i mostly blame the out-of-date, irrelevant older generation with their names on the doors... the guilty partners who don't understand what a computer is, what it can do, or what we can do on it. my boss told me the other day that i could do sketchup models til i was blue in the face... but he would do a physical model (no way the time i would spend scraping that one together is in the budget)
i get to work at 8:30 and leave at 5:30. we encourage everyone in the office to do the same. some choose to work their schedules differently but that's on them. as long as they give a solid 40.
sounds like you guys are suffering under some office mgmt issues.
(oh, and, i wouldn't make fun of the physical model option, arzo. you'll learn different things from it than from a sketchup model. there's a place for both. maybe there's something your boss is seeing that tells him the physical model would be more appropriate in this instance.)
out-of-date, irrelevant older generation with their names on the doors... the guilty partners who don't understand what a computer is, what it can do, or what we can do on it.
i think this is a straw man, arzo. maybe even a mythical beast or, at best, an exaggerated stereotype. these guys are not likely a huge problem. more likely it's a layer of middle management that wants you to suffer like they did.
for you younger folks out there -- especially those of you recently graduated -- did you have work/life balance in school? did you work fewer hours in school than you do in your current office? did the advanced and highly productive technology you learned to use at university permit you to get 8-hours of sleep every night, stay caught up on all of your other courses and have an active social life, all the while turning out terrific, highly-refined designs?
as creatures with free will, architects can decide when to stop drawing ... however, we rarely do. we always want to make it just a little better - which, in my view, is a good thing.
you have to know when to stop. life is for living, not sitting behind a desk and drawing. school was harder because the personal pressure was more intense. there is no excuse for sitting at the office and not getting paid for your time when you could be off potentially enriching your life...its just stupid.
anyone who spent all their time at school in studio also missed out on a hell of an experience...and are no doubt the duller for it.
the best architecture takes time; hours that are stolen from the rest of your life. employees in saarinen's office typically worked 16 hour days, 7 days a week, and look at what they achieved (and also where those people are in their careers now, i.e. most are now principals of their own practices, if not internationally known). everyone has a choice - you can work 40/hour weeks and have a life, a family, etc. or can work 80+ hour weeks and make great architecture. on the other hand, if you're working 80+ hour weeks on crappy architecture, i suggest finding a new office.
: "on the other hand, if you're working 80+ hour weeks on crappy architecture, i suggest finding a new office" -- this is a very important, and very wise, point. thanks!
jafidler, why is it an either/ or? why can't a person create great architecture with a reasonable schedule? you make it sound as if you either get to have a life and family or you get to creat great architecture.
It is the myth that the longer and more frantically you work on something it somehow becomes better...this has never been proven...it is just a myth within architecture...and other fields like say medicine...when the truth is the longer you go without sleep, and rob yourself of the outside influences which spur creative imagination the more you limit your ability to be at your best...performance wise....so, you are spending more time on working on something that you are not in the best frame of mind to work on...in medicine this leads to many errors specifically within residents past 36 hours...which is why they are working so hard to create stricter policies regarding hours work...you simply do not function as well as a human.
you can definitely work 40 hours a week and still make great architecture. there is no reason to consistently work 80+ hours a week, unless you are getting compensated for that amount of work
if you choose to work 16 hours days, 7 days a week, that is fine and your choice, but that is not the only way to make great architecture
its like every field
if you put in extra time, you gain more experience so you probably learn more
but great architecture doesnt necessarily take longer than crappy architecture
plus
if you are working 80+ hours a week, please tell me you are getting paid for 80+ hours
if not, i dont care how great the architecture is, unless you are getting full credit for it and its your name on the door, its not always worth it
every once in a while, yes, but if its all the time, you are being taken by your employer
devil dog, while not necessarily an either/or, there is a correlation between time invested and quality of the finished project. i consider myself an efficient worker. i don't think i waste a lot of time designing or putting a set together, but i know that when i'm on a project that is challenging and that i'm really engaged in it will take me 60+ hour weeks to issue a set i feel comfortable with. i can't even imagine what it would be like in an office like saarinens where the level of difficulty of the architecture was ramped up even further. i'm not saying you can't make good architecture working a 40 hour week, but i do think when working in a good, efficient office, quality is proportionate to the time invesed in the project.
Most of you are total pussies who have no idea what it takes to get something built. Go pump some acad and get home to your fat ugly wife and lazy kids and watch some idol.
They must make horrible stuff in Europe with their average 35 hour work week...sorry, skills trump brute effort...unless you are a manipulator and can get groups to labor for free for you...other than that it is a myth...you need some basic things to stay at full capacity, sleep, and the ability to digest the world with those around you...I agree with marmkid...you can put in extra time when necessary...under them gun...but as a habit...it will only harm you.
Big difference in a studio working 24/7 and the people in it working the same...I have worked in many 24/7 studios but that had 40hours working schedules and were balancing 24hour teams...that is what a lot of worldwide studios are becoming...the 24/7 studio...not the 24/7 employee.
hmmm .. interesting debate .. can you produce great architecture and still work a 40-hour week?
in my experience, this would be very, very difficult for the average architect. "great" is an elusive ideal and, for the vast majority of us, the pursuit of greatness requires, as Corbu taught, a patient search. there are many variables to consider -- both artistic and technical. most of us worry constantly about that last stone left unturned.
jasoncross -- I get your analogy to medicine, but medicine is fundamentally a different animal than architecture. medicine largely is based on the results of applied research -- in everyday practice, medical procedures, and the medical body of knowledge, rarely rely on a flash of creative inspiration (except on House, of course).
My wife who is a doctor, family practice, would disagree with you. In general yes, but things always pop up and she is constantly having to be creative and imaginative...maybe not with pictures or space...but with how to care for someone, how to make something possible ....it is a juggling that is always changing as the industry and the methods change...I see it as similar...Law I would argue is similar as well...a construct of course...but lots of individual creative influence as well.
i guess it depends on what we are saying takes more than 40 hours a week to do. is it the design or is it the documenting and details? or is it both?
i would say at times, yes, it is necessary to work more than 40 hours a week, when you try to hit a deadline or something like that. but i dont think i ever would agree that for the life of a design project (schematic design through construction) it is necessary to work more than 40 hours throughout. are you doing this all yourself?
lets not put architects and architecture on such high a pedestal that we say it requires more time and thought than everything else in the world, and that to do our jobs great, we need to work more than anyone else has to
if you want to and love to do it, yes, of course, have a blast
but no one has to, and they can still do great work
let me ask a question, please: for those of you out there working for firms, where is the threshold between a) a reasonable work/life balance, and b) being taken advantage of?
is anything over 40-hours per week intolerable? would 5% or 10% overtime (on average) push the limits? does getting paid directly for every hour make an important difference?
i read stories here about people working chronic 60-80-hour weeks ... where is the zone of comfort for most of you between the 40-hour week and the 80-hour week?
i ask because I have working around me some people who simply love what they do and find their "work" to be their "life" -- without us requiring this of them, they choose to live large parts of their lives here at the office. i have other colleagues who really do strive to maintain a 40-hour week. our firm's culture accepts both.
my personal observation over 30+ years is that the folks who are more "invested" in their work are the ones who, on balance, accomplish more in their careers and produce stronger work, day-in/day-out.
i'm really interested in receiving your various views on this question.
let me ask a question, please: for those of you out there working for firms, where is the threshold between a) a reasonable work/life balance, and b) being taken advantage of?
is anything over 40-hours per week intolerable? would 5% or 10% overtime (on average) push the limits? does getting paid directly for every hour make an important difference?
i read stories here about people working chronic 60-80-hour weeks ... where is the zone of comfort for most of you between the 40-hour week and the 80-hour week?
i ask because I have working around me some people who simply love what they do and find their "work" to be their "life" -- without us requiring this of them, they choose to live large parts of their lives here at the office. i have other colleagues who really do strive to maintain a 40-hour week. our firm's culture accepts both.
my personal observation over 30+ years is that the folks who are more "invested" in their work are the ones who, on balance, accomplish more in their careers and produce stronger work, day-in/day-out.
i'm really interested in receiving your various views on this question.
i would say there is definitely a balance to be had
of course there is always times when you get into your work and stay past the 8 hour mark
but when you start pushing 60+ hours, that is when it goes overboard in my opinion, if it is something you feel you HAVE to do to do a great job or to even keep your job.
i understand how some peoples work is their life, and i am all for that. but to say that only those people can produce great work, is ridiculous.
and i think you can be "invested" in your work, and work a regular 40-50 hour week consistently
You create your own balance. If thats 40 hours or 80 hours so be it. As long as you enjoy the amount of time your devoting. It is possible to be an architect and live a life that includes things other than architecture.
i feel bad for those young interns out there who think they have to work these insane hours to get by. my friend consistently pulls all nighters at work and doesnt necessarily like the work he is doing. it doesnt have to be that way if you dont want it to
moak is right, you create this yourself. if you are working 80+ hours a week, it is your own choice. to be honest, if its your boss's choice, he better have a good reason for it and pay you for it as well
creative doctors huh? yeh i guess so. somehow i still think it is a more procedural and systematic profession than architecture, and no pressure to do things differently just because it would be copying and boring and so on...i mean if you can imagine a heart surgeon being blasted for always performing his surgery the same way? like gehry or libeskind always are...?
all human endeavours require creativity and effort. it is what makes us such amazingly interesting beasts. that doesn't quite make comparison valid between careers...
anyway...i don't think as a rule great architecture is possible without more time than mediocre architecture. how to finance that, both in time and in money is always the tuff part, and possibly the source of much of our profession's angst. the 24/7 office with the 40 hr work week sounds nice. i wonder how well it works. i know a few starchitects who seem to have a life, and know of one or two here in town that apparently just work all the time. i think it comes down to temperment rather than necessity.
If working more than 40 hours works for you, than by all means feel free to continue. I personally don't see how anyone can maintain that pace for longer than a few years without experiencing some sort of major burnout. I currently work at a company that for the most part does not ask individuals to commit more than 40 hours in a work week. When it does happen though, we are greatly compensated.
My comparison to medicine was not about creativity etc...it was about the fact that after a certain period of time you are less capable as a human being...period...medicine is having to deal with that reality because of the life or death aspect....one, in architecture or medicine, law, etc...is prone to make more mistakes the less sleep they get and the less complete the rest of their life...that was my point of comparison...which I stand by :)
There are some occasions where a 60 to 80 hour week just needs to happen, as long at it's not habitual. Sometimes you need some extra time and effort to get shit done.
However, over working can become a crutch, because being lost in hours and hours of extra work gives you an excuse to escape from other resposibilities (family, health, etc). Work is an excellent scape goat because people typically buy it, for a little while anyway.
So often, the real "pussies" are the ones hiding from the world behind their comfy little desk.
usually when you call people "pussies" and say little else, you clearly have little to actually contribute to the conversation
you are definitely right ckp
overtime will always happen at some point here and there, and there are a lot of people who use those extra hours to prove how they are a better architect than those who actually value other things in their lives
it can definitely be a crutch
i wear headphones at work when i am doing any drawing, but i find i am less productive with them on
Its all about choices, family, money, ego! Similar to my three rules of construction :Price, Time & Quality pick any two but you don't get all three.
We as humans have to decide what is a priority. Personally I don't bleed for my architecture because I think its more important to bounce on the trampoline with my kids, or go for an early morning bike ride before work with my wife, and by the way I am still thinking about work and resolving issues but in an unforced unconfined manner ( call it process )
I my opinion its not a myth but an achievable and very tangible part of how I have chosen to live.
it seems it is mostly young interns who feel you must work 80+ hours a week. are there any older more experienced architects who feel you must work these numbers of hours?
WOW, I really can't believe that people who have been in practice for a while haven't figured out how to balance their life. I think I figured it out my second year of school. There's absolutely NO reason that anyone should ever have to work all night. period.
if you are then you have either A) slacked off at some point during the production process. your probably working such long hours because your posting on here right now. or B) over committed yourself. big great projects do take more time and its your responsibility to inform your client or boss how much time it is going to take to complete a task. no one would expect a skyscraper and an outhouse to be completed in the same amount of time. the amount of time needed to complete a task is hard to gage especially as a youngster with little experience, so that's probably why interns suffer the most. it will get better as you become wiser.
design is another beast all together, its hard to say when that creative spark will strike you, but there's no reason you have to sit at the office and wait for it. sometimes I get my best ideas in the shower, or while riding my bike.
Working long hours is not productive, the longer you work the less mentally invested you are. There is NO way that the quality of work that you are doing after 10hrs in the office is on par with the work that you do after being there for 2.
In alot of ways, young interns are more free to donate large chunks of their life to work. They don't yet have a family to support (with their time and attention) and their main social centers are at work.
Plus in being a bit inexperienced, it often takes more time to get through things, as opposed to some one who has worked for a while and has a more developed sense of task priority and quickness.
Also, they probably don't feel quite as secure in their employment because of their lack of experience, so try to compensate with their time.
When corb called architecture, "the patient search" I highly doubt he had 16hr work days in mind. As I remember it he would spend his mornings painting and his afternoons in his atlier with his draftsmen.
I don't think spending 40-50 hrs a week at work, as long as your getting paid for it, is to much.
I think however, the most important question not being asked here is the client willing to pay more than 40hrs a week for a project? If the anwser is no than there's your answer.
thats true, ckp
and i understand why young interns would feel like its good to spend extra time at work, i know i did (though only one specific project was it ever a 80 hr week situation)
and it does help with your experience and development as an architect to work as much as you can early
but all that extra work doesnt make that project great or better than another project that doesnt have extra time put on it. i never worked for a starchitect before, but when someone before mentioned how everyone there works 16 hour days/7 days a week, i somehow doubt that is the higher ups there. and if it is true, its not because their work is any better, maybe its more custom, but its not necessarily better work. i think in a starchitects firm, they probably just have so much work, that they have their people working that much to cover it all. mostly they just have too much work for the number of people there
in fact, the only jobs i've ever had that were more than 40 hours a week were when i was working for professors and when i was working construction. overtime is inevitable, but i feel as though i've worked on good projects without killing myself. i think architects over work their staff sometimes because they feel they have to. but honestly, it's a just product of bad scheduling. if you aren't going to meet a deadline, you can always ask for an extension. no client who's already invested $50k in a design is going to cut you off just because you need another two weeks, if you want it done right. i also think it goes back to architects' general lack of confidence in doing business. rather than just give clients a reasonable time frame for a design to be completed, they tighten the screws in hopes to impress them, or maybe because they somehow question the value of what they are doing and how much it should really cost. i think firms that force their employees into a lot of extra overtime end up eating the cost of it rather than billing it. which inevitably contributes to lower pay for the employees.
think about how long it will take, and then multiply this by three. then add 20% and tell the client this will be the project time line. let your employees work 40 hours a week, bill all of their time, and pay them well. this is how it is done. that said, you need a certain redundancy of projects to make this happen.
I think the people who tend to work way too many hours in the office were the same crew wandering the halls at 2 am to go get a drink or a smoke and had difficulty focusing on the task at hand at school. No disrespect but I think they kind of liked the "aura" of the all-nighter. My guess is that they still live they live the same way with little focus on what's important and what's not.
I have this imagine of one class mate sitting on a stool, knees pulled up to their chest, arms wrapped around their legs, sucking on a cig really hard right down to their fingers, looking out the window and being totally lost on what to do next. No mode to edit or distill and completely traumatized by the thought of making a choice. Trust me I have faced the same demons.
To much fun in life, to try and force blood from a stone.
Lots and lots of architects score as INTP on the Myers Brigg test.
Some key characteristic of the INTP personality include
"INTPs live in the world of theoretical possibilities. They see everything in terms of how it could be improved, or what it could be turned into. They live much of their lives within their own heads, and may not place as much importance or value on the external world. They love new ideas, and become very excited over abstractions and theories. They love to discuss these concepts with others. They may seem "dreamy" and distant to others, because they spend a lot of time inside their minds musing over theories. They hate to work on routine things - they would much prefer to build complex theoretical solutions, and leave the implementation of the system to others."
While not every architect resembles this type, this does explains a lot.
Marm I agree, I one had a former employer who was asked to critique a class and his comment was that the faces change but the personality types remain the same.
the reason why i argue the other side is twofold. first, i recently visited with a man who worked for eero saarinen. he vividly described the work culture in saarinen's office. people did literally work 16 hour days, 7 days a week, and that was everyone, not just the interns; saarinen himself practically lived in the studio. his first wife divorced him for that reason. the architect i spoke with told me saarinen would always prepare three designs for any client: the first was exactly as the client asked, the second was the same design, but trying to improve upon it, the third was how saarinen would design it. they would mock up all their details at full scale in design. all that takes time; yes, he paid his employees barely anything, but he did take care of them in other ways, and who were these people? cesar pelli, kevin roche, robert venturi...
the second reason is because i see it in my own work. i can definitely see the difference between when i put in 40 and 60 hours/week on a project. it's a phenomenal difference in terms of clarity and depth of detail. better architecture takes more time; i don't know how one could argue otherwise.
why didn't that cheapskate just hire more people? weirdo...
maybe putting in more time brings out a better product, but we're not all going to be saarinen. let's just be realistic about that. it's really not worth sacrificing poontang and precious REM sleep for a few elevation details.
Work/Life balance
Work/Life balance - is it a myth or is it just me?
we have the latest technology to help us with documentation/modelling, but why are we still spend 12 hours at work everyday?
i mostly blame the out-of-date, irrelevant older generation with their names on the doors... the guilty partners who don't understand what a computer is, what it can do, or what we can do on it. my boss told me the other day that i could do sketchup models til i was blue in the face... but he would do a physical model (no way the time i would spend scraping that one together is in the budget)
hahahahahahahaha. you kids are funny.
i get to work at 8:30 and leave at 5:30. we encourage everyone in the office to do the same. some choose to work their schedules differently but that's on them. as long as they give a solid 40.
sounds like you guys are suffering under some office mgmt issues.
(oh, and, i wouldn't make fun of the physical model option, arzo. you'll learn different things from it than from a sketchup model. there's a place for both. maybe there's something your boss is seeing that tells him the physical model would be more appropriate in this instance.)
i think this is a straw man, arzo. maybe even a mythical beast or, at best, an exaggerated stereotype. these guys are not likely a huge problem. more likely it's a layer of middle management that wants you to suffer like they did.
for you younger folks out there -- especially those of you recently graduated -- did you have work/life balance in school? did you work fewer hours in school than you do in your current office? did the advanced and highly productive technology you learned to use at university permit you to get 8-hours of sleep every night, stay caught up on all of your other courses and have an active social life, all the while turning out terrific, highly-refined designs?
as creatures with free will, architects can decide when to stop drawing ... however, we rarely do. we always want to make it just a little better - which, in my view, is a good thing.
you have to know when to stop. life is for living, not sitting behind a desk and drawing. school was harder because the personal pressure was more intense. there is no excuse for sitting at the office and not getting paid for your time when you could be off potentially enriching your life...its just stupid.
anyone who spent all their time at school in studio also missed out on a hell of an experience...and are no doubt the duller for it.
the best architecture takes time; hours that are stolen from the rest of your life. employees in saarinen's office typically worked 16 hour days, 7 days a week, and look at what they achieved (and also where those people are in their careers now, i.e. most are now principals of their own practices, if not internationally known). everyone has a choice - you can work 40/hour weeks and have a life, a family, etc. or can work 80+ hour weeks and make great architecture. on the other hand, if you're working 80+ hour weeks on crappy architecture, i suggest finding a new office.
: "on the other hand, if you're working 80+ hour weeks on crappy architecture, i suggest finding a new office" -- this is a very important, and very wise, point. thanks!
jafidler, why is it an either/ or? why can't a person create great architecture with a reasonable schedule? you make it sound as if you either get to have a life and family or you get to creat great architecture.
It is the myth that the longer and more frantically you work on something it somehow becomes better...this has never been proven...it is just a myth within architecture...and other fields like say medicine...when the truth is the longer you go without sleep, and rob yourself of the outside influences which spur creative imagination the more you limit your ability to be at your best...performance wise....so, you are spending more time on working on something that you are not in the best frame of mind to work on...in medicine this leads to many errors specifically within residents past 36 hours...which is why they are working so hard to create stricter policies regarding hours work...you simply do not function as well as a human.
you can definitely work 40 hours a week and still make great architecture. there is no reason to consistently work 80+ hours a week, unless you are getting compensated for that amount of work
if you choose to work 16 hours days, 7 days a week, that is fine and your choice, but that is not the only way to make great architecture
its like every field
if you put in extra time, you gain more experience so you probably learn more
but great architecture doesnt necessarily take longer than crappy architecture
plus
if you are working 80+ hours a week, please tell me you are getting paid for 80+ hours
if not, i dont care how great the architecture is, unless you are getting full credit for it and its your name on the door, its not always worth it
every once in a while, yes, but if its all the time, you are being taken by your employer
devil dog, while not necessarily an either/or, there is a correlation between time invested and quality of the finished project. i consider myself an efficient worker. i don't think i waste a lot of time designing or putting a set together, but i know that when i'm on a project that is challenging and that i'm really engaged in it will take me 60+ hour weeks to issue a set i feel comfortable with. i can't even imagine what it would be like in an office like saarinens where the level of difficulty of the architecture was ramped up even further. i'm not saying you can't make good architecture working a 40 hour week, but i do think when working in a good, efficient office, quality is proportionate to the time invesed in the project.
Most of you are total pussies who have no idea what it takes to get something built. Go pump some acad and get home to your fat ugly wife and lazy kids and watch some idol.
i cant tell from that lovely statement evil, but does that mean you need to work more than 40 hours a week or not?
They must make horrible stuff in Europe with their average 35 hour work week...sorry, skills trump brute effort...unless you are a manipulator and can get groups to labor for free for you...other than that it is a myth...you need some basic things to stay at full capacity, sleep, and the ability to digest the world with those around you...I agree with marmkid...you can put in extra time when necessary...under them gun...but as a habit...it will only harm you.
Big difference in a studio working 24/7 and the people in it working the same...I have worked in many 24/7 studios but that had 40hours working schedules and were balancing 24hour teams...that is what a lot of worldwide studios are becoming...the 24/7 studio...not the 24/7 employee.
hmmm .. interesting debate .. can you produce great architecture and still work a 40-hour week?
in my experience, this would be very, very difficult for the average architect. "great" is an elusive ideal and, for the vast majority of us, the pursuit of greatness requires, as Corbu taught, a patient search. there are many variables to consider -- both artistic and technical. most of us worry constantly about that last stone left unturned.
jasoncross -- I get your analogy to medicine, but medicine is fundamentally a different animal than architecture. medicine largely is based on the results of applied research -- in everyday practice, medical procedures, and the medical body of knowledge, rarely rely on a flash of creative inspiration (except on House, of course).
My wife who is a doctor, family practice, would disagree with you. In general yes, but things always pop up and she is constantly having to be creative and imaginative...maybe not with pictures or space...but with how to care for someone, how to make something possible ....it is a juggling that is always changing as the industry and the methods change...I see it as similar...Law I would argue is similar as well...a construct of course...but lots of individual creative influence as well.
i guess it depends on what we are saying takes more than 40 hours a week to do. is it the design or is it the documenting and details? or is it both?
i would say at times, yes, it is necessary to work more than 40 hours a week, when you try to hit a deadline or something like that. but i dont think i ever would agree that for the life of a design project (schematic design through construction) it is necessary to work more than 40 hours throughout. are you doing this all yourself?
lets not put architects and architecture on such high a pedestal that we say it requires more time and thought than everything else in the world, and that to do our jobs great, we need to work more than anyone else has to
if you want to and love to do it, yes, of course, have a blast
but no one has to, and they can still do great work
let me ask a question, please: for those of you out there working for firms, where is the threshold between a) a reasonable work/life balance, and b) being taken advantage of?
is anything over 40-hours per week intolerable? would 5% or 10% overtime (on average) push the limits? does getting paid directly for every hour make an important difference?
i read stories here about people working chronic 60-80-hour weeks ... where is the zone of comfort for most of you between the 40-hour week and the 80-hour week?
i ask because I have working around me some people who simply love what they do and find their "work" to be their "life" -- without us requiring this of them, they choose to live large parts of their lives here at the office. i have other colleagues who really do strive to maintain a 40-hour week. our firm's culture accepts both.
my personal observation over 30+ years is that the folks who are more "invested" in their work are the ones who, on balance, accomplish more in their careers and produce stronger work, day-in/day-out.
i'm really interested in receiving your various views on this question.
let me ask a question, please: for those of you out there working for firms, where is the threshold between a) a reasonable work/life balance, and b) being taken advantage of?
is anything over 40-hours per week intolerable? would 5% or 10% overtime (on average) push the limits? does getting paid directly for every hour make an important difference?
i read stories here about people working chronic 60-80-hour weeks ... where is the zone of comfort for most of you between the 40-hour week and the 80-hour week?
i ask because I have working around me some people who simply love what they do and find their "work" to be their "life" -- without us requiring this of them, they choose to live large parts of their lives here at the office. i have other colleagues who really do strive to maintain a 40-hour week. our firm's culture accepts both.
my personal observation over 30+ years is that the folks who are more "invested" in their work are the ones who, on balance, accomplish more in their careers and produce stronger work, day-in/day-out.
i'm really interested in receiving your various views on this question.
sorry about the double post ...
i would say there is definitely a balance to be had
of course there is always times when you get into your work and stay past the 8 hour mark
but when you start pushing 60+ hours, that is when it goes overboard in my opinion, if it is something you feel you HAVE to do to do a great job or to even keep your job.
i understand how some peoples work is their life, and i am all for that. but to say that only those people can produce great work, is ridiculous.
and i think you can be "invested" in your work, and work a regular 40-50 hour week consistently
more time = better architecture ≥ bull shit
You create your own balance. If thats 40 hours or 80 hours so be it. As long as you enjoy the amount of time your devoting. It is possible to be an architect and live a life that includes things other than architecture.
i feel bad for those young interns out there who think they have to work these insane hours to get by. my friend consistently pulls all nighters at work and doesnt necessarily like the work he is doing. it doesnt have to be that way if you dont want it to
moak is right, you create this yourself. if you are working 80+ hours a week, it is your own choice. to be honest, if its your boss's choice, he better have a good reason for it and pay you for it as well
creative doctors huh? yeh i guess so. somehow i still think it is a more procedural and systematic profession than architecture, and no pressure to do things differently just because it would be copying and boring and so on...i mean if you can imagine a heart surgeon being blasted for always performing his surgery the same way? like gehry or libeskind always are...?
all human endeavours require creativity and effort. it is what makes us such amazingly interesting beasts. that doesn't quite make comparison valid between careers...
anyway...i don't think as a rule great architecture is possible without more time than mediocre architecture. how to finance that, both in time and in money is always the tuff part, and possibly the source of much of our profession's angst. the 24/7 office with the 40 hr work week sounds nice. i wonder how well it works. i know a few starchitects who seem to have a life, and know of one or two here in town that apparently just work all the time. i think it comes down to temperment rather than necessity.
I posted my thoughts and observations on this issue 3 years ago and still more or less stand by them.
this must be the most responded-to post ever
If working more than 40 hours works for you, than by all means feel free to continue. I personally don't see how anyone can maintain that pace for longer than a few years without experiencing some sort of major burnout. I currently work at a company that for the most part does not ask individuals to commit more than 40 hours in a work week. When it does happen though, we are greatly compensated.
My comparison to medicine was not about creativity etc...it was about the fact that after a certain period of time you are less capable as a human being...period...medicine is having to deal with that reality because of the life or death aspect....one, in architecture or medicine, law, etc...is prone to make more mistakes the less sleep they get and the less complete the rest of their life...that was my point of comparison...which I stand by :)
it's the economy...
There are some occasions where a 60 to 80 hour week just needs to happen, as long at it's not habitual. Sometimes you need some extra time and effort to get shit done.
However, over working can become a crutch, because being lost in hours and hours of extra work gives you an excuse to escape from other resposibilities (family, health, etc). Work is an excellent scape goat because people typically buy it, for a little while anyway.
So often, the real "pussies" are the ones hiding from the world behind their comfy little desk.
I want to die at my desk
...can you be productive at work if you wear headphones?
usually when you call people "pussies" and say little else, you clearly have little to actually contribute to the conversation
you are definitely right ckp
overtime will always happen at some point here and there, and there are a lot of people who use those extra hours to prove how they are a better architect than those who actually value other things in their lives
it can definitely be a crutch
i wear headphones at work when i am doing any drawing, but i find i am less productive with them on
Life / work balance = happiness
Its all about choices, family, money, ego! Similar to my three rules of construction :Price, Time & Quality pick any two but you don't get all three.
We as humans have to decide what is a priority. Personally I don't bleed for my architecture because I think its more important to bounce on the trampoline with my kids, or go for an early morning bike ride before work with my wife, and by the way I am still thinking about work and resolving issues but in an unforced unconfined manner ( call it process )
I my opinion its not a myth but an achievable and very tangible part of how I have chosen to live.
it seems it is mostly young interns who feel you must work 80+ hours a week. are there any older more experienced architects who feel you must work these numbers of hours?
WOW, I really can't believe that people who have been in practice for a while haven't figured out how to balance their life. I think I figured it out my second year of school. There's absolutely NO reason that anyone should ever have to work all night. period.
if you are then you have either A) slacked off at some point during the production process. your probably working such long hours because your posting on here right now. or B) over committed yourself. big great projects do take more time and its your responsibility to inform your client or boss how much time it is going to take to complete a task. no one would expect a skyscraper and an outhouse to be completed in the same amount of time. the amount of time needed to complete a task is hard to gage especially as a youngster with little experience, so that's probably why interns suffer the most. it will get better as you become wiser.
design is another beast all together, its hard to say when that creative spark will strike you, but there's no reason you have to sit at the office and wait for it. sometimes I get my best ideas in the shower, or while riding my bike.
Working long hours is not productive, the longer you work the less mentally invested you are. There is NO way that the quality of work that you are doing after 10hrs in the office is on par with the work that you do after being there for 2.
yeah i love when people say they do their best work at 4am
and they actually believe it
what about the entire next day when you are worthless to the world?
In alot of ways, young interns are more free to donate large chunks of their life to work. They don't yet have a family to support (with their time and attention) and their main social centers are at work.
Plus in being a bit inexperienced, it often takes more time to get through things, as opposed to some one who has worked for a while and has a more developed sense of task priority and quickness.
Also, they probably don't feel quite as secure in their employment because of their lack of experience, so try to compensate with their time.
When corb called architecture, "the patient search" I highly doubt he had 16hr work days in mind. As I remember it he would spend his mornings painting and his afternoons in his atlier with his draftsmen.
I don't think spending 40-50 hrs a week at work, as long as your getting paid for it, is to much.
I think however, the most important question not being asked here is the client willing to pay more than 40hrs a week for a project? If the anwser is no than there's your answer.
just make sure you don't get prostate cancer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20080421/co_po/masturbationmaypreventprostatecancer;_ylt=AkbKMELZVmJMuzJLVb1Gniys0NUE
i work 8 hours a day
thats true, ckp
and i understand why young interns would feel like its good to spend extra time at work, i know i did (though only one specific project was it ever a 80 hr week situation)
and it does help with your experience and development as an architect to work as much as you can early
but all that extra work doesnt make that project great or better than another project that doesnt have extra time put on it. i never worked for a starchitect before, but when someone before mentioned how everyone there works 16 hour days/7 days a week, i somehow doubt that is the higher ups there. and if it is true, its not because their work is any better, maybe its more custom, but its not necessarily better work. i think in a starchitects firm, they probably just have so much work, that they have their people working that much to cover it all. mostly they just have too much work for the number of people there
in fact, the only jobs i've ever had that were more than 40 hours a week were when i was working for professors and when i was working construction. overtime is inevitable, but i feel as though i've worked on good projects without killing myself. i think architects over work their staff sometimes because they feel they have to. but honestly, it's a just product of bad scheduling. if you aren't going to meet a deadline, you can always ask for an extension. no client who's already invested $50k in a design is going to cut you off just because you need another two weeks, if you want it done right. i also think it goes back to architects' general lack of confidence in doing business. rather than just give clients a reasonable time frame for a design to be completed, they tighten the screws in hopes to impress them, or maybe because they somehow question the value of what they are doing and how much it should really cost. i think firms that force their employees into a lot of extra overtime end up eating the cost of it rather than billing it. which inevitably contributes to lower pay for the employees.
think about how long it will take, and then multiply this by three. then add 20% and tell the client this will be the project time line. let your employees work 40 hours a week, bill all of their time, and pay them well. this is how it is done. that said, you need a certain redundancy of projects to make this happen.
This is one of the best threads I've ever read on archinect.
I think the people who tend to work way too many hours in the office were the same crew wandering the halls at 2 am to go get a drink or a smoke and had difficulty focusing on the task at hand at school. No disrespect but I think they kind of liked the "aura" of the all-nighter. My guess is that they still live they live the same way with little focus on what's important and what's not.
I have this imagine of one class mate sitting on a stool, knees pulled up to their chest, arms wrapped around their legs, sucking on a cig really hard right down to their fingers, looking out the window and being totally lost on what to do next. No mode to edit or distill and completely traumatized by the thought of making a choice. Trust me I have faced the same demons.
To much fun in life, to try and force blood from a stone.
haha half my class was like that whistler, i know exactly what you are talking about
and a couple of them that i know of now are still crazy and pull all nighters
its not so much an architecture thing, as a personality trait sometimes
Lots and lots of architects score as INTP on the Myers Brigg test.
Some key characteristic of the INTP personality include
"INTPs live in the world of theoretical possibilities. They see everything in terms of how it could be improved, or what it could be turned into. They live much of their lives within their own heads, and may not place as much importance or value on the external world. They love new ideas, and become very excited over abstractions and theories. They love to discuss these concepts with others. They may seem "dreamy" and distant to others, because they spend a lot of time inside their minds musing over theories. They hate to work on routine things - they would much prefer to build complex theoretical solutions, and leave the implementation of the system to others."
While not every architect resembles this type, this does explains a lot.
Marm I agree, I one had a former employer who was asked to critique a class and his comment was that the faces change but the personality types remain the same.
the reason why i argue the other side is twofold. first, i recently visited with a man who worked for eero saarinen. he vividly described the work culture in saarinen's office. people did literally work 16 hour days, 7 days a week, and that was everyone, not just the interns; saarinen himself practically lived in the studio. his first wife divorced him for that reason. the architect i spoke with told me saarinen would always prepare three designs for any client: the first was exactly as the client asked, the second was the same design, but trying to improve upon it, the third was how saarinen would design it. they would mock up all their details at full scale in design. all that takes time; yes, he paid his employees barely anything, but he did take care of them in other ways, and who were these people? cesar pelli, kevin roche, robert venturi...
the second reason is because i see it in my own work. i can definitely see the difference between when i put in 40 and 60 hours/week on a project. it's a phenomenal difference in terms of clarity and depth of detail. better architecture takes more time; i don't know how one could argue otherwise.
why didn't that cheapskate just hire more people? weirdo...
maybe putting in more time brings out a better product, but we're not all going to be saarinen. let's just be realistic about that. it's really not worth sacrificing poontang and precious REM sleep for a few elevation details.
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.