: I spent 7-8 years on the "client side" after graduate school - later, I returned to private practice. Looking back, that period was the single most developmental period of my career (including school).

Fundamentally, most architects simply do not understand the pressures and motivations of clients. Spending some time in their shoes will make you a better architect - absolutely. I think you also will find that you have much more influence over the "architecture" from that side of the table than you do on ours. Sad to say, but true.

If you decide to do this, make a commitment to stay long enough to really develop a thorough understanding of their world - I'd guess 4-5 years minimum. Stay long enough to earn 1 or 2 promotions.

Do not give up your license ... it helps to have the credential in that world (even if you don't publicize it) and you very well may want it again if you decide to come back to our side later.

You're right about the money and benefits ... they can become a trap if you let them. My advice, continue to live conservatively, save all that you can and eliminate any debt that you may have. This will give you lots more flexibility if you want to start, or buy into, a firm later.

In the end, I finally realized that - at my core - I'm an architect and that I wanted to practice ... the authority and the money and the perks available on the client side were nice, but I went to architecture school for a reason. I came back to the profession stronger in so many ways, and much stronger than I would have been had I continued to practice.

I recommend strongly that you do this.

Why would you give up your Arch license. You may have the chance to do side line work. If you think you might go back, Most states allow you to freeze your license indefinitly.

Working on the owner's side has its pros and cons.

For approximately three years (1.5 while in school, 1.5 immediately following grad school), I worked for a facility planning and program management firm, basically as an owner's rep for institutional clients. I had a very pragmatic undergraduate background and did not yet understand the joy of architectural design when I joined the firm. It was an ideal fit for me, as I enjoy organization and management.

I gained exposure to many aspects of project development - almost everything but the design: from feasibility studies, to programming, to architectural selection, to design review, to budget management, to project management during construction. Exposure to these aspects has helped me to understand the architect's role and everything that must occur before an architect is even selected.

I had access to high profile people, as mentioned in the original post above. While it was empowering to take starchitects to task for being over budget, it was also soul crushing to always beat the drum of budget and schedule.

While in grad school, I had a "design epiphany" of sorts but did not fully realize the implications until months after graduation. I mistakenly thought that - as a program manager - I could influence the "big idea" of a project - i.e. the relationship to urban design, metaphor, and broad brush aesthetic of the building. I tried to infuse architectural greatness into my projects but became frustrated in the end. It is really the architect's responsibility to determine the aesthetic of the building.

About a year and a half ago, I made the leap back to a traditional architecture firm. I found that I "skipped" a good portion of the CAD Monkey phase of a typical career and seem to be farther beyond my peers in terms of project management and big picture organization skills. I admit that I lack technical detailing skills that would have been gained during 3 years of drawing bathroom and flashing details. But in the end, I do not regret the time I spent away from architecture.

Not per corell: since you already have your license, you may not benefit from the career "fast forward" of sorts that I experienced. However, you may be able to advance from the project architect level where you are at now (I'm guessing) to firm management/ownership material faster than your peers.

I'm not convinced of your motivations for switching careers. Perhaps moving to a location where Architecture is more prominent could be a better move for you. Owner's rep jobs will probably always be available; it's not likely that the current offer on the table for you is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, despite what the company may be telling you :)

i am not not per correl but had this discussion similar to this two days ago.

vado: Did you have the discussion IRL or here on Archinect?

i had this conversation with my exgirlfriend/future wife.

your future exwife???

its a long story stones. a long story...

thanks for responses so far. a couple of things:

1. moving is not an option at the moment.

2. this is a management company FOR the real owners. the owners pick the architects and make most of the design approval decisions. (owner's rep is also trained as an architect.) we would be delivery/facilitation/implementation. basically all CA, all the time.


i know that this is a very personal decision and i can't possibly communicate all the variable and all of my own misgivings and expect advice. but the comments above are helpful.

it is my intention to try to keep my license. i'd just have to negotiate how the continuing education time commitment will be handled.

i have to say that one of my biggest points of ambivalence (not that it's a deal breaker, just what i'm thinking about a lot) is the loss of discretion - the fact that i'll be a functionary. just someone there to make things happen and get things done and not someone operating independently and with freedom to make essential changes to/decisions about anything. i know that some of you will argue that architects are merely functionaries anyway, but a lot of what we do in private practice is, in fact, at our own discretion and under our own jurisdiction. (word choice? there must be a better one.)

It can be fulfilling to Make Projects Happen. In your career, you've undoubtedly had projects that were never realized. This Fortune 500 company would hire you to see to it that the project goes ahead. So your focus would change from making something architectural to making something feasible.


vado: Are you considering making the leap, too? Is that why liberty bell started a similar thread recently?

well, i do live on the fourth floor.

vado, DON'T JUMP!! I'll see you tomorrow. For pictures, so be sure to shave.

not per, the thread I started about in-house designers seems helpful, as do everyone's comments above. I can only add this: I think the practice and implementation of architecture is changing rapidly and can only guess that in another 10 years we will see far more of the "owner's rep" type jobs being important and perhaps weilding real power in terms of helping alrge institutions make good design decisions. I would think some time on the "other side" would give you, piled on top of your traditional architecture experience (right? since you're registered?), a great exposure to an area of the construction world that could make you extremely valuable in the future.

As long as your ethics are in the right place - and from your posts (and the fact that you started this thread) I'd say that they are, you needn't worry about getting 'sucked in" to the good money. Just don't blow it all, save as much as oyu can so you don't get into debt and then HAVE to keep a high-paying job.

And of course you'll keep your license, don't even consider otherwise. If this is a decent-sized company they will sponsor your attendance at conferences and seminars and you can get most of your continuing ed that way. Also: don't tell anyone, but I recently heard a rumor that the AIA isn't concerned about those of us who don't quite get 18 units every year, they are concerned with those who just blow off continuing ad and consistently show that they are not getting ANY cont ed experience year after year.

For the record: I started the in-house designer thread simply out of curiosity about an area of practice that I have not yet explored. I could have also started one about "working in a mega-corporate firm like SOM" but I'm not as curious about that.

Oh, and as the owner of my own firm, there are days when not being the discretionary at all sounds enormously appealing.