I was at a friends party when she wanted to introduce me to another person and said "oh and he's an architect". Maybe its just me but I really kind of hate being introduced to other architects in this manner. Most of the time people just compare notes about the firm they are at or what work they do. The big firm people look down on the small firm people, and the 'starchitect' people drop names and look down on everyone else. Same goes for the "where did you go to school" line.
Unless you know someone else at the firm that they know and are friends with most of the time this is the impression I am left with. Is it competition for dwindling clients?
I will say this however at an art opening or function or lecture I usually have not found this to be true, due to the fact that there is a shared intellectual point of reference.
So it got me to thinking that this profession is actually quite hostile and competitive. From the moment you have a first year studio pinup someone is always finding way to take jabs and criticize the work you do. We all know this is supposed to be constructive, and I have had some good discussions, but we all know that sometimes a visiting professor will just be there to rip someone, and same with your classmates. We all have legends created about a bad jury and have all had at least one. It is a right of passage almost to get absolutely torn down.
This sort of continues in the professional world. In the professional world the competition between architects is unbelievably unhealthy both as a source of camaraderie but also in terms of fees. Most of the time clients will put architect against architect to lower fees and many architects will drop their bid just to get the job. This has resulted in architects as the lowest salaried of the major professions. Unlike doctors or lawyers we consistently eat our young and go to war against each other and have institutionalized these aspects of our profession, which ultimately are also the source of its diminishment.
Maybe its just me, I am no crybaby, but in general it is a hostile environment out there for architects, and every year it seems that I have a client tell me that "so and so" can do it for cheaper etc.etc. and generally I end up with the client back in my office asking me for help fixing what "so and so" did, meanwhile the work remains complex and the fees smaller and smaller.
haven't had this experience at all. i love meeting other architects and love when we can help each other be better connected to the local architecture/arts culture.
maybe it's not universal but just an individual an attitude thing?
camaraderie with other architects is a big part of the joy i get in this profession (because, no, it certainly doesn't help get work).
i like architects, i am usually enthusiastic and some take it as if i want something from them and start to act like they are more than what they are and competitive. it lasts until i mention i write about this and business cards and office invitations follow but by then it is too late and i am already not interested in insincerity. some who know me already and insecure about their work, completely avoid me perhaps thinking i could be dangerous to their career or question it. and some, who really know me and i know tem, we spend great time talking about and laughing about life and things other than architecture. so it is hard to say they are all the same... but mostly a lot of insecure people and professional egomaniacs.
one of the first questions are;
do work for somebody or for yourself? (to gage your finances)
where is your office and where do you live? (to gage your financial success)
for which publications you write for? (to gage your power)
how do you know so and so? (to gage your social standing and if you are a worthy chat)
what do you think about so and so's building? (to gage that if you are a friend or foe)
My main concern writing this post was that there is a competition in this business that ultimately works against the architects and design professionals by putting them in direct competition with firms or individuals that may or may not have the same qualifications or experience in project type, and in this competition ultimately what happens is that fees are lowered regardless of the complexity of the project.
Yes I can argue about the social complexities and those are different from person to person. I am more concerned with the lack of professional ethics in regards to your fellow practitioner and the absolute ineffectiveness of the AIA as a professional organization to protect the fees of the architects.
Like in sports I think there should be a salary cap of sorts where architects should never go below just to get a job, therefore enforcing a cost base for clients to expect to never go below.
I have definitely met many architects that I don't care for and would prefer never to work with again. I'm basing this on exactly what you just mentioned the people who are extremely full of themselves, are extraordinarily diluted, are gossipers, and judge based on meaningless credentials (i.e. where they went to school, their GPAs, or what kinds of firms they work in).
Trust me, many of the people who were let go in my last firm were these kinds of people who poisoned the atmosphere and were so unpleasant to be around that owners wouldn't think twice about putting them first in the line of fire.
It's bad business anyway. A guy from the last firm I worked at contacted me recently because he was laid off and wanted some kind of reading on how my firm was doing. This person was always hostile towards me, was mean spirited to everyone, and had an extremely bad attitude. Normally I wouldn't have hesitated to tell him to go fuck himself but I didn't want to sink to his level. I just said we weren't hiring (which was the truth).
I also really enjoy meeting other people who work in architecture...
I wouldn't say hostile, but some people just have really cold personalities. I figure these people aren't worth my time because if they really loved architecture, they wouldn't care who they talked to about it.
"the absolute ineffectiveness of the AIA as a professional organization to protect the fees of the architects"
is enforced by law to some extent. the profession has gotten in legal trouble in the past for trying to control how fees are set. check it out.
and i never said everything is always wonderful. it's not at all.
no, i'm not an academic.
no, it's not a crock. i'm serious. (ask liberty bell et al.)
the problems i face on a daily basis seldom have much to do with other architects and architects are almost always the most interesting folks to talk to.
squaresville, you may have a crock of shit in front of you but a lot of us here in the professional world agree with Steven. I love being around other architects, I have lunch regularly with other architects with whom I directly compete in our market, I do whatever I can to help other architects make connections with contractors/suppliers/etc. that I think are the best in the business.
Yes I have met one or two or a dozen other architects who have been conceited and unpleasant and back-stabbing. That's a personality type I don't want to hang around with, be the person an architect, realtor, doctor, mechanic...
I love architects. I've been in the field (academia and practice) for 25 years, and I still love architects.
squaresville -- you seem to have a chip on your shoulder and only you can remove it.
I too have many, many friends all across the nation who are architects. the vast majority of those are great professionals I've met serving on committees in the AIA. locally, I still have very strong relationships with many people I interned with at a very large firm years ago. These relationships are important to me and they're important to my friends and we never, ever let competitive pressures get in the way of liking each other.
We choose how we look at life. You see at least two different choices on this thread already. If you want to be sour about having relationships with other architects, that's your business. However, I see little value in belittling others here who enjoy each others company and friendship.
This seems to be the result whenever you get the best and brightest people competing in a creative profession. I used to be in 3D computer graphics, video games, and now architecture. People were snarky in art school, and architecture school, esp the visiting jurors
It's the way it is - I just accept it
1. I have not belittled anyone. However I do find it funny that someone has responded to this post with "I love everyone and have never had a problem", I am very surprised to find someone who truly "gets along" with everyone and has never had any issues with anyone ever, or any suspicions. God bless them.
2. If I was not interested in communicating and participating with other architects I would not have joined this site. i joined this site for that exact purpose and that is why I am here.
Perhaps i should have said this differently and not brought in any personal anecdote. Because I am talking about two different things, thinking it was all related.
I think my main point was if you as an architect low bid another architect to get a job, and the low bid is not based on any real and tangible reason like better expertise and therefore quicker delivery of a specific program type, just a low bid to get a job, then you are hurting the rest of us who are honest about their fees and time to complete the job. And I think that is destructive to the profession and i wonder why another architect would be destructive towards the profession. And i began to see patterns where architects are put in these competitive situations that hurt the profession. And how criticism of one another is ingrained from the very beginning of the education.
Not sure why I am being viewed as a total asshole just because I don't admit to loving everyone I meet, but whatever.
As someone who isn't really an architect, I've approached similar situations with similar outcomes.
I think it really comes down to a particular school of thought or an architect's generally philosophy. As someone who is mostly a planner, I also have a decent background in history, art and 'traditional' graphic design. I spent a lot of time in school studying vernacular architecture, domestic architecture et cetera.
I think what style you profess has a big impact on who you are. I think the licensing of architecture has dramatically changed the profession. It makes it difficult to get in, expensive to learn and I've always wondered if the people who are famous for the works from the past would have been able to cut it now. I prefer Beaux-Arts architects-- wonderful people, have a good grip on how culture actually functions, knows actual history and always produce consistently good products across the board.
I've always had a tumultuous relationship professionally with architects though. I guess I'm a bit of dismissive and that makes thing especially rough in trying to work with them on any level. I know people try and do succeed in their own personal endeavors-- I think that's great-- but I don't want to have a pissing match with someone when it comes to disagreement.
I've been in places where I take a site plan or a model and instantly deem it crap. I can't help it. It is crap. Lots of buildings and sites never take in the city around it into any context (better yet, there is no actual city around it which can make a project completely inappropriate). There's a lot of projects that graze over transportation or use inappropriate technology. There's just a lot of things that are ugly... and not even the good kind of ugly. "Real life" a lot of time clashes with the aesthetic of a building (public spaces in particular).
I think it also comes down to what an architect's actual goal is of the building. Is it to make a building? Produce a sizable profit from renting? Do they want to change the world? Do they think they can influence culture? Is there an simpler methodology to achieve the goals?
I prefer architects who just want to make buildings and money. Anyone else trying to do something else usually falls short without a multidisciplinary approach.
squaresville, I thought in your initial post that this was the best point you made: that underbidding is a lousy practice that not only directly backstabs a peer but hurts all of us in the long run.
Yes, I have had to clean up the mess of other architects, as well as the messes of contractors who decided they could "design" a solution on their own.
Steven is right, though, about the history: I think it was in the 70s architects were subject to anti-trust legislation as it was believed that we were fixing fees. Which I guess we were - if no one will work for below a certain fee, then I suppose a monopoly exists. This was all before my time, but is history we all should know about (I only know it vaguely - someone else fill in the story better if they would like to, please.)
A personal anecdote: I work in a small market. In this market there are several well-known and fairly sought-after designers, but frankly their work sucks. A typical client doesn't realize it, they just know the designer is used by many people in their social circle so they figure s/he must be good. My partner and I do far superior work, but it makes us look like jerks if we say so to potential clients. Thankfully, we have found that we can succeed on the quality of our work without badmouthing the other guys, or by focusing on how we provide a custom service, craftsmanship, etc. We survive by word of mouth referrals; getting a reputation as a gossip or being mean-spirited can only hurt us.
Steven posted once about the Michael Graves lecture in which Graves spoke about not criticizing the work of your peers if it runs the risk of costing them a job. It was quite gentlemanly, and I agree that I wish our profession could be more civil to one another.
i think a lot of times, a personality trait of an architect is a rather, um, inflated ego
and a lot of times can be negative about most things brought up, or at least, come across as negative
stereotypical or not, that happens a lot
saying something is "a crock of shit" because someone is being positive, is an example of this
architects have a tendancy to take things to the extreme, and a lot of times its to the negative extreme
we are not as tortured as we like to make ourselves out to be
we are not as underpaid as we like to make ourselves to be
i personally love meeting other architects
no, i dont love them all, but i would rather still meet them than not at all
i spent a summer in Italy when in school, and there were about 25 students total on our trip
it was amazing to see the vast majority of them treat the entire experience like a chore
there is a "nothing is ever good enough" attitude that is sometimes common among architects
its similar to the "tortured/ struggling artist" attitude
but in general, it is just a negative personality trait that i have found a lot of architects have
a glass is half empty view of things
you are right though
at times, criticism seems to be ingrained in the profession from the time you are in school
its a shame
we have a really fun job
The vast majority of my friends are architects, and whenever I meet another random architects nine times out of ten we end up geeking out about some aspect of the profession (either good after work bars with nice designs to the pain in the ass that is ACAD '08). It's kinda like when when I meet someone else that that's a comic book geek and when end up talking about that. For me it's usually pleasant to meet other architects because we already have something in common that we are passionate about so the conversations will 9 times out of 10 be pleasant.
Sure I've meet people that are supper arrogant about their designs, or school they went too, etc, etc; but there are arrogant people in any profession, not just this one.
Would it be safe to say that most of the assholes you meet are architects because most of the people you meet are architects?
"A personal anecdote: I work in a small market. In this market there are several well-known and fairly sought-after designers, but frankly their work sucks. A typical client doesn't realize it, they just know the designer is used by many people in their social circle so they figure s/he must be good. My partner and I do far superior work, but it makes us look like jerks if we say so to potential clients. Thankfully, we have found that we can succeed on the quality of our work without badmouthing the other guys, or by focusing on how we provide a custom service, craftsmanship, etc. We survive by word of mouth referrals; getting a reputation as a gossip or being mean-spirited can only hurt us."
Liberty Bell... may I say, "holy shit, that was brilliant?"
Because... Holy shit, that was brilliant! This is the same exact thing that goes on in planning as well. Where I live, developers and planners go hand-in-hand. People buy houses, leases, rental space, buildings from them because other people did as well. It's a never ending loop of this. They all build from a similar mindset and they all end up in the same predicament after a few years. Now that I don't talk and am no longer a barrier to "progress," people ask me why I don't help and accuse me of being callous-- especially since everything has gone to shit and then some. I simply reply with this "Even if I could help, I can't. It's going to be there for a hundred years... that's why building anything is "serious business."
"A personal anecdote: I work in a small market. In this market there are several well-known and fairly sought-after designers, but frankly their work sucks. A typical client doesn't realize it, they just know the designer is used by many people in their social circle so they figure s/he must be good. My partner and I do far superior work, but it makes us look like jerks if we say so to potential clients. Thankfully, we have found that we can succeed on the quality of our work without badmouthing the other guys, or by focusing on how we provide a custom service, craftsmanship, etc. We survive by word of mouth referrals; getting a reputation as a gossip or being mean-spirited can only hurt us."
Liberty Bell... may I say, "holy shit, that was brilliant?"
Because... Holy shit, that was brilliant! This is the same exact thing that goes on in planning as well. Where I live, developers and planners go hand-in-hand. People buy houses, leases, rental space, buildings from them because other people did as well. It's a never ending loop of this. They all build from a similar mindset and they all end up in the same predicament after a few years. Now that I don't talk and am no longer a barrier to "progress," people ask me why I don't help and accuse me of being callous-- especially since everything has gone to shit and then some. I simply reply with this "Even if I could help, I can't. It's going to be there for a hundred years... that's why building anything is "serious business."
I met an architecture student once who rated my school against hers, then she asked couple questions in condescending tone. she went on couple more minutes about how her school prepares students successfully for jobs and going to grad school is waste of money hence a dumb move. man,, have anyone you met ever brought up school rankings when you first meet him or her? I almost find that rude and irrelevant.
Except this one encounter, I love meeting other architects, preferably older and seasoned architects. Since i'm a junior I just learn by talking to them.
I am going to do some research about that anti trust issue, have not heard about it. You hit my point exactly, as I do not believe that doctors or lawyers have the same problem as architects do when it comes to the competition taking down the fees for service.
I have no problem with "friendly competition" but not where it lowers fees and gives the client an unfair expectation about the cost and VALUE of our services.
unfortunately i am not sure how much we can control that
we offer a service
if someone can offer the same service for a lower price, we are screwed
but when the client then sees that the same value or the same service is not delivered, that will hurt the other architect more in the long run
repeat business is pretty big with architects
if you dont deliver what you say you will, you will look terrible and lose more business than you gained by claiming a lower fee or unrealistic deliveries
but you are right
that is a problem in our profession it seems
though in this economy, we can hardly be blamed for going after whatever work we can find
marmkid, "we are not as underpaid as we like to make ourselves to be"
I disagree, in general I think architects are extremely underpaid when compared to other professions like doctor and lawyer, and also underpaid within the building and construction industry, especially if you consider the liability and responsibility as well as the scrutiny that our work receives, I am talking about building and zoning departments.
I also think that part of it comes from a general lack of knowledge from the average person about "what it is an architect does exactly", and how complicated the coordination of that work is across a spectrum of variables like construction to financing to legal issues etc. etc. and on top of all that "can you make it beautiful to". i think the average person undervalues the work of the architect and has a hard time understanding where all that money goes especially since they haven't even broken ground on the project yet. On top of that you have some architects making arbitrary bids based on numbers someone else bid and not actual delivery of a project. It hurts other architects and gives the client a bad impression when the architect comes back to ask for more money because they did not take into account the actual cost for project delivery.
Doctors and lawyers do undercut each other all the time. Even nurses and paralegals undercut their respective counterparts.
Doctors and lawyers dish something out that architects don't-- their service is an absolute necessity. Architects use to do more than they do now and architects were rather limited before the train, bicycle and automobile came along-- there was only a handful of uses and a handful of problems and everyone knew what did work or didn't work. Architects, like musicians or chefs or painters, often had a patron or matron to support them. Since America is rather confrontational with formal society and aristocrats, those relationships really no longer exist.
But the necessity here is what is important to point out. Doctors keep you healthy, lawyers keep you free. Architects and their ideas do little for anyone other than the person who commissioned it.
People are using your work as marketing devices-- which is a really complex issue since the role of people and a built environment is a really complex issue in and of itself. I don't see a necessary problem with this but buildings can make people unproductive, unhappy and unhealthy. A marketing device that does more harm than good is no longer really marketable.
I say architects should put their foot down and stop building single-use single-purpose automotive-dependent projects. Stop trying to make lofty goals with your projects-- your cool little public space that you made is useless because it ignores that people like to drink, puke, fuck, shit and sleep in them. If you want to take your projects and make them legitimate, don't pander to the top 10% of society who is going to use them.
It'll cost you money but if more architects could make more projects that showed they are a necessity to people and are a necessity to economy... you could probably end up charging 800 bucks an hour (like a good lawyer) if you can make that guarantee.
that may be true, but i am talking about the attitude that architects make little to no money at all
the whole "woe is me" i have an architects salary
our work may be undervalued to a degree, but we are not some sacrificial lambs who give up a decent salary for our work
extremely underpaid though?
i dont know about that
i made a very nice salary coming out of school, and there is a continual growth after that (in a normal economy)
a very common complaint from architects is that we dont make enough money
yet we like to compare ourselves to doctors and lawyers only
i would say there are some very unrealistic expectations as to what architects should make
if you expect to be a millionaire guaranteed, that probably wont happen
if you are making no money at all and cant get by, (in a normal economy), then you are doing something wrong
architects can make an excellent living, yet continuously like to claim they are "suffering" with the salaries they make
again
an extreme, negative view on things that isnt entirely accurate
architects are not the only profession where there are competing prices for their work
that happens in EVERY profession where you provide a service
i am not sure why architects think theirs is the only one where there is competition for the work, and that occasionally, someone will offer an extreme lower price to get the work
the entitlement towards winning jobs is part of the ego of an architect, and it helps us work better and hard and more creatively
but when we dont win jobs, lets move past the finger-pointing
yes, sometimes an architect will offer a lower fee to do a job that they cant deliver on
but sometimes, an architect will offer a lower fee and actually perform the work well
i would say its very debatable to say that is wrong
I haven't read all the posts, but the hostility maybe entirely geographic, in the northeast competition and just people in general are a lot more brutal than in the rest of the country it seems.
The reason you feel hostile for the way you were introduced is because you got blindsided. When you, an architect, goes somewhere you can be fairly certain that you will be the only one. It makes you special. Then you find out there is another one and he/she is being directed right towards you. Now you have to compete. At whatever level. When you go to a function where other architects are you know what you are getting into so you don't have that loss of feeling special.
Of course I don't ever feel this way. I'm not only an architect but I am a Marine. So unless the other architect was also in the Corps and has better war stories than I do, he/she is ass out.
The AIA has been a respected professional organization for many years, but it has not been without controversy.
In 1866, an architect sued a client for not paying a bill, which led to the AIA's first standardized fee of 5% of construction cost. Because of the increase in technical knowledge and liability that was being required of architects, it raised its standard fee to 6% in 1908.
Its members were not allowed to advertise, to offer free services, to be a building contractor, or to competitively bid for a project. Members who did not stick to the rules fell out of favor with the AIA.
This practice continued until 1971 when the Justice Department announced its plans to sue the AIA for what they believed to be restraint of trade, a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
In 1972 the AIA decided to enter into a consent decree rather than fight the Justice Department.
A lawsuit by the Justice Department against the Virginia Bar Association on similar grounds determined that using standardized fee schedules amounted to price fixing.
In 1984, after the recession brought construction and the architectural profession to a near halt, the Chicago Chapter of the AIA decided to issue a compensation and fee policy statement, a violation of the consent decree.
Unfortunately, the Chicago Chapter printed and distributed the statement to its members before it realized its infraction.
The Justice Department came down hard on the AIA. This time it subpoenaed members, confiscated files, required members to testify before a grand jury, and threatened some with the prospect of criminal prosecution. Eventually, the case was settled by issuing a second consent decree, which stated that it would refrain from rules that would prevent members from submitting competitive bids, providing discounts, or providing free services.
As a result of the second decree, the architectural profession has changed drastically over the past 15 years, though some changes were slow in being accepted. Many architects did not advertise their services until just a few years ago, and there are still some who would never consider doing so.
i'd certainly say that competition amongst graphic designers is pretty fierce. especially these days. these days there seem to be no rules to bidding for work. we have lost several jobs we were bidding on. we wrote proposals that acknowledged the times that everyone is in right now, provide a fair but lower fee than we would have charged a year ago and still did not get the jobs. it's can be frustrating, but you have to learn and move on.
we also see the interviewing process and decision making process take much longer. our potential clients are just as nervous as everyone else. they want to make sure that their money will be well spent wisely. i fault none of the parties, my peers or my potential clients, that are part of this process. we all just have to work not only smarter but harder.
I have never heard of a doctor or lawyer having problems with competitive bidding and further more most people really don't care what it costs to see a doctor so long as their insurance covers it. In this case the doctor's fee is subsidized by the health insurance industry, a practice that is filled with fraud and waste and has artificially inflated the cost of decent healthcare for the average american.
Of course architects look to lawyers and doctors when doing a salary comparison due to the fact that they are all basically similar in the level of school required and the level of professional development and the requirement of a state license to practice.
hey your right, I work for a small firm and we won jobs against larger firms because our bid was lower due to the smaller staff and less overhead, mostly because this project was too small for them to perform efficiently. This is a positive example that helps the client get the right person for the job. But when an architect bids for a project that they do not understand, like laboratory space, which has very specific requirements even though in this case it still was a business occupancy, that person has a lower bid that does not take into account the complexity of the job, and eventually will cause problems for the client as well as hurt someone qualified to take the job. is it wrong, well like you say its not, its not illegal but it does hurt the profession, has nothing to do with hurt ego. but that client will leave the process with a diminished opinion of the integrity of the profession.
not sure why you think I am finger pointing, and some people have brought up ego issues as well, that is not my point.
rockhill
"But the necessity here is what is important to point out. Doctors keep you healthy, lawyers keep you free. Architects and their ideas do little for anyone other than the person who commissioned it."
Out of curiosity why are you on this site, it is a site for architects and people who are affiliated, but you just seem kind of anti-architect. As far as blaming architects for all the ills of society I think that is a discussion for another post. What was your background again?
doctors and lawyers are usually hired when immediate service is required otherwise death or legal problems will come about
that is a lot different than the construction industry
it really is comparing apples and oranges, and again, these are not the only 3 professions where you have to go to school a little longer or have to get a license
how long do you need to be in medical school and your residency before you are a doctor?
is it more than the 5 years in school and then 3 years to sit for your exams?
doctors and lawyers are required to do all those things or they really cant work
an architect doesnt need his license to work, or at least, he isnt as limited as a doctor or lawyer is
I didnt mean you specifically with my comments about ego
i was talking about the attitude i have come across with architects in general
but i am not sure i really get this though
are people losing jobs left and right because other architects are low-bidding them that much?
i am not in a position at my firm where my responsibility is to bring in work so i dont have much experience in that department
are firms losing jobs to other firms because they are not offering competitive bids, or because other firms are constantly offering fees that dont even cover the cost of the work?
or is this a case of potential sour grapes over lost job opportunities?
i think a firm should offer what their work is worth and what is needed to complete the job sufficiently and to make a profit
that can be different for different firms, it doesnt always mean someone is screwing someone else over
"rockhill - "But the necessity here is what is important to point out. Doctors keep you healthy, lawyers keep you free. Architects and their ideas do little for anyone other than the person who commissioned it."
Out of curiosity why are you on this site, it is a site for architects and people who are affiliated, but you just seem kind of anti-architect. As far as blaming architects for all the ills of society I think that is a discussion for another post. What was your background again?"
By and large, rockhill is correct - are you unaware of this?
I am not at all intimidated by other architects who low-ball fees. I run my business efficiently, do strong work, delivery attentive and high quality services, pay my employees more than competitive wages and make a decent profit.
There's always going to be another firm out there who will quote lower fees ... there's nothing I can do about the other guy. If asked to meet or beat a fee I don't think is fair, I tender my apologies and walk away.
All I can control is what my firm does. As long as we do our work well, don't waste time and keep the quality high, I'm more than confident that a) we'll continue to get our fair share of the work at fair prices; and b) the low-ball artist either will go out of business because he can't deliver at the fees he's charging or the client's going to realize that the "value" promised with those low fees just isn't there.
Stop worrying about the other guy ... concentrate on what you do and be sure to do it well. Focus on delivering "value" not low prices ... in the long run, you'll do fine. Clients who just want a low fee are not the basis on which to build a practice. Find clients who understand what you really have to offer and build relationships there.
What's happening in this economy right now is not about competition between design firms. There's just not enough work to go around and there's not going to be enough work until the banks start lending again.
I a cant believe i am on archinect debating the value "architects" and their ideas. The services provided by lawyers and doctors are important, no doubt, the need for those services is immediate, meaning when you need it you need it right at the moment.
We can go into a debate regarding the influence of the built environment on the psyche, the research done on this is substantial and supports the importance of healthy cities, buildings etc. However it is a subconscious effect and one who's effect is gradual over time. But the need is just as great, if you don't understand that you should not be on this site or you just don't pay that much attention to the real world.
so this is where the hostility part of this thread comes in i guess
NO ONE here argued that an architect doesnt have value or that the built environment doesnt have influence or importance on the psyche
if you think designing a building is equivilant to giving someone medical help, then maybe you "just dont pay that much attention to the real world"
they are very clearly two vastly different things and are only connected by your viewing more than a 4 year degree and holding a license as meaning they both are similar
i am not sure why you started a thread here
did you want an actual discussion, or did you just want everyone to sympathize with you and join in on your complaining?
because by insulting the posters here, it doesnt sound like you wanted an actual conversation
Architects are hostile to each other?
I was at a friends party when she wanted to introduce me to another person and said "oh and he's an architect". Maybe its just me but I really kind of hate being introduced to other architects in this manner. Most of the time people just compare notes about the firm they are at or what work they do. The big firm people look down on the small firm people, and the 'starchitect' people drop names and look down on everyone else. Same goes for the "where did you go to school" line.
Unless you know someone else at the firm that they know and are friends with most of the time this is the impression I am left with. Is it competition for dwindling clients?
I will say this however at an art opening or function or lecture I usually have not found this to be true, due to the fact that there is a shared intellectual point of reference.
So it got me to thinking that this profession is actually quite hostile and competitive. From the moment you have a first year studio pinup someone is always finding way to take jabs and criticize the work you do. We all know this is supposed to be constructive, and I have had some good discussions, but we all know that sometimes a visiting professor will just be there to rip someone, and same with your classmates. We all have legends created about a bad jury and have all had at least one. It is a right of passage almost to get absolutely torn down.
This sort of continues in the professional world. In the professional world the competition between architects is unbelievably unhealthy both as a source of camaraderie but also in terms of fees. Most of the time clients will put architect against architect to lower fees and many architects will drop their bid just to get the job. This has resulted in architects as the lowest salaried of the major professions. Unlike doctors or lawyers we consistently eat our young and go to war against each other and have institutionalized these aspects of our profession, which ultimately are also the source of its diminishment.
Maybe its just me, I am no crybaby, but in general it is a hostile environment out there for architects, and every year it seems that I have a client tell me that "so and so" can do it for cheaper etc.etc. and generally I end up with the client back in my office asking me for help fixing what "so and so" did, meanwhile the work remains complex and the fees smaller and smaller.
Sorry for the long post, had to vent.
No, you're right. When someone is introduced to me as an Architect, I smile and politely say, "I am sorry to hear that." ;-)
good one. my favorite though is when someone says "so and so wants to be an architect" and my response is always "why", or "don't do it".
haven't had this experience at all. i love meeting other architects and love when we can help each other be better connected to the local architecture/arts culture.
maybe it's not universal but just an individual an attitude thing?
camaraderie with other architects is a big part of the joy i get in this profession (because, no, it certainly doesn't help get work).
i love you guys.
i like architects, i am usually enthusiastic and some take it as if i want something from them and start to act like they are more than what they are and competitive. it lasts until i mention i write about this and business cards and office invitations follow but by then it is too late and i am already not interested in insincerity. some who know me already and insecure about their work, completely avoid me perhaps thinking i could be dangerous to their career or question it. and some, who really know me and i know tem, we spend great time talking about and laughing about life and things other than architecture. so it is hard to say they are all the same... but mostly a lot of insecure people and professional egomaniacs.
one of the first questions are;
do work for somebody or for yourself? (to gage your finances)
where is your office and where do you live? (to gage your financial success)
for which publications you write for? (to gage your power)
how do you know so and so? (to gage your social standing and if you are a worthy chat)
what do you think about so and so's building? (to gage that if you are a friend or foe)
I don't discriminate. I'm hostile to everybody.
I am not hostile to Architects, just architects.
My main concern writing this post was that there is a competition in this business that ultimately works against the architects and design professionals by putting them in direct competition with firms or individuals that may or may not have the same qualifications or experience in project type, and in this competition ultimately what happens is that fees are lowered regardless of the complexity of the project.
Yes I can argue about the social complexities and those are different from person to person. I am more concerned with the lack of professional ethics in regards to your fellow practitioner and the absolute ineffectiveness of the AIA as a professional organization to protect the fees of the architects.
Like in sports I think there should be a salary cap of sorts where architects should never go below just to get a job, therefore enforcing a cost base for clients to expect to never go below.
I get along with other architects socially but generally I am not in direct business competition with them. There is a difference.
I have definitely met many architects that I don't care for and would prefer never to work with again. I'm basing this on exactly what you just mentioned the people who are extremely full of themselves, are extraordinarily diluted, are gossipers, and judge based on meaningless credentials (i.e. where they went to school, their GPAs, or what kinds of firms they work in).
Trust me, many of the people who were let go in my last firm were these kinds of people who poisoned the atmosphere and were so unpleasant to be around that owners wouldn't think twice about putting them first in the line of fire.
It's bad business anyway. A guy from the last firm I worked at contacted me recently because he was laid off and wanted some kind of reading on how my firm was doing. This person was always hostile towards me, was mean spirited to everyone, and had an extremely bad attitude. Normally I wouldn't have hesitated to tell him to go fuck himself but I didn't want to sink to his level. I just said we weren't hiring (which was the truth).
By the way architect in the context of my post is not capitalized.
This response of I love all architect and everything is always wonderful is a total crock of shit. Do you work? or are you strictly in academics?
i love you, too, steven! I'm with you on this one.
Spoken like a true architecT.
I also really enjoy meeting other people who work in architecture...
I wouldn't say hostile, but some people just have really cold personalities. I figure these people aren't worth my time because if they really loved architecture, they wouldn't care who they talked to about it.
is enforced by law to some extent. the profession has gotten in legal trouble in the past for trying to control how fees are set. check it out.
and i never said everything is always wonderful. it's not at all.
no, i'm not an academic.
no, it's not a crock. i'm serious. (ask liberty bell et al.)
the problems i face on a daily basis seldom have much to do with other architects and architects are almost always the most interesting folks to talk to.
squaresville, you may have a crock of shit in front of you but a lot of us here in the professional world agree with Steven. I love being around other architects, I have lunch regularly with other architects with whom I directly compete in our market, I do whatever I can to help other architects make connections with contractors/suppliers/etc. that I think are the best in the business.
Yes I have met one or two or a dozen other architects who have been conceited and unpleasant and back-stabbing. That's a personality type I don't want to hang around with, be the person an architect, realtor, doctor, mechanic...
I love architects. I've been in the field (academia and practice) for 25 years, and I still love architects.
Hi, Steven!
very cute.
well like i said, maybe i'm wrong, i guess it's just me or the city i am working in. thanks for the input.
squaresville -- you seem to have a chip on your shoulder and only you can remove it.
I too have many, many friends all across the nation who are architects. the vast majority of those are great professionals I've met serving on committees in the AIA. locally, I still have very strong relationships with many people I interned with at a very large firm years ago. These relationships are important to me and they're important to my friends and we never, ever let competitive pressures get in the way of liking each other.
We choose how we look at life. You see at least two different choices on this thread already. If you want to be sour about having relationships with other architects, that's your business. However, I see little value in belittling others here who enjoy each others company and friendship.
This seems to be the result whenever you get the best and brightest people competing in a creative profession. I used to be in 3D computer graphics, video games, and now architecture. People were snarky in art school, and architecture school, esp the visiting jurors
It's the way it is - I just accept it
stone
1. I have not belittled anyone. However I do find it funny that someone has responded to this post with "I love everyone and have never had a problem", I am very surprised to find someone who truly "gets along" with everyone and has never had any issues with anyone ever, or any suspicions. God bless them.
2. If I was not interested in communicating and participating with other architects I would not have joined this site. i joined this site for that exact purpose and that is why I am here.
Perhaps i should have said this differently and not brought in any personal anecdote. Because I am talking about two different things, thinking it was all related.
I think my main point was if you as an architect low bid another architect to get a job, and the low bid is not based on any real and tangible reason like better expertise and therefore quicker delivery of a specific program type, just a low bid to get a job, then you are hurting the rest of us who are honest about their fees and time to complete the job. And I think that is destructive to the profession and i wonder why another architect would be destructive towards the profession. And i began to see patterns where architects are put in these competitive situations that hurt the profession. And how criticism of one another is ingrained from the very beginning of the education.
Not sure why I am being viewed as a total asshole just because I don't admit to loving everyone I meet, but whatever.
As someone who isn't really an architect, I've approached similar situations with similar outcomes.
I think it really comes down to a particular school of thought or an architect's generally philosophy. As someone who is mostly a planner, I also have a decent background in history, art and 'traditional' graphic design. I spent a lot of time in school studying vernacular architecture, domestic architecture et cetera.
I think what style you profess has a big impact on who you are. I think the licensing of architecture has dramatically changed the profession. It makes it difficult to get in, expensive to learn and I've always wondered if the people who are famous for the works from the past would have been able to cut it now. I prefer Beaux-Arts architects-- wonderful people, have a good grip on how culture actually functions, knows actual history and always produce consistently good products across the board.
I've always had a tumultuous relationship professionally with architects though. I guess I'm a bit of dismissive and that makes thing especially rough in trying to work with them on any level. I know people try and do succeed in their own personal endeavors-- I think that's great-- but I don't want to have a pissing match with someone when it comes to disagreement.
I've been in places where I take a site plan or a model and instantly deem it crap. I can't help it. It is crap. Lots of buildings and sites never take in the city around it into any context (better yet, there is no actual city around it which can make a project completely inappropriate). There's a lot of projects that graze over transportation or use inappropriate technology. There's just a lot of things that are ugly... and not even the good kind of ugly. "Real life" a lot of time clashes with the aesthetic of a building (public spaces in particular).
I think it also comes down to what an architect's actual goal is of the building. Is it to make a building? Produce a sizable profit from renting? Do they want to change the world? Do they think they can influence culture? Is there an simpler methodology to achieve the goals?
I prefer architects who just want to make buildings and money. Anyone else trying to do something else usually falls short without a multidisciplinary approach.
By the way contractors complain about underhanded bidding practices all the time. I guess its just the nature of the business.
squaresville, I thought in your initial post that this was the best point you made: that underbidding is a lousy practice that not only directly backstabs a peer but hurts all of us in the long run.
Yes, I have had to clean up the mess of other architects, as well as the messes of contractors who decided they could "design" a solution on their own.
Steven is right, though, about the history: I think it was in the 70s architects were subject to anti-trust legislation as it was believed that we were fixing fees. Which I guess we were - if no one will work for below a certain fee, then I suppose a monopoly exists. This was all before my time, but is history we all should know about (I only know it vaguely - someone else fill in the story better if they would like to, please.)
A personal anecdote: I work in a small market. In this market there are several well-known and fairly sought-after designers, but frankly their work sucks. A typical client doesn't realize it, they just know the designer is used by many people in their social circle so they figure s/he must be good. My partner and I do far superior work, but it makes us look like jerks if we say so to potential clients. Thankfully, we have found that we can succeed on the quality of our work without badmouthing the other guys, or by focusing on how we provide a custom service, craftsmanship, etc. We survive by word of mouth referrals; getting a reputation as a gossip or being mean-spirited can only hurt us.
Steven posted once about the Michael Graves lecture in which Graves spoke about not criticizing the work of your peers if it runs the risk of costing them a job. It was quite gentlemanly, and I agree that I wish our profession could be more civil to one another.
i think a lot of times, a personality trait of an architect is a rather, um, inflated ego
and a lot of times can be negative about most things brought up, or at least, come across as negative
stereotypical or not, that happens a lot
saying something is "a crock of shit" because someone is being positive, is an example of this
architects have a tendancy to take things to the extreme, and a lot of times its to the negative extreme
we are not as tortured as we like to make ourselves out to be
we are not as underpaid as we like to make ourselves to be
i personally love meeting other architects
no, i dont love them all, but i would rather still meet them than not at all
i spent a summer in Italy when in school, and there were about 25 students total on our trip
it was amazing to see the vast majority of them treat the entire experience like a chore
there is a "nothing is ever good enough" attitude that is sometimes common among architects
its similar to the "tortured/ struggling artist" attitude
but in general, it is just a negative personality trait that i have found a lot of architects have
a glass is half empty view of things
you are right though
at times, criticism seems to be ingrained in the profession from the time you are in school
its a shame
we have a really fun job
The vast majority of my friends are architects, and whenever I meet another random architects nine times out of ten we end up geeking out about some aspect of the profession (either good after work bars with nice designs to the pain in the ass that is ACAD '08). It's kinda like when when I meet someone else that that's a comic book geek and when end up talking about that. For me it's usually pleasant to meet other architects because we already have something in common that we are passionate about so the conversations will 9 times out of 10 be pleasant.
Sure I've meet people that are supper arrogant about their designs, or school they went too, etc, etc; but there are arrogant people in any profession, not just this one.
Would it be safe to say that most of the assholes you meet are architects because most of the people you meet are architects?
"A personal anecdote: I work in a small market. In this market there are several well-known and fairly sought-after designers, but frankly their work sucks. A typical client doesn't realize it, they just know the designer is used by many people in their social circle so they figure s/he must be good. My partner and I do far superior work, but it makes us look like jerks if we say so to potential clients. Thankfully, we have found that we can succeed on the quality of our work without badmouthing the other guys, or by focusing on how we provide a custom service, craftsmanship, etc. We survive by word of mouth referrals; getting a reputation as a gossip or being mean-spirited can only hurt us."
Liberty Bell... may I say, "holy shit, that was brilliant?"
Because... Holy shit, that was brilliant! This is the same exact thing that goes on in planning as well. Where I live, developers and planners go hand-in-hand. People buy houses, leases, rental space, buildings from them because other people did as well. It's a never ending loop of this. They all build from a similar mindset and they all end up in the same predicament after a few years. Now that I don't talk and am no longer a barrier to "progress," people ask me why I don't help and accuse me of being callous-- especially since everything has gone to shit and then some. I simply reply with this "Even if I could help, I can't. It's going to be there for a hundred years... that's why building anything is "serious business."
Then I laugh inside and go get drunk.
"A personal anecdote: I work in a small market. In this market there are several well-known and fairly sought-after designers, but frankly their work sucks. A typical client doesn't realize it, they just know the designer is used by many people in their social circle so they figure s/he must be good. My partner and I do far superior work, but it makes us look like jerks if we say so to potential clients. Thankfully, we have found that we can succeed on the quality of our work without badmouthing the other guys, or by focusing on how we provide a custom service, craftsmanship, etc. We survive by word of mouth referrals; getting a reputation as a gossip or being mean-spirited can only hurt us."
Liberty Bell... may I say, "holy shit, that was brilliant?"
Because... Holy shit, that was brilliant! This is the same exact thing that goes on in planning as well. Where I live, developers and planners go hand-in-hand. People buy houses, leases, rental space, buildings from them because other people did as well. It's a never ending loop of this. They all build from a similar mindset and they all end up in the same predicament after a few years. Now that I don't talk and am no longer a barrier to "progress," people ask me why I don't help and accuse me of being callous-- especially since everything has gone to shit and then some. I simply reply with this "Even if I could help, I can't. It's going to be there for a hundred years... that's why building anything is "serious business."
Then I laugh inside and go get drunk.
I met an architecture student once who rated my school against hers, then she asked couple questions in condescending tone. she went on couple more minutes about how her school prepares students successfully for jobs and going to grad school is waste of money hence a dumb move. man,, have anyone you met ever brought up school rankings when you first meet him or her? I almost find that rude and irrelevant.
Except this one encounter, I love meeting other architects, preferably older and seasoned architects. Since i'm a junior I just learn by talking to them.
I am going to do some research about that anti trust issue, have not heard about it. You hit my point exactly, as I do not believe that doctors or lawyers have the same problem as architects do when it comes to the competition taking down the fees for service.
I have no problem with "friendly competition" but not where it lowers fees and gives the client an unfair expectation about the cost and VALUE of our services.
unfortunately i am not sure how much we can control that
we offer a service
if someone can offer the same service for a lower price, we are screwed
but when the client then sees that the same value or the same service is not delivered, that will hurt the other architect more in the long run
repeat business is pretty big with architects
if you dont deliver what you say you will, you will look terrible and lose more business than you gained by claiming a lower fee or unrealistic deliveries
but you are right
that is a problem in our profession it seems
though in this economy, we can hardly be blamed for going after whatever work we can find
marmkid, "we are not as underpaid as we like to make ourselves to be"
I disagree, in general I think architects are extremely underpaid when compared to other professions like doctor and lawyer, and also underpaid within the building and construction industry, especially if you consider the liability and responsibility as well as the scrutiny that our work receives, I am talking about building and zoning departments.
I also think that part of it comes from a general lack of knowledge from the average person about "what it is an architect does exactly", and how complicated the coordination of that work is across a spectrum of variables like construction to financing to legal issues etc. etc. and on top of all that "can you make it beautiful to". i think the average person undervalues the work of the architect and has a hard time understanding where all that money goes especially since they haven't even broken ground on the project yet. On top of that you have some architects making arbitrary bids based on numbers someone else bid and not actual delivery of a project. It hurts other architects and gives the client a bad impression when the architect comes back to ask for more money because they did not take into account the actual cost for project delivery.
Doctors and lawyers do undercut each other all the time. Even nurses and paralegals undercut their respective counterparts.
Doctors and lawyers dish something out that architects don't-- their service is an absolute necessity. Architects use to do more than they do now and architects were rather limited before the train, bicycle and automobile came along-- there was only a handful of uses and a handful of problems and everyone knew what did work or didn't work. Architects, like musicians or chefs or painters, often had a patron or matron to support them. Since America is rather confrontational with formal society and aristocrats, those relationships really no longer exist.
But the necessity here is what is important to point out. Doctors keep you healthy, lawyers keep you free. Architects and their ideas do little for anyone other than the person who commissioned it.
People are using your work as marketing devices-- which is a really complex issue since the role of people and a built environment is a really complex issue in and of itself. I don't see a necessary problem with this but buildings can make people unproductive, unhappy and unhealthy. A marketing device that does more harm than good is no longer really marketable.
I say architects should put their foot down and stop building single-use single-purpose automotive-dependent projects. Stop trying to make lofty goals with your projects-- your cool little public space that you made is useless because it ignores that people like to drink, puke, fuck, shit and sleep in them. If you want to take your projects and make them legitimate, don't pander to the top 10% of society who is going to use them.
It'll cost you money but if more architects could make more projects that showed they are a necessity to people and are a necessity to economy... you could probably end up charging 800 bucks an hour (like a good lawyer) if you can make that guarantee.
that may be true, but i am talking about the attitude that architects make little to no money at all
the whole "woe is me" i have an architects salary
our work may be undervalued to a degree, but we are not some sacrificial lambs who give up a decent salary for our work
extremely underpaid though?
i dont know about that
i made a very nice salary coming out of school, and there is a continual growth after that (in a normal economy)
a very common complaint from architects is that we dont make enough money
yet we like to compare ourselves to doctors and lawyers only
i would say there are some very unrealistic expectations as to what architects should make
if you expect to be a millionaire guaranteed, that probably wont happen
if you are making no money at all and cant get by, (in a normal economy), then you are doing something wrong
architects can make an excellent living, yet continuously like to claim they are "suffering" with the salaries they make
again
an extreme, negative view on things that isnt entirely accurate
like RockandHill just said
architects are not the only profession where there are competing prices for their work
that happens in EVERY profession where you provide a service
i am not sure why architects think theirs is the only one where there is competition for the work, and that occasionally, someone will offer an extreme lower price to get the work
the entitlement towards winning jobs is part of the ego of an architect, and it helps us work better and hard and more creatively
but when we dont win jobs, lets move past the finger-pointing
yes, sometimes an architect will offer a lower fee to do a job that they cant deliver on
but sometimes, an architect will offer a lower fee and actually perform the work well
i would say its very debatable to say that is wrong
I haven't read all the posts, but the hostility maybe entirely geographic, in the northeast competition and just people in general are a lot more brutal than in the rest of the country it seems.
that could very well be
i have spent most of my life in the northeast, and have seen a lot of the hostility mentioned
The reason you feel hostile for the way you were introduced is because you got blindsided. When you, an architect, goes somewhere you can be fairly certain that you will be the only one. It makes you special. Then you find out there is another one and he/she is being directed right towards you. Now you have to compete. At whatever level. When you go to a function where other architects are you know what you are getting into so you don't have that loss of feeling special.
Of course I don't ever feel this way. I'm not only an architect but I am a Marine. So unless the other architect was also in the Corps and has better war stories than I do, he/she is ass out.
: here ya go:
The AIA has been a respected professional organization for many years, but it has not been without controversy.
In 1866, an architect sued a client for not paying a bill, which led to the AIA's first standardized fee of 5% of construction cost. Because of the increase in technical knowledge and liability that was being required of architects, it raised its standard fee to 6% in 1908.
Its members were not allowed to advertise, to offer free services, to be a building contractor, or to competitively bid for a project. Members who did not stick to the rules fell out of favor with the AIA.
This practice continued until 1971 when the Justice Department announced its plans to sue the AIA for what they believed to be restraint of trade, a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
In 1972 the AIA decided to enter into a consent decree rather than fight the Justice Department.
A lawsuit by the Justice Department against the Virginia Bar Association on similar grounds determined that using standardized fee schedules amounted to price fixing.
In 1984, after the recession brought construction and the architectural profession to a near halt, the Chicago Chapter of the AIA decided to issue a compensation and fee policy statement, a violation of the consent decree.
Unfortunately, the Chicago Chapter printed and distributed the statement to its members before it realized its infraction.
The Justice Department came down hard on the AIA. This time it subpoenaed members, confiscated files, required members to testify before a grand jury, and threatened some with the prospect of criminal prosecution. Eventually, the case was settled by issuing a second consent decree, which stated that it would refrain from rules that would prevent members from submitting competitive bids, providing discounts, or providing free services.
As a result of the second decree, the architectural profession has changed drastically over the past 15 years, though some changes were slow in being accepted. Many architects did not advertise their services until just a few years ago, and there are still some who would never consider doing so.
The Sensitive Issue of Fees -- The 1990 Consent Decree
well i am an architect and my birthday was last week...does that mean that you are now "ass out"?
haha i am assuming that was all in good fun
i'd certainly say that competition amongst graphic designers is pretty fierce. especially these days. these days there seem to be no rules to bidding for work. we have lost several jobs we were bidding on. we wrote proposals that acknowledged the times that everyone is in right now, provide a fair but lower fee than we would have charged a year ago and still did not get the jobs. it's can be frustrating, but you have to learn and move on.
we also see the interviewing process and decision making process take much longer. our potential clients are just as nervous as everyone else. they want to make sure that their money will be well spent wisely. i fault none of the parties, my peers or my potential clients, that are part of this process. we all just have to work not only smarter but harder.
"there are no points for second best"
marmkid,
I have never heard of a doctor or lawyer having problems with competitive bidding and further more most people really don't care what it costs to see a doctor so long as their insurance covers it. In this case the doctor's fee is subsidized by the health insurance industry, a practice that is filled with fraud and waste and has artificially inflated the cost of decent healthcare for the average american.
Of course architects look to lawyers and doctors when doing a salary comparison due to the fact that they are all basically similar in the level of school required and the level of professional development and the requirement of a state license to practice.
hey your right, I work for a small firm and we won jobs against larger firms because our bid was lower due to the smaller staff and less overhead, mostly because this project was too small for them to perform efficiently. This is a positive example that helps the client get the right person for the job. But when an architect bids for a project that they do not understand, like laboratory space, which has very specific requirements even though in this case it still was a business occupancy, that person has a lower bid that does not take into account the complexity of the job, and eventually will cause problems for the client as well as hurt someone qualified to take the job. is it wrong, well like you say its not, its not illegal but it does hurt the profession, has nothing to do with hurt ego. but that client will leave the process with a diminished opinion of the integrity of the profession.
not sure why you think I am finger pointing, and some people have brought up ego issues as well, that is not my point.
rockhill
"But the necessity here is what is important to point out. Doctors keep you healthy, lawyers keep you free. Architects and their ideas do little for anyone other than the person who commissioned it."
Out of curiosity why are you on this site, it is a site for architects and people who are affiliated, but you just seem kind of anti-architect. As far as blaming architects for all the ills of society I think that is a discussion for another post. What was your background again?
thank you stone, i was unaware of this.
doctors and lawyers are usually hired when immediate service is required otherwise death or legal problems will come about
that is a lot different than the construction industry
it really is comparing apples and oranges, and again, these are not the only 3 professions where you have to go to school a little longer or have to get a license
how long do you need to be in medical school and your residency before you are a doctor?
is it more than the 5 years in school and then 3 years to sit for your exams?
doctors and lawyers are required to do all those things or they really cant work
an architect doesnt need his license to work, or at least, he isnt as limited as a doctor or lawyer is
I didnt mean you specifically with my comments about ego
i was talking about the attitude i have come across with architects in general
but i am not sure i really get this though
are people losing jobs left and right because other architects are low-bidding them that much?
i am not in a position at my firm where my responsibility is to bring in work so i dont have much experience in that department
are firms losing jobs to other firms because they are not offering competitive bids, or because other firms are constantly offering fees that dont even cover the cost of the work?
or is this a case of potential sour grapes over lost job opportunities?
i think a firm should offer what their work is worth and what is needed to complete the job sufficiently and to make a profit
that can be different for different firms, it doesnt always mean someone is screwing someone else over
"rockhill - "But the necessity here is what is important to point out. Doctors keep you healthy, lawyers keep you free. Architects and their ideas do little for anyone other than the person who commissioned it."
Out of curiosity why are you on this site, it is a site for architects and people who are affiliated, but you just seem kind of anti-architect. As far as blaming architects for all the ills of society I think that is a discussion for another post. What was your background again?"
By and large, rockhill is correct - are you unaware of this?
I am not at all intimidated by other architects who low-ball fees. I run my business efficiently, do strong work, delivery attentive and high quality services, pay my employees more than competitive wages and make a decent profit.
There's always going to be another firm out there who will quote lower fees ... there's nothing I can do about the other guy. If asked to meet or beat a fee I don't think is fair, I tender my apologies and walk away.
All I can control is what my firm does. As long as we do our work well, don't waste time and keep the quality high, I'm more than confident that a) we'll continue to get our fair share of the work at fair prices; and b) the low-ball artist either will go out of business because he can't deliver at the fees he's charging or the client's going to realize that the "value" promised with those low fees just isn't there.
Stop worrying about the other guy ... concentrate on what you do and be sure to do it well. Focus on delivering "value" not low prices ... in the long run, you'll do fine. Clients who just want a low fee are not the basis on which to build a practice. Find clients who understand what you really have to offer and build relationships there.
What's happening in this economy right now is not about competition between design firms. There's just not enough work to go around and there's not going to be enough work until the banks start lending again.
I a cant believe i am on archinect debating the value "architects" and their ideas. The services provided by lawyers and doctors are important, no doubt, the need for those services is immediate, meaning when you need it you need it right at the moment.
We can go into a debate regarding the influence of the built environment on the psyche, the research done on this is substantial and supports the importance of healthy cities, buildings etc. However it is a subconscious effect and one who's effect is gradual over time. But the need is just as great, if you don't understand that you should not be on this site or you just don't pay that much attention to the real world.
so this is where the hostility part of this thread comes in i guess
NO ONE here argued that an architect doesnt have value or that the built environment doesnt have influence or importance on the psyche
if you think designing a building is equivilant to giving someone medical help, then maybe you "just dont pay that much attention to the real world"
they are very clearly two vastly different things and are only connected by your viewing more than a 4 year degree and holding a license as meaning they both are similar
i am not sure why you started a thread here
did you want an actual discussion, or did you just want everyone to sympathize with you and join in on your complaining?
because by insulting the posters here, it doesnt sound like you wanted an actual conversation
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.