Interior architecture is just architecture, but there is less (or no) emphasis on structural stuff, and more emphasis on human-centred experience. Good interior architecture programmes are experimental spatially. Bad ones are interior decorating. The former is great. The latter is not.

Every interior architecture programme defines itself differently. All you can do is ask particular courses what their approach is.

There is no clear line between architecture and interior architecture.

ok, please excuse the ramble to come because I can hardly keep my eyes open...

wow agfa8x...good description! I was worried when I saw this thread considering the general tone archinectors take concerning interiors. I have a BFA in IA. I too transferred from a community college where I initially major in architecture, then took both Arch and ID classes, and finally transferred to a university to study IA. I am starting my MArch at Penn in the fall (the next step in a deliberate plan).

It is difficult to compare majors in general as your experiences will vary an enormous amount depending on the school. Do you have specific programs in mind? Or, what is it that intrigues you about design?

My undergrad was extremely conceptual and theory based. 90% of my instructors were architects (about 3/4 of which were UCLA or SCI_Arc grads) and "decorating" was a forbidden word ;) Furniture and finishes generally came into play at the end, if at all, and were selected/ created with as much conceptual prowess as the form generating, programming, and space planning. We did the technical "stuff"... building systems (HVAC- mechanical and electrical), FLS, lighting (technical properties as well as conceptual integration) as well as rigorously considered and integrated code requirements. agfa8x is right, we did not focus on structure, but we had to respect it. We were given a shell and if we wanted to break the floor plates or existing walls, we had to determine if and how it could be done. We had classes like Constructions, Detail Design, Construction Documents, and Building Systems and Codes that taught us the technical aspects. We used all the technology Arch used (CAD, 3d max, formZ, Rhino, schetch up, photoshop, illustrator, laser cutting, waterjet cutting, 3d printing, cnc, etc.) I poured concrete, molded plastic, made millions of models (both study and final) and generally built all kinds of crap. Semesters were based on different focuses (retail, residential, public space, entertainment, mixed-use, etc.) and it all culminated in a senior thesis in which we each wrote our own programs, found our sites, etc. Ok, there is so much more....but I am tired.

Last thing...I chose the IA to Arch path because I wanted to learn from the micro to the macro. Other than wanting the education, I am getting my MArch so that I can practice exactly what my undergrad taught me... but actually get respected for it. Unfortunately, there is this great divide in our industry between disciplines and I want to ride the line and be an Interior Architect.

I agonized about ID vs. Arch when choosing an undergrad program and think I made the best possible decision (for me). I obviously have a lot to say about IA, but am really tired now, so I'll catch up tomorrow.

It would be great if we could keep the tone that agfa8x started and keep this a productive discussion and not make it an "I hate decorators" thread.

I had this dilemma when I first strated, too. I ended up going with architecture. basically, with architecture, you can theoretically do both, but not the other way around.

The thing I loved (and still do) about interiors is that I see a billion to one quality interior designs to quality architecture. There is a lot more money going into smaller spaces, so you can do some cool sh*t.

Also, people will pay for what they see everyday, what the client sees every meeting, etc. Not many companies can afford a cool building.


ID also typically make more $$.

the mark up on ID is sick...

I'm considering that path after grad school, for a bunch of reasons.

Coincidentally, I know the principal of an ID firm who travels on his yacht to the Carribean for six months of the year. Rough life!

I know a principle of an Arch firm who flies in from Chicago on his private plane for weekly site meetings. you know it's not typical.

Question: how much of arch school focuses on interior space-planning and programming?

No, of course it's not typical, I didn't mean to imply that it was. He's just literally the only person I know in ID, as I come from a different background and won't even be starting M.Arch until this September.

Needless to say, I'm keeping my options open.

in response to "OLD FOGEY"

I was somewhat confused, it sounds to me like you are all for interiors but suggest doing them with an architecture degree, is that right?

other whys the advice from you and everyone else is greatly appreciated, its good to hear from people who are already out there doing these things (or struggling with them currently)

also forgot to ask, I live in Illinois and would go to Columbia College if I choose Interior Arch, has anyone gone there or heard anything about the program?

I just finshed my second year there and I've really enjoyed it. Its also very flexible for transfer students. By that I mean they are more likely to accept credit for design fundimentals courses you have already taken, whereas some of your fancier design schools will make you take 2D over so that you can learn it their way.

Anything specific you want to know?

go with architecture, you'll have a little more prestige and it's less limiting. if you get an interior arch. degree you'll be thrown into some interiors department of a firm and will spend your time doing FF&E stuff.

I guess I don't know what the limitations are, aside from not being able to stamp drawings and, of course, forever having to explain to people the distinction between interior architecture and regular arch.

I have been told by multiple people who I respect that these things sort of work themselves out. If you are engaged and have ability, you will organically find yourself guided towards a niche in the field that suits you. If you get stuck doing meaningless chores in some firm, or selling fabric at the Merchandise Mart it won't be because you picked the wrong undergrad degree.

slantsix - you better work for that guy!! And if you don't, give me a shout. I like yachts.

I'll keep you posted ;)

thanks, you don't know how much this helped, I think I can actually make a decision now...

but i would like to add a vote for interior architecture-

it is quite liberating to be working in the architecture field while still a bit outside of it. Going to Interior Architecture school will give you a slightly differently perspective on the built environment, and in my opinion, that is an asset. A strictly architecture education tends to slightly brainwash its disciples, making it difficult to objectively critique your profession. One can't see the forest for the trees, as they say.

In a post-disciplinary culture, designers (not architects) can define their profession for themselves. That's an advantage.

good luck :)

i think they invented interior architecture so that straight men could feel comfortable doing interior design.

it's not so much about the stamping per se. but when people see your degree being "interior architecture" they'll want you doing interiors and while you may have the skills to do otherwise, you'll tend to be pigeon holed in interiors.

of course what's interesting is that i bet everyone that advocates the IA/ID route is in IA/ID or had a degree in it whilst the rest of us did not.

ACfA, you're right that you get pigeon holed...especially with so many architects doing interiors, it tends to push the IA grads into furniture/finishes specing- something that we are really no more qualified to do (education- wise).

Everyone is obviously going to try an justify their own paths, but I am getting my MArch so i don't care either way. i just wish the major was more understood and respected...but that's a big battle when people obviously don't see the value^. For me, I think there is a lot of value in doing both as I feel I am (or will be) uniquely qualified to practice Int. Arch....we'll see what I say when I graduate and need a job.

bottom line....if you want respect, go Arch...if you want experience, visit both departments of the school you are looking at and decide what type of work you want to do. Also, even though it's not a professional degree, there are a lot of jobs out there for IA grads.

But as a general question: don't you think that an architect should be able to design both the exterior and the interior of a building? Why is that seperation necessary?

It's about practice. Theoretically, that is true. But theoretically, it should be architects that design buildings and that's not always true.


Interior design comes down to a lot more than just formal moves, where as on exterior you usually don't have too many materials. It's all about practice.

The only differnce between an interior desecrator and a color picker is how much they suck.

... Oh wait there is not difference.

Heh Heh heh

Columbia looks great on paper:

An intern requirement, a lot of all nighters, a thesis project and being in downtown Chicago. However, after being a thesis advisor for one of our interns, the program takes you only halfway there. Even the faculty had to remind guest crits about the limitations of the coursework. Read: accessible access to the space was not part of the program. At graduation our intern wanted to be an architect. But without the exteriors, structure, mechanical, electrical and code issues she would leave things only halfway done.

Take a long hard look at what you would like to do in your career. Interior architecture is a solid career path. However, as mentioned above, it does have its limitations.

i can't stand this interior architecture bs. interior design = interior architecture. any 4 yr. degree in interior design = interior architecture. schools have started throwing in the "architecture" word to distinguish themselves from "decorators" because there's a huge misconception about what interior designers DO. now, a TWO year degree in interior design = interior decorating. some schools have certificates which also qualifies as decorating.

beyond the 2nd year, is when schools really teach you interior "architecture" with bfa degree being the most prestigious 4 yr. degree in id or shall i say ia these days.

i personally HATE the word interior architecture because it is a defeatist word, admitting there's something wrong with interior design. i would rather as an industry as a whole devise some brilliant plan to educate the general public the difference between interior decorating and interior design, instead of admitting to their inferiority complex they suffer from architects by tacking on that "A" word. sorry if i'm being a bit harsh here but it's really silly, a gimmick at best. and people who fall for it by going to a school just because their program is names interior "architecture" instead of interior design is just as foolish as the schools trying to bait people with this embarrassing gimmick.

also, being a sole decorator is silly in my book HOWEVER, it is so critical to know HOW to decorate if you're going to be an architect, interior designer, i mean a TOTAL DESIGNER in the end. otherwise, you'll end up leaving your faaaabulous project to someone who will and it will turn to a disconnected sh*t. so you better be prepared to know how to finish the damn thing. a cake can have the most amazing structure beneath the icing but if you can't ice that yourself, in preparation of various clients you will have in your life time, you'll have no choice other than to work with these "decorators".

thanks.

Wow, nice rant, newport! And I totally agree.

Especially with the bit about needing to know how, if you're an architect, not only to do interior design but also to DECORATE! Especially as it relates to residential work, there is huge overlap. In my mind, decorators are people who are self-taught. But they doesn't mean they can't be talented.

btw, as a bfa degree holder in interior design, continuing on to m.arch 1 this fall....i have to say that the whole POINT of being an interior designer or shall i say interior architect is specializing in doing interiors from construction, detailing, and FINISHING. i can understand architects lacking time to tend to the interiors, the negative spaces that are created by building their structures....i say this because often times, they really have no thorough thought of the interior spaces they are creating when designing a building, i know this from working in many huge firms...anyway, but as an interiors person your whole point of existence is to turn the environment from inception to completion meaning materials and finishes. and you should be damn good at it too instead of turning up your noses at the decorating part. it's part of being an interiors person. that's the whole point. to know interior construction and know how to finish it damn well. so i don't understand these interiors people being so ashamed that they have to decorate?!?!? it's really mind blowing to me. if you're so ashamed of what you are supposed to do, why are you an interiors person at all? what's the point of your existence? what's the whole point of the industry? good night!!!!

thanks liberty bell, i guess i'm not alone with these perplexities :) yeah, these architects categorically snubbing decorating, it'll really hurt them in the arse later on....especially like you said in residential design. i worked at a veryveryvery high end residential design and i mean clients were BILLionaires. fortunate enough to have worked with just amazing architects that knew how to detail anything they thought of, like magic..you know, everything is customized and budget doesn't exist. but what i found interesting is how we had these decorators, many whom with 2 yr degrees, etc. that would just take over the decorating part and architects would have sh*tfits because their whole scheme would be completely disjointed. but i always felt like that was such a waste of time!!! if they knew how to decorate, taken some classes on materials and finishes (which can be really fun actually!), and knew how to finish their rooms, and taken their own lead/direction, there wouldn't be such a waste of time, inefficient back and forth, fighting, drama, etc.!

i guess in the end, if you're going for architecture, you shouldn't end as being an architect. you should aim for being a total designer just like our founding "fathers/mothers" of architecture, like how they used to do EVERYTHING, down to the detail of a zipper on a friggin pillow! yes i said it architects, pillows, lots and lots of PILLOWS! bye!

newport, glad i found your rant, this is exactly what i just posted about...

I've been realizing that architecture seems to be very outside-->in, when honestly, most of our experience of a place is on the inside.

What do you recommend for someone like me, B.A. in an unrelated field, want to do INTERIOR design but also want to be able to design the rest of the building, nuts to bolts? Why isn't this entire design process integrated? It's absurd that people need to pass this off to another professional mid-way!

I want to be an architect but be trained to THINK of the interior as being just as crucial... any advice?

a professional degree in Architecture will allow you to design both buildings and interiors; a degree in Interior Design will not do the same easily.

pursue a degree in Architecture but, to the maximum extent possible, tailor your studies to focus on interior space. upon graduation, you'll still be able to pursue licensure. but, if you want to practice primarily as an interior designer, nothing in your education will limit your ability to do so.

I know quite a few excellent practicing interior designers / interior architects who hold degrees in architecture and many of those are licensed as architects.

you are right, the entire process should be integrated ... however, for reasons that I can't entirely explain, those who keen to architecture are sufficiently different from those who keen to interior design to make for an odd brew when the two are in a room at the same time. their respective views of the world and the design process simply isn't often the same.

I'd also like to add that I think it would behoove any interior designer to learn a little bit about the structural and mechanical aspects of the industry as well. Since graduating with an interior design degree I've actually learned quite about these two sectors and I think in general it's made me a better designer all around. I am no longer designing a space without any regard as to if/how it can work.

Unfortunately all this "architectural" training has gotten in the way of me learning more about the finishes part of my job. Hopefully though as time goes by, I'll get more practice at it and become more knowledgeable.

Sbeth85 - Not sure if this wil help you but while in school, I learned little in the way of finishes and their applications. Most everything that was taught was mainly space planning and how to enhance/improve the flow of the interior space. Everyone I know learns all about finishes once they get out school and into the real world.

DOUGLAS7-

i haven't read the posts on this board and i'm sure you've already been told this... but i had this exact same question about two years ago and started working my ass off in some interior design classes, knowing that in reality what i really wanted to do was architecture. fortunately, i came to my senses about 9 months into it and realized that if i'm gonna do all thsi work, which ID classes will be, i might as well go ahead and try to a degree in architecture. Then if i really want to do interiors when i'm done i can. long story short, i'll be going to sci-arc for a masters in architecture starting in fall.

so, if you have any doubt or reservation about which you want to do, just go for the arch degree, it'll be a lot better return on your time and money.

hey Sbeth, i think there are slew of reasons as to why arch. to interiors are disjointed, particularly in the real world. not enough time, budget, as it takes all the time and more to meet deadlines where interiors are left as afterthoughts, etc. i think int. design really is a sub-specialty to architecture that architects simply can not squeeze in unfortunately. do i think being a great int. designer takes 4 yrs. of education? i certainly do. do i think it takes 4 yrs. to be a great decorator? i certainly don't. i think in the past, way past in the age of the greats such as frank lloyd wright and so on, being an architect was really far in between and considered a rarity.....i think in that world, they had a lot more time and leisure to get your hands on the whole entire process. it was a whole different era. i really think interior design in this country, in its magnitude really exploded out of facilities management when skyscrapers started to go up like hot cakes after the chicago fire.....

anyhoo, regardless of slew of reasons as to why the disconnect persists in the real world.....in a more personal level in this day and age. i really think you should get your m.arch. that will help you achieve your goals.

as a bfa holder in int. design, having had a prosperous career as an interior desinger oops, shall i say an interior architect since i dealt with dealing with the nuts and bolts of all aspects of interior construction, before materials and finishes came into play? whatever the label, it was great.....however, i became so frustrated and felt really dumbed down not too long after my career took off...i would say like 3 yrs. into int. design career. i felt that i hit a wall where i realized i would never be intellectually stimulated in the way i need to be to stay inspired and really truly challenged. i think the nature of the int. design industry prevents you from engaging in the context you most want to be in if you are a socially aware person.

so i applied to bunch of schools and got into 3 but chickened out for many reasons and here i am revisiting this "explosion" out of the i.d. confined world where i want to be the total designer, not just an architect or an int. designer.

don't get me wrong, i think int. design is just as important. however, it is a known fact that you will be confined forever. if you're an architect, you can do both. the problem is that if you recognize that finishing the job from outside in, knowing that there has to be a cohesive process, i really think just being an architect alone is not enough, not in the way it is taught or the lack thereof. again, i really respect the education of int. design (4 yrs. i mean), how they teach you the ergonomics, dealing with 1/8" inch a whole different scale of experience than strict architecture, materials and finishes, color theory, etc. these things are not focused in architecture schools, there are too many classes to take! if you are a natural genius, of course none of this will apply to you but in general, this seems to be the case.

so in the end, to put it as simply as i can, pls go for an m.arch degree, i would say an int. design degree would be a waste of time and money for you. however, i really feel that if you are going to be an architect, it is YOUR responsibility to know how to finish your interior spaces just as well as your faaaabulous envelope and the engagement it has to its context um, or not. so with that said, i think that you should be fine taking some classes here and there that will help you familiarize with the different scale and proportions you will be working with when finishing interiors. also, i think it's equally important to learn furnishings, lighting, etc. and the textiles. OH and of course, COLOR. i find color and color theory, how color can play a powerful influence in one's psyche. it's all part of the fascinating world of interiors! it's not just about "decoration and pillows!" we hate the general use of pillows and plants in the corners too!

To Newport, melt, and Comb...


Newport- thank you so much for your thoughts.... I know that color theory is very deep, and I'm sick of my current program, where the extent of it has been "A store for baby supplies should be in pastels, a chocolate shop should be in browns." How OBVIOUS and incredibly dumb... I really would love to learn sophisticated color schemes and pairings... I feel like the finishes (that would mean what sort of stone to use, for example??) are things you can pick up later. But the deeper stuff, I feel like it might need to be taught.

I hope whichever M.Arch I end up in (if I do one!) will focus on how humans deal with the rooms they're in, and THEN proceed outwards... it feels like oftentime the archiect is more concerned with street presence than with the actual internal experience of the place.

So are you still working in the int design/arch realm? Why don't YOU go back and do an M.Arch too? I can tell you want to!

***melt- thank you, it is oddly comforting to here that you didn't learn as much about finishings, and more about space manipulation, since I imagine I could learn that by doing an M.Arch, albeit on a larger scale.

comb- I guess I am a conundrum, because I care about interiors and I also care about the macro-layout of a city, not so much about the individual effect of one building.... as in, I wish I could do Interior Arch and Urban Planning, and skip the middle step of Arch! But I think someone else on this forum told me an M.Arch could lead in both directions. The truth is is that I am pretty conceptual and am looking forward to theory classes, which I imagine I would find more of by doing an M.Arch.
So I want to have my cake and eat it too... I want to do an M.Arch, I want to tailor it to interiors, yet I ALSO want to make sure I get a broad exposure to all facets of architecture, including urban design. Ah well, I'm difficult to please :)

hey Sbeth 85, "A store for baby supplies should be in pastels, a chocolate shop should be in browns."??? r u kidding me? wow, i don't know who's teaching that but that's such a horrible way to teach color. i meant color theory as in how each color, color family has an effect on your psyche, mood, that can enhance an interior if used correctly. i have come to believe that there aren't any written rules such as chocolate shop should be brown and kids' rooms pastels, etc. nor there are any "bad" colors. there is always a use for even the ugliest color sometime, somewhere. anyway, i'm diverging here, sorry.

i am going for my m.arch this fall actually, i'm very excited and feel very lucky that i got the interiors down packed.

in int. design program bfa or mfa, you will learn space planning, general construction, materials & finishes, historical styles, design theory, computer aided classes (CAD, VIZ, adobe of course and some more depending on your school), etc. you will learn every aspect that goes into designing interiors, it is really intense believe it or not.

i think it's great that you recognize the importance of having an uninterrupted design process when you're designing a building. and with your interest in the intimate and urban scale, trust me, you will be most satisfied with a m.arch program. but take some interior classes in the main areas, space planning, materials and finishes, lighting, and color (not the class you're taking now! i mean a real color THEORY class) and you should be good to go. architecture degree will cover everything else.

fyi, many big firms will have you do interiors as an architect since interior projects come and go like hot cakes. due to their more frequent deadlines and shorter construction schedules, you will def. do interiors as an architect along with arch. projects so you won't miss out on doing interiors as an architect. but as an int. designer, you'll be stuck just doing interiors which can be really frustrating and you'll be left so unfulfilled after awhile or at least it happened to me :) oh and i've seen architects work on urban planning projects also, so if you want the best of 3 worlds, being an architect will enable you to put your hands on them. many m.arch programs also have dual degrees w/urban planning/design :)

i don't want to end up w/a long dreadful post again so i hope this helps you more.....

For what it's worth, I've worked (as an architect) with interior designers on a couple of projects. What typically happened is that they drew a hand sketch with colored pencil, sent it to us, and we figured out all of the details and coordination, as well as drafting it. Then, when the project was published in a magazine like Metropolitan Home, the interior designer gets 90% of the credit, with only passing mention of the architect.

Oh, and they get paid better. Is this the norm?

Follow up question: as an architect, how would one go about getting licensed to also do interiors in the US?

hey farwest 1...hm...ok

1. were the interior designers from the same company in the int. design dept.? or were you guys contracted to be an interior designer's architect of record? if the latter, the projects will be under the int. designer's name since it's his/her project and you are hired as his/her architect of record, a consultant. but usually, you should be credited as that.....come to think of it, sounds like the latter seemed to be the case since you had to draft for them. usually the int. design dept. has an advanced int. design. producing working drawings from schematics to construction documents.
so if i'm correct, that sounds right. it has to do with the ownership of the project.

2. haha, int. designers generally do get paid better because they bring in more $ for the firm. you can pack in more projects in a year because they don't take as long as a whole building. also, you can bill clients retail price for everything they purchase, etc.

3. you don't need a license to practice int. design in the us. even any housewife w/no int. design education at all can get herself incorporated and start her own firm! and call it for example "______ design, inc." this is why "legitimate" designers get certified by taking the ncidq exam. this way, he/she can get iida membership and have ncidq, iida, etc. (you can't become an iida member unless you have passed the exac" after their name to distinguish themselves from someone who's not "legitimate" since there is no regulation on becoming an int. designer in this country. also, as a certified int. designer, you will surely make more $ since you'll be adding more value to your firm.

in most jurisdictions in the US, if you're licensed as an architect no further license is required to do interior design work.

if you're not already licensed as an architect, then you'll have to research the question on a state-by-state basis -- some states now have a practice act / title act for ID that estabishes certain minimum qualifications necessary to provide ID services in that jurisdiction.

No, we were hired as the architect on the job, and then the interior designers were hired under a separate contract.

oops, sorry for double posting here but forgot to mention one more thing about ncidq. so if you ever want/need to hire an interior designer, look for the "ncidq" after the name. you can't take the exam unless you have a 4 yr. or 2 yr. master's degree in int. design + have professional experience (i think 3 yr.s? though can be wrong, can't remember). this will help you guarantee you're getting a legitimate "true" interior designer, not someone who just decided to incorporate him/herself after watching design on a dime or something.....

link: State Licensing Regulations for ID

thanks jabber, i guess i remembered some of the facts wrong. i thought you needed at least 4 undergrad or 2 yr master's to become certified. that's kinda sad that you can get an associate degree and still become certified? they should have made it a bit stricter imho.

nah, newport, your posts have been very insightful. thank you so much!

Actually Newport in some states you cannot call yourself an interior designer unless you are NCIDQ. Kentucky is one of them, however Ohio is not. I'm still debating whether to take the exam or not.

Color Theory was one of my favorite classes in school. It's amazing how much a color can change when put against another color.

take the exam, from what I've witnessed, its easier then the AREs and LAREs and certainly worth at least a $5k bump in your salary.

You're probably right TK, I just don't feel like shelling out the money at this time b/c I don't feel I have enough experience or knowledge in the area to take it.

hey ****melt, thanks for the info. that's really awesome. for some reason, i was just talking about nyc/nj - i guess cause i never left this area :( i think all states should follow suit to further differentiate the real designers from the non. i remember i used to part time for a decorator in the upper eastside during my freshman year (my schools was in the ues) and she had big clients, charged huge design fees, she did well you know. big mansion houses in greenwich, ct., aspen, colorado, stuff like that. but she didn't even know how to read a scale if you can believe this! this was great for a student like myself, i can do a lot more but it was definitely an eye opener to see such an incompetent designer making millions to "decorate" and hiring super cheap labor a.k.a. hungry students to do the most obvious work like uh.....floor plan of a roooooom??? it was insane

anyhoo, i was thinking about the exam too but it's not worth the $ for me. also, i didn't want to be committed to a firm by having them pay for my exam either you kno, comes obligations to stay longer - trapped! i plan to sometime later on though, if i want to have my own practice, be both a registered architect and a certified int. designer. it'll be a long road but we do live longer these days right? :)

I just finished my BS in interior architecture and I have found that a large portion of the problem with the term comes simply from the arenas in which it is used.  For the most part the term is used by school departments (the few professionals that use it are licensed architects anyway).  Therefore to a large degree the validity of the term comes down to the quality of the school in question, and on a micro scale, the quality of the project being critiqued.  Sometimes the synergy and dialog between interior and architecture is excellent and it's a beautiful thing to behold.  Then sometimes it is not and it comes across as something akin to a man dressing up like a woman and looking like the ugliest exception of both.  It becomes what people make of it, which admittedly is it's undoing.

As for the practical issues, yeah you just get a job as an interior designer anyway so it doesn't really matter; It becomes a theoretical/academic dilemma.  While the idea has a different approach than that of traditional architecture, whether or not this paradigm shift  is equitable in the realm of needing a second degree to actually practice interior architecture, is a case by case issue (refer to above paragraph).   

Do you really make more money as an Interior Designer? 

Really?

Because based on all the designers I've talked to, they don't make significantly more or less than an architect. Nor is the cash flow as regular as people seem to think. In the current crisis, people are as likely to renovate or buy a house as they are to build one (i.e. very rarely). 

I think that picking Interior Design because it "makes more money" is a mistake. I really wouldn't let that be a prime consideration.