the majority of my friendships were made in architecture school and so whenever a group of us gets together the conversation sometimes revolves around work which bores me to death!
see, the funny thing to me reading through this post is that there is too much black and white going on - the world is all grey...
personally, i have plenty of architect friends. hell, even lb agreed to be my facebook friend. at a prebid for a 20M job that everyone in town (as well as a few around the country) are going to be fiercely competitive on, i'm still saying hi to a lot of friends in the community - in many ways it's the only time i get to see anyone these days. point being, i think this is one of the more genuinely collegial professions there is. sure, there are going to be assholes who are hypercompetitive. there were enough of those types at the meeting yesterday. i just ignore them - isn't that what we generally do in our lives anyway?
second - as noted above, just about every profession bids on work except the non-elective medical field (you better believe the lasik, plastic surgery, etc. fields compete and advertise on fee). who cares? fee is just a link to value. if you can demonstrate superior value, then you've got a client who is focused less on fee. (and squaresville, you're right to a degree - our problem and hidden blessing is that we've tried to sell the primary value of design in artistic, subjective terms. the problem is, every other profession mostly trades in more objective, quantifiable benefits).
trust me, we've gotten more work than we probably deserve being the highest fee in the room. but you know what? those clients keep calling us back because we deliver a value that far exceeds what they're used to getting. people will pay for a mercedes. they just don't want to pay that much and get a vw. you have to decide who you want to be.
lastly - you can be a millionaire in this profession. stop thinking like an artist and think like an entrepreneur. quit your subscription to record and pick up fast company. read made to stick, go out and develop an idea that scale up to something bigger than a single building and you can make money doing this. you don't have to be rem or frank or someone in that stratosphere, nor do you have to sell your soul doing mass housing. just be as innovative about the business of yourself as you are in creating buildings.
I did not think I was being hostile, nor insulting, sorry you felt that way. I posted on here because I was free to do so just as you are free not to respond.
I do believe the work done by doctors or lawyers is equivalent to the work done by architects, again the scale of time may not be as immediate, but it is vital. Again not really prepared to debate that, just thought it was something assumed and understood on a discussion board full of so called architects. But if i come across anything on the web i will let you know so you can read up on it.
Architects take an oath to protect health safety and welfare of the public, it is as vital to society that architects practice this philosophy as doctors are to repair the injured. We may not notice this in the USA due to the fact that we have relatively strict building regulations and requirements that prevent deaths. Again these are basic points I did not think I had to go back to it.
Do me a favor, i mean this with all due respect, just as an experiment, tomorrow at work ask your boss, not supervisor but ask a partner or owner at your firm or ask the accountant if they think that architects in general are paid fairly relative to their education, liability and expertise required to do the job and if they feel that architects sometimes hurt the profession as whole by lowballing fees.
Maybe Im wrong, I do all right, it's been a tough year, but I can afford to keep the lights on. Again this is no specific incident I am not on here looking for sympathy or anything I just generally see certain aspects of this profession as hostile and not helpful to everyones bottom line wallet. And generally i have not been convinced otherwise. Again my post was not "do you like other architects" it was more about if the profession sometimes contributes negatively to the ability for architects to charge higher, better, more accurate fees.
"I do believe the work done by doctors or lawyers is equivalent to the work done by architects, again the scale of time may not be as immediate, but it is vital. Again not really prepared to debate that, just thought it was something assumed and understood on a discussion board full of so called architects. But if i come across anything on the web i will let you know so you can read up on it."
I dont want to harp on about this, but, this statement would be true if all building work was designed by and the responsibility of architects. It doesnt. Therefore there is no equivalence - particularly with the medical profession [i.e. you can legally represent yourself in some cases so it is not an absolute].
Generally, I'm with outed on this. And Architects are people. Some I like, some I could do without.
"lastly - you can be a millionaire in this profession. stop thinking like an artist and think like an entrepreneur. quit your subscription to record and pick up fast company. read made to stick, go out and develop an idea that scale up to something bigger than a single building and you can make money doing this."
vs.
"Architects take an oath to protect health safety and welfare of the public, it is as vital to society that architects practice this philosophy as doctors are to repair the injured. We may not notice this in the USA due to the fact that we have relatively strict building regulations and requirements that prevent deaths. Again these are basic points I did not think I had to go back to it."
Paradox. The problem with this is that while architects think little romantic details can really make a building, I agree in an art sense they can, other nuances can literally destroy a building. Architects need necessity and objectivity. Comparing an architect to a doctor is ludicrous. There is nothing about the architecture profession where immediate action is ever required (well, maybe FEMA trailers but look how that worked out).
Architects can build beautiful things, no argument. But when you talk about a building's relationship to the community and build it 20 miles away and put an acre of asphalt next to it, you have lost all credibility. The problem with a "portion" or architects is they don't envision the kind of society that once was or "should" be. There's to much pervasive "American Dream" built into most projects. The upcoming generation could give two shits about buildings with views or something with "neighborhood" feeling or another shithole suburban sprawl mess.
Trust me, I've talked to these people, I am one of these people and few under the age of 25 want anything to do with this. We've literally seen the world disappear in front of our eyes. The older generation said they wanted to give us something better. Like all well-intention-but-god-awful christmas gifts we were suppose to be gracious for-- but never asked for-- we politely say "thank you" and hide it in a box and slip it under the fiberglass insulation in the attic.
This is the objectivity architecture lacks. Other people are replacing you and doing so in a much more profitable and accountable method. Some firms have adapted. Some firms are branching out. But ultimately, anyone with a computer, a library and access to an electronic journal database can really see what a white elephant the previous generation's American Landscape really is.
If architects want to be taken serious and wanted to be treated like lawyers, they need to build for everyone... past, present and in the future. Futurism is nice but the reality is we're not going to have enough electrical power to make any of it possible.
i feel like this point has come up 77 times in other posts...
if we stress the objective side and jealously protect the intellectual turf - the objective, concrete science of building - from any and all comers (the engineers, the interiors people, etc.), then we'll become as indispensable as and get paid closer to what the doctors and lawyers do. right now, though, if you try to represent yourself as a doctor and get caught, your ass is in jail. you get caught impersonating an architect and you get to host a home improvement show.
i'm a die hard believer in the art of what we do, but what we do is not art. we should have listened to adolf loos 80 years ago. if we do, we'll begin to get that turf back. if not, you may as well call us set decorators.
what i'm surprised with is no one here is furious at what brokers make compared to us. 6% on the finished product? that s*** is highway robbery. seriously, i've used that as a defense when suggesting my fee should be 10% of the construction cost alone (by myself, not including my engineers) and it's worked once. never with the government clients...
in the end, i hate to say this, but tradition carries a lot of weight in fee assessments. we're not much higher as a percentage of construction costs than we were in 1908. you want to know what's holding us back? partly, it's ourselves, mostly it's the burdens of the fathers...
every profession hurts itself when others lowball offers for their services, why do we think architects are so special that we should be above this? i dont need to ask the owner of my firm if thats the case. i could ask the owner of a car dealership if the other dealership is lowering the profit of everyone by lowering his prices. the answer would be the same
thats a pretty basic point and i am surprised someone thinks architects and architecture in general is above this
i am not sure why you think people dont understand what you are saying
its funny though, even "so-called" architects can probably understand when they are being talked down to
"Architects take an oath to protect health safety and welfare of the public, it is as vital to society that architects practice this philosophy as doctors are to repair the injured."
again, no one is arguing that architects have a responsibility to the public with their work, i dont know why you think anyone disagrees. i didnt realize we took an actual oath, but i am not licensed yet so i wouldnt know.
but we dont carry nearly the same level of liability as doctors do, considering the fact that our work is shared with and reviewed by and checked over and then executed by others. others share in the liability, some with equal shares.
doesnt make either more or less important to society
it is just different
do you equate contractors with doctors?
contractors bid out their work and have competing bids
i am pretty sure it is in their contract to build to those same health and safety and welfare standards for the public
and i am sure if they mess up, they will get a good amount of the blame as well, either for not following the drawings or potentially not picking up something left out
it is just really weird to think architects and doctors are the same thing
yes :( architects are very hostile and don't work together to raise the level of income and respect for the profession. But we do work in part for our own enjoyment.
In the banking industry, your title starts out as associate, then in 2 years , VP of something or other.. and the salary pretty much starts fresh out of school in the six figures...
but then, architects have much nicer time doing drawings and getting some real sense of accomplishment from our work. Much of what we get personally out of work is the work itself. Many of the people in the banking industry are people who started out in one career, and then went back to school giving up a career doing actual work for a career concentrated solely of getting money. Architects are more ethical and virtuous than many other professions. But in this economy, maybe we should put some effort in just trying to survive finacially. Didn't I.M. Pei say "I am pay, not I am free!" :))
In the banking industry, your title starts out as associate, then in 2 years , VP of something or other.. and the salary pretty much starts fresh out of school in the six figures...
I don't know about that anymore.
Many of the people in the banking industry are people who started out in one career, and then went back to school giving up a career doing actual work for a career concentrated solely of getting money.
A career concentrated solely on making money is not necessarily unethical, particularly if you put that money to work doing good for others or for society as a whole. If I had it to do over again, I would have gone to undergrad for some profession that had six figure starting salaries, worked for 5 years stockpiling cash, and then used that money to take a more entrepreneurial approach toward practicing architecture. I don't see that as a bad thing.
Architects are more ethical and virtuous than many other professions.
"Didn't I.M. Pei say "I am pay, not I am free!" :)) "
haha
"Architects are more ethical and virtuous than many other professions."
i think we like to think we are, but i dont think that is really true at all
sure, we arent shifty used car salesmen
but we are not volunteer workers or greenpeace or whatever else who work solely for the greater good
this is where i find the ego coming into play sometimes with architects
we have a certain artistic aspect to our work that we find a little more important than it actually is to anyone else
if we were more ethical and virtuous than other professions, we wouldnt constantly complain about how much we get paid
I'm an architect; I'm married to an architect, and my three best friends are architects. Past significant other was an architect; past-past SO too. Oops!
Either I like architects or I'm just a masochist. Where's my black outfit and my Pei glasses?
The profession of architecture is rooted in overtime, poor pay, little recognition outside of our peer group and brutal competitiveness.
I was watching a competition on robot design at MIT and when the final 2 contestants were having their projects judged the panel declated a "doublie win" as both were equally good. The crowd and all the competitors cheered as a "double win" is seen as better than only 1 person being declared a sole victor.
Could you imagine this in architecture school? Someone would have been stabbed with a sharpie in our studio if this happend.
As a profession we need to do a better job of taking care of our own kind (better pay for interns!) and fostering a growth approach to our profession.
I often get the vibe that architects think that "the fewer of us there are the more work there will be for me". Inheriently this is flawed logic becuase someone will do the work and there is already a limited supply of architects in the US.
Consider the law profession: The state of Michigan has 20,000+ lawyers while nationally, there are less than 150,000 licensed architects.
If we pay recent grads better and work toward strengthing the profession as a whole, we will all reap the benifits.
: please explain how, by paying recent grads "better", the whole profession as going to benefit?
You write your post above as though the profession - across the board - exploits recent graduates in a manipulative, deceitful manner. You also seem to suggest that there need be no relationship whatsoever between pay and productivity.
Productivity comes from knowing how to do stuff, and actually doing stuff, that results in revenues and profits to the firm. Simply paying interns more, without a commensurate boost in productivity, only worsens the economics in an industry already beset by poor economics. The interns may be better off (for a short while) but the industry as a whole goes down the toilet even faster. We can't just raise our fees because we would like to pay our interns more.
I don't necessarily believe the industry pays recent graduates inappropriately. Firms must invest huge amounts of time and effort teaching recent graduates how buildings go together and other basic technical skills that the schools ignore. It takes years after graduation for most recent grads to learn enough to actually make a contribution across a wide swath of professional practice. If students start demanding that their schools actually teach them marketable skills (as is the case in medical school and law school) then I'm sure the firms would be willing to pay higher wages to obtain the higher productivity.
As an aside, I recently came across a "purchasing power" calculator on the web. I entered my starting wage ($3.50 / hour) when I entered the profession in the early 70s. This calculator determined that an equivalent wage, in 2008 purchasing power, would be $18.00 per hour, or about $37,440 in base salary. Most salary surveys I read suggest that the median starting salaries for recent grads with a professional degree are slightly higher than that number. My firm actually pays considerably higher rates for entering grads. It doesn't look to me that entering professionals have lost any ground at all over the past 35+ years.
packaging engineering seems a bit more specialized
maybe that is why its so quick to get to the high salary
their salaries really doubled within 24 months?
not bad
not exactly sure what packaging engineering is though, so i dont think my job satisfaction would be as high
if you are an architect doing it just for the money and for a high salary, you will probably be disappointed
"I have no fricking grudge.....I promise.....you young buggers are going to replace me....and I will go to architect heaven....or be living on the street which is not much different than what I'm doing now.
dance with all your 3-d progams...and bim oh lay... my time will come to walk out the door....when I'm done designing for clients
who need a personal touch...till then F**k off.
snook_dude, you seem like an older architect.. what impact do you think that separating the construction industry from the architecture profession has impacted quality of design and of profit over the years?
I thought the first part of the initial post was more interesting - the second part is basic capitalism...
I am not drawn to other architects - infact, I am repeled (all my friends are architecture drop outs and artists, btw) ...And after reading this string I begin to understand why...When I leave the office I want to rid myself of all the neurosis and anal retentiveness ASAP...(I admit to being quite obsessive myself, however) - it may simply be a difference of opinion or values, but meeting other architects just reminds me of all the frustration at work and all of the points of view that deny my vision of an otherwise ideal career...
There is simply so much emotion, energy, hope, and information (intangible fluffy stuff too) to exchange when you meet a peer that I'd rather not put myself through it...Hell, I'm young, I'm working on it...Gotta network ya know.
I project the level of hostileness based on the color of his/her outfit. The hostilest awards to those who wear black all the time, and it is usually right as it turns out.
As a rule of thumb, it applies to male architects more accurately than the other way around.
Aren't there more architects wearing black than other professions??
as an urban designer who was trained as an architect (and who intends to return to an architecture firm and get licensed in the not too distant future....) i have been on the receiving end of many a raised eyebrow when someone says "oh come meet atsama, she's an architect too" and then when asked I saw "well I'm working in the urban design group at my firm" and they basically imply that i must be doing that not because i actually love it and am talented....but b/c i must suck at REAL architecture!!
Most of my architectural professional experience is in England with half of my higher education taking place there as well although I am a New Yorker. I found that the RIBA and the ARB has its good points and they do a decent job in protecting the industry, establishing documents that clients can get alike to see whether or not someone is actually bidding a fair price, etc. The one thing I absolutely love about architecture in England is that the term 'Architect' is protected and it is illegal for anyone to use the term if they are not registered with the ARB.
I know it is hard to find work and let alone stay true to the value you believe is fair - that is why I have diversified my portfolio essentially splitting between architectural commissions and graphic design commissions. I also push for competition work and pro bono work to keep my name out there!
I found that many people are hung up on the education, status, etc. I'm concerned with efficiency, progress, creativity and above all honesty!
Architects are hostile to each other?
"I a cant believe i am on archinect debating the value "architects" and their ideas."
You obviously havent been here that long...
i generallly like architects, however...
the majority of my friendships were made in architecture school and so whenever a group of us gets together the conversation sometimes revolves around work which bores me to death!
see, the funny thing to me reading through this post is that there is too much black and white going on - the world is all grey...
personally, i have plenty of architect friends. hell, even lb agreed to be my facebook friend. at a prebid for a 20M job that everyone in town (as well as a few around the country) are going to be fiercely competitive on, i'm still saying hi to a lot of friends in the community - in many ways it's the only time i get to see anyone these days. point being, i think this is one of the more genuinely collegial professions there is. sure, there are going to be assholes who are hypercompetitive. there were enough of those types at the meeting yesterday. i just ignore them - isn't that what we generally do in our lives anyway?
second - as noted above, just about every profession bids on work except the non-elective medical field (you better believe the lasik, plastic surgery, etc. fields compete and advertise on fee). who cares? fee is just a link to value. if you can demonstrate superior value, then you've got a client who is focused less on fee. (and squaresville, you're right to a degree - our problem and hidden blessing is that we've tried to sell the primary value of design in artistic, subjective terms. the problem is, every other profession mostly trades in more objective, quantifiable benefits).
trust me, we've gotten more work than we probably deserve being the highest fee in the room. but you know what? those clients keep calling us back because we deliver a value that far exceeds what they're used to getting. people will pay for a mercedes. they just don't want to pay that much and get a vw. you have to decide who you want to be.
lastly - you can be a millionaire in this profession. stop thinking like an artist and think like an entrepreneur. quit your subscription to record and pick up fast company. read made to stick, go out and develop an idea that scale up to something bigger than a single building and you can make money doing this. you don't have to be rem or frank or someone in that stratosphere, nor do you have to sell your soul doing mass housing. just be as innovative about the business of yourself as you are in creating buildings.
I did not think I was being hostile, nor insulting, sorry you felt that way. I posted on here because I was free to do so just as you are free not to respond.
I do believe the work done by doctors or lawyers is equivalent to the work done by architects, again the scale of time may not be as immediate, but it is vital. Again not really prepared to debate that, just thought it was something assumed and understood on a discussion board full of so called architects. But if i come across anything on the web i will let you know so you can read up on it.
Architects take an oath to protect health safety and welfare of the public, it is as vital to society that architects practice this philosophy as doctors are to repair the injured. We may not notice this in the USA due to the fact that we have relatively strict building regulations and requirements that prevent deaths. Again these are basic points I did not think I had to go back to it.
Do me a favor, i mean this with all due respect, just as an experiment, tomorrow at work ask your boss, not supervisor but ask a partner or owner at your firm or ask the accountant if they think that architects in general are paid fairly relative to their education, liability and expertise required to do the job and if they feel that architects sometimes hurt the profession as whole by lowballing fees.
Maybe Im wrong, I do all right, it's been a tough year, but I can afford to keep the lights on. Again this is no specific incident I am not on here looking for sympathy or anything I just generally see certain aspects of this profession as hostile and not helpful to everyones bottom line wallet. And generally i have not been convinced otherwise. Again my post was not "do you like other architects" it was more about if the profession sometimes contributes negatively to the ability for architects to charge higher, better, more accurate fees.
outed, thanks you echoed something stone said before, good advice.
"I do believe the work done by doctors or lawyers is equivalent to the work done by architects, again the scale of time may not be as immediate, but it is vital. Again not really prepared to debate that, just thought it was something assumed and understood on a discussion board full of so called architects. But if i come across anything on the web i will let you know so you can read up on it."
I dont want to harp on about this, but, this statement would be true if all building work was designed by and the responsibility of architects. It doesnt. Therefore there is no equivalence - particularly with the medical profession [i.e. you can legally represent yourself in some cases so it is not an absolute].
Generally, I'm with outed on this. And Architects are people. Some I like, some I could do without.
"lastly - you can be a millionaire in this profession. stop thinking like an artist and think like an entrepreneur. quit your subscription to record and pick up fast company. read made to stick, go out and develop an idea that scale up to something bigger than a single building and you can make money doing this."
vs.
"Architects take an oath to protect health safety and welfare of the public, it is as vital to society that architects practice this philosophy as doctors are to repair the injured. We may not notice this in the USA due to the fact that we have relatively strict building regulations and requirements that prevent deaths. Again these are basic points I did not think I had to go back to it."
Paradox. The problem with this is that while architects think little romantic details can really make a building, I agree in an art sense they can, other nuances can literally destroy a building. Architects need necessity and objectivity. Comparing an architect to a doctor is ludicrous. There is nothing about the architecture profession where immediate action is ever required (well, maybe FEMA trailers but look how that worked out).
Why the world doesn't need architects?
Structural engineer + Real Estate Agent = Architect
Planner + Contractor = Architect
Planner + Structural Engineer + Civil Engineer = High-Rise Architect
Urban Designer + Civil Engineer + Arborist = Landscape Architect
Planner + Civil Engineer + Structural Engineer + Real Estate Agent = One-stop-and-shop Firm
Architects can build beautiful things, no argument. But when you talk about a building's relationship to the community and build it 20 miles away and put an acre of asphalt next to it, you have lost all credibility. The problem with a "portion" or architects is they don't envision the kind of society that once was or "should" be. There's to much pervasive "American Dream" built into most projects. The upcoming generation could give two shits about buildings with views or something with "neighborhood" feeling or another shithole suburban sprawl mess.
Trust me, I've talked to these people, I am one of these people and few under the age of 25 want anything to do with this. We've literally seen the world disappear in front of our eyes. The older generation said they wanted to give us something better. Like all well-intention-but-god-awful christmas gifts we were suppose to be gracious for-- but never asked for-- we politely say "thank you" and hide it in a box and slip it under the fiberglass insulation in the attic.
This is the objectivity architecture lacks. Other people are replacing you and doing so in a much more profitable and accountable method. Some firms have adapted. Some firms are branching out. But ultimately, anyone with a computer, a library and access to an electronic journal database can really see what a white elephant the previous generation's American Landscape really is.
If architects want to be taken serious and wanted to be treated like lawyers, they need to build for everyone... past, present and in the future. Futurism is nice but the reality is we're not going to have enough electrical power to make any of it possible.
i feel like this point has come up 77 times in other posts...
if we stress the objective side and jealously protect the intellectual turf - the objective, concrete science of building - from any and all comers (the engineers, the interiors people, etc.), then we'll become as indispensable as and get paid closer to what the doctors and lawyers do. right now, though, if you try to represent yourself as a doctor and get caught, your ass is in jail. you get caught impersonating an architect and you get to host a home improvement show.
i'm a die hard believer in the art of what we do, but what we do is not art. we should have listened to adolf loos 80 years ago. if we do, we'll begin to get that turf back. if not, you may as well call us set decorators.
what i'm surprised with is no one here is furious at what brokers make compared to us. 6% on the finished product? that s*** is highway robbery. seriously, i've used that as a defense when suggesting my fee should be 10% of the construction cost alone (by myself, not including my engineers) and it's worked once. never with the government clients...
in the end, i hate to say this, but tradition carries a lot of weight in fee assessments. we're not much higher as a percentage of construction costs than we were in 1908. you want to know what's holding us back? partly, it's ourselves, mostly it's the burdens of the fathers...
every profession hurts itself when others lowball offers for their services, why do we think architects are so special that we should be above this? i dont need to ask the owner of my firm if thats the case. i could ask the owner of a car dealership if the other dealership is lowering the profit of everyone by lowering his prices. the answer would be the same
thats a pretty basic point and i am surprised someone thinks architects and architecture in general is above this
i am not sure why you think people dont understand what you are saying
its funny though, even "so-called" architects can probably understand when they are being talked down to
"Architects take an oath to protect health safety and welfare of the public, it is as vital to society that architects practice this philosophy as doctors are to repair the injured."
again, no one is arguing that architects have a responsibility to the public with their work, i dont know why you think anyone disagrees. i didnt realize we took an actual oath, but i am not licensed yet so i wouldnt know.
but we dont carry nearly the same level of liability as doctors do, considering the fact that our work is shared with and reviewed by and checked over and then executed by others. others share in the liability, some with equal shares.
doesnt make either more or less important to society
it is just different
do you equate contractors with doctors?
contractors bid out their work and have competing bids
i am pretty sure it is in their contract to build to those same health and safety and welfare standards for the public
and i am sure if they mess up, they will get a good amount of the blame as well, either for not following the drawings or potentially not picking up something left out
it is just really weird to think architects and doctors are the same thing
yes :( architects are very hostile and don't work together to raise the level of income and respect for the profession. But we do work in part for our own enjoyment.
In the banking industry, your title starts out as associate, then in 2 years , VP of something or other.. and the salary pretty much starts fresh out of school in the six figures...
but then, architects have much nicer time doing drawings and getting some real sense of accomplishment from our work. Much of what we get personally out of work is the work itself. Many of the people in the banking industry are people who started out in one career, and then went back to school giving up a career doing actual work for a career concentrated solely of getting money. Architects are more ethical and virtuous than many other professions. But in this economy, maybe we should put some effort in just trying to survive finacially. Didn't I.M. Pei say "I am pay, not I am free!" :))
IM Pei started rich
This is why I stick to architectural blogs.
i like myself, is that bad?
i like myself, is that bad?
I don't know about that anymore.
Many of the people in the banking industry are people who started out in one career, and then went back to school giving up a career doing actual work for a career concentrated solely of getting money.
A career concentrated solely on making money is not necessarily unethical, particularly if you put that money to work doing good for others or for society as a whole. If I had it to do over again, I would have gone to undergrad for some profession that had six figure starting salaries, worked for 5 years stockpiling cash, and then used that money to take a more entrepreneurial approach toward practicing architecture. I don't see that as a bad thing.
Architects are more ethical and virtuous than many other professions.
News to me.
"Didn't I.M. Pei say "I am pay, not I am free!" :)) "
haha
"Architects are more ethical and virtuous than many other professions."
i think we like to think we are, but i dont think that is really true at all
sure, we arent shifty used car salesmen
but we are not volunteer workers or greenpeace or whatever else who work solely for the greater good
this is where i find the ego coming into play sometimes with architects
we have a certain artistic aspect to our work that we find a little more important than it actually is to anyone else
if we were more ethical and virtuous than other professions, we wouldnt constantly complain about how much we get paid
i would like to complain about how much all you other damned architects are being paid.
I'm an architect; I'm married to an architect, and my three best friends are architects. Past significant other was an architect; past-past SO too. Oops!
Either I like architects or I'm just a masochist. Where's my black outfit and my Pei glasses?
you have a turtleneck?
oh, i have a moleskine, does that make me a horrible person?
only if you wear red socks too
The profession of architecture is rooted in overtime, poor pay, little recognition outside of our peer group and brutal competitiveness.
I was watching a competition on robot design at MIT and when the final 2 contestants were having their projects judged the panel declated a "doublie win" as both were equally good. The crowd and all the competitors cheered as a "double win" is seen as better than only 1 person being declared a sole victor.
Could you imagine this in architecture school? Someone would have been stabbed with a sharpie in our studio if this happend.
As a profession we need to do a better job of taking care of our own kind (better pay for interns!) and fostering a growth approach to our profession.
I often get the vibe that architects think that "the fewer of us there are the more work there will be for me". Inheriently this is flawed logic becuase someone will do the work and there is already a limited supply of architects in the US.
Consider the law profession: The state of Michigan has 20,000+ lawyers while nationally, there are less than 150,000 licensed architects.
If we pay recent grads better and work toward strengthing the profession as a whole, we will all reap the benifits.
I suppose this makes me a socialist.
: please explain how, by paying recent grads "better", the whole profession as going to benefit?
You write your post above as though the profession - across the board - exploits recent graduates in a manipulative, deceitful manner. You also seem to suggest that there need be no relationship whatsoever between pay and productivity.
Productivity comes from knowing how to do stuff, and actually doing stuff, that results in revenues and profits to the firm. Simply paying interns more, without a commensurate boost in productivity, only worsens the economics in an industry already beset by poor economics. The interns may be better off (for a short while) but the industry as a whole goes down the toilet even faster. We can't just raise our fees because we would like to pay our interns more.
I don't necessarily believe the industry pays recent graduates inappropriately. Firms must invest huge amounts of time and effort teaching recent graduates how buildings go together and other basic technical skills that the schools ignore. It takes years after graduation for most recent grads to learn enough to actually make a contribution across a wide swath of professional practice. If students start demanding that their schools actually teach them marketable skills (as is the case in medical school and law school) then I'm sure the firms would be willing to pay higher wages to obtain the higher productivity.
As an aside, I recently came across a "purchasing power" calculator on the web. I entered my starting wage ($3.50 / hour) when I entered the profession in the early 70s. This calculator determined that an equivalent wage, in 2008 purchasing power, would be $18.00 per hour, or about $37,440 in base salary. Most salary surveys I read suggest that the median starting salaries for recent grads with a professional degree are slightly higher than that number. My firm actually pays considerably higher rates for entering grads. It doesn't look to me that entering professionals have lost any ground at all over the past 35+ years.
Case in point: Packaging Engineering. Three of my friends left architecture, changed majors and are now packaging engineers.
Within 24 months of graduation each was earning over 100k per year. Their starting salaries were all above 50k.
What's the average time to earn 100k in architecture?
packaging engineering seems a bit more specialized
maybe that is why its so quick to get to the high salary
their salaries really doubled within 24 months?
not bad
not exactly sure what packaging engineering is though, so i dont think my job satisfaction would be as high
if you are an architect doing it just for the money and for a high salary, you will probably be disappointed
"I have no fricking grudge.....I promise.....you young buggers are going to replace me....and I will go to architect heaven....or be living on the street which is not much different than what I'm doing now.
dance with all your 3-d progams...and bim oh lay... my time will come to walk out the door....when I'm done designing for clients
who need a personal touch...till then F**k off.
snook_dude, you seem like an older architect.. what impact do you think that separating the construction industry from the architecture profession has impacted quality of design and of profit over the years?
I thought the first part of the initial post was more interesting - the second part is basic capitalism...
I am not drawn to other architects - infact, I am repeled (all my friends are architecture drop outs and artists, btw) ...And after reading this string I begin to understand why...When I leave the office I want to rid myself of all the neurosis and anal retentiveness ASAP...(I admit to being quite obsessive myself, however) - it may simply be a difference of opinion or values, but meeting other architects just reminds me of all the frustration at work and all of the points of view that deny my vision of an otherwise ideal career...
There is simply so much emotion, energy, hope, and information (intangible fluffy stuff too) to exchange when you meet a peer that I'd rather not put myself through it...Hell, I'm young, I'm working on it...Gotta network ya know.
When are you all gonna just accept architecture just ain't what it's cracked up to be? IT JUST AIN'T...
either that or you love it.
architecture is also the same as any other field
when a doctor meets another doctor, they tend to talk shop
older doctors probably look at younger doctors in a similar way to architects doing this as well and have similar bitternesses
Just a thought......
I project the level of hostileness based on the color of his/her outfit. The hostilest awards to those who wear black all the time, and it is usually right as it turns out.
As a rule of thumb, it applies to male architects more accurately than the other way around.
Aren't there more architects wearing black than other professions??
do you make sure that they always wear black, or are you hostile just because of THAT DAY's random decision?!
i am wearing a black shirt today
it is my only black shirt, i dont have a collection of them
if someone was hostile towards me because of that, i would say they have the problem, not me
as an urban designer who was trained as an architect (and who intends to return to an architecture firm and get licensed in the not too distant future....) i have been on the receiving end of many a raised eyebrow when someone says "oh come meet atsama, she's an architect too" and then when asked I saw "well I'm working in the urban design group at my firm" and they basically imply that i must be doing that not because i actually love it and am talented....but b/c i must suck at REAL architecture!!
Most of my architectural professional experience is in England with half of my higher education taking place there as well although I am a New Yorker. I found that the RIBA and the ARB has its good points and they do a decent job in protecting the industry, establishing documents that clients can get alike to see whether or not someone is actually bidding a fair price, etc. The one thing I absolutely love about architecture in England is that the term 'Architect' is protected and it is illegal for anyone to use the term if they are not registered with the ARB.
I know it is hard to find work and let alone stay true to the value you believe is fair - that is why I have diversified my portfolio essentially splitting between architectural commissions and graphic design commissions. I also push for competition work and pro bono work to keep my name out there!
I found that many people are hung up on the education, status, etc. I'm concerned with efficiency, progress, creativity and above all honesty!
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.