As architects we all know that architecture as a profession has declined in stature and compensation from what it was decades ago, and my curiosity led me to collect numerical demographic facts about our profession from sources like ACSA, AIA, NCARB, US Labor Dept, etc:
Number of Design Professionals
1960: 40,000
2008: 240,000
In light of these numbers, if the recession sheds a few thousand architects (or tens of thousands) from the industry, would it be better for the profession in the long run?
Would raising accreditation standards for schools - to produce fewer but better prepared graduates - return the profession back to the respected role they had 50 years ago?
NCARB should be tougher on curriculum not years of education. I'd favor a stronger math and physics, structural and mechanical component to "thin" the heard. Architectural education used to produce professionals who could deliver the whole building or at the least basic structural designs and were much more competent at designing for efficiency as measured in space utilization, structural efficiency, mechanical and electrical thrift. Thats a major source of risk we are unwilling to take now days. And we all know that to the risk taker goes the rewards. I dont think this will hurt the overall level of design at all because who's really to say that the design boom of the last 25 years has really had an effect on the overall quality of our structures, spaces and lives beyond mostly institutional buildings and publicly traded corporations and other non-personal spenders. More education is not the answer, more relevant and economical education is. Architecture is after all a task that is rather tedious, and one must enjoy the monateny of the job with accountant like zeal in order to be truly effective and beneficial to their clients.
That discussion is a good one and NCARB's growing stringency is narrowing the field for who becomes licensed.
But after recently jumping through their hoops I can't say that enduring the tedium of NCARB's bureaucratic industrial complex is the appropriate way to tighten up the barrier to enter this profession...
The profession would just consist of a bunch of tools with an affinity for paperwork, navigating bureaucracy, and rote memorization if it tightens up the requirements through NCARB.
Good point about relevant education - displacing one topic (systems) for another (theory) is going perpetuate the problem we're in and relegate us to tedious, low-value services.
Relevance comes from learning technology, finance, building systems AND history, culture, sociology alongside a design curriculum. How else can we be nimble enough to be fully responsive to needs of owners and clients and thus more valuable.
On a related sidenote: in California, as a licensed architect, you're legally allowed to stamp structural engineering drawings. There is an assumption that as a licensed architect you know how to structurally engineer a building.
Seriously, how many architects know how to structurally engineer a building??
Silverlake, do you have a source on that information? I was under the impression that Architects were required to stamp sheets outside of their discipline for coordination purposes, not design approval.
In reality, few, if any, architects or engineers know how to structurally engineer a building when they come out of school. I think the additional, or structural focused classes would benefit architects, but they aren't likely going to lead to a profound, practicing engineer level of knowledge, it just takes too much time and experience to fully understand.
Synergy, its stated in the California Architects Practice Act; so local codes allow either a registered engineer or licensed architect for structural design and observation.
under article 9, professional conduct, 'an architect shall undertake to perform professional services only when he or she, together with those whom the architect may engage as consultants, are qualified by education, training, and experience in the specific technical areas involved.'
so you may be able to stamp engineering, but if you don't know what you're doing it's grounds for disciplinary action (ooooh! *shudders*)
i looked but couldn't find where it's stated that an architect can stamp structural engineering drawings. what section of the practice act is that? or is it that it doesn't say you can't stamp engineering drawings, therefore you can?
You can stamp them in IL too - provided you submit your calculations. Most cant nor wont anymore. i had the pleasure of working with some old architects who did while I was in school. We still retained structural engineers for more complicated structures.
The point for promoting the disciplined part of the profession I was making was that it weeds out a certain personality types.
Nobody sits in curriculum planning meetings and goes "Okay, y'all, we're down to it, Theory or Systems, one of 'em's gotta go! Heeeya!"
You know who I think should be thinned from the herd (besides people who don't know the difference between 'herd' and 'heard')? Anyone who thinks this discipline has anything to offer the world that isn't based our broad, intense, multidisciplined education. We do culture, we do theory, we do materials, we do history, and we do systems. If all of that isn't important, then just let the engineers stamp the drawings.
The additional 3-4 years spent in school would be much better spent working - in an apprentice type role. Its so sad to see many architects functional retarded at 25, 26 while other peer groups are buying houses and moving on in life. Hell, most are still retarded at 30 clinging to some never say die design doctrine someone told them when they where 18.
i think i've posted this comment at least twenty times, but here i go again...if architecture schools taught what really goes on in an architecture firm on a day to day basis, enrollment would drop by 75 percent.
i remember both in undergrad and grad school, if we didnt have our design studios, and had to learn more of what is done in the work place, there would have been a riot
the nonstop complaining and utter contempt for real world work was amazing in some of the students
and the fact that most complained about the restrictions put on their designs in the studios
haha
it really was laughable
I dont think its about out-engineering an engineer. As an older architect myself with a barch. degree I will agree with platypus that the education of young architects has changed somewhat. On the one hand the presentation skills via electronic media are extraordinary however frantic, and on the other hand I can recall being just out of school, licensed and designing shell and core structures for speculative suburban office parks, calculating roof loads and sizing bar joists with a real understanding of the building, it's inhabitants, its needs and boundaries for design. We didn't seal the engineering set however we did have contractors do preliminary pricing off our set. Now preliminary pricing sets I do today are usually without consultant input however they are not nearly as detailed. I think the contractors I'm working with today are just better at working in a design build environment. Which leads to me to another point about architectural education today and that is many yung people simply graduate with no idea of the realities of what to expect in an office and tire easily. I dont remember this being the case in the 70's although back then we all had slide rules and pocket protectors and were about 95% men with bad hair cuts.
it is a real question though. as lb and i have discussed over coffee, the building boom that we just experienced, which apparently was fueled by artificial reasons and sustained through deceptive practices, and probably will not return to those levels.
I think this is really kind of pointless. I get what you're saying, but I don't really agree. There are more doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. as a percentage of the population than there have been in the past. That is to be expected since in 2008, the US has a predominantly service economy, whereas in 1960 it was predominantly manufacturing. Moreover, just as a family doctor might have been sufficient in 1960, now a doctor will refer you to a specialist without a thought. I'm not saying this is necessarily good, and I think as in architecture, this economic recession will correct some of these excesses to some degree, but I don't think we help ourselves when we beat up the profession for perceived anomolies that are actually prevelent in other industries.
ep, while I disagree with dismisal of young architects and adherence to design philosophies in general, I agree somewhat with your emphasis on education through work, like through an apprenticeship. I recently completed my undergrad architecture program and used to be very interested in going for a masters, but over the past year or so I've grown much less interested in this. If I found a program that I loved and I thought would greatly benefit me, and if I could find the money to pay for it, I would still consider enrolling, but I think there is a lot more I can learn and grow within practice, and I've become much more interested in pragmatism, etc so it just makes sense for me. However, I don't think the issues rests solely with young architects. With programs like IDP, which I think in theory is great, we're asking young architects (well intern architects) to ensentially perform the architectural equivalent of a medical residency without any of the institutional framework or support. Instead of performing a real apprenticeship, which requires not only an apprentice but a mentor, young architects are being asked to jump through bureaucratic hoops, obtain a well-rounded experience, learn a number of skills and still perform well for their employers. Employers, on the other hand, while being able to pay a lower salary for less experienced workers who have not yet completed this acronym or that, are not being asked to perform the role of mentor. That is not to say that may are not, but that they are not specifically obligated to help young architects while being able to benefit from their labor. I think setting up an adversarial relationship of young versus old does not help the situation, but I think seeing the value in each other--of experience, expertise, knowledge and even wisdom of sorts in older professionals, and of vigor, zeal, ambition, eagerness, and knowledge of emerging ideas in the young--will foster not only better relationships between professionals, but also lead to a better, more knowledgable and valuable profession in general.
It sounds like some people are just using the latest problems and pressures as an excuse to grind old axes and haul out their favorite gripe about 'kids these days'.
FLMike, you're right. I just thought of my attorney friends who have found that they are working very hard in law firms, with little hope of partnership that their predecessors were entitled to. The supply of young attorneys is way larger now than the demand for future partners...
Applying that to architecture - maybe it's the oversaturation of young architects on the market that is the problem. Could that support structure of mentors that you describe be possible, if there were a more reasonable ratio of young to old?
Only 15 years ago, I had a great internship experience with those who took the role of mentorship very seriously. I am hard pressed today to name a recent grad who isn't underutilized and underemployed doing menial work that is not enriching their understanding of the profession.
This tragic waste of talent is bad for these super motivated young professionals - and ultimately bad for the profession!
This recession will do some weeding out of everyone - but it seems that ACSA and the schools could help with the growing supply problem. Either with making reequirements more stringent or encouraging the application of an architecture degree to a wider range of careers...
I am not advocating that we ax the kids for no reason - I'd take them any day over the entitled old crusty guys in my office. It's just that I think this segment is where the over-saturation exists...
I remember reading somewhere that in Italy the number of designer / architects per capitia is ridiculously high, not everyone goes on to become an architect but moves into product design and various other design related professions, I don't see them having a huge building boom just a much greater knowledge and sophistication about design throughout society because it is so prevalent in everything they do.
I hope that I woulnt be concidered a crusty old timer at 31. Your no longer a kid after 18. It always makes me cringe when people in my office, even my age, but especially the recent grad set use the phrase "kid" - you aint kids no more.
Sellout - "I am hard pressed today to name a recent grad who isn't underutilized and underemployed doing menial work that is not enriching their understanding of the profession."
That has been and always will be the case. Hell I know a lot of 35 and even 50 yr old owners in the same boat!
Wouldn't architecture in this country be much improved if more architecture grads were CONTENT working in a wider range of careers?
I do encounter so many ex-architecture in the city planning office, as client reps, working for construction managers, etc - but without exception they always seem kind of bitter about it. They all directed their career out of the profession as some kind of reaction or failure and not a deliberate choice.
Haven't we all have dealt with a fair share of resentful people in these roles who are all too happy to stick it to the architect? These roles are just as essential to a quality built environment as architects - and shouldn't be seen as contrary to architecture...
evilp - "that has always been the case..." I do agree somewhat, hence the necessity to thin the herd! however, this conversation is making me wonder if it's especially worse for recent grads now than it has ever been
I personally think that whether your a kid or a crusty old timer is a state of mind...
i know this is fun cocktail party conversation, but really who's to say? up until about 6 months ago, the market could provide for the number of architects and interns that were available in the profession. since the economy has gone into a tailspin, the market can no longer support that many architects. will it go back to where it was before the recession? i have no reason to believe it won't, but who knows?
i don't think age has much to do with any of this and agree with whomever said that this topic is really being used to grind an ax.
Sellout - "I am hard pressed today to name a recent grad who isn't underutilized and underemployed doing menial work that is not enriching their understanding of the profession."
evilplatypus -
That has been and always will be the case. Hell I know a lot of 35 and even 50 yr old owners in the same boat!
what menial work are we talking about? if it is not actual architecture work, i agree
but if you mean doing shop drawings, little things on projects, here and there, i disagree completely
recent grads dont always need to be doing amazing design work or whatever you would consider not menial work
you cant just walk into a firm after graduating and expect them to give you all the responsibility in the world or get all this amazing enriching work all the time
you pay your dues, earn the respect and trust of those above you to earn the chance to work on everything you want to
you have to learn the procedure of how projects are run and learn all the aspects of a job
you cant just jump into the fun stuff right away and expect to do that all day every day
thats like students in college bitching about their non-studio classes because they are not "creative" enough for them
if a firm wins a job, it has no obligation to make sure the new guy there with little experience gets to do all the fun parts of the job and pass along the menial work to someone else
It has to be as challenging, if not more challenging to become and be an architect today than in the past. The reason there is more architects is contextual - contextual changes broadening what architects do. Increased standards of living of the general public, increased product standards, increased sophistication in building technology, the shift to a knowledge/service economy, has all meant the need for, and continued need for, more architects. But this increased work means doing small, menial, highly specialized, projects and service work - i.e. renos, additions, restoration, and retrofits (the reno-add-retrofit business is enormous today vs. in the 1960s), large developments, building audits, interiors, retail chain work, school-board/gov-institutional work, permits, project management...... I came across one firm that all they do is design and renovate fire stations for a certain region.
marmkid... I meant menial really as menial and not architectural - like young pups being forced to take a narrow focus on singular, simplistic tasks for months and years - devoid of mentorship or connection to the larger picture of making a building.
I'm on board with you regarding paying one's dues and learning the mechanics of making a building.
I agree starting out is not all fun - but I think it's just simply poor business practice to stick a young designer with the a narrow set of tasks for years on end.
i agree completely
it is the boss's responsibility to give younger employees as broad a range of work as is possible for the firm
when you hire someone young or right out of school, you usually are agreeing to help build start their career, and should give them the full range of work
plus, they will be a better employee to you, if you make them a better young architect
if you have them doing the same thing for years on end, they will actually be less valuable to you
...which takes us back to if the supply of young architects.
Is this poor practice - the unmentored underemployment of interns - the result of just having too many young architects on the market? If the supply was diminished somewhat, would employers be more thoughtful about their young hires?
while it is poor practice, i think it is also the responsibility of the intern to make sure it is known he wants to be mentored and work on a variety of things
i think places where the employer doesnt help his interns would not really be effected as much since they already dont care
most places are already thoughtful about their interns, and they would actually be the ones hurt by a lower supply of interns
the supply would have to really be cut low, dramatically, for it to really make a difference i think
this all of course was before the current job situation
if you are working in a bad spot now, i would stick it out until the market is better out there
right now its all about having work through the rough times
Less than a year ago most firms that were hiring,which were many, were desparate for even a warm body. It was a common conversation among firm owners that the forest was too thin already! It is still a common observation that today, what does come from the big U's are all computer skills, but have not the foggiest of how to draw a building section. Last year a new hire that graduated from Cal Poly asked me what the difference between gyp. bd. and plywood was!!!!!!!
Even if you are doing stair cores as a newbie in the industry, you should try to think like a firm owner, and understand the industry as a whole.
To me, those youngsters who are complaining about doing "menial" tasks, are either being unrealistic about the industry, or just plain uneducated about the profession.
If you feel you are not progressing with the firm you are at, and cannot come to terms with the owner then it is your responsibility to search for a better situation elsewhere, and not to "change" the owner.
part of the reason architects don't do what we used to do i.e. engineering, is the litigious nature of our culture. as buildings got taller - and somewhat more complex - the idea that Architects could handle that scale and scope, probably began to be doubted by owners, lawyers, engineers, etc. hence architects got lazy and passed that liability onto the consultants. it doesn't help either that the AIA did not become a real power broker when it came to lobbying in the statehouses in the states. that's the reason that we are still fighting interior designers and their desire to do "interior architecture" and engineers and their stamping of architectural drawings.
so, when people complain why AIA, that's why you join the ranks, to protect your asses.
what that survey doesn't tell you is the average age of the profession, racial makeup, and gender makeup. not to mention i can't even begin to tell you how many times i've heard principals complain that there are not enough [A]rchitects staying in this profession.
Did anyone read the article in the new architectural record saying the top reasons clients leave their architect when surveyed was something like "inability to listen" and "poor attitude towards project"
betadine - "what the survey doesn't tell you...." - i would be really curious about that data!
for instance the breakdown of age groups would tell alot - is the profession skewing younger because of the expansion of programs or is it the opposite because NCARB and low wages are scaring everyone away? it's an interesting question.
i've been searching far and wide, but haven't found any statistics like that or race, gender, etc. would be interesting to know more - does anyone out there know?
I've always argued it a supply / demand situation. If you cull the herd of architects way down, the ones of us remaining will regain stature and wages to where we all believe we rightfully should be. Any profession that has a serious lack of professionals will do quite well in any recession, those with oversupply will not. Well, one look at the layoffs thread should make it quite clear where architecture is.
Great point about "Menial Tasks", the arrogant, this work is beneath me attitude is really absurd, especially when being espoused by students or recent graduates.
When you really get down to it, buildings are a composite of these "Menial Tasks", It is in the details that the expertise of Engineers and Architects lie. Any person on the street can tell you their house is made of brick or wood studs, but it takes expertise to know how the little details come together. All truly great buildings, and great engineering works, have great details, logicial, efficient, economic, well proportioned, however you want to measure them, the details are important.
Aqua,
I agree supply and demand come into play, but I also think Architects need to focus more on the business end of things and understand the implications of changes in the industry, both now and in the future. I think there may be an oversupply of Architects, but It may also be that the amount of work is decreasing. From what I see, on the outside looking in, there isn't much interest in really addressing the loss of work to contractor/developer opperations. Sure people whine and complain about it, but at the same time, few bat an eye when Contractors and Suppliers push industry changes that help their bottom line and hurt the bottom line of Architects and Engineers (BIM Modelling ....hello, anyone home?!).
Architects can try to hide behind their latest Rendering program as their key to success, and for some it may still work out, but probably more than anything else in the industry, that is the easiest service to farm out to cheaper suppliers and will be the first to go. If you want long term stability and strength for the industry, you need to push for concrete (solid) technical training and responsibilities beyond those of "building artist"
I absolutely agree that the profession desperately needs to put the "building artist" model behind us and perhaps this recession will do that. Though the past recessions have sent many building artists into academia already - which is why so many young grads are frustrated with their situation.
Regarding BIM - this time seems ideal for embracing it. It seems like a no-brainer, but I cannot believe the resistance I see to it. My large corporate firm just had an office wide discussion about the economy and our leadership brought up the fact that transitioning to BIM now would effectively use the downtime while enabling us to become more lean. The resistance was astounding - if only we could weed out that dead wood!
i think creativity is being undervalued in this conversation, and i'm not trying to say we all deserve to be genius-savants, but architecture is a rare profession where people take the time to participate in the creative process. although it's only a small part of the overall picture, it's what makes this field unique, and it is the only reason it will endure. it's what makes all the menial work and the diligence of running a business worthwhile...so i think we should not hide from it, but be proud of it. yeah, times are tough, but does it mean we can't have fun anymore?
and whoever said that people who can't distinguish between 'herd' and 'heard' should be thinned, i think the same applies for those who can't distinguish between 'your' and 'you're'.
First I think Revit is a great drafting program for some types of projects, and if it works for your office, of course use it, just like you would use the latest version of Autocad. If you feel it helps in coordinating with MEP, Structural ETC. then it makes sense to push for them to pick it up on certain projects as well. I have no problem with this, and of course, generally embrace new technology.
What I question and oppose, is that Contractors, Owners, and Suppliers intend to have the model handed over as a project deliverable. You may have noticed that of all the industry magazines out there, the ones covered, from page 1 to back cover, with advertisements for BIM modelling software, are always the construction and supplier magazines put out by these industries (Modern Steel Construction is honestly like BIM Magazine, while hardly see mention of BIM in Architectural Record, for example). This fact alone should make you scratch your head at least a little.
The idea and implication being tossed around by the construction side in handing over your model, is that the Architects and Engineers will be assuming coordination responsibilities typically performed by contractors and suppliers.
For example, historically, shop drawings are produced as indepent sets of drawings, based on the design documents, but not copied form the design documents. This has the effect of performing a check on functionality, dimensions, errant notes, etc. that would otherwise not have been picked up and coordinated. If Architects and Engineers are to perform these and spend the time doing additional coordination, with no change in contracts and fees, the obvious implication is, we either do a lot of extra work, or the check doesn't get done, and the project suffers. Clearly we will still be held liable for any flaws, especially those that effect lifesafety, so the latter doesn't seem to be much of an option at all.
Additionally, by handing over the completed model, we are providing the owner, contractor etc. the very means that may be used to hold us liable when such problems arise.
Anyways, I'm not anti contractor guy at all, but we should be aware of these issues and avoid the bluring of project responsibilities, particularly those that hurt our position in the matter.
So in conclusion, use BIM modelling programs, such as Revit, for drafting as much as you like, but be careful in contractual terms, when someone starts pushing for you to perform comprehensive project coordination all the way through construction as well as demanding you hand over the model.
Synergy....I don't think you understand the full capacity of BIM.
It is possible to be incredibly careful with contract terms. A BIM model is delivered alongside documents, with the explicit understanding that liability includes information contained in the contract documents not the model.
A BIM model enables a lean integrated delivery with both consultants and contractors. As far as I have witnessed through the whole process - we might be drawing more but are answering signficantly fewer RFI's and our clients are seeing fewer change orders...
Perhaps you are right, I don't mean to come across as some crotchety old anti BIM agent, as I'm not experienced or aged enough for that, but just skeptical. Specifically I'd like to see some studies on the subject, comparing similar projects using traditional project delivery methods and BIM delivery. I'm curious to see both how the overall project costs are affected as well as how the various parties individual costs work out. I'd also like to see this equated with the amount of time invested, ie. in your example do the fewer RFI's and change orders actually result in fewer hours spent on the project, or is this offset by the additional modeling time invested?
It does sound like you've addressed my biggest concern, about the liability issue. Thanks for highlighting some of the positives of this development.
Really I was just raising the issue of BIM to make the broader point that these are the types of issues we all need to be aware of and pay attention to, instead of obsessing over the latest rendering software plugin.
I'm thinking that there will be less people applying to architecture school over the next couple years -
I think it's unfair to say that the economic downturn is going to weed out some non-serious architects - what it does is weed out people who cannot afford to be out-of-work architects, in other words, all the non-rich people. at one of my former offices, the only interns they still have working are those who are practically working for free... it's not because they love the profession more than others, it's because their parents are footing their lifestyle.
I think I'm speaking in ideal meritocratic terms - let competition and the free market weed out the too reactionary, the too technical, the too frivolous.
The sad reality is that privilege and the 'gentleman amateur' has always existed in this profession - and this recession will probably reinforce that. Though, I really hope not!
Is it time to thin the forest of architects?
As architects we all know that architecture as a profession has declined in stature and compensation from what it was decades ago, and my curiosity led me to collect numerical demographic facts about our profession from sources like ACSA, AIA, NCARB, US Labor Dept, etc:
Registered Architects/US Capita
1960: 1/7500
2008: 1/2500
Accredited Architecture Schools
1960: 50
2008: 280
Number of Design Professionals
1960: 40,000
2008: 240,000
In light of these numbers, if the recession sheds a few thousand architects (or tens of thousands) from the industry, would it be better for the profession in the long run?
Would raising accreditation standards for schools - to produce fewer but better prepared graduates - return the profession back to the respected role they had 50 years ago?
Read the post about Licensed without Degree.
I think NCARB is doing it's job in making a degree, the IDP, and work experience manditory in order to get the right people licensed.
NCARB should be tougher on curriculum not years of education. I'd favor a stronger math and physics, structural and mechanical component to "thin" the heard. Architectural education used to produce professionals who could deliver the whole building or at the least basic structural designs and were much more competent at designing for efficiency as measured in space utilization, structural efficiency, mechanical and electrical thrift. Thats a major source of risk we are unwilling to take now days. And we all know that to the risk taker goes the rewards. I dont think this will hurt the overall level of design at all because who's really to say that the design boom of the last 25 years has really had an effect on the overall quality of our structures, spaces and lives beyond mostly institutional buildings and publicly traded corporations and other non-personal spenders. More education is not the answer, more relevant and economical education is. Architecture is after all a task that is rather tedious, and one must enjoy the monateny of the job with accountant like zeal in order to be truly effective and beneficial to their clients.
Good point, dcozb.
That discussion is a good one and NCARB's growing stringency is narrowing the field for who becomes licensed.
But after recently jumping through their hoops I can't say that enduring the tedium of NCARB's bureaucratic industrial complex is the appropriate way to tighten up the barrier to enter this profession...
The profession would just consist of a bunch of tools with an affinity for paperwork, navigating bureaucracy, and rote memorization if it tightens up the requirements through NCARB.
Evilplat...
Good point about relevant education - displacing one topic (systems) for another (theory) is going perpetuate the problem we're in and relegate us to tedious, low-value services.
Relevance comes from learning technology, finance, building systems AND history, culture, sociology alongside a design curriculum. How else can we be nimble enough to be fully responsive to needs of owners and clients and thus more valuable.
How can we get there but with more education?
On a related sidenote: in California, as a licensed architect, you're legally allowed to stamp structural engineering drawings. There is an assumption that as a licensed architect you know how to structurally engineer a building.
Seriously, how many architects know how to structurally engineer a building??
Silverlake, do you have a source on that information? I was under the impression that Architects were required to stamp sheets outside of their discipline for coordination purposes, not design approval.
In reality, few, if any, architects or engineers know how to structurally engineer a building when they come out of school. I think the additional, or structural focused classes would benefit architects, but they aren't likely going to lead to a profound, practicing engineer level of knowledge, it just takes too much time and experience to fully understand.
Synergy, its stated in the California Architects Practice Act; so local codes allow either a registered engineer or licensed architect for structural design and observation.
under article 9, professional conduct, 'an architect shall undertake to perform professional services only when he or she, together with those whom the architect may engage as consultants, are qualified by education, training, and experience in the specific technical areas involved.'
so you may be able to stamp engineering, but if you don't know what you're doing it's grounds for disciplinary action (ooooh! *shudders*)
i looked but couldn't find where it's stated that an architect can stamp structural engineering drawings. what section of the practice act is that? or is it that it doesn't say you can't stamp engineering drawings, therefore you can?
You can stamp them in IL too - provided you submit your calculations. Most cant nor wont anymore. i had the pleasure of working with some old architects who did while I was in school. We still retained structural engineers for more complicated structures.
The point for promoting the disciplined part of the profession I was making was that it weeds out a certain personality types.
Nobody sits in curriculum planning meetings and goes "Okay, y'all, we're down to it, Theory or Systems, one of 'em's gotta go! Heeeya!"
You know who I think should be thinned from the herd (besides people who don't know the difference between 'herd' and 'heard')? Anyone who thinks this discipline has anything to offer the world that isn't based our broad, intense, multidisciplined education. We do culture, we do theory, we do materials, we do history, and we do systems. If all of that isn't important, then just let the engineers stamp the drawings.
"How can we get there but with more education?"
Easy answer - WORK
The additional 3-4 years spent in school would be much better spent working - in an apprentice type role. Its so sad to see many architects functional retarded at 25, 26 while other peer groups are buying houses and moving on in life. Hell, most are still retarded at 30 clinging to some never say die design doctrine someone told them when they where 18.
765, I appreciate your perspective.
ep, why you gotta over-generalize young architects, so much. were you ever 30? have a philosophy?
i'm functionally retarded and i've been out 4 years...
i think i've posted this comment at least twenty times, but here i go again...if architecture schools taught what really goes on in an architecture firm on a day to day basis, enrollment would drop by 75 percent.
i think 75 percent is a conservative number vado
i remember both in undergrad and grad school, if we didnt have our design studios, and had to learn more of what is done in the work place, there would have been a riot
the nonstop complaining and utter contempt for real world work was amazing in some of the students
and the fact that most complained about the restrictions put on their designs in the studios
haha
it really was laughable
if your career goal as an architect is to out-engineer an engineer, then i think you might have chosen the wrong career path.
I dont think its about out-engineering an engineer. As an older architect myself with a barch. degree I will agree with platypus that the education of young architects has changed somewhat. On the one hand the presentation skills via electronic media are extraordinary however frantic, and on the other hand I can recall being just out of school, licensed and designing shell and core structures for speculative suburban office parks, calculating roof loads and sizing bar joists with a real understanding of the building, it's inhabitants, its needs and boundaries for design. We didn't seal the engineering set however we did have contractors do preliminary pricing off our set. Now preliminary pricing sets I do today are usually without consultant input however they are not nearly as detailed. I think the contractors I'm working with today are just better at working in a design build environment. Which leads to me to another point about architectural education today and that is many yung people simply graduate with no idea of the realities of what to expect in an office and tire easily. I dont remember this being the case in the 70's although back then we all had slide rules and pocket protectors and were about 95% men with bad hair cuts.
it is a real question though. as lb and i have discussed over coffee, the building boom that we just experienced, which apparently was fueled by artificial reasons and sustained through deceptive practices, and probably will not return to those levels.
I think this is really kind of pointless. I get what you're saying, but I don't really agree. There are more doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. as a percentage of the population than there have been in the past. That is to be expected since in 2008, the US has a predominantly service economy, whereas in 1960 it was predominantly manufacturing. Moreover, just as a family doctor might have been sufficient in 1960, now a doctor will refer you to a specialist without a thought. I'm not saying this is necessarily good, and I think as in architecture, this economic recession will correct some of these excesses to some degree, but I don't think we help ourselves when we beat up the profession for perceived anomolies that are actually prevelent in other industries.
ep, while I disagree with dismisal of young architects and adherence to design philosophies in general, I agree somewhat with your emphasis on education through work, like through an apprenticeship. I recently completed my undergrad architecture program and used to be very interested in going for a masters, but over the past year or so I've grown much less interested in this. If I found a program that I loved and I thought would greatly benefit me, and if I could find the money to pay for it, I would still consider enrolling, but I think there is a lot more I can learn and grow within practice, and I've become much more interested in pragmatism, etc so it just makes sense for me. However, I don't think the issues rests solely with young architects. With programs like IDP, which I think in theory is great, we're asking young architects (well intern architects) to ensentially perform the architectural equivalent of a medical residency without any of the institutional framework or support. Instead of performing a real apprenticeship, which requires not only an apprentice but a mentor, young architects are being asked to jump through bureaucratic hoops, obtain a well-rounded experience, learn a number of skills and still perform well for their employers. Employers, on the other hand, while being able to pay a lower salary for less experienced workers who have not yet completed this acronym or that, are not being asked to perform the role of mentor. That is not to say that may are not, but that they are not specifically obligated to help young architects while being able to benefit from their labor. I think setting up an adversarial relationship of young versus old does not help the situation, but I think seeing the value in each other--of experience, expertise, knowledge and even wisdom of sorts in older professionals, and of vigor, zeal, ambition, eagerness, and knowledge of emerging ideas in the young--will foster not only better relationships between professionals, but also lead to a better, more knowledgable and valuable profession in general.
I think FrankLloydMike just threw down the gauntlet. Well said.
Yeah, FLM.
It sounds like some people are just using the latest problems and pressures as an excuse to grind old axes and haul out their favorite gripe about 'kids these days'.
FLMike, you're right. I just thought of my attorney friends who have found that they are working very hard in law firms, with little hope of partnership that their predecessors were entitled to. The supply of young attorneys is way larger now than the demand for future partners...
Applying that to architecture - maybe it's the oversaturation of young architects on the market that is the problem. Could that support structure of mentors that you describe be possible, if there were a more reasonable ratio of young to old?
Only 15 years ago, I had a great internship experience with those who took the role of mentorship very seriously. I am hard pressed today to name a recent grad who isn't underutilized and underemployed doing menial work that is not enriching their understanding of the profession.
This tragic waste of talent is bad for these super motivated young professionals - and ultimately bad for the profession!
This recession will do some weeding out of everyone - but it seems that ACSA and the schools could help with the growing supply problem. Either with making reequirements more stringent or encouraging the application of an architecture degree to a wider range of careers...
Oh - and just to clarify...
I am not advocating that we ax the kids for no reason - I'd take them any day over the entitled old crusty guys in my office. It's just that I think this segment is where the over-saturation exists...
I remember reading somewhere that in Italy the number of designer / architects per capitia is ridiculously high, not everyone goes on to become an architect but moves into product design and various other design related professions, I don't see them having a huge building boom just a much greater knowledge and sophistication about design throughout society because it is so prevalent in everything they do.
I hope that I woulnt be concidered a crusty old timer at 31. Your no longer a kid after 18. It always makes me cringe when people in my office, even my age, but especially the recent grad set use the phrase "kid" - you aint kids no more.
Sellout - "I am hard pressed today to name a recent grad who isn't underutilized and underemployed doing menial work that is not enriching their understanding of the profession."
That has been and always will be the case. Hell I know a lot of 35 and even 50 yr old owners in the same boat!
Ahhhh. Italy...
Wouldn't architecture in this country be much improved if more architecture grads were CONTENT working in a wider range of careers?
I do encounter so many ex-architecture in the city planning office, as client reps, working for construction managers, etc - but without exception they always seem kind of bitter about it. They all directed their career out of the profession as some kind of reaction or failure and not a deliberate choice.
Haven't we all have dealt with a fair share of resentful people in these roles who are all too happy to stick it to the architect? These roles are just as essential to a quality built environment as architects - and shouldn't be seen as contrary to architecture...
evilp - "that has always been the case..." I do agree somewhat, hence the necessity to thin the herd! however, this conversation is making me wonder if it's especially worse for recent grads now than it has ever been
I personally think that whether your a kid or a crusty old timer is a state of mind...
i know this is fun cocktail party conversation, but really who's to say? up until about 6 months ago, the market could provide for the number of architects and interns that were available in the profession. since the economy has gone into a tailspin, the market can no longer support that many architects. will it go back to where it was before the recession? i have no reason to believe it won't, but who knows?
i don't think age has much to do with any of this and agree with whomever said that this topic is really being used to grind an ax.
Sellout - "I am hard pressed today to name a recent grad who isn't underutilized and underemployed doing menial work that is not enriching their understanding of the profession."
evilplatypus -
That has been and always will be the case. Hell I know a lot of 35 and even 50 yr old owners in the same boat!
what menial work are we talking about? if it is not actual architecture work, i agree
but if you mean doing shop drawings, little things on projects, here and there, i disagree completely
recent grads dont always need to be doing amazing design work or whatever you would consider not menial work
you cant just walk into a firm after graduating and expect them to give you all the responsibility in the world or get all this amazing enriching work all the time
you pay your dues, earn the respect and trust of those above you to earn the chance to work on everything you want to
you have to learn the procedure of how projects are run and learn all the aspects of a job
you cant just jump into the fun stuff right away and expect to do that all day every day
thats like students in college bitching about their non-studio classes because they are not "creative" enough for them
if a firm wins a job, it has no obligation to make sure the new guy there with little experience gets to do all the fun parts of the job and pass along the menial work to someone else
It has to be as challenging, if not more challenging to become and be an architect today than in the past. The reason there is more architects is contextual - contextual changes broadening what architects do. Increased standards of living of the general public, increased product standards, increased sophistication in building technology, the shift to a knowledge/service economy, has all meant the need for, and continued need for, more architects. But this increased work means doing small, menial, highly specialized, projects and service work - i.e. renos, additions, restoration, and retrofits (the reno-add-retrofit business is enormous today vs. in the 1960s), large developments, building audits, interiors, retail chain work, school-board/gov-institutional work, permits, project management...... I came across one firm that all they do is design and renovate fire stations for a certain region.
evilplatypus
you are definitely a crusty old timer at 31
not like me, who is a young pup at 29
marmkid... I meant menial really as menial and not architectural - like young pups being forced to take a narrow focus on singular, simplistic tasks for months and years - devoid of mentorship or connection to the larger picture of making a building.
I'm on board with you regarding paying one's dues and learning the mechanics of making a building.
I agree starting out is not all fun - but I think it's just simply poor business practice to stick a young designer with the a narrow set of tasks for years on end.
i agree completely
it is the boss's responsibility to give younger employees as broad a range of work as is possible for the firm
when you hire someone young or right out of school, you usually are agreeing to help build start their career, and should give them the full range of work
plus, they will be a better employee to you, if you make them a better young architect
if you have them doing the same thing for years on end, they will actually be less valuable to you
...which takes us back to if the supply of young architects.
Is this poor practice - the unmentored underemployment of interns - the result of just having too many young architects on the market? If the supply was diminished somewhat, would employers be more thoughtful about their young hires?
while it is poor practice, i think it is also the responsibility of the intern to make sure it is known he wants to be mentored and work on a variety of things
i think places where the employer doesnt help his interns would not really be effected as much since they already dont care
most places are already thoughtful about their interns, and they would actually be the ones hurt by a lower supply of interns
the supply would have to really be cut low, dramatically, for it to really make a difference i think
this all of course was before the current job situation
if you are working in a bad spot now, i would stick it out until the market is better out there
right now its all about having work through the rough times
Less than a year ago most firms that were hiring,which were many, were desparate for even a warm body. It was a common conversation among firm owners that the forest was too thin already! It is still a common observation that today, what does come from the big U's are all computer skills, but have not the foggiest of how to draw a building section. Last year a new hire that graduated from Cal Poly asked me what the difference between gyp. bd. and plywood was!!!!!!!
Even if you are doing stair cores as a newbie in the industry, you should try to think like a firm owner, and understand the industry as a whole.
To me, those youngsters who are complaining about doing "menial" tasks, are either being unrealistic about the industry, or just plain uneducated about the profession.
If you feel you are not progressing with the firm you are at, and cannot come to terms with the owner then it is your responsibility to search for a better situation elsewhere, and not to "change" the owner.
part of the reason architects don't do what we used to do i.e. engineering, is the litigious nature of our culture. as buildings got taller - and somewhat more complex - the idea that Architects could handle that scale and scope, probably began to be doubted by owners, lawyers, engineers, etc. hence architects got lazy and passed that liability onto the consultants. it doesn't help either that the AIA did not become a real power broker when it came to lobbying in the statehouses in the states. that's the reason that we are still fighting interior designers and their desire to do "interior architecture" and engineers and their stamping of architectural drawings.
so, when people complain why AIA, that's why you join the ranks, to protect your asses.
what that survey doesn't tell you is the average age of the profession, racial makeup, and gender makeup. not to mention i can't even begin to tell you how many times i've heard principals complain that there are not enough [A]rchitects staying in this profession.
Did anyone read the article in the new architectural record saying the top reasons clients leave their architect when surveyed was something like "inability to listen" and "poor attitude towards project"
If someone has the text that'd be super
betadine - "what the survey doesn't tell you...." - i would be really curious about that data!
for instance the breakdown of age groups would tell alot - is the profession skewing younger because of the expansion of programs or is it the opposite because NCARB and low wages are scaring everyone away? it's an interesting question.
i've been searching far and wide, but haven't found any statistics like that or race, gender, etc. would be interesting to know more - does anyone out there know?
I've always argued it a supply / demand situation. If you cull the herd of architects way down, the ones of us remaining will regain stature and wages to where we all believe we rightfully should be. Any profession that has a serious lack of professionals will do quite well in any recession, those with oversupply will not. Well, one look at the layoffs thread should make it quite clear where architecture is.
myLiebermeisterAGG,
Great point about "Menial Tasks", the arrogant, this work is beneath me attitude is really absurd, especially when being espoused by students or recent graduates.
When you really get down to it, buildings are a composite of these "Menial Tasks", It is in the details that the expertise of Engineers and Architects lie. Any person on the street can tell you their house is made of brick or wood studs, but it takes expertise to know how the little details come together. All truly great buildings, and great engineering works, have great details, logicial, efficient, economic, well proportioned, however you want to measure them, the details are important.
Aqua,
I agree supply and demand come into play, but I also think Architects need to focus more on the business end of things and understand the implications of changes in the industry, both now and in the future. I think there may be an oversupply of Architects, but It may also be that the amount of work is decreasing. From what I see, on the outside looking in, there isn't much interest in really addressing the loss of work to contractor/developer opperations. Sure people whine and complain about it, but at the same time, few bat an eye when Contractors and Suppliers push industry changes that help their bottom line and hurt the bottom line of Architects and Engineers (BIM Modelling ....hello, anyone home?!).
Architects can try to hide behind their latest Rendering program as their key to success, and for some it may still work out, but probably more than anything else in the industry, that is the easiest service to farm out to cheaper suppliers and will be the first to go. If you want long term stability and strength for the industry, you need to push for concrete (solid) technical training and responsibilities beyond those of "building artist"
I absolutely agree that the profession desperately needs to put the "building artist" model behind us and perhaps this recession will do that. Though the past recessions have sent many building artists into academia already - which is why so many young grads are frustrated with their situation.
Regarding BIM - this time seems ideal for embracing it. It seems like a no-brainer, but I cannot believe the resistance I see to it. My large corporate firm just had an office wide discussion about the economy and our leadership brought up the fact that transitioning to BIM now would effectively use the downtime while enabling us to become more lean. The resistance was astounding - if only we could weed out that dead wood!
i think creativity is being undervalued in this conversation, and i'm not trying to say we all deserve to be genius-savants, but architecture is a rare profession where people take the time to participate in the creative process. although it's only a small part of the overall picture, it's what makes this field unique, and it is the only reason it will endure. it's what makes all the menial work and the diligence of running a business worthwhile...so i think we should not hide from it, but be proud of it. yeah, times are tough, but does it mean we can't have fun anymore?
and whoever said that people who can't distinguish between 'herd' and 'heard' should be thinned, i think the same applies for those who can't distinguish between 'your' and 'you're'.
there i said it.
I'll clarify my point about BIM,
First I think Revit is a great drafting program for some types of projects, and if it works for your office, of course use it, just like you would use the latest version of Autocad. If you feel it helps in coordinating with MEP, Structural ETC. then it makes sense to push for them to pick it up on certain projects as well. I have no problem with this, and of course, generally embrace new technology.
What I question and oppose, is that Contractors, Owners, and Suppliers intend to have the model handed over as a project deliverable. You may have noticed that of all the industry magazines out there, the ones covered, from page 1 to back cover, with advertisements for BIM modelling software, are always the construction and supplier magazines put out by these industries (Modern Steel Construction is honestly like BIM Magazine, while hardly see mention of BIM in Architectural Record, for example). This fact alone should make you scratch your head at least a little.
The idea and implication being tossed around by the construction side in handing over your model, is that the Architects and Engineers will be assuming coordination responsibilities typically performed by contractors and suppliers.
For example, historically, shop drawings are produced as indepent sets of drawings, based on the design documents, but not copied form the design documents. This has the effect of performing a check on functionality, dimensions, errant notes, etc. that would otherwise not have been picked up and coordinated. If Architects and Engineers are to perform these and spend the time doing additional coordination, with no change in contracts and fees, the obvious implication is, we either do a lot of extra work, or the check doesn't get done, and the project suffers. Clearly we will still be held liable for any flaws, especially those that effect lifesafety, so the latter doesn't seem to be much of an option at all.
Additionally, by handing over the completed model, we are providing the owner, contractor etc. the very means that may be used to hold us liable when such problems arise.
Anyways, I'm not anti contractor guy at all, but we should be aware of these issues and avoid the bluring of project responsibilities, particularly those that hurt our position in the matter.
So in conclusion, use BIM modelling programs, such as Revit, for drafting as much as you like, but be careful in contractual terms, when someone starts pushing for you to perform comprehensive project coordination all the way through construction as well as demanding you hand over the model.
Synergy....I don't think you understand the full capacity of BIM.
It is possible to be incredibly careful with contract terms. A BIM model is delivered alongside documents, with the explicit understanding that liability includes information contained in the contract documents not the model.
A BIM model enables a lean integrated delivery with both consultants and contractors. As far as I have witnessed through the whole process - we might be drawing more but are answering signficantly fewer RFI's and our clients are seeing fewer change orders...
sellout,
Perhaps you are right, I don't mean to come across as some crotchety old anti BIM agent, as I'm not experienced or aged enough for that, but just skeptical. Specifically I'd like to see some studies on the subject, comparing similar projects using traditional project delivery methods and BIM delivery. I'm curious to see both how the overall project costs are affected as well as how the various parties individual costs work out. I'd also like to see this equated with the amount of time invested, ie. in your example do the fewer RFI's and change orders actually result in fewer hours spent on the project, or is this offset by the additional modeling time invested?
It does sound like you've addressed my biggest concern, about the liability issue. Thanks for highlighting some of the positives of this development.
Really I was just raising the issue of BIM to make the broader point that these are the types of issues we all need to be aware of and pay attention to, instead of obsessing over the latest rendering software plugin.
I'm thinking that there will be less people applying to architecture school over the next couple years -
I think it's unfair to say that the economic downturn is going to weed out some non-serious architects - what it does is weed out people who cannot afford to be out-of-work architects, in other words, all the non-rich people. at one of my former offices, the only interns they still have working are those who are practically working for free... it's not because they love the profession more than others, it's because their parents are footing their lifestyle.
toasteroven, you are so right.
I think I'm speaking in ideal meritocratic terms - let competition and the free market weed out the too reactionary, the too technical, the too frivolous.
The sad reality is that privilege and the 'gentleman amateur' has always existed in this profession - and this recession will probably reinforce that. Though, I really hope not!
damn, I can't see the forest for the trees...
I agree with toasteroven.... This recession will no doubt thin out the forest, but it always seems to be the wrong trees that get chopped down.
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.