I was just talking our arch. principal and making a quick review of a cost to do a feasibility study. The cost winds up being $25K, but what did the founder of the firm say we needed to do it for - the principal who never does any of the actual nose-to-the-grindstone work say? $10K. Its a motherscratchin' midrise condo building - we're talkin' anywhere from $4-$6M overall selling price (just for the condo portion!) and $25K is too high? W.T.F. - That's why we get paid so little, because the people determining how much actual work needs to get done, and how much resources are available to do it never are the ones to interact with the client, at least at the beginning, when its so important. So, before you quote a price, figure out how much work is needed to reasonable do the job, and make that your floor. Then add a percentage based on how busy you are - not how much you want the job - because you will hate the job about 1/2 through when the cheap bastards start stripping your design and slap aluminum siding all over it.
I hate to say it, but stop charging so little. Doctors, lawyers etc... are considered as good as the rates they charge. Everyone assumes that a $200/hr. lawyer is half as good as a $400/hr. lawyer. That may not be true, but at a gut level, that's what we feel. People who pay half-assed prices should get half-assed work. And like all cheap bastards, they'll wind up paying more for less in the end. Any architect worth their salt should save their client the cost of their "premium" in not only making sure the job gets done right, but also in satisfaction. If your potential client can't understand that, then they don't deserve you (unless, of course, you plan on doing a half-assed job.)
Its just to do the first run through - not even "meet with the locals" level of work. Basic floor plan, structural survey, code review, etc... $25K prior to buying the building is not too bad, but if you've got the wherewithall (how do you spell that word, anyway) to finance a $5M project, $25K for a pre-purchase survey is a cost-of-doing buisness expense - and thats just our cost + overhead - no real profit for us in there. And, so far as things go, $25K is on the low end of that service. So why we're going to loose $15K on the job that we're certainly going to get (who wouldn't pick us for our super-under-cut bid?) when I am here late at night working on cleaning up the last half-assed project we put out because we ran out of money to do it right is beyond me. I think what has done us in is that there are architecture interns out there that think this is how you attract clients and run a buisness.
Anyway mdler, If we're talking the the whole 9 yards, renderings, meeting with community boards, etc... that's 6 figs easy. Well, except where I work.
As much as I'm tired about just talking about our pay with no solution for the problem, I'm going to contribute to this thread. I'm with Strawbeary that some of the other professions are simply overpaid. I have respect for what doctors do, but they are often overeducated, over-specialized, and overpaid for their services. The only difference is that we are overeducated (about all the wrong things) over-generalized, and underpaid for our services - imagine a school where we're not all taught to be starchitects just as not all doctors are trained to be neurosurgeons (not that they are equal by any measure but you get the idea). The problem (as discussed many times on Archinect) is due to many factors with some that are out of any groups' (i.e. AIA) or individuals' control. Some of the reasons we are underpaid are also the same reasons I have respect for this field as well.
imagine a school where we're not all taught to be starchitects
-- in my humble, knuckle-dragging opinion, this is one of the root causes of our profession's economic problems. while I don't expect colleges to become trade schools, I do have an expectation that emerging graduates will, to a large extent, have a basic understanding of what professional practice is all about and be able to make a meaningful contribution without a huge additional investment by the employer to teach them basic professional skills. mentorships should be about helping someone become a better designer and practitioner, not teaching them the basics of cad or how to draw a wall section. no wonder most of you guys are bored once you enter an office
we have too many students coming out of college with huge, huge amounts of debt and they typically don't have a clue about what to do in an office -- no wonder firms don't want to pay much for entry level "talent"
then too, graduates become so conditioned in school to the idea that if they're not doing "publishable" work, they easily get frustrated with their professional situation or start thinking of themselves as failures.
making more money is not necessarily about feeding our own egos or value system -- it's about a) personal productivity and b) providing the client very high levels of what they both need and value. together, these are the two keys to improving our economic lot. improvements in both areas will lead to both increased fees and increased compensation.
We are probably going to lose a job that we bid just under 2% of the construction cost for our services (doesn't include CA). Too expensive, says the developer, he doesn't want to spend that much on design services.
A little background: Said developer had handed us a site plan with a bunch of boxes laid out with letters a-d on it (unit types) and an elevation cartooned up by an old school architect (that didn't even work not to mention was dumb and ugly). The developer told us the work was "practically done" and so our fee was too much given ALL the work that had already been done. Then he changed the unit number and distribution and demanded CD's in 6 weeks. Its about a 12 million project. He won't tell us how much he'll pay, he just wants us to throw out lower and lower numbers till he agrees. We have 2 other of his projects, both have lost money, and one of which I worked a serious amount of unpaid overtime on.
I don't understand how you can provide less quality design and drawings to save your fee. Doesn't it come back and bite you in the ass later when nothing makes sense?
Dammson - don't even get me started on brokers. They are the people with the least risk, least workload per dollar, quickest to devalue the work, least knowledge of what makes a good building, and also the ones to make most of the money.
Strawbeary - Why are you taking the job? Can't you ask the principal why? Let someone else be in that car wreck. If you've lost money every time you've worked with him before, then you are essentially making money by not taking it. By that measure competitions pay more and you can ditch them at any time when more work comes in the door.
Phil - GP's are not overvalued, and that's why there's a shortage of them. People can justify outrageous income in a specialist job because there is a very easy way to measure success when you only have to get one thing right. As a profession that has no easy way to measure success, we are devalued because we can't prove that we are 13.72% better than the next guy and so deserve 113.72% his pay. Hell, the whole pay scale of this country is out of wack. If Enron taught us anything, its that you deserve your outrageous fortune if you look like you are doing something to make all this money, but you don't actually have to do anything. If we ever wake up to these accounting tricks and see how much these guys are actually costing us, you will see architects, family doctors, nurses and other generalists incomes rise, and the specialists incomes fall. For now, all we can do is stop working for less than it costs us to do the job, and letting the half-assed architects do the half-assed jobs.
It takes passion for one to stay in the profession. Countless of my classmates have chosen to venture into other fields and they are earning so much more than those like myself who have chosen to stay. I can't imagine myself doing anthing outside architecture, construction and interior design - - not because I was trained to work in these fields and I've no other choice but because I TRULY, TRULY enjoy it...But then again, bills come in and tempted to get into advertising or the current trend where I am - - work for an outsourcing firm. Then again, call me just plain dumb and idealistic, I'd rather be living from paycheck to paycheck than earn a bit more than what I need dealing with irate customers over the telephone.
while this is not meant as a criticism of Caryatid15, the attitude expressed above [i.e. "I love doing this SO much I'd work for free."] means there's always going to be some other architect out there who will take the work for less fee.
that used to really bother me. then I figured out that I could do much better by learning to say "no" - if the fee doesn't make sense, we let it go. we're happier, infinitely more profitable, and work with clients who demonstrate (in many ways) that they value what we do for them. we don't feel like slaves any more.
fire those deadbeat clients who take unfair advantage of you - life's too short to work for such scum. you will survive!
Crowbert - If by GP you mean general practitioner, I'm going to disagree. I think there is a shortage because ONLY in comparison to the specialists, they are underpaid. 180K vs 300K. 180K is not exactly a small amount. There are additional issues there as well that isn't relevant to this thread - although still very important for those that want affordable healthcare.
And to throw in something that we rarely talk about - Perception. I know for a FACT that engineers and contractors generally believe that the architect makes far more than them while getting all the credit and fame. The average for doctors is actually closer to 120K while the architects' is around 65K. It really isn't that bad considering there are actually more experience levels and more variety of practices in Architecture. If the 25% self-employment number is correct, many of us are working from home or at a very small office - in which case the reported annual salary is hard to comparably quantify. The averages can be very deceptive.
So basically the only instance where we can justifiably say we are paid too little is for the entry levels. While I admit that fresh architecture grads do not have the real-world knowledge compared to grads in different fields, 36K is a ridiculous number for those with a large debt. And as for those unpaid overtime hours...
most developers want you for one thing. to calculate how many fire exits, bathrooms and parking spaces are required. they can handle the "design" themselves.
cb - i know, easier said than done though, me and another coworker worked to convince the principal to NOT go any lower, thus losing the job. now we feel guilty because we have little work. I may get laid off, who knows?
I'll also add, that whatever some people make, it wouldn't be enough. If you made 100k, you'd be wanting 125k. Do well with what you have.
almost all developers vado. too true. also architects are required to calculate max buildable area, buildable volume according to light access laws and cetera....hm, actually we provide an actual service...nothing any highschool kid witha few brain cells couldn't do, but still a service.
some developers also require design content. that is when highschool kid turns out to be incompetent.
there are much worse jobs and for much poorer pay as well as better jobs for better pay and cetera and cetera. i am not sure if there is a point that can be made except that the universe isn't fair.
in our pro-practice and history courses we were taught that architecture as a profession emerged from the hobbies and proclivities of the aristocracy, who did not design so much for money as much as for something to do. this changed slowly and became a profession but unlike medicine the client base did not grow as the world became wealthier over time. that is an acident of history, and one that is not per se anyone's fault.
more than that i find it odd that anyone can complain about having to fold a1 dwg sets to fit into a4 binder as beneath them. why? i have done it before and now it is just 2 of us i do it now too. when we get staff the young fellow/lass will do that job. it is in fact part of the process of learning how to be an architect, boring as it may be...
anyway...much of above is interesting, but much of it also slightly naive. our profession is barely legally justifiable (mostly cuz the aforementioned aristocrat-y folk made it into a profession way back when they were also dign legal things and had power, and the world has since moved on...)..
the answer? to make more money get clients and work something out. how to do that is part of the learning process.
personally, i think we should be thankful for the time as interns to learn out trade. my architect friends in uruguay tell me there are no intenrships as most firms can't hire staff so the only choice on graduation is to make an office and find work fast. now THAT is an education (my friends being very smart and talented still have an office 5 years on)...
"most developers want you for one thing. to calculate how many fire exits, bathrooms and parking spaces are required. they can handle the "design" themselves."
that may be true for some developers, but it's an incredibly cynical generalization. if these are your clients, i'm really sorry.
So much anger, all aligned, and yet all aimed at each other.
I recently read this:
Do you dream of untold wealth, fast cars and plasma screen TVs? Did you know that research suggests people who strive for financial success tend to be less satisfied with their lives?
Carol Nickerson (University of Illinois, USA) and colleagues wondered
whether this negative effect would disappear if people's income were taken into account. Like any other dream, might the goal of financial success be harmful only for those that fail? Humanist psychologists would disagree, arguing that seeking happiness through wealth is destined to failure.
Nickerson and her team had access to the financial aspirations of 12,894 American students when they began university in 1976, together with information on their financial status and levels of life-satisfaction collected between 1995 and 1997.
Contrary to the predictions of humanists, Nickerson found that, overall, the richer people were, the higher their life-satisfaction. And although, overall, dreams of wealth at university predicted subsequent reduced life-satisfaction, this relationship disappeared with financial success. Furthermore, the enhanced life-satisfaction that came from financial success was unaffected by whether or not individuals had dreamt of wealth when they were younger.
The message, it seems, is that striving for wealth and failing will make you miserable. Financial success, meanwhile, is likely to make you happier whether you dreamt of it or not.
Nickerson, C., Schwarz, N., Diener, E. & Kahneman, D. (2003). Zeroing in on the dark side of the American Dream: A closer look at the negative consequences of the goal for financial success. Psychological Science, 14, 531-536.
I know I am going to say something I regret, but here it goes. Could the reason be why Architect compensation is not equal to other professions is because Architects are somewhat indispensable? Ok, before you start calling me names and bashing my name, hear me out on my logic.
In regards to building a house - most folks envision working one-on-one with an Architect. In the informational gathering process, homeowners figure they can do without an Architect for whatever reason. Maybe its because a contractor/developer talks them out of needing an architect; or maybe the build requires a straightforward design, which doesn't require an architect; or maybe the cost deters them from hiring an Architect and they opt for a pre-built plan suggested by a builder. In this situation, it seems as though the contractor/builder wins.
In simple terms, shouldn't Architects look for opportunities to engage with stakeholders early in the process; improve upon their marketing skills; sell their products and services while convincing stakeholders that they cannot live without their services (e.g. uniqueness, quality, cost savings, resale value, etc). This would inevitably enhance the requisite of architecture work, and in turn would increase value in the industry as a whole.
Maybe this is an opportunity for an ad campaign or support from advocates, or simply getting out there and selling what you have to offer.
I also wonder if it's about numbers. Are we are saying that architects should be compensated similar to doctors and lawyers based on the required education and experience to become licenced? I wonder how many people graduate architecture school vs. law or med school. Are there just too many architects? When I have time, I'll try and dig up the statistics...
...i'd love to see the stats WTD. I think many agree that time spent in architecture school compared to other professions (e.g. law and medical) is relevant and we feel cheated that our compensation is lacking.
In regards to lawyers, they seem to be abundant in any city - I don't think architects outnumber lawyers, but who knows. Seeing that everyone today seems to be sue happy in todays society, the prolific number of lawyers is probably justified.
sorry m. fidler. i missed the second post where you clarified.
there is still lots of disgruntlment about our profession here, much of it unwarranted.
money and architecture breed cynicism i think. vado is just realistic.
funnily enough architecture is sometimes like cat puke. sure there is a cute cat attached to the deal, but every once in a while cat puke has to be dealt with first.
recently i was talking to my partner about how we should work our office. we have access to finance and developers and with a shitload of effort we have a slight chance to eventually do towers like rem does...but as we talked it over we sort of realised that rem gets to do interesting towers (like in kentucky; now by rex) after 30 years of doing interesting small things and a few big things...the towers came much later...trying to get to that market (ie, the cultural market that rem built his own career on) from the other end means we would probably never get to be avant garde. which puts us in a precarious position. money is what feeds our families so we need it, and cultural jobs are more difficult to get than finance-driven ones...so which way do we go? we don't know still. it is the classic question but we are the bosses rather than the interns now...things just don't get easier.
this relates to the original post in that offices which take the finance route probably are better compensated and can offer better wages and beni's (maybe i am wrong, but i am lead to beleive som pays well). and yet there are many (most even?) who don't take that route...and so margins are tighter and wages low-ish.
it is difficult. once you acknowledge money is part of the package architecture as a profession becomes very very complicated. when it is just design it is easier to be aloof...
anyway, i am now up after 3 very late nights doing a competition (we are down to last 3) for an installation in corporate reearch campus...which sort of says it all really. my partner on this is an artist of some talent and here we are putting all our effort into the damn proposal to make some cool art for the people with the money...and neither of us are sleeping much cuz we beleive in what we are doing and are thus slightly stupid...
I absolutely agree with crowbert way above. How many of us use structural engineer consultants who bill at a much higher rate than we do? Isn't that a familiar situation to all of us? How does a P.E. have the balls to charge way more than a R.A.? They're both educated, licensed, and working at the same level in the same field, two halves of the same damn coin.
I always think of the craigslist phenomenon. I know I've talked about this on here before, so bear with me... but on craigslist, if you list something for free, no one will email you. if you stick even a $10 pricetag on that old lamp you're just dying to get rid of, bam, 8 emails in 20 minutes. People judge value partly (a good deal, in fact) by the value that others attribute to an item --even the sellers. This is actually a documented psychological fact. I can't find the citation now but I did hear a short npr story on it once.
myriam - your comment ties into my "value" comment above. The bottom line is that Architects have to create a "value" aspect to convey and persuade stakeholders that the service(s) they provide are important. Architects deserve the recognition as much as a P.E. or anyone else for that matter.
the concept myriam's discussing above is the "blind purchase" in which the buyer doesn't really know how to assess the value of the goods or services being acquired and therefore uses "price" as a surrogate for "value" - the acquisition of a diamond or the hiring of a brain surgeon falls into the category of a "blind purchase" for most of us.
I find that this concept has only limited utility in our world. most clients - at least in the commercial and institutional world - hire design firms often and have enough knowledge to draw meaningful distinctions about value and quality - or, they think they do. this creates an upper limit on the fees that can be charged in that world.
however, when we charge way too low a rate for our services, I do believe the client - any client - will discount, to a degree, the value of the advice or recommendation received.
so, what to do. as i've written elsewhere on this forum, we always must deliver a high quality service that responds fully to the client's requirements (not ours) and learn how to sell (negotiate) fees related to that service that accurately reflect both our costs and the value of what we do.
I know many musicians, writers, actors, dancers and artists who work their butt off and would love to make 50 grand a year.
The challenge is that architecture is a business AND an art. When it becomes too much like a business it’s not as fun anymore. The best kinds of projects are where the client understands the value of good design and plays a collaborative role in the design process. These kinds of clients are hard to find but they are there. The late-great graphic designer Tibor Kalman called those kinds of clients lunatics. He believed that if you found a lunatic client, one the appreciates and understands the value of good design, hold on the that client/lunatic for he/she can make you a star – I hope that’s not too Roarkian for you.
Here’s the quote. . . “there are very few lunatic entrepreneurs who will understand that culture and design are not about fatter wallets, but about creating a future. They will understand that wealth is a means, not an end. Under other circumstances they may have turned out to be like you, creative lunatics. Believe me, they’re there and when you find them, treat them well and use their money to change the world.” Tibor Kalman, 1998
le bossman makes a GREAT point - that is, when you're relatively young and inexperienced, there is a tendency to believe all problems are easy to diagnose and solve. gimme that magic wand!
as you age, you realize that even the best of intentions can be brutally difficult to accomplish.
back to the main thrust of this thread, I provide a copy of my post in another thread currently under way about Architecture as a business:
look ... what we're really talking about here is productivity ... productivity is a measure of what you accomplish in a given period of time ... on a fixed fee project, long hours linked to little advancement of the project results in financial hemorrhage ... certain professionals (doctors, lawyers, mangement consultants) earn very high hourly rates because they can solve their client's problems both at a very high level of quality and quickly.
imho, having a successful business and earning a good living is about both high quality and efficiency. until our profession comes to grips with both parts of that equation, we will continue to suffer businesses that are, at best, marginally succesful.
Architects: the worst paid job in the world
I was just talking our arch. principal and making a quick review of a cost to do a feasibility study. The cost winds up being $25K, but what did the founder of the firm say we needed to do it for - the principal who never does any of the actual nose-to-the-grindstone work say? $10K. Its a motherscratchin' midrise condo building - we're talkin' anywhere from $4-$6M overall selling price (just for the condo portion!) and $25K is too high? W.T.F. - That's why we get paid so little, because the people determining how much actual work needs to get done, and how much resources are available to do it never are the ones to interact with the client, at least at the beginning, when its so important. So, before you quote a price, figure out how much work is needed to reasonable do the job, and make that your floor. Then add a percentage based on how busy you are - not how much you want the job - because you will hate the job about 1/2 through when the cheap bastards start stripping your design and slap aluminum siding all over it.
I hate to say it, but stop charging so little. Doctors, lawyers etc... are considered as good as the rates they charge. Everyone assumes that a $200/hr. lawyer is half as good as a $400/hr. lawyer. That may not be true, but at a gut level, that's what we feel. People who pay half-assed prices should get half-assed work. And like all cheap bastards, they'll wind up paying more for less in the end. Any architect worth their salt should save their client the cost of their "premium" in not only making sure the job gets done right, but also in satisfaction. If your potential client can't understand that, then they don't deserve you (unless, of course, you plan on doing a half-assed job.)
crowbert
You should be charging at least $300k for that work...if not $500k
mdler,
Its just to do the first run through - not even "meet with the locals" level of work. Basic floor plan, structural survey, code review, etc... $25K prior to buying the building is not too bad, but if you've got the wherewithall (how do you spell that word, anyway) to finance a $5M project, $25K for a pre-purchase survey is a cost-of-doing buisness expense - and thats just our cost + overhead - no real profit for us in there. And, so far as things go, $25K is on the low end of that service. So why we're going to loose $15K on the job that we're certainly going to get (who wouldn't pick us for our super-under-cut bid?) when I am here late at night working on cleaning up the last half-assed project we put out because we ran out of money to do it right is beyond me. I think what has done us in is that there are architecture interns out there that think this is how you attract clients and run a buisness.
Anyway mdler, If we're talking the the whole 9 yards, renderings, meeting with community boards, etc... that's 6 figs easy. Well, except where I work.
As much as I'm tired about just talking about our pay with no solution for the problem, I'm going to contribute to this thread. I'm with Strawbeary that some of the other professions are simply overpaid. I have respect for what doctors do, but they are often overeducated, over-specialized, and overpaid for their services. The only difference is that we are overeducated (about all the wrong things) over-generalized, and underpaid for our services - imagine a school where we're not all taught to be starchitects just as not all doctors are trained to be neurosurgeons (not that they are equal by any measure but you get the idea). The problem (as discussed many times on Archinect) is due to many factors with some that are out of any groups' (i.e. AIA) or individuals' control. Some of the reasons we are underpaid are also the same reasons I have respect for this field as well.
-- in my humble, knuckle-dragging opinion, this is one of the root causes of our profession's economic problems. while I don't expect colleges to become trade schools, I do have an expectation that emerging graduates will, to a large extent, have a basic understanding of what professional practice is all about and be able to make a meaningful contribution without a huge additional investment by the employer to teach them basic professional skills. mentorships should be about helping someone become a better designer and practitioner, not teaching them the basics of cad or how to draw a wall section. no wonder most of you guys are bored once you enter an office
we have too many students coming out of college with huge, huge amounts of debt and they typically don't have a clue about what to do in an office -- no wonder firms don't want to pay much for entry level "talent"
then too, graduates become so conditioned in school to the idea that if they're not doing "publishable" work, they easily get frustrated with their professional situation or start thinking of themselves as failures.
making more money is not necessarily about feeding our own egos or value system -- it's about a) personal productivity and b) providing the client very high levels of what they both need and value. together, these are the two keys to improving our economic lot. improvements in both areas will lead to both increased fees and increased compensation.
Doesnt anyone wonder how the crap it got to this? Have people been blind for the last 30 years or was it always this disconnected? I doubt it was...
crowbert,
the real estate agent/broker will make more than your office from those million dollar pads
We are probably going to lose a job that we bid just under 2% of the construction cost for our services (doesn't include CA). Too expensive, says the developer, he doesn't want to spend that much on design services.
A little background: Said developer had handed us a site plan with a bunch of boxes laid out with letters a-d on it (unit types) and an elevation cartooned up by an old school architect (that didn't even work not to mention was dumb and ugly). The developer told us the work was "practically done" and so our fee was too much given ALL the work that had already been done. Then he changed the unit number and distribution and demanded CD's in 6 weeks. Its about a 12 million project. He won't tell us how much he'll pay, he just wants us to throw out lower and lower numbers till he agrees. We have 2 other of his projects, both have lost money, and one of which I worked a serious amount of unpaid overtime on.
I don't understand how you can provide less quality design and drawings to save your fee. Doesn't it come back and bite you in the ass later when nothing makes sense?
I just checked my figures for above. It was actually a 1.5% fee and it included structural but not MEP.
Dammson - don't even get me started on brokers. They are the people with the least risk, least workload per dollar, quickest to devalue the work, least knowledge of what makes a good building, and also the ones to make most of the money.
Strawbeary - Why are you taking the job? Can't you ask the principal why? Let someone else be in that car wreck. If you've lost money every time you've worked with him before, then you are essentially making money by not taking it. By that measure competitions pay more and you can ditch them at any time when more work comes in the door.
Phil - GP's are not overvalued, and that's why there's a shortage of them. People can justify outrageous income in a specialist job because there is a very easy way to measure success when you only have to get one thing right. As a profession that has no easy way to measure success, we are devalued because we can't prove that we are 13.72% better than the next guy and so deserve 113.72% his pay. Hell, the whole pay scale of this country is out of wack. If Enron taught us anything, its that you deserve your outrageous fortune if you look like you are doing something to make all this money, but you don't actually have to do anything. If we ever wake up to these accounting tricks and see how much these guys are actually costing us, you will see architects, family doctors, nurses and other generalists incomes rise, and the specialists incomes fall. For now, all we can do is stop working for less than it costs us to do the job, and letting the half-assed architects do the half-assed jobs.
we aren't taking it. he won't give it to us at that price.
S, the more we do of that, the less this thread will be relevant - though we do have a long way to go.
It takes passion for one to stay in the profession. Countless of my classmates have chosen to venture into other fields and they are earning so much more than those like myself who have chosen to stay. I can't imagine myself doing anthing outside architecture, construction and interior design - - not because I was trained to work in these fields and I've no other choice but because I TRULY, TRULY enjoy it...But then again, bills come in and tempted to get into advertising or the current trend where I am - - work for an outsourcing firm. Then again, call me just plain dumb and idealistic, I'd rather be living from paycheck to paycheck than earn a bit more than what I need dealing with irate customers over the telephone.
while this is not meant as a criticism of Caryatid15, the attitude expressed above [i.e. "I love doing this SO much I'd work for free."] means there's always going to be some other architect out there who will take the work for less fee.
that used to really bother me. then I figured out that I could do much better by learning to say "no" - if the fee doesn't make sense, we let it go. we're happier, infinitely more profitable, and work with clients who demonstrate (in many ways) that they value what we do for them. we don't feel like slaves any more.
fire those deadbeat clients who take unfair advantage of you - life's too short to work for such scum. you will survive!
Crowbert - If by GP you mean general practitioner, I'm going to disagree. I think there is a shortage because ONLY in comparison to the specialists, they are underpaid. 180K vs 300K. 180K is not exactly a small amount. There are additional issues there as well that isn't relevant to this thread - although still very important for those that want affordable healthcare.
And to throw in something that we rarely talk about - Perception. I know for a FACT that engineers and contractors generally believe that the architect makes far more than them while getting all the credit and fame. The average for doctors is actually closer to 120K while the architects' is around 65K. It really isn't that bad considering there are actually more experience levels and more variety of practices in Architecture. If the 25% self-employment number is correct, many of us are working from home or at a very small office - in which case the reported annual salary is hard to comparably quantify. The averages can be very deceptive.
So basically the only instance where we can justifiably say we are paid too little is for the entry levels. While I admit that fresh architecture grads do not have the real-world knowledge compared to grads in different fields, 36K is a ridiculous number for those with a large debt. And as for those unpaid overtime hours...
most developers want you for one thing. to calculate how many fire exits, bathrooms and parking spaces are required. they can handle the "design" themselves.
cb - i know, easier said than done though, me and another coworker worked to convince the principal to NOT go any lower, thus losing the job. now we feel guilty because we have little work. I may get laid off, who knows?
I'll also add, that whatever some people make, it wouldn't be enough. If you made 100k, you'd be wanting 125k. Do well with what you have.
almost all developers vado. too true. also architects are required to calculate max buildable area, buildable volume according to light access laws and cetera....hm, actually we provide an actual service...nothing any highschool kid witha few brain cells couldn't do, but still a service.
some developers also require design content. that is when highschool kid turns out to be incompetent.
there are much worse jobs and for much poorer pay as well as better jobs for better pay and cetera and cetera. i am not sure if there is a point that can be made except that the universe isn't fair.
in our pro-practice and history courses we were taught that architecture as a profession emerged from the hobbies and proclivities of the aristocracy, who did not design so much for money as much as for something to do. this changed slowly and became a profession but unlike medicine the client base did not grow as the world became wealthier over time. that is an acident of history, and one that is not per se anyone's fault.
more than that i find it odd that anyone can complain about having to fold a1 dwg sets to fit into a4 binder as beneath them. why? i have done it before and now it is just 2 of us i do it now too. when we get staff the young fellow/lass will do that job. it is in fact part of the process of learning how to be an architect, boring as it may be...
anyway...much of above is interesting, but much of it also slightly naive. our profession is barely legally justifiable (mostly cuz the aforementioned aristocrat-y folk made it into a profession way back when they were also dign legal things and had power, and the world has since moved on...)..
the answer? to make more money get clients and work something out. how to do that is part of the learning process.
personally, i think we should be thankful for the time as interns to learn out trade. my architect friends in uruguay tell me there are no intenrships as most firms can't hire staff so the only choice on graduation is to make an office and find work fast. now THAT is an education (my friends being very smart and talented still have an office 5 years on)...
i never said folding drawings was beneath me. read a bit more carefully next time, fella/lass.
vado,
"most developers want you for one thing. to calculate how many fire exits, bathrooms and parking spaces are required. they can handle the "design" themselves."
that may be true for some developers, but it's an incredibly cynical generalization. if these are your clients, i'm really sorry.
theres nothing cynical about it. it's part of the job. just like folding shop drawings that can be put in banker's boxes.
most developers want us exclusively to make sure everything meets code, that's not cynical?
whatev, dude. i just got home to a dining room full of cat puke. i'm not in a great mood. i'll get off the 'nect.
who else is going to do it? i can relate to the cat situation.
Gosh!
So much anger, all aligned, and yet all aimed at each other.
I recently read this:
Do you dream of untold wealth, fast cars and plasma screen TVs? Did you know that research suggests people who strive for financial success tend to be less satisfied with their lives?
Carol Nickerson (University of Illinois, USA) and colleagues wondered
whether this negative effect would disappear if people's income were taken into account. Like any other dream, might the goal of financial success be harmful only for those that fail? Humanist psychologists would disagree, arguing that seeking happiness through wealth is destined to failure.
Nickerson and her team had access to the financial aspirations of 12,894 American students when they began university in 1976, together with information on their financial status and levels of life-satisfaction collected between 1995 and 1997.
Contrary to the predictions of humanists, Nickerson found that, overall, the richer people were, the higher their life-satisfaction. And although, overall, dreams of wealth at university predicted subsequent reduced life-satisfaction, this relationship disappeared with financial success. Furthermore, the enhanced life-satisfaction that came from financial success was unaffected by whether or not individuals had dreamt of wealth when they were younger.
The message, it seems, is that striving for wealth and failing will make you miserable. Financial success, meanwhile, is likely to make you happier whether you dreamt of it or not.
Nickerson, C., Schwarz, N., Diener, E. & Kahneman, D. (2003). Zeroing in on the dark side of the American Dream: A closer look at the negative consequences of the goal for financial success. Psychological Science, 14, 531-536.
I know I am going to say something I regret, but here it goes. Could the reason be why Architect compensation is not equal to other professions is because Architects are somewhat indispensable? Ok, before you start calling me names and bashing my name, hear me out on my logic.
In regards to building a house - most folks envision working one-on-one with an Architect. In the informational gathering process, homeowners figure they can do without an Architect for whatever reason. Maybe its because a contractor/developer talks them out of needing an architect; or maybe the build requires a straightforward design, which doesn't require an architect; or maybe the cost deters them from hiring an Architect and they opt for a pre-built plan suggested by a builder. In this situation, it seems as though the contractor/builder wins.
In simple terms, shouldn't Architects look for opportunities to engage with stakeholders early in the process; improve upon their marketing skills; sell their products and services while convincing stakeholders that they cannot live without their services (e.g. uniqueness, quality, cost savings, resale value, etc). This would inevitably enhance the requisite of architecture work, and in turn would increase value in the industry as a whole.
Maybe this is an opportunity for an ad campaign or support from advocates, or simply getting out there and selling what you have to offer.
I also wonder if it's about numbers. Are we are saying that architects should be compensated similar to doctors and lawyers based on the required education and experience to become licenced? I wonder how many people graduate architecture school vs. law or med school. Are there just too many architects? When I have time, I'll try and dig up the statistics...
...i'd love to see the stats WTD. I think many agree that time spent in architecture school compared to other professions (e.g. law and medical) is relevant and we feel cheated that our compensation is lacking.
In regards to lawyers, they seem to be abundant in any city - I don't think architects outnumber lawyers, but who knows. Seeing that everyone today seems to be sue happy in todays society, the prolific number of lawyers is probably justified.
sorry m. fidler. i missed the second post where you clarified.
there is still lots of disgruntlment about our profession here, much of it unwarranted.
money and architecture breed cynicism i think. vado is just realistic.
funnily enough architecture is sometimes like cat puke. sure there is a cute cat attached to the deal, but every once in a while cat puke has to be dealt with first.
recently i was talking to my partner about how we should work our office. we have access to finance and developers and with a shitload of effort we have a slight chance to eventually do towers like rem does...but as we talked it over we sort of realised that rem gets to do interesting towers (like in kentucky; now by rex) after 30 years of doing interesting small things and a few big things...the towers came much later...trying to get to that market (ie, the cultural market that rem built his own career on) from the other end means we would probably never get to be avant garde. which puts us in a precarious position. money is what feeds our families so we need it, and cultural jobs are more difficult to get than finance-driven ones...so which way do we go? we don't know still. it is the classic question but we are the bosses rather than the interns now...things just don't get easier.
this relates to the original post in that offices which take the finance route probably are better compensated and can offer better wages and beni's (maybe i am wrong, but i am lead to beleive som pays well). and yet there are many (most even?) who don't take that route...and so margins are tighter and wages low-ish.
it is difficult. once you acknowledge money is part of the package architecture as a profession becomes very very complicated. when it is just design it is easier to be aloof...
anyway, i am now up after 3 very late nights doing a competition (we are down to last 3) for an installation in corporate reearch campus...which sort of says it all really. my partner on this is an artist of some talent and here we are putting all our effort into the damn proposal to make some cool art for the people with the money...and neither of us are sleeping much cuz we beleive in what we are doing and are thus slightly stupid...
what a world.
I absolutely agree with crowbert way above. How many of us use structural engineer consultants who bill at a much higher rate than we do? Isn't that a familiar situation to all of us? How does a P.E. have the balls to charge way more than a R.A.? They're both educated, licensed, and working at the same level in the same field, two halves of the same damn coin.
I always think of the craigslist phenomenon. I know I've talked about this on here before, so bear with me... but on craigslist, if you list something for free, no one will email you. if you stick even a $10 pricetag on that old lamp you're just dying to get rid of, bam, 8 emails in 20 minutes. People judge value partly (a good deal, in fact) by the value that others attribute to an item --even the sellers. This is actually a documented psychological fact. I can't find the citation now but I did hear a short npr story on it once.
myriam - your comment ties into my "value" comment above. The bottom line is that Architects have to create a "value" aspect to convey and persuade stakeholders that the service(s) they provide are important. Architects deserve the recognition as much as a P.E. or anyone else for that matter.
the concept myriam's discussing above is the "blind purchase" in which the buyer doesn't really know how to assess the value of the goods or services being acquired and therefore uses "price" as a surrogate for "value" - the acquisition of a diamond or the hiring of a brain surgeon falls into the category of a "blind purchase" for most of us.
I find that this concept has only limited utility in our world. most clients - at least in the commercial and institutional world - hire design firms often and have enough knowledge to draw meaningful distinctions about value and quality - or, they think they do. this creates an upper limit on the fees that can be charged in that world.
however, when we charge way too low a rate for our services, I do believe the client - any client - will discount, to a degree, the value of the advice or recommendation received.
so, what to do. as i've written elsewhere on this forum, we always must deliver a high quality service that responds fully to the client's requirements (not ours) and learn how to sell (negotiate) fees related to that service that accurately reflect both our costs and the value of what we do.
First post, yea!
I know many musicians, writers, actors, dancers and artists who work their butt off and would love to make 50 grand a year.
The challenge is that architecture is a business AND an art. When it becomes too much like a business it’s not as fun anymore. The best kinds of projects are where the client understands the value of good design and plays a collaborative role in the design process. These kinds of clients are hard to find but they are there. The late-great graphic designer Tibor Kalman called those kinds of clients lunatics. He believed that if you found a lunatic client, one the appreciates and understands the value of good design, hold on the that client/lunatic for he/she can make you a star – I hope that’s not too Roarkian for you.
Here’s the quote. . . “there are very few lunatic entrepreneurs who will understand that culture and design are not about fatter wallets, but about creating a future. They will understand that wealth is a means, not an end. Under other circumstances they may have turned out to be like you, creative lunatics. Believe me, they’re there and when you find them, treat them well and use their money to change the world.” Tibor Kalman, 1998
i really don't understand these threads.... if you love your job, and you have passion for it, then the money will follow.
it sucks that our culture is centered around money and status. it really does.
how about when you guys go to start your own firms you just treat your employees better and bill higher than your predecessors did?
le bossman makes a GREAT point - that is, when you're relatively young and inexperienced, there is a tendency to believe all problems are easy to diagnose and solve. gimme that magic wand!
as you age, you realize that even the best of intentions can be brutally difficult to accomplish.
look ... what we're really talking about here is productivity ... productivity is a measure of what you accomplish in a given period of time ... on a fixed fee project, long hours linked to little advancement of the project results in financial hemorrhage ... certain professionals (doctors, lawyers, mangement consultants) earn very high hourly rates because they can solve their client's problems both at a very high level of quality and quickly.
imho, having a successful business and earning a good living is about both high quality and efficiency. until our profession comes to grips with both parts of that equation, we will continue to suffer businesses that are, at best, marginally succesful.
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.