCRACY.
Thanks for responses thus far.
l8r, how did you ed up being the one doing marketing - were you selected or did you volunteer? Was it because you already had more creative experience than your partners?
It seems architects are often considered to be graphically intelligent, and while we may me moreso than the average Joe, the graphic designers here would no doubt consider us, um, less than totally sophisticated when it comes to graphic design. I know I am.
Does anyone work for Sodexho or any other facilities management type company? Surely they employ architects too.
Also, I always thought working in the Capital Improvements field would be fun because you'd be hiring architects so you could select the good ones! Is that true, architphil?
Also, while this may be a broad generalization, from Philarch: architects tend to think of the big picture while engineers may think of the precise task at hand I think it's a reality. And I guess I think we architects should exploit hat: we think holistically, and that's what our clients should pay us for.
I'm looking for more responses....if anyone has more to say....
Due to my transition out of the field of architecture, I've ended up frequently being the graphics person in the architecture firm. The biggest challenge of this for me is that many architects (including of course, my boss) look down on graphic design as being an easier profession. They think that any architect could of course do graphic design as well. So I am recognized verbally as the authority on such things, but when it gets down to doing something, the people in charge do not respect my authority or knowledge at all. Sometimes my boss will try to dictate a specific thing, like "Use Times New Roman, uppercase" and it's usually bad. If I try to tell him this, saying gently "You know, actually, it's hard to read that. Serifs are generally better for title or sentance case, but if you want to go big and bold, a sans-serif would be better," not even mentioning my objections to TNR, I get told, "That doesn't make any sense. Just do it like I want it." It gets very frustrating to be asked one's opinion, or given a task with the understanding that it is a design task, but be dictated to at every turn.
The other problem is, as others have noted above, time. Again because of the superiority complex my boss has with regards to architecture, he thinks that a graphic design task which he regards as inheritly easy but actually has a lot of subtlety to it, should be done in ten minutes.
LB - Are you by any chance exploring an option to work at a place as the "in-house designer"?
I have an opportunity to be the in-house designer for a contractor, see Thread Central. I AM worried that my creativity could be snuffed out.
Keep going, I want to know more...
Strawbeary, I had almost exactly the same opportunity shortly before I left my old job and came to start my own firm instead. (More on that later, I have to run to school to pick up my son.)So Philarch I'm not considering such a move right now, but it is an area of the profession I've always been curious about.
lb... the ability to select the good architects is true to a certain... we, for instance, have a list of 7-9 architects that are on 5 year continuing service contracts... we can choose from that list...
we really only use two of those architects on a regular basis and i would consider them some of the best in town... i have pretty much solely worked with one firm on my major projects and i consider them to be the best "design" firm in town...
our continuing service contracts are coming up for renewal in june/july so we'll be selecting a new round of people to work with... we'll probably be keeping the two that we use on a regular basis and then replacing the rest of the list with fresh blood... i'm looking forward to the selection process and have a couple of younger design oriented firms that are going to be submitting for the contracts...
on small projects (less than $250K construction and $25K design fee) we can pretty much hire anyone that we want so we've been using some different people recently to sorta test-drive them before the contracts come up for renewal...
i'm the lead architect in a government office doing design work and CA. It's not the typical municipal work instead major development projects. Its a small team [3 architects] with a bunch of other professionals engineers, QS, etc etc.
Just as a clarification - I probably didn't explain the "graphic design" very well. Usually it is concerned with accurate 3d models of complex structural systems or building envelopes. It is not something a graphic designer would be able to handle due to the required precision and understanding of systems. The structural engineers have a better understanding than I do of the systems, but don't always have the three dimensional capacity. So it does put "architects" at an advantage since we do have the required understanding conceptually (not always the technical aspect), physically and the tools for graphic communication. I do enjoy this work because I learn a lot from it, but I try to do this only as side work to larger projects.
As for my statement about architects being holistic thinkers while engineers are detail-oriented, I meant it not as a generalization but as our roles. Meaning that an engineer is capable of thinking holistically and architects can think very detailed. It just happens that sometimes we think a certain way due to our "roles" during the process.
So the switch for me (still deciding whether or not this will be permanent or temporary) has let me think a little differently and broaden the way I view architecture. Which is always a plus.
:: big budgets, design approvals, no one uneasy about giving you the keys to ferrari, a chance to expose country to higher standards, redefining (improving & updating) building practices, administering the contracts of projects you've designed, extensive portfolio of varied projects.
cons:: slow approvals for expenditures, fair trade, use of local practices, difficulty in adhering to contract penalties, higher prices, etc etc
overall a fair trade for items lost
ahh I should of added that we also have the last say when we hire other professionals so we have a great working relationship within the field
it seems like the starbucks model out of seattle has not only found the solution for coffee but for architecture too (ie give us what we want, lots of it and at the right price | damnit)
Well there ya go, Old Fogey, with that job post you may have just uncovered some of my curiosity about this type of work. I mean I don't want to work for the CIA (!!!!scary!!!!) but I AM interested in seeing things from a different point of view. Working for a government agency would be seeing things from an "inside" that has always been closed, in my experience.
re: putting together two stores a week for Starbuck's, I've heard similar stories from other retail architects. Relentless schedule, and as you said none of the concern for contextual specifics that we are typically trained to appreciate as architects. Thanks for all your comments.
Strawbeary, before I left Philly I had an opportunity to join a design/build firm in the far suburbs. I would have been the only architect on staff, supervising two draftspeople, and working with a construction crew of 15-20, and basically only answering to the owner of the company. I loved the idea of being "Director of Design" - I admit, I was feeling somewhat title drunk when I considered the job! But I think it would have been a great job, and fun, with the opportunity for a lot of control, plus $15K more than I had been making. But ultimately though the job sounded great I couldn't bring myself to move to near-rural Pennsylvania.
architechno, what do you mean by "fair trade" is a con? I might have a different understanding of those words than what you mean.
liberty - I did the marketing because no one else thought they were capable. Or, rather, we all agreed I was the most capable, for what it was worth at the time. The perception of capability didn't stem from prior work experience; I knew these guys my whole life (practically), and we all just decided that, since we were keeping things in-house, I would be the best suited to lead the marketing/promo stuff and they would be the worst. So no prior work experience there (outside of the fact that they knew I drew things in high school). Oh, and I could also write the best. Hah.
I came up with the overall vision for materials, from web to written, based on how we decided we would distribute materials, and to whom. I *did* ask outside people for some help, but this was from friends, and done gratis. This outsourced work really consisted of conversations about what font they would recommend if I gave them a few buzzwords, and some resources for stock photos. I was so green at the time I was formatting materials in MS WORD (we didn't have anything for design layout) and working with images in Macromedia Fireworks (that we acquired from a one-off web project we coded). ick.
re: what you said about graphic intelligence (running the risk of diverting the intent of this thread)-
graphic designers may see architects as less graphically sophisticated, but architectural graphics serve a very different purpose than the abundance of graphic design applications once you pass through the threshold of simple communication. Ultimately, the architect needs to convey design intent through detail, generally relying on convention. these purposes and conventions are somewhat ingrained - standardized, if you will.
bash gehry all you want (hey, I won't stop you), but his architectural merit aside, hasn't he pioneered new methods of the graphical communication of design intent (or at least championed and publicized them) based on necessity?
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.