This is in response to the "autocad price" comment and discussion. Really though. What has the AIA done or not done for you? Is collective bargaining an advantage at all?
gave me free drinks? some free lunch, networking. umm they opposed something in congress ans won? they have good design presentations and home tours and a collection of ARE testing material.
the AIA chapter in NYC has a cool place- Center for Architecture on Laguardia PL near NYU, they have hella boring NYCDOB code lectures all the time but nice model displays presentations sometimes...
earlier this year they had mad models made by NY schoolchilderen of city buildings, it was kinda amusing to see the representations used.
They also put a Fuller sculpture/dome thing on the street there this summer
Aint been by there in a while though ... check it out if any of y'all are in NYC .
The AIA has comittees that monitor state laws that may impact architects in the realm of liability, insurance etc - they also produce a great legal framework for practice so we dont have to become lawyers with the documents comittee. My only negative is their infatuation with doctors and lwayers - they want us to be educated and trained as such but then they cant help but be architects - i think the AIA should realize we are totaly different than other proffesions and acknoweledge we are part of the construction industry and adjust education as such. My 2 cents.
^in the long run we will be more respected as a construction/craft/artistic proffesion if we were viewed as hands on rather than desk jockeys. I think that hurts - we are seen as aloof and a formality by a lot of folks - often times an earned reputation. Often times we shine.
Collective bargaining (alluded to in the first post) is one thing AIA definitely does not do -- the antitrust ruling from the early '80's prohibits AIA from proposing fee schedules or anything similar. I think a lot of architect's frustration with the AIA stems from this lack of power -- big institutions ask us to sign contracts that are exactly opposite the recommendations of the AIA and individual architects are left to battle it out for themselves.
From the AIA's perspective it has to be frustrating trying to speak for a group as factious as architects are (and representing the business interests of such poor business people). The current leadership seems to be energized by the sustainability agenda which may be a step in the right direction.
that is not true. however being RA makes you an architect legaly speaking in some state.
the problem is that AIA allowed creation of ridicilous superflous bureaucracy such as NCARB, NAAB etc. while doctors and lawayers have one body and the organization governing regulations, services, and fees, AIA courts Washington lobbies and private interests. that is the problem. having AIA sticker does not make you a bit better architect. locally AIA chapter promotes architecture within professional community but do very little outside of it by raising social awarness of architecture and its inherent values.on other hand it has amazing set of legal documents such as contracts that come in very handy when ones need to close on the project especially small one. i doubt hok or som use aia documents when they sign agreements with hospitals. this brings me to the last point. the organization does very little for small to medium size firms or young professionals. in addition, the enormous gap between academic and professional practise world is definately not bridged through aia policies. buying off some well known academic oaf by giving him a free rexclusive AIA title, who has only spite among all things for his own products - students, definately does not solve problems or improves state of affairs. i think, myslef included, in the US everyone hides in academia since it allows you to grow and enjoy creatively working, while at the same time giving you financial security. it is protected area from machinations of developers and their cronies inside the government, ardious professional and legal procedures and simply practising architecture as a bureaucrat or even worse pseudo-lawyer who government employed for free to do their work. however practise is true and unbiased arena for trying new things and ideas as long as you can find financial support for this. also architecture is about building, spaces and cities, not paper renderings.
I recently became a licensed architect and the owner of my firm wanted to put AIA behind my name on new business cards. I joined AIA but I will not have letters after my name. I hate letters after names.
wow zivotinja - there was a time when architects were the politicaly connected cronies, the movers and shakers and were anything but academics and one could say we got more done that way. Hell go back to the renaissance when the architect sat in the kings court. And Im sure HOK and SOM use AIA docs - most large firms do. Modified for sure, but they use them. Its actualy the small architrects that dont - a lot of builders refuse to sign AIA contracts because they are unfairly slanted against contractors - something else that gives the AIA a bad rep in the construction industry
"a lot of builders refuse to sign AIA contracts because they are unfairly slanted against contractors"
- so, contractors find it unfair that the contract actually requires them to build according to the contract documents, to perform in a responsible, professional manner and that there be balance and safeguards in the business relationship?
As a matter of general information, when the AIA publishes new editions of the contract documents, those new editions are produced through a consensus process, involving owners, contractors, attorneys, architects, engineers, and others. All of these diverging viewpoints are considered and reflected in the final outcome. Through this process, the documents have been fine tuned during their 115 year history. As a result, these comprehensive contracts and forms are now widely recognized as the industry standard and are well tested in the legal arena. They're also highly editable, to accommodate special needs of the parties or special circumstances.
Every business clearly has the right to decide what contracts are acceptable in their work. However, I'd be highly suspect of any contractor who claims the documents are "unfair to contractors" -- to me, that just means the documents take away their license to steal and underperform.
I must agree with quizzical, these documents and forms are probably the best products AIA made....they are actually very balanced that's why big developers (from my experience) do not like them as well as some contractors.
i have been away for a while, but let me tell you, like many of you i have asked WTF could the AIA do for me? it can't do anything for you, if you stand on the sidelines puffing your clove cig's bitching and moaning about an organization you don't belong to. join, have a voice, critique the shit out of it, find your niche, and there are plenth of niches to find, and become part of something better than a bunch of crybaby biyatches.
I think the thing that surprised me most after I graduated from Architecture school, did my internship, and went out on my own, is that potential clients seem to have no idea what architects do, and why you should pay them for what they do, and why they're worth it.
This goes for lawmaking bodies as well. The people crafting the legislation for the framework of how and what we build (and how much money will go to support planning and building) have very little understanding of our real value as creators of our shared future world.
The AIA, I agree, has a good framework for contracts. You can use them "as is" or as a framework augmented with what's important to your design work.
And the sustainability focus at the present time is refreshing. (Better when articulating the whys and hows of "going green"; worse when worshiping checklists).
But that's about it.
Where the AIA falls short is in:
1) explaining to the general public just what architects do and why (meaning creative, cultural and artistic contributions) you need them.
and,
2) aggressively reaching out and educating the Administration, Congress, and state and local governments on the value of creativity, the value of planning, the value of architecture as an art form leading to cultural advancement.
You don't have to join the AIA. Frank Lloyd Wright never did - even after they awarded him the gold medal. You can buy the contracts without a membership.
I've often wondered if an alternative association should be formed to publicly advance the cause of architecture in our society.
as soon as some ambitious members of the aia decide to take on these efforts for both explanations to the general public and reaching out to educate government, i'm sure you'll see it happen, skyscraper.
( ^^ read sarcasm there, because it's something in which the aia has been engaged for years. have you ever tried to explain architecture to one person? what makes you think a group of people like you can 'educate' a whole population that doesn't want to be educated?)
the point missed in most of these conversations about aia is that it's not some 'them', it's an 'us' made up of those who participate.
While I was joking about the fact that "AIA" makes one an architect it's grounded in public perception. Most clients I've encountered believe that the AIA behind your name means you're an architect. Like it or not, AIA is the defacto architect title.
I think there needs to be more specialization in architecture.
EvilP hit on some points I agree with - we are too often compared to Lawyers and Drs, mostly because our schooling is as grueling.
We need specialization, just as almost every other profession has. You have talent as a designer, then go to grad school to push that. An interest in construction management? Go for that. Business? Go for that. You'd have an arch degree with a specialization that you are talented in and that employers will appreciate.
It'll differentiate each grad and help everyone get what they want. This "have to do everything" is just not efficient in today's world.
To say that architecture today is not specialized is I think a bit incorrect, but then again I work in a large firm that is oriented into sector based studios. We have people that more or less only work in healthcare, commercial investment properties, education, DoD work, etc., and when lines are blurred (mixed use projects) we team up. Similarly, we have design oriented architects, technically oriented architects, interior architects, dedicated spec writers, architects who work only on CA, architects focused on technology integration, etc.
from my personal perspective, specialization in practice seems to arise more frequently in larger communities. cities of significant size often provide enough volume so firms can become healthcare specialists, retail specialists, residential specialists, etc. and realize the depth of expertise and efficiencies that attend such specialization.
however, firms located in smaller communities more oftern tend to operate as general practices - their personal relationships in such communities allow them to be hired despite what may seem to some a dearth of prior experience in a project type.
of course, there are notable exceptions to the above observations. there are specialized firms located in smaller communities which serve national, or international, markets. and, every large community still has one, or more, design firms that hold themselves out to be generalists.
going forward, I tend to believe more and more firms will pursue specialization, with the larger firms having (as mentioned above) multiple specialties offered under one roof. IMO, this powerful trend is driven by client needs and wants -- not necessarily by what we, as individual architects, desire.
zivotinja: an just where does your particular expertise on this subject come from? from your other posts on this forum, you seem absolutely clueless about the matters on which you comment.
They hold Design Awards Programs where they charge hundreds of dollars to enter, and then give out awards for 'Design Excellence' on the basis of "affectionate relationships" among the members.
In architecture, "Your work is ugly crap" is not just a personal opinion, it is a *professional* opinion.
I have to say, I really don't understand why so many totally uninformed posters come here to spew invective against an organization about which they clearly have no meaningful knowledge. All I can imagine is that AIA, like any established institution, is an easy target for the totally clueless.
While I will be the first to admit that AIA has it's problems (like any large, volunteer-led organization) AIA still remains the only meaningful voice for the profession. It provides an immense number of well prepared practice tools and training sessions for those members (and non-members) who care to participate. It serves as our watchdog and advocate on legislative issues and it lobbies for fundamental change that helps the profession remain somewhat relevant in a culture where what the majority of us do is becoming increasingly irrelevant. It tries to provide leadership to a profession that clearly is struggling to find its way.
Architects are, at best, a fractious group -- just look around you here on Archinect. Yet, too many of us seem to expect the AIA to serve the needs and wants of every architect (member and non-member alike) in a perfect, and costless, fashion -- totally forgetting that AIA largely is composed of unpaid, volunteer participants, who commit huge amounts of personal time in an effort to improve practice conditions for us all. To me, constant carping about AIA's perceived deficiencies conveys an infantile perspective and represents shallow, uninformed judgment. I expect more from Architects.
If you want a better, more effective AIA, stop mouthing off and put some time (and dues) behind your angst.
I'll relate a story that backs up file's second paragraph: the local state legislature was considering a proposal that all new public school buildings be built to one standardized plan. The AIA mobilized and alerted architects - and the public - to the ridiculousness of the proposal, and it was defeated.
So there is something they "do". Which is to say, something we do, as I'm a member.
AIA has problems, but it easily rivals, if not exceeds the ABA and AMA (lawyers and doctors, respectively) in serving its constituency. As noted above, architects are a far more fractious bunch than just about any other profession you can name. Given that fact, I find it amazing that AIA accomplishes what it does. Could it do more? Of course. But you have to replace "it" with "I" in the preceeding sentence if you really want AIA to be an even better organization.
from all the AIA does you would there there is not 1 conservative architect and that as a whole architects are very progressive. that is a warm feeling.
Having standardized plans for state-funded public schools sounds like a good idea. Obviously, site conditions would require adjustment, but your post represents exactly why the public needs protection from the AIA. You guys can't tell the difference between the public interest and your own - your objection is a selfish commercial one.
Anyone ever entered the AIA design awards program? If you didn't get an award, why not? If you did, do you really think your work looks better than the others'?
eje, you're a dolt, standardized plans and a model for program spaces are two different things. forcing architects to build schools based on some bureaucratic committee - with non professionals - is like asking them to design a horse, only to end up with a camel. let architects be architects and let legislators do what ever it is they do....
you've blown you're argument, in my view, eje. if you think standardized plans for schools are a good idea, you're saying that ONE architecture firm in a whole state will design THE standard school for each level based on what THEY think is the right thing to do, answering only to state government rather than to individual school districts and users.
the result would be exactly what you've argued against. in the vacuum created by legislators not knowing what a school should be, a much more unfettered architect would establish what a school needs to be as a universal model, rural or urban, crowded or empty, mountains or flatlands.
under the current model, we meet with administration, parents, school board, and school district staff for months to tailor each project to their specific district needs based on how they run their curriculum.
often the school is an existing non-standardized building to which a district wants to make an addition. (not sure how standardization legislation would handle that except by making an environment perfect for litigation.)
You're an idiot. That's not a personal insult, that's a professional opinion. In architecture, these seem to be the same thing.
Steven Ward:
Lots of program types have standardized plans. Retail stores, clinics, offices. I attended a very good school system - 90% of the graduates go to college, most to top universities - and when I go back and look at the buildings, I realize how generic and mundane they are. They're nothing special. But hey, the school system values teachers and that's where they spend their money.
Did Nelson Mandela go to law school in a fancy building? No. Education is not about the architecture, it's about the educators.
Name one person of accomplishment - ONE - who credits their success to the architecture of the school they attended. Many cite teachers or mentors. How many cite the architecture?
As I said, site conditions (including additions) would change things. But there would seem to be some very good reasons to have schools designed by in-house architects and engineers, using generic plans, details and specs when possible. Maintenance, for example, is a nightmare when the architect makes sure that the air handlers and drains are inaccessible because he doesn't like the looks of access panels.
No, this is not an argument for more bureaucracy.
You didn't respond to my question about the Awards program. Have you ever won one? Why not? Does your work suck?
teachers care about the environments in which they're expected to teach. in most cases, they drive the programming and set many of the expectations for the schools we design.
i wouldn't expect anyone to credit their school for their education, though many may remember their school facilities in a good/fond or bad light. ( i personally remember being so hot with the sun on me and no a/c that it was nearly impossible to keep alert and focused in middle school.) the school is a tool for the teachers, administration, and students to do the job of education, just like their computers, their library books, etc. the students might not credit the building. does that make it less impt that it be designed to serve the teachers' and staffs' needs as specifically (rather than generically) as it can? i bet they'd say no - at least from the input we get both before and after construction. maybe part of what a great teacher is able to convey is the result of having an positive environment, conducive to education.
and, since you like things to be quantifiable: consider that, after we got air conditioning, it was thought that many schools could go without windows. don't know whether this was driven by budget or maintenance or the thought that kids wouldn't get distracted, but now there is research that natural daylighting in classrooms results in better test scores. the quantifiable result of a qualitative design choice. so now we're doing a lot more clerestory windows than we did in the past, bringing daylight into the spaces that are buried in the center of buildings. this has formal implications. it also helps bring down cost of artificial lighting and can help with hvac cost.
it's not a game, and it's not bs. these are the things we know how to do because we've been trained to do it. the fact that it can be aesthetically pleasing is neither the primary thing nor is it just a byproduct. it's an integral part of the process of design.
who has time to apply for (or pay for) awards competitions? not me. no, we don't do projects that stand out. quiet, solid, and actually fairly simple work, most of it, except in cases where the client asks for something different. if it sucked, i don't think they'd keep hiring us again, and most of our work is for repeat clients.
eje, you dodged Steven's comment that if you think standardized school plans are a good thing, then you must feel that government-mandated design (which you seem to think consists entirely and exclusively of "style") is also a good thing. Is this true?
i stand by my first sentence, you're a dolt. taking design out of the professional's hands and placing it firmly in the grip of dead to the world bureaucrat is not only asinine, but display a fundamental lack of insight into a profession you know little about. your follow up comments prove my point.
i worked on k-12 schools for 6 plus years, and have seen what happens even with a little government involvement, it's a nightmare - design and budget were unattainable. don't believe me, go ask NJ, NY or PA how its working for them.
i have to admit to being puzzled by eje's 'does it suck' question.
- if it looks too-cool-for-school, it might win awards, but eje'd would say that sucks because it's about the architect's ego and not the user.
- if it's all user-oriented but no flash, it sounds like eje's also intimating that this would ALSO suck because not cool enough.
- the additionally confusing factor is that, from my experience, a lot of the awards (masonry, aia, etc) reward fairly mediocre work. it's only the more famously star-oriented awards like p/a and similar that are all-cool-all-the-time. so, yeah, i don't know what eje's looking for.
I'm an AIA member, have been for nearly a decade. In the early years I was also a director in the local executive committee.* High fives!
okay what's the question? What do they do? Well, national dues go to Washington to support an organization that acts as a watchdog and lobbyist for all 'Architects'. Local fees go to chapters that organize many things - support student groups, organize competitions and lecture series, award excellence in design, and arrange twelve chicken-or-fish dinners for its local members. Sorts of things that bring community attention to 'good design'.
More importantly, they also get involved in local legislation that are oftentimes decided by member votes- get involved, kids.
Having written all that, I do feel the weight of it. Some architects don't join as they don't feel the need - that's AceofSpades with me.
I'll also end with jafidler's generic response 37 (is there a bigger list somewhere?).
it also ties the architects of a community together socially, of course. this weekend we toured new facilities at the local zoo with the architect and the zoo director and our kids got to see some behing the scenes stuff. the 'family day' deal is once a year.
in september is the aia house tour, a tour of 8-10 houses designed by architects, showcasing how these can be different, economical, 'green', etc. all benefits from the tour go to habitat.
we occasionally do design charrettes centered around certain issues that a part of the city or another community out in the state has identified as topics for consideration. these are usually pro bono weekend events.
when local landmarks are under threat, the local aia chapter joins with the local preservation organizations to put out the word and see what can be done. most recently a 9k sf historic house was rescued from imminent (next DAY!) demolition when they found someone to take on its restoration and repurposing as a community amenity.
etc.
Aug 20, 08 9:32 pm ·
·
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.
What does the AIA do?
This is in response to the "autocad price" comment and discussion. Really though. What has the AIA done or not done for you? Is collective bargaining an advantage at all?
gave me free drinks? some free lunch, networking. umm they opposed something in congress ans won? they have good design presentations and home tours and a collection of ARE testing material.
one thing they don't have is free autodesk software or any discounts ;)
correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe the aia is just a club for architects.
Yes, that's it. It's just a club for architects.
this has been discussed a bunch. this is a pretty good example: http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=60482_0_42_0_C
and, i just learned, my insurance is a lot cheaper thru aia than without.
Which insurance?^
the AIA chapter in NYC has a cool place- Center for Architecture on Laguardia PL near NYU, they have hella boring NYCDOB code lectures all the time but nice model displays presentations sometimes...
earlier this year they had mad models made by NY schoolchilderen of city buildings, it was kinda amusing to see the representations used.
They also put a Fuller sculpture/dome thing on the street there this summer
Aint been by there in a while though ... check it out if any of y'all are in NYC .
oh yeah the AIA does........your mom!
The AIA has comittees that monitor state laws that may impact architects in the realm of liability, insurance etc - they also produce a great legal framework for practice so we dont have to become lawyers with the documents comittee. My only negative is their infatuation with doctors and lwayers - they want us to be educated and trained as such but then they cant help but be architects - i think the AIA should realize we are totaly different than other proffesions and acknoweledge we are part of the construction industry and adjust education as such. My 2 cents.
^in the long run we will be more respected as a construction/craft/artistic proffesion if we were viewed as hands on rather than desk jockeys. I think that hurts - we are seen as aloof and a formality by a lot of folks - often times an earned reputation. Often times we shine.
Collective bargaining (alluded to in the first post) is one thing AIA definitely does not do -- the antitrust ruling from the early '80's prohibits AIA from proposing fee schedules or anything similar. I think a lot of architect's frustration with the AIA stems from this lack of power -- big institutions ask us to sign contracts that are exactly opposite the recommendations of the AIA and individual architects are left to battle it out for themselves.
From the AIA's perspective it has to be frustrating trying to speak for a group as factious as architects are (and representing the business interests of such poor business people). The current leadership seems to be energized by the sustainability agenda which may be a step in the right direction.
You're not an Architect unless you have the AIA behind your name, didn't you know that? The AIA makes you an Architect.
^^ facetiousness, for those who don't know...
aquapura :
that is not true. however being RA makes you an architect legaly speaking in some state.
the problem is that AIA allowed creation of ridicilous superflous bureaucracy such as NCARB, NAAB etc. while doctors and lawayers have one body and the organization governing regulations, services, and fees, AIA courts Washington lobbies and private interests. that is the problem. having AIA sticker does not make you a bit better architect. locally AIA chapter promotes architecture within professional community but do very little outside of it by raising social awarness of architecture and its inherent values.on other hand it has amazing set of legal documents such as contracts that come in very handy when ones need to close on the project especially small one. i doubt hok or som use aia documents when they sign agreements with hospitals. this brings me to the last point. the organization does very little for small to medium size firms or young professionals. in addition, the enormous gap between academic and professional practise world is definately not bridged through aia policies. buying off some well known academic oaf by giving him a free rexclusive AIA title, who has only spite among all things for his own products - students, definately does not solve problems or improves state of affairs. i think, myslef included, in the US everyone hides in academia since it allows you to grow and enjoy creatively working, while at the same time giving you financial security. it is protected area from machinations of developers and their cronies inside the government, ardious professional and legal procedures and simply practising architecture as a bureaucrat or even worse pseudo-lawyer who government employed for free to do their work. however practise is true and unbiased arena for trying new things and ideas as long as you can find financial support for this. also architecture is about building, spaces and cities, not paper renderings.
I recently became a licensed architect and the owner of my firm wanted to put AIA behind my name on new business cards. I joined AIA but I will not have letters after my name. I hate letters after names.
- aquapura was making a cynical joke.
wow zivotinja - there was a time when architects were the politicaly connected cronies, the movers and shakers and were anything but academics and one could say we got more done that way. Hell go back to the renaissance when the architect sat in the kings court. And Im sure HOK and SOM use AIA docs - most large firms do. Modified for sure, but they use them. Its actualy the small architrects that dont - a lot of builders refuse to sign AIA contracts because they are unfairly slanted against contractors - something else that gives the AIA a bad rep in the construction industry
- so, contractors find it unfair that the contract actually requires them to build according to the contract documents, to perform in a responsible, professional manner and that there be balance and safeguards in the business relationship?
As a matter of general information, when the AIA publishes new editions of the contract documents, those new editions are produced through a consensus process, involving owners, contractors, attorneys, architects, engineers, and others. All of these diverging viewpoints are considered and reflected in the final outcome. Through this process, the documents have been fine tuned during their 115 year history. As a result, these comprehensive contracts and forms are now widely recognized as the industry standard and are well tested in the legal arena. They're also highly editable, to accommodate special needs of the parties or special circumstances.
Every business clearly has the right to decide what contracts are acceptable in their work. However, I'd be highly suspect of any contractor who claims the documents are "unfair to contractors" -- to me, that just means the documents take away their license to steal and underperform.
sorry aquapura :
I must agree with quizzical, these documents and forms are probably the best products AIA made....they are actually very balanced that's why big developers (from my experience) do not like them as well as some contractors.
i have been away for a while, but let me tell you, like many of you i have asked WTF could the AIA do for me? it can't do anything for you, if you stand on the sidelines puffing your clove cig's bitching and moaning about an organization you don't belong to. join, have a voice, critique the shit out of it, find your niche, and there are plenth of niches to find, and become part of something better than a bunch of crybaby biyatches.
What has the AIA done for me?
I think the thing that surprised me most after I graduated from Architecture school, did my internship, and went out on my own, is that potential clients seem to have no idea what architects do, and why you should pay them for what they do, and why they're worth it.
This goes for lawmaking bodies as well. The people crafting the legislation for the framework of how and what we build (and how much money will go to support planning and building) have very little understanding of our real value as creators of our shared future world.
The AIA, I agree, has a good framework for contracts. You can use them "as is" or as a framework augmented with what's important to your design work.
And the sustainability focus at the present time is refreshing. (Better when articulating the whys and hows of "going green"; worse when worshiping checklists).
But that's about it.
Where the AIA falls short is in:
1) explaining to the general public just what architects do and why (meaning creative, cultural and artistic contributions) you need them.
and,
2) aggressively reaching out and educating the Administration, Congress, and state and local governments on the value of creativity, the value of planning, the value of architecture as an art form leading to cultural advancement.
You don't have to join the AIA. Frank Lloyd Wright never did - even after they awarded him the gold medal. You can buy the contracts without a membership.
I've often wondered if an alternative association should be formed to publicly advance the cause of architecture in our society.
What do you think?
http://newamericanvillage.blogspot.com/
as soon as some ambitious members of the aia decide to take on these efforts for both explanations to the general public and reaching out to educate government, i'm sure you'll see it happen, skyscraper.
( ^^ read sarcasm there, because it's something in which the aia has been engaged for years. have you ever tried to explain architecture to one person? what makes you think a group of people like you can 'educate' a whole population that doesn't want to be educated?)
the point missed in most of these conversations about aia is that it's not some 'them', it's an 'us' made up of those who participate.
While I was joking about the fact that "AIA" makes one an architect it's grounded in public perception. Most clients I've encountered believe that the AIA behind your name means you're an architect. Like it or not, AIA is the defacto architect title.
I think there needs to be more specialization in architecture.
EvilP hit on some points I agree with - we are too often compared to Lawyers and Drs, mostly because our schooling is as grueling.
We need specialization, just as almost every other profession has. You have talent as a designer, then go to grad school to push that. An interest in construction management? Go for that. Business? Go for that. You'd have an arch degree with a specialization that you are talented in and that employers will appreciate.
It'll differentiate each grad and help everyone get what they want. This "have to do everything" is just not efficient in today's world.
To say that architecture today is not specialized is I think a bit incorrect, but then again I work in a large firm that is oriented into sector based studios. We have people that more or less only work in healthcare, commercial investment properties, education, DoD work, etc., and when lines are blurred (mixed use projects) we team up. Similarly, we have design oriented architects, technically oriented architects, interior architects, dedicated spec writers, architects who work only on CA, architects focused on technology integration, etc.
from my personal perspective, specialization in practice seems to arise more frequently in larger communities. cities of significant size often provide enough volume so firms can become healthcare specialists, retail specialists, residential specialists, etc. and realize the depth of expertise and efficiencies that attend such specialization.
however, firms located in smaller communities more oftern tend to operate as general practices - their personal relationships in such communities allow them to be hired despite what may seem to some a dearth of prior experience in a project type.
of course, there are notable exceptions to the above observations. there are specialized firms located in smaller communities which serve national, or international, markets. and, every large community still has one, or more, design firms that hold themselves out to be generalists.
going forward, I tend to believe more and more firms will pursue specialization, with the larger firms having (as mentioned above) multiple specialties offered under one roof. IMO, this powerful trend is driven by client needs and wants -- not necessarily by what we, as individual architects, desire.
People very simple - NADA, Zilch, Nicht, Rien, Nicevo, Nishta, Nothing
zivotinja: an just where does your particular expertise on this subject come from? from your other posts on this forum, you seem absolutely clueless about the matters on which you comment.
stuff
They hold Design Awards Programs where they charge hundreds of dollars to enter, and then give out awards for 'Design Excellence' on the basis of "affectionate relationships" among the members.
In architecture, "Your work is ugly crap" is not just a personal opinion, it is a *professional* opinion.
What a crooked scam ...
I have to say, I really don't understand why so many totally uninformed posters come here to spew invective against an organization about which they clearly have no meaningful knowledge. All I can imagine is that AIA, like any established institution, is an easy target for the totally clueless.
While I will be the first to admit that AIA has it's problems (like any large, volunteer-led organization) AIA still remains the only meaningful voice for the profession. It provides an immense number of well prepared practice tools and training sessions for those members (and non-members) who care to participate. It serves as our watchdog and advocate on legislative issues and it lobbies for fundamental change that helps the profession remain somewhat relevant in a culture where what the majority of us do is becoming increasingly irrelevant. It tries to provide leadership to a profession that clearly is struggling to find its way.
Architects are, at best, a fractious group -- just look around you here on Archinect. Yet, too many of us seem to expect the AIA to serve the needs and wants of every architect (member and non-member alike) in a perfect, and costless, fashion -- totally forgetting that AIA largely is composed of unpaid, volunteer participants, who commit huge amounts of personal time in an effort to improve practice conditions for us all. To me, constant carping about AIA's perceived deficiencies conveys an infantile perspective and represents shallow, uninformed judgment. I expect more from Architects.
If you want a better, more effective AIA, stop mouthing off and put some time (and dues) behind your angst.
Stop pretending to be a professional -- be one!
ya! get involved
Bravo, file.
I'll relate a story that backs up file's second paragraph: the local state legislature was considering a proposal that all new public school buildings be built to one standardized plan. The AIA mobilized and alerted architects - and the public - to the ridiculousness of the proposal, and it was defeated.
So there is something they "do". Which is to say, something we do, as I'm a member.
Wow! file, you said it all.
AIA has problems, but it easily rivals, if not exceeds the ABA and AMA (lawyers and doctors, respectively) in serving its constituency. As noted above, architects are a far more fractious bunch than just about any other profession you can name. Given that fact, I find it amazing that AIA accomplishes what it does. Could it do more? Of course. But you have to replace "it" with "I" in the preceeding sentence if you really want AIA to be an even better organization.
from all the AIA does you would there there is not 1 conservative architect and that as a whole architects are very progressive. that is a warm feeling.
Having standardized plans for state-funded public schools sounds like a good idea. Obviously, site conditions would require adjustment, but your post represents exactly why the public needs protection from the AIA. You guys can't tell the difference between the public interest and your own - your objection is a selfish commercial one.
Anyone ever entered the AIA design awards program? If you didn't get an award, why not? If you did, do you really think your work looks better than the others'?
eje, you're a dolt, standardized plans and a model for program spaces are two different things. forcing architects to build schools based on some bureaucratic committee - with non professionals - is like asking them to design a horse, only to end up with a camel. let architects be architects and let legislators do what ever it is they do....
you've blown you're argument, in my view, eje. if you think standardized plans for schools are a good idea, you're saying that ONE architecture firm in a whole state will design THE standard school for each level based on what THEY think is the right thing to do, answering only to state government rather than to individual school districts and users.
the result would be exactly what you've argued against. in the vacuum created by legislators not knowing what a school should be, a much more unfettered architect would establish what a school needs to be as a universal model, rural or urban, crowded or empty, mountains or flatlands.
under the current model, we meet with administration, parents, school board, and school district staff for months to tailor each project to their specific district needs based on how they run their curriculum.
often the school is an existing non-standardized building to which a district wants to make an addition. (not sure how standardization legislation would handle that except by making an environment perfect for litigation.)
archinect generic response #37:
"some people like it; some people don't."
+
archinect generic response #22:
"it's not a them; it's an us."
betadineligatures:
You're an idiot. That's not a personal insult, that's a professional opinion. In architecture, these seem to be the same thing.
Steven Ward:
Lots of program types have standardized plans. Retail stores, clinics, offices. I attended a very good school system - 90% of the graduates go to college, most to top universities - and when I go back and look at the buildings, I realize how generic and mundane they are. They're nothing special. But hey, the school system values teachers and that's where they spend their money.
Did Nelson Mandela go to law school in a fancy building? No. Education is not about the architecture, it's about the educators.
Name one person of accomplishment - ONE - who credits their success to the architecture of the school they attended. Many cite teachers or mentors. How many cite the architecture?
As I said, site conditions (including additions) would change things. But there would seem to be some very good reasons to have schools designed by in-house architects and engineers, using generic plans, details and specs when possible. Maintenance, for example, is a nightmare when the architect makes sure that the air handlers and drains are inaccessible because he doesn't like the looks of access panels.
No, this is not an argument for more bureaucracy.
You didn't respond to my question about the Awards program. Have you ever won one? Why not? Does your work suck?
teachers care about the environments in which they're expected to teach. in most cases, they drive the programming and set many of the expectations for the schools we design.
i wouldn't expect anyone to credit their school for their education, though many may remember their school facilities in a good/fond or bad light. ( i personally remember being so hot with the sun on me and no a/c that it was nearly impossible to keep alert and focused in middle school.) the school is a tool for the teachers, administration, and students to do the job of education, just like their computers, their library books, etc. the students might not credit the building. does that make it less impt that it be designed to serve the teachers' and staffs' needs as specifically (rather than generically) as it can? i bet they'd say no - at least from the input we get both before and after construction. maybe part of what a great teacher is able to convey is the result of having an positive environment, conducive to education.
and, since you like things to be quantifiable: consider that, after we got air conditioning, it was thought that many schools could go without windows. don't know whether this was driven by budget or maintenance or the thought that kids wouldn't get distracted, but now there is research that natural daylighting in classrooms results in better test scores. the quantifiable result of a qualitative design choice. so now we're doing a lot more clerestory windows than we did in the past, bringing daylight into the spaces that are buried in the center of buildings. this has formal implications. it also helps bring down cost of artificial lighting and can help with hvac cost.
it's not a game, and it's not bs. these are the things we know how to do because we've been trained to do it. the fact that it can be aesthetically pleasing is neither the primary thing nor is it just a byproduct. it's an integral part of the process of design.
who has time to apply for (or pay for) awards competitions? not me. no, we don't do projects that stand out. quiet, solid, and actually fairly simple work, most of it, except in cases where the client asks for something different. if it sucked, i don't think they'd keep hiring us again, and most of our work is for repeat clients.
eje, you dodged Steven's comment that if you think standardized school plans are a good thing, then you must feel that government-mandated design (which you seem to think consists entirely and exclusively of "style") is also a good thing. Is this true?
well he did suggest that the state gov't might have [i]in-house architects and engineers, using generic plans, details and specs when possible[i].
state gov't should do a good job of running an architecture office, don't you think?
(in my state, that office would have been cut this year...)
i stand by my first sentence, you're a dolt. taking design out of the professional's hands and placing it firmly in the grip of dead to the world bureaucrat is not only asinine, but display a fundamental lack of insight into a profession you know little about. your follow up comments prove my point.
i worked on k-12 schools for 6 plus years, and have seen what happens even with a little government involvement, it's a nightmare - design and budget were unattainable. don't believe me, go ask NJ, NY or PA how its working for them.
i have to admit to being puzzled by eje's 'does it suck' question.
- if it looks too-cool-for-school, it might win awards, but eje'd would say that sucks because it's about the architect's ego and not the user.
- if it's all user-oriented but no flash, it sounds like eje's also intimating that this would ALSO suck because not cool enough.
- the additionally confusing factor is that, from my experience, a lot of the awards (masonry, aia, etc) reward fairly mediocre work. it's only the more famously star-oriented awards like p/a and similar that are all-cool-all-the-time. so, yeah, i don't know what eje's looking for.
I'm an AIA member, have been for nearly a decade. In the early years I was also a director in the local executive committee.* High fives!
okay what's the question? What do they do? Well, national dues go to Washington to support an organization that acts as a watchdog and lobbyist for all 'Architects'. Local fees go to chapters that organize many things - support student groups, organize competitions and lecture series, award excellence in design, and arrange twelve chicken-or-fish dinners for its local members. Sorts of things that bring community attention to 'good design'.
More importantly, they also get involved in local legislation that are oftentimes decided by member votes- get involved, kids.
Having written all that, I do feel the weight of it. Some architects don't join as they don't feel the need - that's AceofSpades with me.
I'll also end with jafidler's generic response 37 (is there a bigger list somewhere?).
*not pulling rank; cool your jets
it also ties the architects of a community together socially, of course. this weekend we toured new facilities at the local zoo with the architect and the zoo director and our kids got to see some behing the scenes stuff. the 'family day' deal is once a year.
in september is the aia house tour, a tour of 8-10 houses designed by architects, showcasing how these can be different, economical, 'green', etc. all benefits from the tour go to habitat.
we occasionally do design charrettes centered around certain issues that a part of the city or another community out in the state has identified as topics for consideration. these are usually pro bono weekend events.
when local landmarks are under threat, the local aia chapter joins with the local preservation organizations to put out the word and see what can be done. most recently a 9k sf historic house was rescued from imminent (next DAY!) demolition when they found someone to take on its restoration and repurposing as a community amenity.
etc.
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.