pier - it sounds like to me, please correct me if I am mistaken, that you are an early 20's something student/grad that is very bitter and wish you had chosen another profession.
You keep referencing a few people/firms that are successful, yet you have no idea what their business models are (do you know what a business model is, I wonder) nor what their goals are.
I really think you need to get out there in the real world, get some experience and then you might have something legitimate to say. Until then, you are just annoying everyone here (and yet I keep falling for it! ;-) )
Why don't you go post on some business forums about your genius-ly unoriginal idea and come back here when you have the money.
Until you have the money, it is all just (very tired, old) ramblings. Don't try to tell some very successful people how they should be running things, show us how you are going to change the world [hint - it ain't starting here].
Gregory Walker - I just wanted to know if you can send me your email because I want you to send you an important essay. Perhaps, we can discuss about it.
I understand your point, and I respect you for it but I thought that other architects would hear me, and pay attention to me. Then, I realized that that is problem architects never hear each other or unify them. Therefore, this profession is never going to change for a better result. Architecture is a beautiful but it is decaying more and more every day. A lot of architects are desperate to find a solution but they do not find it. When someone tries to talk, they do not listen. So, Trace what your solution is for the architecture world. I just tried to say something but it is impossible. I think architecture is dead, and it is hard to revive it.
I just ask you a question. What would I do on a business forum if they do not care about architects? They treat architect without importance as many people do. Thus, I won’t waste my time doing that.
I just want to say something else. Currently, even the term “architect” (the one who is related to architecture) has been replaced by software architects.
piero - if it's a self authored essay... probably don't have the inclination to read it. If it's something that can help the whole class, by all means link to it.
Look, part of the reaction to the 'ideas' you're throwing out is (as trace notes) they've been hashed over 1000 times on archinect. Yawn. Same discussion, same results. The other part of that is that your responses in particular swing so wildly into absolutes.
'architects never hear...'
'profession is never going to...'
' when someone talks, they do not listen...'
The other thing is that your responses are all about YOU. (cue the tape...)
"but I thought that other architects would hear me, and pay attention to ME."
We've heard you, to be sure. Hearing and agreeing can be different. I'm asking you not to abandon your ideals but to get tougher with them - subject them to greater intellectual rigor and then see if they hold up. Your frustration seems to stem from the fact that no one agrees that the path you've laid out is the 'one true way' forward; hence, we're all pessimists doomed to wallow in our ... wait, that is who we are. Dammit. I hate when that happens....
There is not one simple explanation why architects aren't paid much relative to the cost of their education and time developing their career.
Having gone into architecture from a high-paying field, and having friends in different fields, I've observed the many factors why architects aren't paid much:
1. All architects go into the profession out of passion, not for the money. (Well, some do it for the money and guess what - they probably do make money) We cursed ourselves from the beginning. Most other licensed practitioners go into their fields with a financial incentive in mind. MFAs and Philosophy PhDs make far less than architects do with similar education requirements.
2. Architects aren't supposed to have a financial interest in the construction of a project, it's a purely advisory role. The AIA cursed the profession decades ago by casting us to an "agency" role only, forbidding us to have a stake in construction projects. It's removed us from a central role in the whole process. This is why GCs make far more than architects.
3. Scalability of product. The profession looks down upon creating "cookie cutter" structures. Architecture is an artisanal business where the product is almost always a one-off product; a building is rarely replicated. If an architect designed a housing prototype that was built 500-1000 times, and were paid 6% of each housing construction cost, that architect would be quite rich. Apple computer doesn't make money because it makes a great product, Apple makes money because they sell millions of them. That's why corporate CEOs are paid so much.
4. Scalability of firms. Most architects are sole practitioners, and there are very few really global and scaled firms like HOK or SOM. Most sole practitioner lawyers or accountants don't make any more than licensed architects do, it's only the lawyers working for large firms that do corporate work that make the big bucks.
5. Architects are involved in only about 5% of new housing construction; builders do the 95%. Architects took a moral stance against suburbia at some point in the post-war period and lost their foot in the door of that growth. Instead of working with developers in how to aid their business model we looked down our nose at them and removed ourselves from most residential construction.
6. Architects don't put any equity at risk (except liability risk). Builders make money because they put equity on the line - they gamble, betting on the likely outcome. Some do go bankrupt. Corporations risk shareholders' equity to create new products. It's hard to make money when you don't put your buck on the line.
7. Oversupply of architects. The American Medical Association limits the number of doctors going into the medical field, which keeps supply somewhat low and thus compensation for doctors somewhat protected. Lawyers, however, are in oversupply these days, and as a result lawyers aren't paid what they used to be - particularly below the top corporate tier.
8. Failure to adhere to a standard compensation model. Ever wonder why real estate agents make good money sometimes? It's because it's always been a 6% fee model, and that is rarely challenged. In architecture we continue to undercut our fees.
9. Architects think they're doing a public service by providing good design. Architects go way beyond the doctors' "Do no wrong" ethos - we believe (falsely) that almost all work we do benefits the public, that there is some kind of nobility in that. While that is true for some projects, this leads to a great deal of pro bono work, and willingness to work for less.
10. Americans don't value good design, and thus don't see the value-added in good design. Sorry, but it's true - Americans don't pay much of a premium for design, only materials. If this weren't the case, most Americans wouldn't be buying ugly McMansions from developers where a good architect isn't involved. Only in select cities do you find buyers willing to pay a premium per SF for good design.
11. We base our compensation relative to the cost of materials, not on the value we add. Theoretically the compensation should be based on the value gained from good design, not from what materials went into it. Does someone pay an artist a multiple of the paint and canvas it took to make that painting? Of course not. An example of a more accurate model of compensation would be for an architect to get paid based on the difference between selling price and cost of construction. That would better align the interests of the developer / owner with the architect.
I've been dealing with this subject for the last 14 years. No, it's not going to change. I'll simplify it for everyone:
Do architects deserve higher salaries? Yes
Are architects going to get higher salaries because they deserve them? No
Would you like to be an architect and earn an "okay" salary? It's up to each individual to choose. As long as you know it you can make a choice, and now you know it.
It's a personal choice and it is based in the lifestyle you'd like to live. I have peers whom are comfortable earning 60k/yr and I also have some that are not comfortable earning 120k/yr. Their personal reasons only matter to them. Society will not intervene in those type of decision because on the surface they don't hinder the public.
Gregory- The problem is that I cannot attach the essay, and the essay is long. It is not a short one. Therefore I could try to copy and paste the essay, but I don't think that many people would read because it is too long.
You know. Thank you everyone for paid attention to me. I understand that this is not important for many people, but I just can tell you something. We'll see in the future.
It is not a matter of salaries and negotiating them it is a matter of selling our services and the value we potentially can add. Unfortunately there are Architects who don’t deliver on the adding value part and sometimes there are architects who because of their ineptitude, diversions by other projects or life, or by shear dumb misfortune mess things up royally. The other problem is we are not just technicians but to some extent artist who have the most expensive media possible. So unless we can satisfy our creative urges in paper architecture we are eager and sometimes too eager to live the life or starving artist instead of well paid technical consultant. I think we have two types of architecture, technical and artistic, and the line between the two is blurred, but let’s say the Getty Museum in LA is artistic, and then the Pentagon near DC is technical. Not extreme ends of the spectrum but the willingness of the client to act as benevolent patron with a mostly hands off management style made the Getty the gem that it is. Sell a client on the importance of a building being beautiful as well as functional and you will be rewarded, not with pay but the fulfillment of being able to practice and master your craft. I would be happy designing work that made me and my clients happy if I had the chance to truly learn and grow from each project. As for money I think it depends on what lifestyle you choose and there is another thread for that I am sure. Each person has his or her personal poverty line where you are making it or not, and that changes as your life changes. I think a retired professor who does some stuff on the side can take pay or not, but an Ivy League graduate with a mountain of debt has to get paid and often it is not going to be enough to get over their personal poverty line. I often wonder if the social circles we get our work from have skewed the realistic lifestyle expectations our profession can support. How many painters and sculptors do you know who can afford to even imitate the lifestyle of their benefactors? What image of wealth did you have of an architect before you actually started to become an architect?
I just want to say something else. I do not think that the profession will improve because it is an art. It will never be well-paid. The problem is the architects. They do not want to do anything to find a solution for their economical issue. Perhaps, some architects want but other ones do not care. They just want to live like that. They just want to be treated like a piece of crap. Therefore, the future of the career is not good as other careers. First of all, there is no optimism in the career. Secondly, nobody see architects with importance. Thirdly, the architectural economy is going down every day. Nobody wants to pay an architect to design a building, and architects do not want to invest their money to realize the building. Thus, it is a dilemma. It is difficult to express something good about the career. Not many people imagine a good future for architects. Not even architects by themselves. If architects do not have a developer, their dreams are gone because they do not try to produce money autonomously.
piero, your statements are gross generalizations --- you can't essentialize people that way --- also, you are pushing a very narrowly defined viewpoint as a solution --- architect as developer is not a magic bullet
Any architecture graduate worth his salt instinctively knows that architecture is more important than money. The bottom line is you DO NOT pursue architecture if you want to make money. Architecture was traditionally studied and practiced by the elite, if you come from a middle income family and are not already well connected the bottom line is you will struggle to make ends meet. If you love for architecture is greater than your love for financial security, go for it, just don't moan about getting paid peanuts. Architecture is a service industry and the fact there is a "creative" element to it greatly devalues it's worth.
I lose patience with this persistent theme that a career in architecture dooms every practitioner - except those already rich - to a life of poverty. That simply is not true.
Architecture - like most economic endeavors - is a tough business. The rewards go to those who consistently deliver "value" to their clients. However, I think what escapes so many here on Archinect is the fact that we want to define "value" in our own sense of that word. What pisses off so many people here is that most of our clients have this disturbing tendency to define "value" in their own terms - not ours. That dichotomy defines the world of "haves" and "have nots" in our profession.
The simple fact is that I know many, many architects who have careers that are both professionally and economically rewarding. Some of those architects do great work - some don't. But, they're all very concerned about what their clients need and want - and they do their dead-level best to satisfy.
how about we become more efficient with our time and resources and manage to design more projects in the same amount of time hence making more money?
that should not get in the way of great architecture, professional satisfaction of client's happiness.
value is dictated by market, but market can be influenced. until we become able to affect our performance as professionals, how can we even start to think about affecting how we are perceived and paid?
most rich architects I know come from rich families, most architects I know (rich or poor) waste indefinite amounts of time and energy by being unable to plan, research, edit and sell their own work. the scarce value attributed by the market to our work is partly our fault and partly not (the price-per-square-meter that bldgs are paid doesn't depend on us, we are one of the few service-providing industries whose final product is quantified hence comes with a fixed revenue) but we should really stop moaning and learn some business skills.
What I am trying to explain is that architecture could be a career which you can enjoy, love and also produce good amounts of money. Of course, architects already love architecture, but they do not produce good money. Therefore, they have to find new ways of producing money in architecture. Right now, construction sector is more accredited to Civil engineers than architects. Architecture is seen as something different. Currently, some people think that a highway is more important than a good house. I understand that mobilization is important, but living is more important. That is the reason why you search at the internet about the richest construction companies are civil engineering firms. You will never see one which says architecture. Architecture is considered more a secondary job comparing with civil engineer. How can architects make more money? I do not know because my answer would be valid for me, but it won’t be good for other people.
"Currently, some people think that a highway is more important than a good house."
a highway IS more important to society, a house is only more important to an individual. highways are paid for by all of us through taxes, which means there is ALWAYS a steady stream of money and projects for civil engineers.
that's the difference and that's (one of a few reasons) why your comparison to civil engineers is wrong.
look at it this way - in the U.S., transportation is publicly subsidized but very little architecture is publicly subsidized. tackle that nut if you really want architects making more money like civil engineers.
Civil engineers also make a ton of money through drainage systems and ditches. Without adequate drainage, things like malaria, dysentery and typhus become big issues.
Of which there's two main schools of thought— surface or subterranean. Both have their issues; however, subterranean methods usually demand a level of urbanism but they allow for 100% lot usage (which means more architecture!). Also, when you go the pipe, lifter and pump route, this can be accomplished by architects and planners.
Sanitary plus storm sewers equals more money for architects and slower and less work for engineers because of their permanence and shelf-life.
i live in albuquerque which handles storm drainage via surface controls for 99% of the area, for two reasons.
1. the initial costs to the city/county/dot are less.
2. in the high desert we get summer monsoon rain flows that would overwhelm all but the most enormous and freakishly expensive subterranean systems.
the big drawback is indeed surface area devoted to moving/storing water for the few big events each year. we have a very large parcel of land at a busy downtown intersection that does nothing but sit idle all year waiting to handle a 6 hour storm event. the rest of the time - nothing. astonishing waste....
So, civil engineers have a much better future than architects. Therefore, more people would choose civil engineer as a major than architecture. Do you know something? The aqueducts were really invented by an architect, not by a civil engineer. That architect was Vitruvius.
But I just have to sound in about civil engineers. They are not paid that much more than architects (at least in the US). A lot of them tend to work for public sector and various DOT's, where they get decent salaries, but nothing spectacular. In fact, civil engineers that I know have taken pay cuts of up to 20% in order to survive the recession.
Rusty, on the other not so great thread... I posted a graphic regarding career growth for mechanical and civil engineers. While they are generally paid only a few thousand more, their careers "grow" slower than architects.
It seems that their promotions are smaller with architects averaging 5.5% yearly salary growth while civil engineers only average 4.5%— they both max out at around $119,000 but architects start at $42,000 while civil engineers start at $50,000 meaning architects are more likely to get pay raises and promotions or their promotions, when given, feature substantially higher increases.
Also, I'm not sure why anyone has brought this up...
But all of these discussions are highly dependent on location.
Judging by your typing and language, pieroarguello, I'm going to assume that either English is not your first language or you currently don't reside in an English speaking country.
Even within the U.S., development practices vary widely between states and even between cities. Some successful estate strategies are not even legally in wide parts of the United States. It's not to say that certain practices wouldn't make money but those practices often have legal and political oppositions that make them difficult to even start.
And you may frequently run into the problem where permitting, zoning or planning will keep adding stipulations onto your projects— requiring your projects be decorated a certain way or only use azalea bushes or your 20-story condo building must have at least 5 square-feet of koi pond per unit.
One decent example is comparing real estate companies in France to those in England and America. Most French companies not only develop most of their own properties but they're also landlords to the properties they develop.
I do not know the exact reasons behind this. However, I have learned that French building codes [Code de l'Urbanism]— especially when building public or semi-public housing— are so thorough that there's an entire section of the French economy dedicated to inventing technologies to meet those specific codes (lightweight structural concrete, fire-proof composite insulated gypsum board, foamed metal oxide insulation et cetera).
One interesting thing I learned is that F.A.R.s (floor area ratios) do not apply to non-income producing buildings in France. Also, it's cheaper to buy a bigger older building and demolish it because you're only assessed on the difference between the old building and the new building. And you're not necessarily prohibited from violating the F.A.R., you're just fined for it!
But back to the point, the three largest development companies in France make almost 60% of their total revenues (around 4-8 billion revenues) from building in Paris alone. And despite many money problems and the recession, France has incredibly low vacancy rates and still suffers from housing shortages.
This is primarily because there's no shortage of lessors or renters in countries like France (or Germany or even Switzerland) where 50% to 70% of the real estate in those countries is rented. That gives these development companies a more regular income and focuses their building efforts to quality, well-placed and productive properties rather than units with the most expensive options or the greatest number of square feet.
Also, in France, not sure about other countries, furniture is considered a taxable part of real estate— and if you're paying to use the rooms of your house, those rooms better be the best-designed and most-utilized otherwise you're getting taxed on a pile of of furniture that's either impractical or impossible to use.
As an architect and engineer, this thread makes me want to bang my head against the wall. Until architecture is perceived as offering an in-demand and rare skill, it will pay low for most. Having an architect design something is frequently a luxury that is not often necessary.
Somewhat tangential, but I wanted to throw this in anyway- you all know civil engineers are essentially the bottom of the engineering intellectual and professional hierarchy, correct?
If architects want to make the big bucks, the sights should probably be set a little higher than the dumbest kid in the (supposedly smarter) other class. Stop using CEs as a reference point.
CE (base 4-year degree) has been continuously been watered down in academia and stagnant in practice since the 1960s- on its own, it is almost as irrelevant as architecture. If you want a more practical comparison to people actually in the building industry, you need to look at a civil engineer with a MS structural degree or an engineer from any branch of architectural engineering. Both of these tend to start in the 65-75k range on average and have a much higher cap (~150-200k).
Direct salary comparisons are BS. You need to look at total compensation and the speed at which one advances to the principal level as well. At the firms I have been in, the AE/ MS Struct crowds tend to have better overall compensation (e.g. 10-15% of base salary annual bonus, 15% profit sharing, other retirement/ financial incentives) than their architect counterparts- this adds up very quickly, and the gap is much wider than you think it is.
Most AE or MS Structurals in my A/E firm tend to be licensed within 3-4 years and principal-level within 15. A principal will have the same base salary as a senior engineer, but will get all of the additional compensation that goes along with being a principal.
The civil engineer, mechanical engineer and architect income figures I'm using come from the National Compensation Survey and are verified through administrative records of Unemployment Insurance payroll tax information.
If these bonuses, overtime and other incentives are being paid out, the National Compensation Survey is either not surveying the right firms or this pay is off the books and under the table.
Architect's start lower than $42k these days. Surveys are also only as good as those the reply to the survey, which, judging by the billion surveys in everything from politics to sports, can be skewed anyway you want.
Also, with these last few years, any surveys/data will be completely off. There are just too many variables out there. Shit, they can't even come to a consensus of how many people are really unemployed! I have little faith in this type of data, beyond being a psychological indicate/influence (which cant' be underestimated, so it is important).
But clearly you guys know a lot more about this, so I'll step back now that I've chimed in with something useless :-)
Read what I wrote. Comparing salaries to a typical 'civil engineer' is irrelevant.
If your goal is to be paid as much as the least competent engineer, then keep referencing civils and enjoy your horrific pay. In CE, the average pay is brought down significantly by the weight of the overwhelming majority of the duds. Civil engineering is the 'architectural studies' of the engineering world.
Quite frankly, I think architects have a little more potential.
The "civil engineers" that are designing the structure of your buildings would rarely refer to themselves as anything other than structural engineers. They are most likely:
1) CE + MS in SE
2) AE
3) CE with a ton of experience (very difficult).
Structural is a much more difficult job to get, and is typically paid hourly (with overtime potential) starting around $35/hour out of school. Finding a job here is just as hard as getting a job in an architecture firm. Architects in industry should be at this level at minimum.
Conversely, if you want to compare your desired salary to someone designing the mix of aggregate in highways, the construction managers, or the processes/ water treatment engineers, by all means go ahead. Their salary and benefits are about 60% that of the three categories I mentioned above.
And great source for your data, but does it take into account privately held companies (like most firms) that don't have to disclose their data?
OMG Token AE, THANK YOU for confirming what I've always suspected: civil engineers are the dolts of the engineering world! The ones I've worked with who were wonderful all had a second degree: MS, Landscape arch, etc. But most of the civil engineers I've worked with had absolutely no clue how to think holistically about a project - they just drop their slopes and pipes where they need them and expect everyone else to adjust to them!
I worked for a civil engineer. He was also about 74, very smart, holistic and very well respected. But yes, today's civil engineers do nothing more than slap down boiler plate solutions, many of which are mandated by the city anyway and there is no thinking allowed.
Glad I could give the inside scoop. It is a shame that there aren't more AE schools- most architects that I work with are surprised that they can speak freely (in "architect" as I like to say) with someone that has a primarily engineering background.
But I digress. Good professional architects should be on the same tier as good professional SEs.
And great source for your data, but does it take into account privately held companies (like most firms) that don't have to disclose their data?
Yes. The National Compensation survey has a private industry sample of 160-something areas that represent the 320 metropolitan areas and a few hundred "micropolitan" and non-designated places. Larger businesses are have a higher probability of being selected. But if the office selected is part of a larger organization, the data is used from that single location.
The data is collected in person, by phone, email or through mail. So, it's not necessarily like the AIA or any other magazine who sends out the data with the most interested parties replying. The average salaries are determined by collecting wage and hour information to calculate an average hourly wage rate. So, the figures found represent the standard 2080 hours-per-year.
"To be included in the NCS, employees in sampled occupations must receive cash payments (cash, check, or direct deposit payments) from the establishment for services performed, and the establishment must pay the employer’s portion of Medicare taxes on those individuals’ wages."
Also, the NCS does not covered contracted workers as the NCS is a survery meant to give a comprehensive look on "standard wage employees." And the pay for architects is determined by people actually employed or titled as architects. Many people who are saying they get paid less than stated averages maybe considered by the government to be architectural drafters— who, by the way, only make roughly ~$23.50 an hour ($48,000) at 50% percentile!
Now, if you want to find out about specific salaries in the Architectural profession— you'll want to use the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.
For instance, Designers (all others), in the Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services (NAICS 541300) only make between $21,310 to $85,700. Significantly lower than someone considered a general architect. The only reason I'm "beating a dead horse" is that these discussions require a degree of specificity. Hand-wringingand anecdotal evidenceonly does so much.
If anyone wants to get the ball rolling on change, we're all going to have to write very convincing and well-researched proposals. Using perceived poverty and emotional outcries as a shield while exclaiming no one takes you seriously is mildly counter-productive.
I came in a little late, but I find it funny that a conversation concerning the unfair pay scale that has plagued the architectural profession has been taking place during what would be business hours...
(human): "I find it funny that a conversation concerning the unfair pay scale that has plagued the architectural profession has been taking place during what would be business hours..."
... maybe most of the participants are unemployed.
Although I have spent a significant amount of time trying to estimate what I would make if I graduated with an M. Arch in 3-4 years, I certainly won't pretend to be an expert on the matter. However, this is my experience from the number of architects that I have spoken with.
1.) This board is filled with frustration. Whether or not that frustration is a true depiction of reality, I don't know.
2.) I have heard from a number of people on this board that architects make relatively little money (even at the top of the profession.) Let's face it 100k/year for working 30 years, having a ton of schooling, and managing dozens of people is a low salary.
3.) Every architect that I have spoken with in person has been pretty candid. They will tell you that in good times entry level pay will probably max out around 40,000 in most areas, but none of them have denied that success, and entrepreneurial skills can yield very large profits. This is why I have trouble believing that very few architects make significantly over 100k in good times.
4.) I shadowed one architect that I got to know pretty well, and although I usually consider boasting about salary to be blowhardish and arrogant, I believe this individual was being truthful. This architect was about 60, he told me that 30's is the expectation for starting salaries and maximum while working for someone else was around 80 (10 years + experience.) However, he said that if you own your own firm, architecture can be VERY rewarding. He said that although he has walked away from making nothing over the course of a year, he cleared 800,000 alone one year, and close to a million another year. This was 15+ years ago!! Everyone on this forum would likely call bullshit, but I have trouble believing that he was lying because he seemed to be pretty frank in everything else he has told me. He was also interested, and so he took a look at a recent salary report, he said that he believed about half of firm owners (small firms included) with 20 years plus experience made 200K+ in good times. To give you an idea of the size of the firm, it was about a 50 person firm at this time (downsized significantly since then.)
Every architect who owns their own firm has emphasized that design work and creativity ultimately come second to the ability to bringing in clients. In fact most have made a specific point to tell me this. While reflecting on some older posts, I wonder if the field attracts a more creative, introverted type rather than a true people person. I imagine an amalgamation of the two would find a lot of success. Perhaps schools should consider these skills more important when assessing an applicant. It seems like someone who can create a simple, well presented portfolio while having a background in sales/business are best suited for actual practice (financially speaking). Most fields outside of healthcare, and maybe some esoteric tech fields absolutely require an assertive extrovert to make really good $$$.
That's, more or less, why I never cease to bring up the business education. Schools never talk about the business side, from salaries to management to marketing, absolutely nothing. My "professional practice class" was a joke in grad school (although some, apparently, liked it, I found it utterly useless).
This is also why you see most successful firms with a business guy at the partner level, always (which may or may not be an architect also). This is a good thing, but it would be a hell of a lot more efficient if schools were just honest (but I don't know that it will happen, as "honest" will, inevitably, lead to more people leaving the profession early on, also the "stars" could care less about teaching anything that is "boring").
Do architects deserve higher salaries?
pier - it sounds like to me, please correct me if I am mistaken, that you are an early 20's something student/grad that is very bitter and wish you had chosen another profession.
You keep referencing a few people/firms that are successful, yet you have no idea what their business models are (do you know what a business model is, I wonder) nor what their goals are.
I really think you need to get out there in the real world, get some experience and then you might have something legitimate to say. Until then, you are just annoying everyone here (and yet I keep falling for it! ;-) )
Why don't you go post on some business forums about your genius-ly unoriginal idea and come back here when you have the money.
Until you have the money, it is all just (very tired, old) ramblings. Don't try to tell some very successful people how they should be running things, show us how you are going to change the world [hint - it ain't starting here].
Gregory Walker - I just wanted to know if you can send me your email because I want you to send you an important essay. Perhaps, we can discuss about it.
Pier,
You are one letter away from being Per.
Thanks.
Hey Trace
I understand your point, and I respect you for it but I thought that other architects would hear me, and pay attention to me. Then, I realized that that is problem architects never hear each other or unify them. Therefore, this profession is never going to change for a better result. Architecture is a beautiful but it is decaying more and more every day. A lot of architects are desperate to find a solution but they do not find it. When someone tries to talk, they do not listen. So, Trace what your solution is for the architecture world. I just tried to say something but it is impossible. I think architecture is dead, and it is hard to revive it.
I just ask you a question. What would I do on a business forum if they do not care about architects? They treat architect without importance as many people do. Thus, I won’t waste my time doing that.
I just want to say something else. Currently, even the term “architect” (the one who is related to architecture) has been replaced by software architects.
piero - if it's a self authored essay... probably don't have the inclination to read it. If it's something that can help the whole class, by all means link to it.
Look, part of the reaction to the 'ideas' you're throwing out is (as trace notes) they've been hashed over 1000 times on archinect. Yawn. Same discussion, same results. The other part of that is that your responses in particular swing so wildly into absolutes.
'architects never hear...'
'profession is never going to...'
' when someone talks, they do not listen...'
The other thing is that your responses are all about YOU. (cue the tape...)
"but I thought that other architects would hear me, and pay attention to ME."
We've heard you, to be sure. Hearing and agreeing can be different. I'm asking you not to abandon your ideals but to get tougher with them - subject them to greater intellectual rigor and then see if they hold up. Your frustration seems to stem from the fact that no one agrees that the path you've laid out is the 'one true way' forward; hence, we're all pessimists doomed to wallow in our ... wait, that is who we are. Dammit. I hate when that happens....
There is not one simple explanation why architects aren't paid much relative to the cost of their education and time developing their career.
Having gone into architecture from a high-paying field, and having friends in different fields, I've observed the many factors why architects aren't paid much:
1. All architects go into the profession out of passion, not for the money. (Well, some do it for the money and guess what - they probably do make money) We cursed ourselves from the beginning. Most other licensed practitioners go into their fields with a financial incentive in mind. MFAs and Philosophy PhDs make far less than architects do with similar education requirements.
2. Architects aren't supposed to have a financial interest in the construction of a project, it's a purely advisory role. The AIA cursed the profession decades ago by casting us to an "agency" role only, forbidding us to have a stake in construction projects. It's removed us from a central role in the whole process. This is why GCs make far more than architects.
3. Scalability of product. The profession looks down upon creating "cookie cutter" structures. Architecture is an artisanal business where the product is almost always a one-off product; a building is rarely replicated. If an architect designed a housing prototype that was built 500-1000 times, and were paid 6% of each housing construction cost, that architect would be quite rich. Apple computer doesn't make money because it makes a great product, Apple makes money because they sell millions of them. That's why corporate CEOs are paid so much.
4. Scalability of firms. Most architects are sole practitioners, and there are very few really global and scaled firms like HOK or SOM. Most sole practitioner lawyers or accountants don't make any more than licensed architects do, it's only the lawyers working for large firms that do corporate work that make the big bucks.
5. Architects are involved in only about 5% of new housing construction; builders do the 95%. Architects took a moral stance against suburbia at some point in the post-war period and lost their foot in the door of that growth. Instead of working with developers in how to aid their business model we looked down our nose at them and removed ourselves from most residential construction.
6. Architects don't put any equity at risk (except liability risk). Builders make money because they put equity on the line - they gamble, betting on the likely outcome. Some do go bankrupt. Corporations risk shareholders' equity to create new products. It's hard to make money when you don't put your buck on the line.
7. Oversupply of architects. The American Medical Association limits the number of doctors going into the medical field, which keeps supply somewhat low and thus compensation for doctors somewhat protected. Lawyers, however, are in oversupply these days, and as a result lawyers aren't paid what they used to be - particularly below the top corporate tier.
8. Failure to adhere to a standard compensation model. Ever wonder why real estate agents make good money sometimes? It's because it's always been a 6% fee model, and that is rarely challenged. In architecture we continue to undercut our fees.
9. Architects think they're doing a public service by providing good design. Architects go way beyond the doctors' "Do no wrong" ethos - we believe (falsely) that almost all work we do benefits the public, that there is some kind of nobility in that. While that is true for some projects, this leads to a great deal of pro bono work, and willingness to work for less.
10. Americans don't value good design, and thus don't see the value-added in good design. Sorry, but it's true - Americans don't pay much of a premium for design, only materials. If this weren't the case, most Americans wouldn't be buying ugly McMansions from developers where a good architect isn't involved. Only in select cities do you find buyers willing to pay a premium per SF for good design.
11. We base our compensation relative to the cost of materials, not on the value we add. Theoretically the compensation should be based on the value gained from good design, not from what materials went into it. Does someone pay an artist a multiple of the paint and canvas it took to make that painting? Of course not. An example of a more accurate model of compensation would be for an architect to get paid based on the difference between selling price and cost of construction. That would better align the interests of the developer / owner with the architect.
I've been dealing with this subject for the last 14 years. No, it's not going to change. I'll simplify it for everyone:
Do architects deserve higher salaries? Yes
Are architects going to get higher salaries because they deserve them? No
Would you like to be an architect and earn an "okay" salary? It's up to each individual to choose. As long as you know it you can make a choice, and now you know it.
It's a personal choice and it is based in the lifestyle you'd like to live. I have peers whom are comfortable earning 60k/yr and I also have some that are not comfortable earning 120k/yr. Their personal reasons only matter to them. Society will not intervene in those type of decision because on the surface they don't hinder the public.
Gregory- The problem is that I cannot attach the essay, and the essay is long. It is not a short one. Therefore I could try to copy and paste the essay, but I don't think that many people would read because it is too long.
Well, there is a quote that says: "Do what you love and the money will follow". And, I don't know if it is true.
There's also no Tooth Fairy.
No tooth fairy?! What's this? Next you'll be saying that there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and Hadid is not a goddess! Blasphemy!!
OMG. Are you a kid? or what?
You know. Thank you everyone for paid attention to me. I understand that this is not important for many people, but I just can tell you something. We'll see in the future.
It is not a matter of salaries and negotiating them it is a matter of selling our services and the value we potentially can add. Unfortunately there are Architects who don’t deliver on the adding value part and sometimes there are architects who because of their ineptitude, diversions by other projects or life, or by shear dumb misfortune mess things up royally. The other problem is we are not just technicians but to some extent artist who have the most expensive media possible. So unless we can satisfy our creative urges in paper architecture we are eager and sometimes too eager to live the life or starving artist instead of well paid technical consultant. I think we have two types of architecture, technical and artistic, and the line between the two is blurred, but let’s say the Getty Museum in LA is artistic, and then the Pentagon near DC is technical. Not extreme ends of the spectrum but the willingness of the client to act as benevolent patron with a mostly hands off management style made the Getty the gem that it is. Sell a client on the importance of a building being beautiful as well as functional and you will be rewarded, not with pay but the fulfillment of being able to practice and master your craft. I would be happy designing work that made me and my clients happy if I had the chance to truly learn and grow from each project. As for money I think it depends on what lifestyle you choose and there is another thread for that I am sure. Each person has his or her personal poverty line where you are making it or not, and that changes as your life changes. I think a retired professor who does some stuff on the side can take pay or not, but an Ivy League graduate with a mountain of debt has to get paid and often it is not going to be enough to get over their personal poverty line. I often wonder if the social circles we get our work from have skewed the realistic lifestyle expectations our profession can support. How many painters and sculptors do you know who can afford to even imitate the lifestyle of their benefactors? What image of wealth did you have of an architect before you actually started to become an architect?
I just want to say something else. I do not think that the profession will improve because it is an art. It will never be well-paid. The problem is the architects. They do not want to do anything to find a solution for their economical issue. Perhaps, some architects want but other ones do not care. They just want to live like that. They just want to be treated like a piece of crap. Therefore, the future of the career is not good as other careers. First of all, there is no optimism in the career. Secondly, nobody see architects with importance. Thirdly, the architectural economy is going down every day. Nobody wants to pay an architect to design a building, and architects do not want to invest their money to realize the building. Thus, it is a dilemma. It is difficult to express something good about the career. Not many people imagine a good future for architects. Not even architects by themselves. If architects do not have a developer, their dreams are gone because they do not try to produce money autonomously.
piero, your statements are gross generalizations --- you can't essentialize people that way --- also, you are pushing a very narrowly defined viewpoint as a solution --- architect as developer is not a magic bullet
Any architecture graduate worth his salt instinctively knows that architecture is more important than money. The bottom line is you DO NOT pursue architecture if you want to make money. Architecture was traditionally studied and practiced by the elite, if you come from a middle income family and are not already well connected the bottom line is you will struggle to make ends meet. If you love for architecture is greater than your love for financial security, go for it, just don't moan about getting paid peanuts. Architecture is a service industry and the fact there is a "creative" element to it greatly devalues it's worth.
I lose patience with this persistent theme that a career in architecture dooms every practitioner - except those already rich - to a life of poverty. That simply is not true.
Architecture - like most economic endeavors - is a tough business. The rewards go to those who consistently deliver "value" to their clients. However, I think what escapes so many here on Archinect is the fact that we want to define "value" in our own sense of that word. What pisses off so many people here is that most of our clients have this disturbing tendency to define "value" in their own terms - not ours. That dichotomy defines the world of "haves" and "have nots" in our profession.
The simple fact is that I know many, many architects who have careers that are both professionally and economically rewarding. Some of those architects do great work - some don't. But, they're all very concerned about what their clients need and want - and they do their dead-level best to satisfy.
Well said, as usual, quizz.
how about we become more efficient with our time and resources and manage to design more projects in the same amount of time hence making more money?
that should not get in the way of great architecture, professional satisfaction of client's happiness.
value is dictated by market, but market can be influenced. until we become able to affect our performance as professionals, how can we even start to think about affecting how we are perceived and paid?
most rich architects I know come from rich families, most architects I know (rich or poor) waste indefinite amounts of time and energy by being unable to plan, research, edit and sell their own work. the scarce value attributed by the market to our work is partly our fault and partly not (the price-per-square-meter that bldgs are paid doesn't depend on us, we are one of the few service-providing industries whose final product is quantified hence comes with a fixed revenue) but we should really stop moaning and learn some business skills.
Rodger,
What I am trying to explain is that architecture could be a career which you can enjoy, love and also produce good amounts of money. Of course, architects already love architecture, but they do not produce good money. Therefore, they have to find new ways of producing money in architecture. Right now, construction sector is more accredited to Civil engineers than architects. Architecture is seen as something different. Currently, some people think that a highway is more important than a good house. I understand that mobilization is important, but living is more important. That is the reason why you search at the internet about the richest construction companies are civil engineering firms. You will never see one which says architecture. Architecture is considered more a secondary job comparing with civil engineer. How can architects make more money? I do not know because my answer would be valid for me, but it won’t be good for other people.
"Currently, some people think that a highway is more important than a good house."
a highway IS more important to society, a house is only more important to an individual. highways are paid for by all of us through taxes, which means there is ALWAYS a steady stream of money and projects for civil engineers.
that's the difference and that's (one of a few reasons) why your comparison to civil engineers is wrong.
look at it this way - in the U.S., transportation is publicly subsidized but very little architecture is publicly subsidized. tackle that nut if you really want architects making more money like civil engineers.
@ jeffe, there's also another point there.
Civil engineers also make a ton of money through drainage systems and ditches. Without adequate drainage, things like malaria, dysentery and typhus become big issues.
Of which there's two main schools of thought— surface or subterranean. Both have their issues; however, subterranean methods usually demand a level of urbanism but they allow for 100% lot usage (which means more architecture!). Also, when you go the pipe, lifter and pump route, this can be accomplished by architects and planners.
Sanitary plus storm sewers equals more money for architects and slower and less work for engineers because of their permanence and shelf-life.
@JJR - tell me about it...
i live in albuquerque which handles storm drainage via surface controls for 99% of the area, for two reasons.
1. the initial costs to the city/county/dot are less.
2. in the high desert we get summer monsoon rain flows that would overwhelm all but the most enormous and freakishly expensive subterranean systems.
the big drawback is indeed surface area devoted to moving/storing water for the few big events each year. we have a very large parcel of land at a busy downtown intersection that does nothing but sit idle all year waiting to handle a 6 hour storm event. the rest of the time - nothing. astonishing waste....
So, civil engineers have a much better future than architects. Therefore, more people would choose civil engineer as a major than architecture. Do you know something? The aqueducts were really invented by an architect, not by a civil engineer. That architect was Vitruvius.
The idea of being an Architect is very romantic, but financially tolling.
Tectonic,
I have a question for you. Why do you think that architects do not have a good economy or salaries as a civil engineer?
Really, if someone else is willing to answer this question. It is acceptable too. Thank you very much for your attention. Have a good night.
OMG this thread is completely retarded.
But I just have to sound in about civil engineers. They are not paid that much more than architects (at least in the US). A lot of them tend to work for public sector and various DOT's, where they get decent salaries, but nothing spectacular. In fact, civil engineers that I know have taken pay cuts of up to 20% in order to survive the recession.
Rusty, on the other not so great thread... I posted a graphic regarding career growth for mechanical and civil engineers. While they are generally paid only a few thousand more, their careers "grow" slower than architects.
It seems that their promotions are smaller with architects averaging 5.5% yearly salary growth while civil engineers only average 4.5%— they both max out at around $119,000 but architects start at $42,000 while civil engineers start at $50,000 meaning architects are more likely to get pay raises and promotions or their promotions, when given, feature substantially higher increases.
Also, I'm not sure why anyone has brought this up...
But all of these discussions are highly dependent on location.
Judging by your typing and language, pieroarguello, I'm going to assume that either English is not your first language or you currently don't reside in an English speaking country.
Even within the U.S., development practices vary widely between states and even between cities. Some successful estate strategies are not even legally in wide parts of the United States. It's not to say that certain practices wouldn't make money but those practices often have legal and political oppositions that make them difficult to even start.
And you may frequently run into the problem where permitting, zoning or planning will keep adding stipulations onto your projects— requiring your projects be decorated a certain way or only use azalea bushes or your 20-story condo building must have at least 5 square-feet of koi pond per unit.
One decent example is comparing real estate companies in France to those in England and America. Most French companies not only develop most of their own properties but they're also landlords to the properties they develop.
I do not know the exact reasons behind this. However, I have learned that French building codes [Code de l'Urbanism]— especially when building public or semi-public housing— are so thorough that there's an entire section of the French economy dedicated to inventing technologies to meet those specific codes (lightweight structural concrete, fire-proof composite insulated gypsum board, foamed metal oxide insulation et cetera).
One interesting thing I learned is that F.A.R.s (floor area ratios) do not apply to non-income producing buildings in France. Also, it's cheaper to buy a bigger older building and demolish it because you're only assessed on the difference between the old building and the new building. And you're not necessarily prohibited from violating the F.A.R., you're just fined for it!
But back to the point, the three largest development companies in France make almost 60% of their total revenues (around 4-8 billion revenues) from building in Paris alone. And despite many money problems and the recession, France has incredibly low vacancy rates and still suffers from housing shortages.
This is primarily because there's no shortage of lessors or renters in countries like France (or Germany or even Switzerland) where 50% to 70% of the real estate in those countries is rented. That gives these development companies a more regular income and focuses their building efforts to quality, well-placed and productive properties rather than units with the most expensive options or the greatest number of square feet.
Also, in France, not sure about other countries, furniture is considered a taxable part of real estate— and if you're paying to use the rooms of your house, those rooms better be the best-designed and most-utilized otherwise you're getting taxed on a pile of of furniture that's either impractical or impossible to use.
As an architect and engineer, this thread makes me want to bang my head against the wall. Until architecture is perceived as offering an in-demand and rare skill, it will pay low for most. Having an architect design something is frequently a luxury that is not often necessary.
Somewhat tangential, but I wanted to throw this in anyway- you all know civil engineers are essentially the bottom of the engineering intellectual and professional hierarchy, correct?
If architects want to make the big bucks, the sights should probably be set a little higher than the dumbest kid in the (supposedly smarter) other class. Stop using CEs as a reference point.
CE (base 4-year degree) has been continuously been watered down in academia and stagnant in practice since the 1960s- on its own, it is almost as irrelevant as architecture. If you want a more practical comparison to people actually in the building industry, you need to look at a civil engineer with a MS structural degree or an engineer from any branch of architectural engineering. Both of these tend to start in the 65-75k range on average and have a much higher cap (~150-200k).
Direct salary comparisons are BS. You need to look at total compensation and the speed at which one advances to the principal level as well. At the firms I have been in, the AE/ MS Struct crowds tend to have better overall compensation (e.g. 10-15% of base salary annual bonus, 15% profit sharing, other retirement/ financial incentives) than their architect counterparts- this adds up very quickly, and the gap is much wider than you think it is.
Most AE or MS Structurals in my A/E firm tend to be licensed within 3-4 years and principal-level within 15. A principal will have the same base salary as a senior engineer, but will get all of the additional compensation that goes along with being a principal.
Forgot to mention, most AE/ MS Structural are paid for overtime. Think about that one.
The bar for architects needs to be set just as high.
The civil engineer, mechanical engineer and architect income figures I'm using come from the National Compensation Survey and are verified through administrative records of Unemployment Insurance payroll tax information.
If these bonuses, overtime and other incentives are being paid out, the National Compensation Survey is either not surveying the right firms or this pay is off the books and under the table.
Architect's start lower than $42k these days. Surveys are also only as good as those the reply to the survey, which, judging by the billion surveys in everything from politics to sports, can be skewed anyway you want.
Also, with these last few years, any surveys/data will be completely off. There are just too many variables out there. Shit, they can't even come to a consensus of how many people are really unemployed! I have little faith in this type of data, beyond being a psychological indicate/influence (which cant' be underestimated, so it is important).
But clearly you guys know a lot more about this, so I'll step back now that I've chimed in with something useless :-)
@JJR
Read what I wrote. Comparing salaries to a typical 'civil engineer' is irrelevant.
If your goal is to be paid as much as the least competent engineer, then keep referencing civils and enjoy your horrific pay. In CE, the average pay is brought down significantly by the weight of the overwhelming majority of the duds. Civil engineering is the 'architectural studies' of the engineering world.
Quite frankly, I think architects have a little more potential.
The "civil engineers" that are designing the structure of your buildings would rarely refer to themselves as anything other than structural engineers. They are most likely:
1) CE + MS in SE
2) AE
3) CE with a ton of experience (very difficult).
Structural is a much more difficult job to get, and is typically paid hourly (with overtime potential) starting around $35/hour out of school. Finding a job here is just as hard as getting a job in an architecture firm. Architects in industry should be at this level at minimum.
Conversely, if you want to compare your desired salary to someone designing the mix of aggregate in highways, the construction managers, or the processes/ water treatment engineers, by all means go ahead. Their salary and benefits are about 60% that of the three categories I mentioned above.
And great source for your data, but does it take into account privately held companies (like most firms) that don't have to disclose their data?
OMG Token AE, THANK YOU for confirming what I've always suspected: civil engineers are the dolts of the engineering world! The ones I've worked with who were wonderful all had a second degree: MS, Landscape arch, etc. But most of the civil engineers I've worked with had absolutely no clue how to think holistically about a project - they just drop their slopes and pipes where they need them and expect everyone else to adjust to them!
I worked for a civil engineer. He was also about 74, very smart, holistic and very well respected. But yes, today's civil engineers do nothing more than slap down boiler plate solutions, many of which are mandated by the city anyway and there is no thinking allowed.
Donna,
Glad I could give the inside scoop. It is a shame that there aren't more AE schools- most architects that I work with are surprised that they can speak freely (in "architect" as I like to say) with someone that has a primarily engineering background.
But I digress. Good professional architects should be on the same tier as good professional SEs.
And great source for your data, but does it take into account privately held companies (like most firms) that don't have to disclose their data?
Yes. The National Compensation survey has a private industry sample of 160-something areas that represent the 320 metropolitan areas and a few hundred "micropolitan" and non-designated places. Larger businesses are have a higher probability of being selected. But if the office selected is part of a larger organization, the data is used from that single location.
The data is collected in person, by phone, email or through mail. So, it's not necessarily like the AIA or any other magazine who sends out the data with the most interested parties replying. The average salaries are determined by collecting wage and hour information to calculate an average hourly wage rate. So, the figures found represent the standard 2080 hours-per-year.
"To be included in the NCS, employees in sampled occupations must receive cash payments (cash, check, or direct deposit payments) from the establishment for services performed, and the establishment must pay the employer’s portion of Medicare taxes on those individuals’ wages."
Also, the NCS does not covered contracted workers as the NCS is a survery meant to give a comprehensive look on "standard wage employees." And the pay for architects is determined by people actually employed or titled as architects. Many people who are saying they get paid less than stated averages maybe considered by the government to be architectural drafters— who, by the way, only make roughly ~$23.50 an hour ($48,000) at 50% percentile!
Now, if you want to find out about specific salaries in the Architectural profession— you'll want to use the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.
For instance, Designers (all others), in the Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services (NAICS 541300) only make between $21,310 to $85,700. Significantly lower than someone considered a general architect. The only reason I'm "beating a dead horse" is that these discussions require a degree of specificity. Hand-wringing and anecdotal evidence only does so much.
If anyone wants to get the ball rolling on change, we're all going to have to write very convincing and well-researched proposals. Using perceived poverty and emotional outcries as a shield while exclaiming no one takes you seriously is mildly counter-productive.
As Bill Munny says in Unforgiven:
"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."
...he says that towards the end of the movie....
(in memory of the TLA on South Street).
For those Philly people here, I mean, of course, the TLA as a movie house...the concert TLA lives on.
I came in a little late, but I find it funny that a conversation concerning the unfair pay scale that has plagued the architectural profession has been taking place during what would be business hours...
(human): "I find it funny that a conversation concerning the unfair pay scale that has plagued the architectural profession has been taking place during what would be business hours..."
... maybe most of the participants are unemployed.
exactly.
Although I have spent a significant amount of time trying to estimate what I would make if I graduated with an M. Arch in 3-4 years, I certainly won't pretend to be an expert on the matter. However, this is my experience from the number of architects that I have spoken with.
1.) This board is filled with frustration. Whether or not that frustration is a true depiction of reality, I don't know.
2.) I have heard from a number of people on this board that architects make relatively little money (even at the top of the profession.) Let's face it 100k/year for working 30 years, having a ton of schooling, and managing dozens of people is a low salary.
3.) Every architect that I have spoken with in person has been pretty candid. They will tell you that in good times entry level pay will probably max out around 40,000 in most areas, but none of them have denied that success, and entrepreneurial skills can yield very large profits. This is why I have trouble believing that very few architects make significantly over 100k in good times.
4.) I shadowed one architect that I got to know pretty well, and although I usually consider boasting about salary to be blowhardish and arrogant, I believe this individual was being truthful. This architect was about 60, he told me that 30's is the expectation for starting salaries and maximum while working for someone else was around 80 (10 years + experience.) However, he said that if you own your own firm, architecture can be VERY rewarding. He said that although he has walked away from making nothing over the course of a year, he cleared 800,000 alone one year, and close to a million another year. This was 15+ years ago!! Everyone on this forum would likely call bullshit, but I have trouble believing that he was lying because he seemed to be pretty frank in everything else he has told me. He was also interested, and so he took a look at a recent salary report, he said that he believed about half of firm owners (small firms included) with 20 years plus experience made 200K+ in good times. To give you an idea of the size of the firm, it was about a 50 person firm at this time (downsized significantly since then.)
Every architect who owns their own firm has emphasized that design work and creativity ultimately come second to the ability to bringing in clients. In fact most have made a specific point to tell me this. While reflecting on some older posts, I wonder if the field attracts a more creative, introverted type rather than a true people person. I imagine an amalgamation of the two would find a lot of success. Perhaps schools should consider these skills more important when assessing an applicant. It seems like someone who can create a simple, well presented portfolio while having a background in sales/business are best suited for actual practice (financially speaking). Most fields outside of healthcare, and maybe some esoteric tech fields absolutely require an assertive extrovert to make really good $$$.
That's, more or less, why I never cease to bring up the business education. Schools never talk about the business side, from salaries to management to marketing, absolutely nothing. My "professional practice class" was a joke in grad school (although some, apparently, liked it, I found it utterly useless).
This is also why you see most successful firms with a business guy at the partner level, always (which may or may not be an architect also). This is a good thing, but it would be a hell of a lot more efficient if schools were just honest (but I don't know that it will happen, as "honest" will, inevitably, lead to more people leaving the profession early on, also the "stars" could care less about teaching anything that is "boring").
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.