i don't see how it would be possible unless one manages to get T&M contracts; good luck getting T&M in commercial and institutional.

i'm learning that i can't make it without drafting help becasue,
a) i need to be able to be able to make a bit of money off their time and
b) it helps me stay billable at higher my rate.

i had one commercial project come back from bids over-budget. making the necessary corrections (on my dime) not only blows the fee for the project but keeps me from working on other projects that have fee. ouch - tough last few months.

"hire" some unpaid interns. there's bunches of them out there.

i've seen some people pull it off admirably. i wasn't one of them.

I guess I should have been more clear.
I know I can complete jobs, with or without help, particularly, if they're all, say, houses, or smallish, simple projects.
But is it reasonable to expect that an architect can have all the skills necessary to provide exemplary services for ALL phases of projects, especially when the project types include a fair bit of variation (ranging from housing to quasi-medical to commercial)?
I think I'm pretty good at acquiring work, and designing it, even coordinating consultants, but I'm finding that construction administration keeps my nerves frayed to the point of exhaustion. The exception is when it's with a contractor I have built a relationship with and can trust.
Maybe I don't spend enough time on CD's to make sure they're bulletproof.
Maybe I'm too soft / sensitive to play hardball with conviction.
Maybe I should just go make some baskets and sell them on the roadside.

Sorry, I'm in the middle of the toughest few weeks of my career so far.

Thanks, Steven.

problems i had:
- when i was sitting in a meeting i was thinking 'nobody's drawing anything'
- i hated sending out bills
- i hated taking time out to pay bills
- i was spending way too much time doing things that did not feel like 'being an architect'
- i was lonely and needed some social interaction with peers

all that said, i realized that if i was more naturally comfortable with the internal office administration side of things, i could probably have done very well financially. especially when you're doing residential work, where you build a very personal relationship with your client, i found that they were very good about paying not just in a timely way, but very quickly.

i just wasn't willing to fully commit to the things i thought were boring. spoiled, i guess.

Steven,
This all sounds like it's in the past.
Have you changed your circumstances?

yep. almost two years ago i decided that i'd go back to work for someone else. concentrate on being an architect again and get back into larger scale projects. stop being my clients' marriage counselor.

started off rocky after having enjoyed a certain amount of freedom and autonomy, but all is good at this point. and i have health insurance.

since then i've been subpoenaed for a deposition - a case between one of my clients and their contractor. luckily i'm not implicated. but i still have to go in sometime and give them some more hours.

freq -

glenn murcutt, to pick the most obvious, is able to pull it off. though even he pulled in help on his larger institutional projects.

to me, there are a few dangers in going solo for that kind of work: first, as someone pointed out, if anything goes wrong or the time you thought you'd need to spend ends up being more, you're at a real risk of having cash flow / time problems.

second - what happens if the project goes on hold or the client payment times start slipping? an old employer of mine found himself in a situation where the client (the taiwanese government) stopped paying the team, of which he was a sub-consultant. arup, who was the prime, kept pushing everyone to finish (what the taiwanese wanted the team to do) and had the financial depth to take the short term hit on the delayed bills, but my friend ended up, two years later, bankrupt and out of business. same thing with another guy in town here - got stiffed by a large house client (for whom he had to dedicate his time solely to for the better part of 4 months) and ended up closing shop because the client disappeared without paying 60K+ in bills. (and yes, i realize it's easy to say 'well, just stop working until they do.' it's not that easy when you're a solo practice - if you just stop, do you have another project lined up ready to bring income in? if not, you start to feel some desperation towards continuing on just to get paid eventually).

lastly - commercial and institutional are very different animals than residential - i think it's easier to do a solo practice focused around the latter, but the time commitments, for institutional especially, are usually too high to make it alone.

good luck -

Clients not paying bills is a reality. Particularly when you have subconsultants (engineers and such) that you have to pay, and who are much more "businesslike" than you can be as a sole practitioner. i.e. they make it clear that they need their $40,000 pronto, when your client still owes you $80,000.

Where is a sole practitioner going to come up with $40,000? In some cases, that's their whole salary.

I think the better question is: why would you want to be a sole practitioner?

I was for 18 years -- damn lonely time of my life.

I now have partners, we do much better work, we have each other to lean on and bounce ideas off of; when one of us has to be away (family illness, vacation, etc.) things don't grind to a halt; together we can afford more overhead and support than ever was the case as a sole practitioner.

sure it can be done - I just don't recommend it.

neither do i (recommend).
i am on the verge of financial collapse and the business does not grow and potential clients think you don't have capacity/resources to handle 'their' project even it is a kitchen remodel joblette.

yeah, there are exceptions to that, but once you finish that project, it is struggle all over again to start another one.
i don't think sole practitioner example that keeps coming up, murcutt, is a common situation and good example to base your reasons to be a lone ranger. actually, it is quite redicilous to even mention his name as a paradigm. one in many million that you'll be awarded with what he is awarded with, that is, projects and clients that are lined up at his door for his creations...
it sounds romantic, but more often than not, it is against the nature of architecture to be a sole practitioner in today's context.

i would be open to a partnership with someone competable at this point.

I shall never be a sole practitioner...i have come to believe more than ever in the importance of the diversity of viewpoints. Regardless of how smart and competent and well connected you are, you are only one person..plus I would really like to banish once and for all the idea of the architect as a singular visionary genius..

by the way, per the AIA's latest Firm Survey, 23% of architectural firms in the US are sole practitioners. That's down from 34% in 1996.

i m waiting for two things to happen on archinect...

1. a marriage between someone on here who meet and fall in love
2. the creation of an architecture firm.

vado what do you say we set up shop, and then i'll eventually marry liberty bell somehow

now that sounds like a plan...

mr liberty bell is bigger than you.

quizzical: Yet we note the amplified verbiage of AIA (a dollar short and a day late??) to the effect that they're *now* concerned with the small firm. About time, and i hope they reverse the decline but am not counting on it.

Orhan: hang in there, whether by sticking it out (I don't know how, after 2 decades in practice, small & micro;-), or by joint venturing, partnering or going the route of Mr. Ward.

Steven: a recent (& reasonably successful) joint venture partner of mine decided to pack it up, as you did a couple of years back, and take a lucrative offer, except that, instead of being called to court by others, he took his financial independence as an opportunity to go after scum who didn't pay and has thus far pocketed about $50,000 after attorneys and other expenses, with more to come.

I've taught college as an adjunct for 14 years to get a steady (but tiny) paycheck while continuing a small firm and am going full-time shortly in anticipation of a downtime in our field. These are the storms small firms face, but we should not. We need a new thread (so we don't hijack freq_arch's) to name solutions. One of you post some ideas here and let's go for it with a new entry.

dbahomeplans - not sure what your AIA experience has been like, but my 27 years as a member suggests AIA bends over backwards to support the small firm - despite the fact that a disproportionate % of dues are carried by practitioners working in mid-sized and large firms.

having said that, I have no reason to think AIA is pursuing a proactive policy to "preserve" or "expand" the small firm. while that notion has a certain romantic appeal (like the family farm) there are many economic and professional reasons (imho) that will make solo practice increasingly difficult to sustain.

nevertheless, AIA will continue to provide tools and programs designed to support all practitioners working at all scales

One key difference between the way the architects operate back in NZ / Australia (e.g. Murcutt), and in the USA is that the architect is contracted directly to the client, along with every other consultant. Even big architectural firms down under will pull together a consultant team, and then organise individual contracts for each consultant with the client, not through the architect. The down side is that the architect has no big financial stick to wield over a non-performing consultant, but the upside is less financial risk. There are a large proportion of small firms back home, and I think small practices can thrive more due to not having to shoulder the burden of paying consultants out of their pocket.

I practiced on my own for about 1.5 years, out of necessity and because some unexpected projects came my way after quitting my full time job. I had a great time, but I was also aware of how lonely it could be. You really learn a lot just being in an office with other people. So I contracted a little to other smallish firms, and would go in and work in their office for a few days a week. It was a nice balance, and I could have continued if I my other half wasn't lured to the USA.

I like the admiration everyone has for Murcutt but he larger sticks to SF projects and yes brings in a team of help when necessary, I survived quite well early in my career but did get worried about being the sole bread winner for the family as the kids got bigger so any down time for holidays / illness etc was very stressful. Also wanted to work on larger projects and just didn't look as professional to others when I was by myself, clients always ask how much horsepower I have. Much happier with a few staff to cover me off, and allow me to focus on other aspects within the office without feeling like I have to spend time in front of the computer completing a drawing set.

going solo really does you require to be on point all the time. Something that could be saved by having a temp or even a student who spends a couple of hours handling paper work or even a bit of CAD. There is a limitation to how much you can grow independently, and as Orhan stated the reality of this. lately I have had more of a foot hold in private practice as I come close to the end of my working contract with the govt. it is interesting because I recognised how many times when i'm working that I needed someone else to look at something or do the mundane tasks, and well because stem cell research and cloning has been put on hold I have to well do it myself. On that note, that movie with Michael Keaton and his clones, was he an architect or a builder? Can't remember anyhow

quizzical,
Observations from early in my career did not reveal our local AIA as supportive of small firms (20+ years ago), but I've been more impressed in recent years, so perhaps trend is to the good. Agreed, the AIA should not favor one firm type over another, yet much of its documentation and practice writings appear oriented toward larger firms with administrative resources beyond those of a sole practitioner, so it's arguable that its bias, though not intentional, has been toward those most able to utilize those resources.

Even incremental efforts, such as the documents for projects of limited scope, were met with some resistance when they first appeared (as I recall from letters to editors in trade journals and discussion among certain members at meetings), though the organization did in fact deliver. I agree strongly that solo practice is increasingly difficult to sustain. Though that's not caused by the AIA, it's a trend likely to continue, as your earlier stats indicated. I should have taken more care in my wording, as I do think the organization paid attention to a deficiency and began (however slowly from my vantage) moving to resolve it. This may prove to be a leaderly position relative to organizations in allied fields.

Some of this bias (again, not a bias originating with the AIA nor especially advocated by it) has to do with a tendency of businesses in our culture to consolidate. Some of this is related to efficiency, some is related to accounting & reporting requirements, and some to the nature of legal & professional accountability. The latter compels me most in seeking to establish a network of local cooperating professionals who, at the least, can peer-review and provide complementary services, or in a better situation to form a firm of compatible professionals. This is after nearly 2 decades in business as the only principal in a firm ranging in size from sole to 6 technical personnel and a couple of contractors, plus non-technical support. The alternative, as per Mr. Ward & a former associate, is increasingly attractive, as is non-traditional practice.

Antipodean's comment piques my curiosity as to whether certain aspects of Australia's legal climate contribute to the larger number of sole & micro practitioners.

I would say the more relaxed legal climate in Oz and NZ definitely benefits smaller practice. This is changing though, as greater regulation of the building industry and requirements for all subcontractors and contractors to be licensed and insured increases.

There is also a spirit of entrepreneurship that drives both cultures, a very "can do" positive attitude. Plus the vast majority of housing, even in the big cities, are still single family dwellings. So there are plenty of opportunities for young hungry architects to set up shop and do their own work.

antipodean,
Georgia, where I practice (State of, not Republic), is currently making contractors get a license for the first time ever (duh), and more communities are finally waking up to a need to plan proper projects with adequate docs (& real seals by real professionals), so some of that's getting better here. However, sole practitioners are more challenged to produce those docs in a timely manner. it's become a near-necessity to have drafting help and organize fees & billing enough to pay for it. Partners can help.

i think the most difficult issue facing the sole practitioner is that, without a parallel career in academia, how does this individual stay creative and current with the times? there are a lot of architects out there stuck in another era because they don't have enough interaction with other designers. personally i think design innovation usually stems from some type of relationship with academia in addition to a pool of creative people to bounce ideas off of. a successful architect certainly knows more than just how to design buildings alone. actually i think from a paperwork standpoint the sole practitioner is the best off.