I read in a book that they were called Mieslings as an insult.
From Bauhaus to Our House by Tom Wolf, nice read not to thick dimensions or vocabulary wise. Very witty and the criticism cuts to the bone of the Chicago architecture cult of the Miesian era.
Am I the only one who is rooting for this ressession to to go at least 2 more years? Thin the heard, make room for new blood?
I think the recession will go at least that much longer, by in large part because congress keeps interfering. Gov't is not the answer, it's the problem. That said, a prolonged downturn will only keep the young talent out of the profession while the boomer generation hangs on waiting for their 401k's to rebound. I think the thinning needs to be at the top, not the bottom.
The firm I spent 11 years at did no mentoring at all for its PMs to move up to principal level, and hired 4 of its last 5 principals from outside the firm.
I've noticed this too and find it very frusturating. Several of the principals that were promoted back in the 80's and early 90's all came from within. Today they come from outside. Why? The excuse is that they are looking for talent that can bring in new/different clients and expand our portfolio of work. I call BS.
seriously this profesion and education is so broken at transfering the knoweledge I fear it may be almost too late.
Agreed. I've asked to sit in and learn more, especially in contracts and management. As a newly registered Architect I feel that's the one thing that neither college or the ARE really tests and is vital to running a firm. So far I've been rebuffed. There is no interest in mentoring that type of information. Its even been joked (???) that I could take that education and use it to start my own firm and skim clients away. The protectionism is amazing.
BlueGoose/HoustonArch, I appreciate what you are sharing and respect your prespective but from where I'm sitting it's hard to not notice major problems in this profession regarding professional development. The current state of the economy is somewhat bringing it to a head. A year ago I would've been head deep in projects and had plenty to do outside of learning the job beyond my PA/PM role. I've expressed my interest to do contract negotiations and take that management track. Now there's available time for training but it's falling on deaf ears. It's frusturating as I'm not someone who wants to waste downtime checking Facebook or gossiping around the water cooler.
And on to the topic de jour - I just heard of another local firm going Chapter 7. Add that one to the several outstate firms that have already been liquidated. Interesting how thin these 15 person firms are operating. Loss of a couple key projects can devistate a firm in no time at all.
: you make some good points about the profession's responsibility to mentor. but, like most things in life, there are two sides to that coin.
with very little effort, one can look back a year or two in the threads here on archinect and revisit many where recent graduates and unlicensed interns vocalize, quite loudly and emphatically, their absolute disdain at giving any loyalty or commitment to the firm where they worked ... for many, if not most, their current job was just a temporary stepping stone to a better job, where they knew they would be smothered in both riches and glory. after all, this ride was going to last forever, right? (*)
firms easily picked up on this arrogance ... and many firms made conscious decisions not to invest more in the emerging generation than was absolutely necessary. what's the point if everybody's going to leave after 2-3 years anyway? I'm not saying that's the right decision (it's not) but I do understand how this reaction developed.
while a well-worn cliche, loyalty and commitment are a two way street ... both parties need to fully engage for a strong, learning, growing relationship to emerge. it is, of course, also the classic "chicken and egg" dilemma ... who's going to be the first to demonstrate the trust needed for that relationship to develop?
however, IMHO it is a mistake to place the full blame at the feet of the firm ... it's only half the fault of the firm.
(*) as a side note, when making layoff decisions, our firm's partners, and most of the ones locally who I know anything about, consider loyalty and commitment to be an important factor when deciding who to keep and who we can live without ... it's not the primary factor, but it easily can break a tie when all other factors are relatively equal.
I do agree with B G on the whole loyalty thing. I’m not licensed yet due to a handful of IDP units but I did witness people hop scotching from firm to firm to get higher pay or the remaining IDP hours. It is difficult to pin down all the motivations for someone to leave but another factor is that the majority of the Intern Architects are young 24-35 and many have a taste for a trendy urban lifestyle, and are naive as to what it means to be spurned or let down. Sometimes they get married and have to yield to their spouse’s career ambitions. It would be nice if Interns spoke up more often as to what they need or want out of a job instead of cutting and running to some other studio. I think there are some employers out there who would want to know what they can do to keep talent in their firm.
I think Interns are rarely educated on how the profession works or the impact their choices have on themselves and the profession as a hole. One could get the impression that the Intern Class of professionals who emerge from architecture school never working with others on a single project live in the land of ME. ME first, the only one I’m accountable to is ME, what is in it for ME, how does this help ME, Me ME ME. Very few schools have an effective way of teaching future architects ethics and professional responsibility. The interns who reside in the land of ME are ruining the chances for the rest of us to get through the Internship and become Architects.
I think that at least part of the answer is that no one owes you a living. A lot of the posts from younger folks clamor for some kind of shiny new system that will guarantee them full employment. That will never happen in this business or any other. All of our jobs are market-driven, and we are all part of the global economy, like it or not.
All through my education and most of my career, I clung to the idea that if I worked had and did a great job, I would be rewarded. And to a certain extent, I was. But I was not promoted. Why not? Because working hard and doing a great job are not everything. There is a completely separate set of skills to being a principal than to being a project manager. (And from staff architect to PA and so on.) Principals spend a lot of time in sales: making contacts, schmoozing, doing proposals, RFPs, and other forms of marketing. They're the rainmakers -they bring the projects in the door that feed the staff. And those skills have to be learned like any other.
I have to train myself in those skills and I have to learn them on my own for all the reasons that everyone above has pointed out. In the long run, we're all on our own, guys. If you have a mentor, count yourself lucky.
BTW, there is a truly awesome book that explains how architectural firms (and all professional services firms) work: Managing the Professional Services Firm by David H. Maister. If you want to learn the business, it is a great place to begin.
A bunch of our interns were asking for a more formalized mentoring system. So we decided to set one up. But first, I talked to them about what mentoring was. It is not someone telling you everything they know, it is not someone giving you a classroom lesson once a week, it is not someone mapping out your life for you. I explained that it might mean homework, as in the mentor suggesting someone study up on a subject, or practice some skill, or investigate something, etc. Once the interns realized that having a mentor might actually involve some work and effort on their part, only one decided to proceed.
We also established a policy that any employee can get paid for one hour a month for any learning experience of their choosing. They can save them up and attend a day long seminar for example, or get paid to sit an eat lunch at a lunch an learn instead of taking it as a lunch break, they can ask any project architect to go to a site visit to see a project under construction, etc. With the exception of two employees, everyone uses the time to gobble up their free lunch from a rep and get paid to do it.
We bought all of the IDP study guide material, and we pay for the tests towards registration. Yet only one of our 7 eligible interns is actually taking the tests.
I think most firms are willing to invest in training the young people. In my experience, it has been the young people who are sort of on the fence about embracing the training, and the work involved. And the loyalty is nil. The two interns we had who we paid for the full tests and registrations shortly thereafter left to move to other states.
Yeah, there is actually some illuminating information in Maister's book about the needs & goals of the firm vs. the need & goals of the intern, and how different types of firms will approach it. (For example, the starchitect firm can pay the intern virtually nothing, but the intern is compensated by gaining valuable experience and a prestigious firm on his resume.)
There is also a lot of discussion about the pyramid structure of professional firms, and how only a small percentage of interns will become PM's for example, whether it's by attrition or weeding out.
What was surprising to me when I read it was that all sorts of issues that I thought were unique to my situation/company are in fact typical for all types of firms: advertising, law, engineering, etc.
It would be nice if Interns spoke up more often as to what they need or want out of a job instead of cutting and running to some other studio.
This reminds me of an annual review at the very first firm I ever worked at. I'd been there about three years and while I enjoyed my work very much had not received any significant raise in compensation. I complained about the 2.5% raise they were offering claiming I was worth more. My boss got the president into the meeting and they broke down what my "benefits" cost the firm and then said I had only worked 400 hours of OT (unpaid - salaried) in the past year. Yes, I was young, but I was in my late 20's and wanted to start my life, i.e. get married, buy a house, settle down. All things that would've anchored me and kept me loyal to this firm. Out of frusturation I went out and interviewed and was quickly offered a job at another firm at a whopping 30% raise with more generous benefits. Needless to say, my current employer wouldn't match and I left. At the time I didn't really want to leave that employer. In my reviews and one-on-ones with my boss I expressed much enthusiasm about working my way into a management role. However, one does not always have the luxury of waiting 20+ years for a reward. I don't condone the sort of "job hopping" that many younger interns do, but clearly it's the only way to get decent compensation at that level and directly porportional to intern loyalty. Thankfully I'm past that, but now it's more about my upward potential, which doesn't always look promising either, i.e. principals hired from outside.
I realize there are two sides to the coin and the answer is often in the middle ground, but given my experience above what would you have done?
I think what you did was mostly fair you gave then an offer, pay up or I’m gone. If anyone was left in the Lurch it was their (you or the boss) fault for not bothering to negotiate. Of course they might not have had the ability to negotiate a salary increase but some other concession could have been offered, such as a chance to work on marketing or some other design / management task that interest you. Money is not everything and sometimes brining an offer to the table that has many options not just wage increases might help everyone get something they want / need. If your only option is more money then that can be a hard sell, but if your proposal was more responsibility followed by a raise later on say 6 months that might have been a better deal for both parties. No one is indispensable and in today’s market a mid sized firm can purge everyone and within a week be completely re-staffed at a fraction of the cost. Any offer has to benefit both sides for it to be likely to succeed. I had the opportunity in Undergrad to take some electives and instead of going the Civil engineering, or some watered down history course route I took a primer course on contract law and negotiation and it has been very useful. Architecture students and Interns need to step out of the ivory tower once in a while and see what the rest of humanity is up to.
+i - the tvs deal is thus: 10% cut for all partners; 7% associates; 5% everyone else. at least they skimmed the top first. all non-essential spending (not just parking) is gone - no non-project travel, subscriptions, no non-essential computer purchases, etc. basically, anything not absolutely necessary is gone. i hope it's enough to staunch the bleeding.
saw this from bdonline this morning. not saying anything people here don't know, but interesting to see the raw numbers.
Figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that the number of architects claiming unemployment benefit has increased faster than any other profession
According to the ONS statistics, published in the Guardian today (20 March), the number of architects claiming benefit between February 2008 and February 2009 rose by 760 per cent, from 150 to 1,290.
The second biggest increase was among architectural technologists and town-planning technicians. Other jobs related to the construction industry such as surveyors, engineers and scaffolders all feature prominently in those professions that have seen the biggest increases.
RIBA president Sunand Prasad was quoted as saying the problem was ’gigantic’, and suggested the figures represented a fraction of the reality, with figures from the RIBA Future Trends Survey revelaing that 30 per cent of architects surveyed in February were currently unemployed or under-employed.
Prasad added: ‘The biggest danger is that we lose people that don’t come back and we are unprepared when the recovery does happen. In the early Nineties we lost a whole generation who went on to do other things and that’s noticeable in the profession now.’
i think it's true to a certain extent, that proper mentoring doesn't happen at a lot of offices, esp large ones. but this profession requires a certain personality type: one who is driven and has innate leadership qualities. you can't sit back and hope for someone to come along and take an interest your professional development. i think an intern needs to be somewhat aggressive, along with the ability to politically manuever themselves. if your PM or principle isn't teaching you how to detail, you should be learning yourself with a variety of resources.
business, in general, needs a certain personality type. you take the traits of most top leaders in arch and they'll echo the traits in other industries...
isn't the mentoring issue a product of the "losing a generation in the early nineties" issue. I graduated in 1996. Somewhere around that time or a little before was the hard push into CAD. So, we went from a world where everyone drew by hand to hiring whiz-kids to do CAD. The older people didn't understand the computer or were too busy managing too many projects to show the next generation the ropes as others had done before. Is this the era where the "apprenticeship" died? I'm just asking. I think that it is in a lot of cases. And if you are Cad-literate and don't become BIM-literate (if that's where things go) the same things happen again...
tidalwave I think there is a lot of truth in what you say about the impact of technology. Now that BIM is here those of us who don't know it may, maybe, be the ones disappearing from the profession *if* things turn around in the next year or two.
Everyone on this thread, I recommend listening to the KCRW show about what LA architects are doing since being laid off. It's very uplifting; if only just to hear how Frances Anderton sounds so !surprised! when she says SciARC - it's adorable.
i think TVS had too generous of a benefits package when compared to other similarly sized firms in other metro areas. i can't think of a same-sized firm in DC who provides parking for all employees. that would be outrageous. at our firm it's for associate level and above. not to mention- the salary of my particular friend down there was the same as that of the same level in DC- but it costs WAY less to live in Atlanta than in DC. so imho, some firms offered way more than they could really afford to sustain for the future.
And no, we will not get "smarter" and not overbuild when things improve. The cyclical nature of architecture is not a disease to be cured, it is the way the whole system functions.
There has always been something very, very wrong with this and it relates to the entire AEC industry, no just us. My problem with this "system" is the fact that it leaves all of us, contractors, engineers, and architects, helpless.
If you work in any kind of capacity where your job is connected to the ease of credit you are going to be on the front lines of layoffs. Massive recessions and depressions are historically caused by huge credit bubbles which are usually tied to an equally bubbled commodity, like housing. When the banks close the taps, those of us who deal in capital-intensive fields that rely on these lines of credit are always the first to get laid off. Very rarely do people pay cash for building projects, its all loans. The architects and engineers are in the most disheartening position because, as we are as tied to credit as the clients we serve we never hear the bubble burst until its already blown our collective heads off, our clients should be able to see it coming. There's no warning, like you said we can't just turn down projects because we feel in our bones the bubble is going to burst, but developers can. Any developers who broke ground on a new housing project back in '07 and '08 were idiots. It doesn't take a financial genius to see bubbles forming, we all know the market's been inflated since 2000 but we all kept at it anyway because the only thing keeping this recession at bay was inflated home prices. All i'm saying is that if I'm on the front lines, i'd rather see the bullet coming because at least then you have a slim chance of dodging it. If you're in the rear turning out CAD drawings then you don't have a prayer.
+i, you're talking about TVS right? They're massive and were very well off during the boom and their employees were well compensated, the hell is wrong with that?
Staff is typically paid lowest wage package that still retains employees, and overall wages have always been comparatively given post-college education and licensing requirements. (Recent education costs have outstripped wage-earning potential, causing significant inequities between maximum student loan burdens and prevailing entry-level architectural salaries.) When economy was strong, building boom occurred due to cheap readily-available financing. Demand then for architectural staff increased dramatically and prevailing wage rates went slightly up (given inflation rate there was slight increase). Now wage rates are rapidly adjusting downward for existing staff (with salary and benefit cuts) I've not heard of any firm hiring here in Chicago, but I suspect we'll see new lows in offer packages when/if firms begin to rehire.
Given that all real estate markets appear to be glutted, development projects stopped, relative property values continuing to deteriorate, unavailability of construction financing and inability to refinance existing commercial real estate loans, etc, would suggest that architectural firm staffing requirements will continue to decline and firms will focus upon survival. Many firms not only have lost major projects, but are also having difficulty collecting on their account billings. Many larger firms front-fund their developer clients to a degree until construction loan is closed, and have large financial risk exposure if those loans don't close - like now.
Rumors are circulating about formerly rapidly expanding Smith + Gill, but remain unconfirmed. Older multi-office firms with deeper pockets are in better position to hunker-down and survive with a much smaller staff count. Little firms are often financed directly out of owner-principals personal pocketbook, and are most vulnerable, while mid-sized firms can cut staff to "principals only" levels and maybe survive on savings.
Many young architects have no idea how terrible the situation is for the architectural profession. Time to get into survival mode. Spend time evaluating your personal budget expenditures and savings, and calculate a drastically reduced "survival budget plan". A major upheaval is occurring in the profession.
If they cannot bill for your time, expect to be laid off.
It's simple and to the point. There are a lot of opportunities to be had but you have to make them. It's not easy but with hard work and perseverance, you can do it!
we were just awarded a new project today- a large resort in a non-middle eastern country. i have heard that during the recessions is when resorts and hotels gear up for when things get better- essentially their "time" to recreate themselves. who knows if that's true or not.
Chicago, Ill, I only have one comment on what is an otherwise good and accurate post: you say "little" firms are most vulnerable, but tiny firms - sole proprietors, or in my case, 2 partners only - often have zero overhead and are most nimble, having been practicing "tight" forever. We're doing relatively fine right now, all things considered, because yes, it's a huge upheaval in our field.
My biggest concern right now is that all the laid off workers from big firms are going to go to work for themselves and become my competition ;-)
i have a question, can the AIA, and, any similar organizations outside the US, control the number of ppl being admitted to schools? or do they do that already? it seems that kind of control needs to happen early on, not after ppl have graduated,, maybe im way off, but im just thinking
fays.panda: IMO, nobody - and certainly not the AIA - have any real influence over the schools.
as long as the schools can retain their accreditation, they pretty much do what the want. their motivation is to pump out large numbers of grads 'cause they have economic motivation to do so.
No one is going to limit the number of people allowed to enter architecture schools b/c no one has a crystal ball telling them how many grads are going to be needed five years from now when they graduate. Who knew in 2004 that a fraction of the number of grads would be employable in 2009 as 2008? Did you?
This is NOT a normal business, cycle, this is the largest economic crisis in generations, and we all need to adjust our mindsets.
When I was in architecture school, back in the caveman days, they talked about how low the salaries were, but no one gave out real numbers. Now there are salary surveys you can look at on the net, so look at them and decide if you are content with them.
Roughly this is what we make.
First year graduates: $25,000 to $40,000
PAs (about 7 years experience): $45,000 to $65,000
PMs (over 10 years experience, usually licensed): $65,000 to $100,000
Principals: $80,000 and up, although I think the average is around $120,000
Sole Practitioners (over 10 years experience, usually licensed): $50,000 to $90,000
Generally, the highest salaries are at the largest firms in the biggest cities.
From the March 2 issue of The New Yorker, "Nice Work if You Can Get it" by James Surowiecki:
"...bosses are afraid of what economists call “adverse selection”: if they cut wages, it’s the least productive workers who would be the most likely to stay, while the best workers would start looking elsewhere. (Even in a weak economy, businesses still compete for talent.) In a 1997 study of almost two hundred employers, the economists Carl Campbell and Kunal Kamlani found that the threat of losing their best employees was a major reason that bosses didn’t cut wages.
Even more important is the impact of wage cuts on morale. After the 1990-91 recession, the economist Truman Bewley interviewed managers and labor officials at more than two hundred companies and found that most believed that wage cuts wreck employee morale and eat away at productivity. Whatever money they’d save by cutting wages, bosses assume, would be cancelled out by the decline in effort and the breakdown of trust that wage cuts would create. Not everyone believes this: in the past month, both Hewlett-Packard and FedEx have announced plans for pay cuts. But generally, when sales and profits drop, wages aren’t cut, even in firms undergoing layoffs. Of course, layoffs don’t exactly help morale, but, as one of the bosses that Bewley interviewed coldly put it, they “get the misery out the door.” Cutting wages keeps the misery around.
You don't need a second masters to teach - you just need the same degree or better that the people you are teaching are going for if you are teaching studio - and you don't even need a professional degree if you are teaching a more technical class - like 3D modeling.
some schools are in a hiring freeze right now, though...
Yet, the degree that you've earned is only ever one factor amongst many. Two admittedly unrepresentative examples are Jeff Kipnis and Bob Somol, neither of which possess an architecture degree. So if you want to teach, go get it.
Academic jobs at universities are very competitive for a very good reason, and that is universities, both public and private, give excellent heath and retirement benefits compared to the majority of private firms.
If you have a master’s degree and 5 years of professional experience you could get an emergency Illinois teacher’s Certification and teach in underprivileged rural or inner city schools for 2-4 years.
Most university teaching positions do require some formal training in education, masters or PHD in education or a PHD in urban planning, architectural theory, history, structural engineering, or fine and applied arts will put you head and shoulders above the majority of people seeking the academic post. Also minorities are at a significant advantage as many universities have a fund to promote racial and gender diversity. It is not impossible for one position to be turned into two positions. Usually the office of the provost has a fund to pay for a portion or all of a salary to help recruit diverse faculty.
Where I went to school as an undergrad they created a position to accommodate the department’s first person of color in their faculty, he applied to an opening for an urban designer but was not the top candidate for that job but he had a PHD and published work in scholarly journals so the department applied for funds and got 90% of his salary and they were able to bring on two faculty members. Things to note; this department was small, had no persons of color in the department’s faculty and the collage was underperforming as a whole in recruiting minorities, and the person awarded the job had a PHD, practical experience, was published in scholarly journals, and he had teaching experience.
If you are a PHD, published and experienced in both professional practice and teaching, and if you happen to be a minority that the university has a program in place to recruit you are in a good position to land academic work. Otherwise you are going to have to bring something truly extraordinary to the table, such as a particular expertise in acoustics, structural design, mechanical design, or REVIT. Those skills could place you closer to the top of the list and when students have a say in the higher, REVIT, LEED Ap, and a well organized technologically astute portfolio, and personality are key.
Academic work is very competitive and for different reasons than the private sector. As with working professionals the design studio is the most covenanted position. Try applying for technical teaching positions such as basic drafting, structures or HVAC. Design studio teaching positions are very competitive.
Those are poor examples because you don't want to aim to be a celebrity but a resource or an expert on something. Trying to be a celebrity will get you nowhere other than labelled an asshole by your peers. Be the green guy, be the digital project guy, the studio guy, the solar guy or the theory guy.
PJN26 - I have to call bullshit on your discussion of academic hiring. Being married to a PhD, who is also a hardworking, published adademic, professional degree & experiece having, woman of color who CANNOT FIND A JOB, I know firsthand that being a minority does not swing the doors wide open for you. Being a minority is tough, that is reality. It doesn't help when people think that being a minority makes it somehow easier, or that you can be less qualified but still get the job. As near as I can see, people like my wife need to be very highly qualified if they ever hope to get a job.
Universities currently have hiring freezes. That's reality too. The economy has hit everything.
You're right, it's about networking and being in the right place at the right time. If people like you and respect you professionally, then you've got a shot at it.
the number of qualified phd's far out number any tenure track teaching positions. that is always the case and even more so now with the hiring freezes that have hit the universities.
I agree with the notion that academic jobs are very competitive, I am just relating an example that I saw first hand. I just don't like the way people say "well you can always find a job teaching” this is not true and you have to be the top candidate amongst thousands, and you still are not guaranteed a job as some academic searches can result in failed searches. These searches and the interview process can take not weeks not months but years. Academic work is an option for one tenth of one percent of us. There are universities with funds to promote diversity but they are located in small college towns far from the big cities and they can have a hard time attracting qualified people to staff their institutions.
Anybody heard any recent updates on the NYC front? I'm currently employed in the UK and feel fairly stable (knock on wood). I put through a few resumes in the US for good measure... Polshek being one of them. Does anyone know what's going on with them?
A reminder for those of us doing freelance work, you should get your Fed Employee identification number of EIN and register as a sole proprietor with your respective state. This is free and is available online and could save you from unwillingly violating the state and federal tax regulations. I don’t want to se any of us pulling a Thomas Andrew Daschle maneuver and lose a job later on because of a “mistake”. I takes about 20 min tops.
Layoffs....layoffs......
I read in a book that they were called Mieslings as an insult.
From Bauhaus to Our House by Tom Wolf, nice read not to thick dimensions or vocabulary wise. Very witty and the criticism cuts to the bone of the Chicago architecture cult of the Miesian era.
I think the recession will go at least that much longer, by in large part because congress keeps interfering. Gov't is not the answer, it's the problem. That said, a prolonged downturn will only keep the young talent out of the profession while the boomer generation hangs on waiting for their 401k's to rebound. I think the thinning needs to be at the top, not the bottom.
The firm I spent 11 years at did no mentoring at all for its PMs to move up to principal level, and hired 4 of its last 5 principals from outside the firm.
I've noticed this too and find it very frusturating. Several of the principals that were promoted back in the 80's and early 90's all came from within. Today they come from outside. Why? The excuse is that they are looking for talent that can bring in new/different clients and expand our portfolio of work. I call BS.
seriously this profesion and education is so broken at transfering the knoweledge I fear it may be almost too late.
Agreed. I've asked to sit in and learn more, especially in contracts and management. As a newly registered Architect I feel that's the one thing that neither college or the ARE really tests and is vital to running a firm. So far I've been rebuffed. There is no interest in mentoring that type of information. Its even been joked (???) that I could take that education and use it to start my own firm and skim clients away. The protectionism is amazing.
BlueGoose/HoustonArch, I appreciate what you are sharing and respect your prespective but from where I'm sitting it's hard to not notice major problems in this profession regarding professional development. The current state of the economy is somewhat bringing it to a head. A year ago I would've been head deep in projects and had plenty to do outside of learning the job beyond my PA/PM role. I've expressed my interest to do contract negotiations and take that management track. Now there's available time for training but it's falling on deaf ears. It's frusturating as I'm not someone who wants to waste downtime checking Facebook or gossiping around the water cooler.
And on to the topic de jour - I just heard of another local firm going Chapter 7. Add that one to the several outstate firms that have already been liquidated. Interesting how thin these 15 person firms are operating. Loss of a couple key projects can devistate a firm in no time at all.
: you make some good points about the profession's responsibility to mentor. but, like most things in life, there are two sides to that coin.
with very little effort, one can look back a year or two in the threads here on archinect and revisit many where recent graduates and unlicensed interns vocalize, quite loudly and emphatically, their absolute disdain at giving any loyalty or commitment to the firm where they worked ... for many, if not most, their current job was just a temporary stepping stone to a better job, where they knew they would be smothered in both riches and glory. after all, this ride was going to last forever, right? (*)
firms easily picked up on this arrogance ... and many firms made conscious decisions not to invest more in the emerging generation than was absolutely necessary. what's the point if everybody's going to leave after 2-3 years anyway? I'm not saying that's the right decision (it's not) but I do understand how this reaction developed.
while a well-worn cliche, loyalty and commitment are a two way street ... both parties need to fully engage for a strong, learning, growing relationship to emerge. it is, of course, also the classic "chicken and egg" dilemma ... who's going to be the first to demonstrate the trust needed for that relationship to develop?
however, IMHO it is a mistake to place the full blame at the feet of the firm ... it's only half the fault of the firm.
(*) as a side note, when making layoff decisions, our firm's partners, and most of the ones locally who I know anything about, consider loyalty and commitment to be an important factor when deciding who to keep and who we can live without ... it's not the primary factor, but it easily can break a tie when all other factors are relatively equal.
I do agree with B G on the whole loyalty thing. I’m not licensed yet due to a handful of IDP units but I did witness people hop scotching from firm to firm to get higher pay or the remaining IDP hours. It is difficult to pin down all the motivations for someone to leave but another factor is that the majority of the Intern Architects are young 24-35 and many have a taste for a trendy urban lifestyle, and are naive as to what it means to be spurned or let down. Sometimes they get married and have to yield to their spouse’s career ambitions. It would be nice if Interns spoke up more often as to what they need or want out of a job instead of cutting and running to some other studio. I think there are some employers out there who would want to know what they can do to keep talent in their firm.
I think Interns are rarely educated on how the profession works or the impact their choices have on themselves and the profession as a hole. One could get the impression that the Intern Class of professionals who emerge from architecture school never working with others on a single project live in the land of ME. ME first, the only one I’m accountable to is ME, what is in it for ME, how does this help ME, Me ME ME. Very few schools have an effective way of teaching future architects ethics and professional responsibility. The interns who reside in the land of ME are ruining the chances for the rest of us to get through the Internship and become Architects.
I think that at least part of the answer is that no one owes you a living. A lot of the posts from younger folks clamor for some kind of shiny new system that will guarantee them full employment. That will never happen in this business or any other. All of our jobs are market-driven, and we are all part of the global economy, like it or not.
All through my education and most of my career, I clung to the idea that if I worked had and did a great job, I would be rewarded. And to a certain extent, I was. But I was not promoted. Why not? Because working hard and doing a great job are not everything. There is a completely separate set of skills to being a principal than to being a project manager. (And from staff architect to PA and so on.) Principals spend a lot of time in sales: making contacts, schmoozing, doing proposals, RFPs, and other forms of marketing. They're the rainmakers -they bring the projects in the door that feed the staff. And those skills have to be learned like any other.
I have to train myself in those skills and I have to learn them on my own for all the reasons that everyone above has pointed out. In the long run, we're all on our own, guys. If you have a mentor, count yourself lucky.
BTW, there is a truly awesome book that explains how architectural firms (and all professional services firms) work: Managing the Professional Services Firm by David H. Maister. If you want to learn the business, it is a great place to begin.
A bunch of our interns were asking for a more formalized mentoring system. So we decided to set one up. But first, I talked to them about what mentoring was. It is not someone telling you everything they know, it is not someone giving you a classroom lesson once a week, it is not someone mapping out your life for you. I explained that it might mean homework, as in the mentor suggesting someone study up on a subject, or practice some skill, or investigate something, etc. Once the interns realized that having a mentor might actually involve some work and effort on their part, only one decided to proceed.
We also established a policy that any employee can get paid for one hour a month for any learning experience of their choosing. They can save them up and attend a day long seminar for example, or get paid to sit an eat lunch at a lunch an learn instead of taking it as a lunch break, they can ask any project architect to go to a site visit to see a project under construction, etc. With the exception of two employees, everyone uses the time to gobble up their free lunch from a rep and get paid to do it.
We bought all of the IDP study guide material, and we pay for the tests towards registration. Yet only one of our 7 eligible interns is actually taking the tests.
I think most firms are willing to invest in training the young people. In my experience, it has been the young people who are sort of on the fence about embracing the training, and the work involved. And the loyalty is nil. The two interns we had who we paid for the full tests and registrations shortly thereafter left to move to other states.
cm - my thoughts arent toxic or dangerous and I dont need therapy. Ranting announamously on an internet board is therapy.
Bitter? Yes, to a degree. Isnt bitterness one of the best motivators?
Yeah, there is actually some illuminating information in Maister's book about the needs & goals of the firm vs. the need & goals of the intern, and how different types of firms will approach it. (For example, the starchitect firm can pay the intern virtually nothing, but the intern is compensated by gaining valuable experience and a prestigious firm on his resume.)
There is also a lot of discussion about the pyramid structure of professional firms, and how only a small percentage of interns will become PM's for example, whether it's by attrition or weeding out.
What was surprising to me when I read it was that all sorts of issues that I thought were unique to my situation/company are in fact typical for all types of firms: advertising, law, engineering, etc.
This reminds me of an annual review at the very first firm I ever worked at. I'd been there about three years and while I enjoyed my work very much had not received any significant raise in compensation. I complained about the 2.5% raise they were offering claiming I was worth more. My boss got the president into the meeting and they broke down what my "benefits" cost the firm and then said I had only worked 400 hours of OT (unpaid - salaried) in the past year. Yes, I was young, but I was in my late 20's and wanted to start my life, i.e. get married, buy a house, settle down. All things that would've anchored me and kept me loyal to this firm. Out of frusturation I went out and interviewed and was quickly offered a job at another firm at a whopping 30% raise with more generous benefits. Needless to say, my current employer wouldn't match and I left. At the time I didn't really want to leave that employer. In my reviews and one-on-ones with my boss I expressed much enthusiasm about working my way into a management role. However, one does not always have the luxury of waiting 20+ years for a reward. I don't condone the sort of "job hopping" that many younger interns do, but clearly it's the only way to get decent compensation at that level and directly porportional to intern loyalty. Thankfully I'm past that, but now it's more about my upward potential, which doesn't always look promising either, i.e. principals hired from outside.
I realize there are two sides to the coin and the answer is often in the middle ground, but given my experience above what would you have done?
I think what you did was mostly fair you gave then an offer, pay up or I’m gone. If anyone was left in the Lurch it was their (you or the boss) fault for not bothering to negotiate. Of course they might not have had the ability to negotiate a salary increase but some other concession could have been offered, such as a chance to work on marketing or some other design / management task that interest you. Money is not everything and sometimes brining an offer to the table that has many options not just wage increases might help everyone get something they want / need. If your only option is more money then that can be a hard sell, but if your proposal was more responsibility followed by a raise later on say 6 months that might have been a better deal for both parties. No one is indispensable and in today’s market a mid sized firm can purge everyone and within a week be completely re-staffed at a fraction of the cost. Any offer has to benefit both sides for it to be likely to succeed. I had the opportunity in Undergrad to take some electives and instead of going the Civil engineering, or some watered down history course route I took a primer course on contract law and negotiation and it has been very useful. Architecture students and Interns need to step out of the ivory tower once in a while and see what the rest of humanity is up to.
Yes, according to a friend of mine who was recently laid off from there, TVS handed out pay cuts on Wednesday and ceased all employer paid parking.
+i - the tvs deal is thus: 10% cut for all partners; 7% associates; 5% everyone else. at least they skimmed the top first. all non-essential spending (not just parking) is gone - no non-project travel, subscriptions, no non-essential computer purchases, etc. basically, anything not absolutely necessary is gone. i hope it's enough to staunch the bleeding.
saw this from bdonline this morning. not saying anything people here don't know, but interesting to see the raw numbers.
Figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that the number of architects claiming unemployment benefit has increased faster than any other profession
According to the ONS statistics, published in the Guardian today (20 March), the number of architects claiming benefit between February 2008 and February 2009 rose by 760 per cent, from 150 to 1,290.
The second biggest increase was among architectural technologists and town-planning technicians. Other jobs related to the construction industry such as surveyors, engineers and scaffolders all feature prominently in those professions that have seen the biggest increases.
RIBA president Sunand Prasad was quoted as saying the problem was ’gigantic’, and suggested the figures represented a fraction of the reality, with figures from the RIBA Future Trends Survey revelaing that 30 per cent of architects surveyed in February were currently unemployed or under-employed.
Prasad added: ‘The biggest danger is that we lose people that don’t come back and we are unprepared when the recovery does happen. In the early Nineties we lost a whole generation who went on to do other things and that’s noticeable in the profession now.’
i think it's true to a certain extent, that proper mentoring doesn't happen at a lot of offices, esp large ones. but this profession requires a certain personality type: one who is driven and has innate leadership qualities. you can't sit back and hope for someone to come along and take an interest your professional development. i think an intern needs to be somewhat aggressive, along with the ability to politically manuever themselves. if your PM or principle isn't teaching you how to detail, you should be learning yourself with a variety of resources.
business, in general, needs a certain personality type. you take the traits of most top leaders in arch and they'll echo the traits in other industries...
isn't the mentoring issue a product of the "losing a generation in the early nineties" issue. I graduated in 1996. Somewhere around that time or a little before was the hard push into CAD. So, we went from a world where everyone drew by hand to hiring whiz-kids to do CAD. The older people didn't understand the computer or were too busy managing too many projects to show the next generation the ropes as others had done before. Is this the era where the "apprenticeship" died? I'm just asking. I think that it is in a lot of cases. And if you are Cad-literate and don't become BIM-literate (if that's where things go) the same things happen again...
+ outed that sucks about tvs (i still know a few people that work there) from what I remember they had a pretty good benefits package...
tidalwave I think there is a lot of truth in what you say about the impact of technology. Now that BIM is here those of us who don't know it may, maybe, be the ones disappearing from the profession *if* things turn around in the next year or two.
Everyone on this thread, I recommend listening to the KCRW show about what LA architects are doing since being laid off. It's very uplifting; if only just to hear how Frances Anderton sounds so !surprised! when she says SciARC - it's adorable.
i think TVS had too generous of a benefits package when compared to other similarly sized firms in other metro areas. i can't think of a same-sized firm in DC who provides parking for all employees. that would be outrageous. at our firm it's for associate level and above. not to mention- the salary of my particular friend down there was the same as that of the same level in DC- but it costs WAY less to live in Atlanta than in DC. so imho, some firms offered way more than they could really afford to sustain for the future.
There has always been something very, very wrong with this and it relates to the entire AEC industry, no just us. My problem with this "system" is the fact that it leaves all of us, contractors, engineers, and architects, helpless.
If you work in any kind of capacity where your job is connected to the ease of credit you are going to be on the front lines of layoffs. Massive recessions and depressions are historically caused by huge credit bubbles which are usually tied to an equally bubbled commodity, like housing. When the banks close the taps, those of us who deal in capital-intensive fields that rely on these lines of credit are always the first to get laid off. Very rarely do people pay cash for building projects, its all loans. The architects and engineers are in the most disheartening position because, as we are as tied to credit as the clients we serve we never hear the bubble burst until its already blown our collective heads off, our clients should be able to see it coming. There's no warning, like you said we can't just turn down projects because we feel in our bones the bubble is going to burst, but developers can. Any developers who broke ground on a new housing project back in '07 and '08 were idiots. It doesn't take a financial genius to see bubbles forming, we all know the market's been inflated since 2000 but we all kept at it anyway because the only thing keeping this recession at bay was inflated home prices. All i'm saying is that if I'm on the front lines, i'd rather see the bullet coming because at least then you have a slim chance of dodging it. If you're in the rear turning out CAD drawings then you don't have a prayer.
+i, you're talking about TVS right? They're massive and were very well off during the boom and their employees were well compensated, the hell is wrong with that?
Staff is typically paid lowest wage package that still retains employees, and overall wages have always been comparatively given post-college education and licensing requirements. (Recent education costs have outstripped wage-earning potential, causing significant inequities between maximum student loan burdens and prevailing entry-level architectural salaries.) When economy was strong, building boom occurred due to cheap readily-available financing. Demand then for architectural staff increased dramatically and prevailing wage rates went slightly up (given inflation rate there was slight increase). Now wage rates are rapidly adjusting downward for existing staff (with salary and benefit cuts) I've not heard of any firm hiring here in Chicago, but I suspect we'll see new lows in offer packages when/if firms begin to rehire.
Given that all real estate markets appear to be glutted, development projects stopped, relative property values continuing to deteriorate, unavailability of construction financing and inability to refinance existing commercial real estate loans, etc, would suggest that architectural firm staffing requirements will continue to decline and firms will focus upon survival. Many firms not only have lost major projects, but are also having difficulty collecting on their account billings. Many larger firms front-fund their developer clients to a degree until construction loan is closed, and have large financial risk exposure if those loans don't close - like now.
Rumors are circulating about formerly rapidly expanding Smith + Gill, but remain unconfirmed. Older multi-office firms with deeper pockets are in better position to hunker-down and survive with a much smaller staff count. Little firms are often financed directly out of owner-principals personal pocketbook, and are most vulnerable, while mid-sized firms can cut staff to "principals only" levels and maybe survive on savings.
Many young architects have no idea how terrible the situation is for the architectural profession. Time to get into survival mode. Spend time evaluating your personal budget expenditures and savings, and calculate a drastically reduced "survival budget plan". A major upheaval is occurring in the profession.
If they cannot bill for your time, expect to be laid off.
It's simple and to the point. There are a lot of opportunities to be had but you have to make them. It's not easy but with hard work and perseverance, you can do it!
He actualy has Pom Poms ^
we were just awarded a new project today- a large resort in a non-middle eastern country. i have heard that during the recessions is when resorts and hotels gear up for when things get better- essentially their "time" to recreate themselves. who knows if that's true or not.
Guardian on Which professions have been hardest hit by the recession?Architects, builders, solicitors and, er, vets.
Chicago, Ill, I only have one comment on what is an otherwise good and accurate post: you say "little" firms are most vulnerable, but tiny firms - sole proprietors, or in my case, 2 partners only - often have zero overhead and are most nimble, having been practicing "tight" forever. We're doing relatively fine right now, all things considered, because yes, it's a huge upheaval in our field.
My biggest concern right now is that all the laid off workers from big firms are going to go to work for themselves and become my competition ;-)
i have a question, can the AIA, and, any similar organizations outside the US, control the number of ppl being admitted to schools? or do they do that already? it seems that kind of control needs to happen early on, not after ppl have graduated,, maybe im way off, but im just thinking
fays.panda: IMO, nobody - and certainly not the AIA - have any real influence over the schools.
as long as the schools can retain their accreditation, they pretty much do what the want. their motivation is to pump out large numbers of grads 'cause they have economic motivation to do so.
No one is going to limit the number of people allowed to enter architecture schools b/c no one has a crystal ball telling them how many grads are going to be needed five years from now when they graduate. Who knew in 2004 that a fraction of the number of grads would be employable in 2009 as 2008? Did you?
This is NOT a normal business, cycle, this is the largest economic crisis in generations, and we all need to adjust our mindsets.
When I was in architecture school, back in the caveman days, they talked about how low the salaries were, but no one gave out real numbers. Now there are salary surveys you can look at on the net, so look at them and decide if you are content with them.
Roughly this is what we make.
First year graduates: $25,000 to $40,000
PAs (about 7 years experience): $45,000 to $65,000
PMs (over 10 years experience, usually licensed): $65,000 to $100,000
Principals: $80,000 and up, although I think the average is around $120,000
Sole Practitioners (over 10 years experience, usually licensed): $50,000 to $90,000
Generally, the highest salaries are at the largest firms in the biggest cities.
From the March 2 issue of The New Yorker, "Nice Work if You Can Get it" by James Surowiecki:
"...bosses are afraid of what economists call “adverse selection”: if they cut wages, it’s the least productive workers who would be the most likely to stay, while the best workers would start looking elsewhere. (Even in a weak economy, businesses still compete for talent.) In a 1997 study of almost two hundred employers, the economists Carl Campbell and Kunal Kamlani found that the threat of losing their best employees was a major reason that bosses didn’t cut wages.
Even more important is the impact of wage cuts on morale. After the 1990-91 recession, the economist Truman Bewley interviewed managers and labor officials at more than two hundred companies and found that most believed that wage cuts wreck employee morale and eat away at productivity. Whatever money they’d save by cutting wages, bosses assume, would be cancelled out by the decline in effort and the breakdown of trust that wage cuts would create. Not everyone believes this: in the past month, both Hewlett-Packard and FedEx have announced plans for pay cuts. But generally, when sales and profits drop, wages aren’t cut, even in firms undergoing layoffs. Of course, layoffs don’t exactly help morale, but, as one of the bosses that Bewley interviewed coldly put it, they “get the misery out the door.” Cutting wages keeps the misery around.
Get yourself an academic job with benefits and then do work on the side. It works well.
make- that would require a lot of us MArch/BArch holders to go back and get a second Masters.
No, I have a BArch and I teach. There are opportunities out there.
You don't need a second masters to teach - you just need the same degree or better that the people you are teaching are going for if you are teaching studio - and you don't even need a professional degree if you are teaching a more technical class - like 3D modeling.
some schools are in a hiring freeze right now, though...
make - I've always been told that with a MArch/Barch you aren't able to teach anything more than a studio adjunct.
That's not true!
Look around a bit.
Even if its a combined undergraduate MArch/BArch with a written thesis?
You need to network and work at places that get published.
Usually a school wants a professional degree, a license and published work.
Yet, the degree that you've earned is only ever one factor amongst many. Two admittedly unrepresentative examples are Jeff Kipnis and Bob Somol, neither of which possess an architecture degree. So if you want to teach, go get it.
Academic jobs at universities are very competitive for a very good reason, and that is universities, both public and private, give excellent heath and retirement benefits compared to the majority of private firms.
If you have a master’s degree and 5 years of professional experience you could get an emergency Illinois teacher’s Certification and teach in underprivileged rural or inner city schools for 2-4 years.
Most university teaching positions do require some formal training in education, masters or PHD in education or a PHD in urban planning, architectural theory, history, structural engineering, or fine and applied arts will put you head and shoulders above the majority of people seeking the academic post. Also minorities are at a significant advantage as many universities have a fund to promote racial and gender diversity. It is not impossible for one position to be turned into two positions. Usually the office of the provost has a fund to pay for a portion or all of a salary to help recruit diverse faculty.
Where I went to school as an undergrad they created a position to accommodate the department’s first person of color in their faculty, he applied to an opening for an urban designer but was not the top candidate for that job but he had a PHD and published work in scholarly journals so the department applied for funds and got 90% of his salary and they were able to bring on two faculty members. Things to note; this department was small, had no persons of color in the department’s faculty and the collage was underperforming as a whole in recruiting minorities, and the person awarded the job had a PHD, practical experience, was published in scholarly journals, and he had teaching experience.
If you are a PHD, published and experienced in both professional practice and teaching, and if you happen to be a minority that the university has a program in place to recruit you are in a good position to land academic work. Otherwise you are going to have to bring something truly extraordinary to the table, such as a particular expertise in acoustics, structural design, mechanical design, or REVIT. Those skills could place you closer to the top of the list and when students have a say in the higher, REVIT, LEED Ap, and a well organized technologically astute portfolio, and personality are key.
Academic work is very competitive and for different reasons than the private sector. As with working professionals the design studio is the most covenanted position. Try applying for technical teaching positions such as basic drafting, structures or HVAC. Design studio teaching positions are very competitive.
Those are poor examples because you don't want to aim to be a celebrity but a resource or an expert on something. Trying to be a celebrity will get you nowhere other than labelled an asshole by your peers. Be the green guy, be the digital project guy, the studio guy, the solar guy or the theory guy.
PJN26 - I have to call bullshit on your discussion of academic hiring. Being married to a PhD, who is also a hardworking, published adademic, professional degree & experiece having, woman of color who CANNOT FIND A JOB, I know firsthand that being a minority does not swing the doors wide open for you. Being a minority is tough, that is reality. It doesn't help when people think that being a minority makes it somehow easier, or that you can be less qualified but still get the job. As near as I can see, people like my wife need to be very highly qualified if they ever hope to get a job.
Universities currently have hiring freezes. That's reality too. The economy has hit everything.
gruen,
You're right, it's about networking and being in the right place at the right time. If people like you and respect you professionally, then you've got a shot at it.
the number of qualified phd's far out number any tenure track teaching positions. that is always the case and even more so now with the hiring freezes that have hit the universities.
I agree with the notion that academic jobs are very competitive, I am just relating an example that I saw first hand. I just don't like the way people say "well you can always find a job teaching” this is not true and you have to be the top candidate amongst thousands, and you still are not guaranteed a job as some academic searches can result in failed searches. These searches and the interview process can take not weeks not months but years. Academic work is an option for one tenth of one percent of us. There are universities with funds to promote diversity but they are located in small college towns far from the big cities and they can have a hard time attracting qualified people to staff their institutions.
But then you would have to be essentially a worthless ass. I have my pride - I'll stick to the real economy and real architecture.
Anybody heard any recent updates on the NYC front? I'm currently employed in the UK and feel fairly stable (knock on wood). I put through a few resumes in the US for good measure... Polshek being one of them. Does anyone know what's going on with them?
A reminder for those of us doing freelance work, you should get your Fed Employee identification number of EIN and register as a sole proprietor with your respective state. This is free and is available online and could save you from unwillingly violating the state and federal tax regulations. I don’t want to se any of us pulling a Thomas Andrew Daschle maneuver and lose a job later on because of a “mistake”. I takes about 20 min tops.
you don't need a FEIN to be a sole prop. it's just your SS number. You should get the local and state licensing, and DBA though.
PJN26 - If you're not yet licensed, can you still be a sole proprietor?
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.