I'm wondering if anyone had any advice or insight. I'm trying to choose between a job that would put me directly on support of a high-profile project during CA vs staying at a job that will begin DD soon. I have several years of experience but haven't never been on a project long enough to see it though to construction. I really think I need the CA experience, but if I stay where I am, I'd have to wait at least 2 years before construction will even begin. So there are a few opposing considerations:
- immediate CA gratification vs. seeing a project from beginning to end (but who knows what stumbling blocks there will be along the way)
- CA in a support role in a larger, high profile office/project vs. DD with more managment responsibilities in a smaller, low-profile project/office
- less design opportunities vs. more design opportunities
Of course there are more issues, but these are the main ones. Any insights would be greatly appreciated
CA experience is far more valuable when you are working on a project that you designed and/or documented. I could imagine that it would be difficult to approach a project cold and try to review shop drawings for general conformance with design intent. One might find him/herself looking at the shops and saying, "Looks good to me!" while missing the important design items.
I finished 2.5 years of straight CA a few months ago. It was tough, I learned a lot, but I'm not anxious to do it again anytime soon.
errr... DD to "end" of construction was 2.5 years. Construction was supposed to be 12 months but dragged on for 1.5+ years. Either way, it was mostly miserable... :(
I've worked on projects from start to punchlist, and also come on to projects right at the beginning of CA with no prior work on the project -- both experiences are useful. True that it is slightly more interesting to do the former, but you certainly will still learn a TON from the latter.
CA all the way. It's really what helped my designing ability grow in leaps and bounds in my first few years. Also it's interesting!
Yeh CA is very interesting ..when you know how things are put together you will ultimately become a better architect because of it. Ive been working CA for about 2 months now for a project that I drafted for a year and its definately a valuable learning experience.
I think my biggest complaint about CA though is it gets boring at times, copying notes and doing all of the teadeous stuff like making prints, logging shop dwgs. etc. etc. Sometimes I'd much rather be drafting.
Its a tough choice though ...are you planning on taking the ARE's anytime soon? ..if so you should take the job doing CA work to get your idp units in CA ..then again you might not get your PM units or OM units in the new office either.. but would get them in your current office.
I've actually already finished my ARE's and IDP already and can get licensed whenever I'm willing to fork out the money. I've done plenty of PD, SD, DD, and CD for 7+ years, but very minimal CA (just enough to get credits), so it really is the big gap in my experience, and I'm hoping CA will help with my technical knowledge.
Everyone says CA is so important to an architect's career, though it's surprising how many people I've met who do nothing but design and have never done CA (including a former boss).
I think if I was in your shoes I would go with the CA work then, because mastering the CA phase of a project would get you to be one step closer to being completely self sufficient. Also, if your ambitions lead you to open up your own office one day, you would be able to handle all phases of a project.
I'd say do the CA work, and then after you've developed a comfort and familiarity with how things work there, later on you can seek to move towards a project where you can see design through DD, CD's and then construction.
CA is important, if you have alot of other project experience doing documents and design, the missing thing is the CA work...
Of course, IMHO it also depends what the work is like. What the projects are like... Are the projects interesting?
Well, the DD project would give me more of an opportunity to design and influence its direction, though it will possibly be more conventional construction because of its budget and client.
The CA project is interesting - more complex technologically and bigger, and obviously mostly designed (by the starchitect).
hands down and without reservation i recommend CA. this is where theory becomes reality or 'practice' of architecture becomes actual Architecture.
maybe if you choose the CA job, it'll be a little messed up (but not TOO messed up). that way, since you're not the prime CA manager (support role as you state), you can see the tension between the ovwner, contractor and architect, know the contract inside and out, do rushed revised details for changes out of your control, see a sub contractor screw things up and how they handle it, etc.
why do so many here feel that ca is the holy grail of practice? ca is meetings, phone calls, and administrative bureaucracy with an occasional site visit, only to be frustrated that your best layed plans have been totally f-ed up in the field. whoopty-do! not to say you shouldn't do it, but i would call it simply another aspect of practice that is in fact pretty well divorced from design.
DD is much easier to come by but CA work tends to be much more difficult to find, and therefore anyone looking to bank more critical hours as an intern or as a young Architect I would take the CA ..... pure career decision, regardless of design / starchitect.
Jaf - your post is revealing. biblical references aside, CA is the most important aspect of design. it is the time where you have the opportunity to guide the constuction of your design into reality. Or in your case, totally ignore it, and wonder why it is totally f-ed up in the field. Can you be an Architect if your designs don't get built? If so, then CA is completely worthless.
wurdan, i think you're reading a bit much into my post. i never said ca is worthless nor am i questioning the importance of construction. but if you think ca is about design, then you're either a design-builder or sending incomplete documents into the field. while i appreciate the idealism of phrases like "guide the constuction of your design into reality," this seems pretty distant from my ca experiences; if only the process were so ideal.
I think it really depends on how much DD experience you have, if you have enough DD experience then a CA job is a definite choice. becase not many projects go on site nowadays. Also the firm tends to pigeon holes certain people.
However, if you do not have DD experience, a CA job will not be as fruitful as you have thought. You might have to struggle a lot.
CA is real time problem solving. Its quick paced learning and lots of responsibility. Every decision has a price tag, something to remember when you are answering questions on site.
The decisions you make during the CD phase on how to show, what to show, whats important, and whats not are all answered in the CA phase, making you an all around more intellegent efficient architect.
Sep 20, 08 11:34 am ·
·
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.
CA vs DD experience?
I'm wondering if anyone had any advice or insight. I'm trying to choose between a job that would put me directly on support of a high-profile project during CA vs staying at a job that will begin DD soon. I have several years of experience but haven't never been on a project long enough to see it though to construction. I really think I need the CA experience, but if I stay where I am, I'd have to wait at least 2 years before construction will even begin. So there are a few opposing considerations:
- immediate CA gratification vs. seeing a project from beginning to end (but who knows what stumbling blocks there will be along the way)
- CA in a support role in a larger, high profile office/project vs. DD with more managment responsibilities in a smaller, low-profile project/office
- less design opportunities vs. more design opportunities
Of course there are more issues, but these are the main ones. Any insights would be greatly appreciated
my biggest complaint is that i can never get enough CA experience.
CA experience is far more valuable when you are working on a project that you designed and/or documented. I could imagine that it would be difficult to approach a project cold and try to review shop drawings for general conformance with design intent. One might find him/herself looking at the shops and saying, "Looks good to me!" while missing the important design items.
I finished 2.5 years of straight CA a few months ago. It was tough, I learned a lot, but I'm not anxious to do it again anytime soon.
errr... DD to "end" of construction was 2.5 years. Construction was supposed to be 12 months but dragged on for 1.5+ years. Either way, it was mostly miserable... :(
do the CA.......
DD will always be there for later projects
CA CA CA CA CA CA CA
I've worked on projects from start to punchlist, and also come on to projects right at the beginning of CA with no prior work on the project -- both experiences are useful. True that it is slightly more interesting to do the former, but you certainly will still learn a TON from the latter.
CA all the way. It's really what helped my designing ability grow in leaps and bounds in my first few years. Also it's interesting!
also, definitely search the threads, as there has been much treatment of this exact question in the past.
Yeh CA is very interesting ..when you know how things are put together you will ultimately become a better architect because of it. Ive been working CA for about 2 months now for a project that I drafted for a year and its definately a valuable learning experience.
I think my biggest complaint about CA though is it gets boring at times, copying notes and doing all of the teadeous stuff like making prints, logging shop dwgs. etc. etc. Sometimes I'd much rather be drafting.
Its a tough choice though ...are you planning on taking the ARE's anytime soon? ..if so you should take the job doing CA work to get your idp units in CA ..then again you might not get your PM units or OM units in the new office either.. but would get them in your current office.
Yeh CA is very interesting ..when you know how things are put together you will ultimately become a better architect because of it.
case in point
I've actually already finished my ARE's and IDP already and can get licensed whenever I'm willing to fork out the money. I've done plenty of PD, SD, DD, and CD for 7+ years, but very minimal CA (just enough to get credits), so it really is the big gap in my experience, and I'm hoping CA will help with my technical knowledge.
Everyone says CA is so important to an architect's career, though it's surprising how many people I've met who do nothing but design and have never done CA (including a former boss).
o wow, thats great...
I think if I was in your shoes I would go with the CA work then, because mastering the CA phase of a project would get you to be one step closer to being completely self sufficient. Also, if your ambitions lead you to open up your own office one day, you would be able to handle all phases of a project.
I'd say do the CA work, and then after you've developed a comfort and familiarity with how things work there, later on you can seek to move towards a project where you can see design through DD, CD's and then construction.
CA is important, if you have alot of other project experience doing documents and design, the missing thing is the CA work...
Of course, IMHO it also depends what the work is like. What the projects are like... Are the projects interesting?
Well, the DD project would give me more of an opportunity to design and influence its direction, though it will possibly be more conventional construction because of its budget and client.
The CA project is interesting - more complex technologically and bigger, and obviously mostly designed (by the starchitect).
Wow, that's really sad. I find it difficult to understand how you could run an architecture firm without ever having run a project in CA. Wow.
hands down and without reservation i recommend CA. this is where theory becomes reality or 'practice' of architecture becomes actual Architecture.
maybe if you choose the CA job, it'll be a little messed up (but not TOO messed up). that way, since you're not the prime CA manager (support role as you state), you can see the tension between the ovwner, contractor and architect, know the contract inside and out, do rushed revised details for changes out of your control, see a sub contractor screw things up and how they handle it, etc.
CA is fun and a HUGE learning experience.
why do so many here feel that ca is the holy grail of practice? ca is meetings, phone calls, and administrative bureaucracy with an occasional site visit, only to be frustrated that your best layed plans have been totally f-ed up in the field. whoopty-do! not to say you shouldn't do it, but i would call it simply another aspect of practice that is in fact pretty well divorced from design.
DD is much easier to come by but CA work tends to be much more difficult to find, and therefore anyone looking to bank more critical hours as an intern or as a young Architect I would take the CA ..... pure career decision, regardless of design / starchitect.
Jaf - your post is revealing. biblical references aside, CA is the most important aspect of design. it is the time where you have the opportunity to guide the constuction of your design into reality. Or in your case, totally ignore it, and wonder why it is totally f-ed up in the field. Can you be an Architect if your designs don't get built? If so, then CA is completely worthless.
wurdan, i think you're reading a bit much into my post. i never said ca is worthless nor am i questioning the importance of construction. but if you think ca is about design, then you're either a design-builder or sending incomplete documents into the field. while i appreciate the idealism of phrases like "guide the constuction of your design into reality," this seems pretty distant from my ca experiences; if only the process were so ideal.
I think it really depends on how much DD experience you have, if you have enough DD experience then a CA job is a definite choice. becase not many projects go on site nowadays. Also the firm tends to pigeon holes certain people.
However, if you do not have DD experience, a CA job will not be as fruitful as you have thought. You might have to struggle a lot.
CA is real time problem solving. Its quick paced learning and lots of responsibility. Every decision has a price tag, something to remember when you are answering questions on site.
it's really hard to get experience in CA... I always wish I had more.
never had any experience with DD's...the closest I have come is 36 C
CA
The decisions you make during the CD phase on how to show, what to show, whats important, and whats not are all answered in the CA phase, making you an all around more intellegent efficient architect.
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.