I keep reading that, but I'm not sure exactly what people mean by it.
Obviously I can see connection to game change when referring to being unemployed vs. employed but in what other sense?
Is it changing the way you design? The way you go after projects? Is the current market condition REALLY going to change the nature of the profession?
I would think that the advent of computer drafting from hand drafting was a game changer and that once BIM becomes the mainstream, that will be another game changer, more so than an a market condition.
Really I'm just trying to clarify what people mean by this, opinions are welcome....
I look at it as meaning that this market is forcing Americans to re-evaluate their economy, and for individual businesses to re-evaluate the basic structure of their practices. You only fail this miserably by failing in structure, so it's time for some re-structuring in a very literal sense.
Well, hello "my words", how are you doing up there at the top of the thread? :-D
tagalong, I think when *I* say it, it comes with a few very basic assumptions that I'm working off of. They are:
1) Is this the worst market for the building industry since the mid-1970's?
2) Is the economic sickness of many firms affecting designers of all stripes, old, young, experienced, in this country, in other countries? Basically, it's NOT discriminating against one group of designers, correct?
3) Is it causing said designers to rethink our skill sets, adapt new ones, work in different roles within the profession, or change professions entirely? And, if so, is the extent that this is happening on a broader scale than we have ever seen?
Having barely been alive for the recession of the early 80's, just in middle school for the '92 recession, and very well aware of how long it took to get a job in the 2002 recession (post-9/11), my answer for all of the above is YES.
I think what's interesting is that I have heard a lot of stories about the oil embargo and energy crises of the mid-1970's. What frustrates me is that some people learned from that, and they are today the people that run the Rocky Mountain Institute and Solar Design Associates today. They are the people I look up to. Unfortunately not enough people learned, however - I suspect some of them were taken in by Reagonomics - and now, here we are again, 35 years later, talking about a new energy economy. This should have been happening the year I was born.
To give you an example of #3, a friend of mine just moved from SanFran, after losing his job in a massive lay-off there, to Washington, DC. He has 7 years of architecture school but is now working as an IT manager at a design firm. For QUITE a bit less than a regular IT manager would normally work mind you. But, it's a salary and it's more than what he was making before.
I have a lot to say on this but will pause to let others talk!
I think Architects will need to adapt to become more business minded... market awareness, alignment of organizational strategies with marketing strategies...
I think we're going to see different kinds of design firms branching out into different markets, more competition for jobs
firms will need to adapt by investing in their human capital, technology, efficiencies in process and designing to sell... we might see some of the good people leaving the profession as the AEC industry lags behind other sectors, and new jobs for creative professionals in other industries begin to attract some of the design talent that's currently out there
Regarding the economy broadly, I think we will see a shift in lifestyles and business practices of clients... I see a new technology and communications driven economy, sustainable and more efficient living, maybe a shift towards urban centers or investment in transportation infrastructure to connect cities, even as individuals become increasingly mobile (technology, etc.) in their day to day living and work styles... computing is going cloud... operating systems will be only half local to your device and half driven on internet servers... within the context of this market downturn, consumer spending patterns shift around a bit, people are becoming more picky, which means they expect more value... forces more quality and creativity, and competitive fee...
Long term we'll see a new energy economy, and I think out of this economic crisis, we'll see a shift in economic power... Emerging economies will become the marketplace for all kinds of goods and services including design, and countries will compete with us for resources... We'll be forced to *step up* or *go away*, forces companies and individuals to do better work... China will surpass Japan as the second largest economy in the world next year they say... There will be a lot more work coming up in emerging markets and developing countries... Alot of these other markets have been crushed, but the damage done by this recession has accelerated changes in some places like China where there is aggressive infrastructure investment
Emily - Sounds like I'm about your same age so like you cannot compare this downturn to any other experiences. Like you I did struggle finding employment in the post 9/11 downturn, which most more senior Architects scoff at as not being a downturn at all. For those of us that were quite green at the time it was a real downturn. That said, what we have today is completely different.
When I think of the term "Game Changer" I look back at what business as usual has been for the better part of the 1995-2007 time period. Basically good times with a lot of building, especially in the past couple years. I think we could all agree that most everything has been overbuilt - residential, retail, commercial office, etc. The only thing that I can see that might not be overbuilt is K-12 educational, although IMO it's overbuilt in some areas and under built in others.
So...in this recession I see the "Game Changer" being the fact that rampant construction and over building has ceased to exist. Residential and retail have skidded to a sudden halt. There is so much vacant commerical office space the only jobs I'm seeing are tenant fit outs. Etc. Etc.
I see a long future of Architects as glorified interior designers. We have the building stock already and few people are going to build new, even if they have the cash for it. At least from what I've seen, clients today are more interested in existing structure take over than new construction. I don't see that changing soon, i.e. game changing.
I guess we'll all just have to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the extreme pollution and human rights problems in these "emerging markets" to make a buck. But I don't necessarily agree chasing after work in emerging markets is our future anyway. That seems to be where we were headed 5 years ago, but not so much right now.
"So...in this recession I see the "Game Changer" being the fact that rampant construction and over building has ceased to exist. Residential and retail have skidded to a sudden halt. There is so much vacant commerical office space the only jobs I'm seeing are tenant fit outs."
Sad to say, but I've been experiencing the cyclicality of design since the mid-70s - yes, I'm really that old. Every single time, people in the industry have believed the "overbuilding" has taught the proper lessons to bankers and developers and it won't happen again. Sad to say, it always seems to happen again.
As I see it, the people who are in the business of building and financing commercial structures don't intentionally "overbuild" -- they just can't see that it's happening until it's too late. This is indicative of a free and unregulated real estate market.
Market's tend to swing overnight, yet the process of putting together a complex commercial project typically takes years. Once the foundations are being dug, it's generally too late to do anything but hang on tight and hope for the best. Those who have the worst timing take a tremendous economic beating.
i'm not as old as stone, but i am in agreement with stone. i tend to compare this market in the same terms as the H1N1 virus. some people will get sick, some people will die, and everyone will over react. at the end of the day the more you are informed, the better prepared you are to handle the situation. people will step back for a moment - and moment could be any length of time not to exceed x - but at the end of the day, like stone said, they'll be back to doing the same things.
Stone - I agree that historically there have been cyclical times of overbuilding followed by recessions in this profession. That said, we haven't experienced a wide scale credit crunch like we have today. Many of the developers I once worked with have gone out of business. Others have exited once profitable markets, i.e. retail. Other large corporate clients are turning to self developing what little expansion they need. All in all this isn't over yet and is looking to be worse than the early 80's...already is according to the old timers in my office.
Time will tell but I think developers/clients still standing in the end will be very cautious going forward and it will take at least a generation before we see "boom" times that lead to overbuilding. Many of us may well be retired and gone before something like that happens again.
Think of it this way. The generation that lived through the Great Depression never forgot about living without and in turn lived their entire lives in frugality. The longer this recession lasts the greater effect it will have on our clients taking extra care before they give the go ahead on new projects. That equates to a Game Changer for those of us currently in the profession. I hope I'm wrong, but fear that I'm right.
aqua: you put forward a strong analysis. I think you're right that the "old guys" who survive this downturn will remember these bad times and operate more conservatively going forward. However, I think you miss one very important ingredient.
There's always new players coming into both real estate and banking who are aggressive and ambitious and out to make a killing. It's those guys -- who don't have the same perspective as the "old guys" -- that you have to worry about.
aqua I think you make a good point when you say "I see a long future of Architects as glorified interior designers." I'm trying to be more optimistic about it... renovations are fun, right?!? Knocking down walls and such. Le sigh.
Although Steve Ballmer was referring to online-advertising and media related business, this is something that may apply with the game change:
"I don't think we are in a recession, I think we have reset," he said. "A recession implies recovery [to pre-recession levels] and for planning purposes I don't think we will. We have reset and won't rebound and re-grow."
I am totally optimistic about using more existing buildings, although I don't think of them as interior renovations. I think there are a lot of interesting things we can do with existing buildings that go beyond putting up new partitions. Having pretty much worked only with existing buildings when I was in an architecture firm, I know for a fact that there is more to do than as "a glorified interior designer." There is so much there; the choices to reuse existing materials, existing infrastructure, the history of the building/area and playing off of it, the natural patina/aging that some of us try so hard to fake, general urban focus, and not to mention the fact that it is so much more environmentally friendly to begin with. There is also much more survey and observation involved, which I actually enjoy.
in college I did a research project that took a close look at what drives construction volume. more than anything else, the inflation adjusted dollar volume of new construction -- especially new building construction -- is very closely linked to population growth. if the population increases, construction volume increases; if the population is stagnant, construction volume is stagnant; if the population declines, construction volume declines.
while short-term deviations occur (such as is happening right now) the long term link between construction volume and population level is very, very strong. simply put, people need shelter and places to work and places to play and places to shop and places to receive medical services.
for this reason, I don't really think the underlying concept in Ballmer's quote is meaningful to us as architects -- what I think Ballmer addresses is the profound shift of advertising away from print to electronic.
still, it's a pretty cool statement and warrants thinking about.
Slart... i admire your optimism but you are neglecting the key to this whole mess up...
the US depends on a capitalist system which every case i can possibly think of will trade benevolent goals for lucrative ones. When the economy begins to pick up, new construction will come back and in some markets may boom. Not because its the right thing to do, but because its how people make the most money.
like rationalist says, failures of this nature only get this big from some basic structural deficiency. In this case, it seems to me that the structural failure is not in the organization of firms... or the overbuilding of condos or the over lending of moneys. Those are all symptoms of an even more basic structure. Capitalism will in every single case choose the lucrative goal over the benevolent one. The structural issue that allows for booms and busts in the entire economic system.
lletdownl,
is it possible for capitalism to be benevolent or did you use the term for putting a revisionist face on it?
and i ask that with all due respect for your knowledge and educated opinion on the subject over few years i've been reading your posts.
Jul 22, 09 3:37 pm ·
·
Capitalism does not choose the lucrative goal; capitalism is the lucrative goal.
perhaps you've also meant what Shock Me, I'm Bourgeois said above, which i agree.
i also agree with your assesment regarding the return of the same market expansion when the economy evens itself out. if there is no deep structural change, the game will be the same or derivative of what we have for the immediate future under these prevailing political ideologies. i am a firm believer of the fundemental marxist ideology that the ultimate success of capitalism will lead to socialist society and there on to more sophisticated social systems. but i can't put a reasonable time estimation under the circumstances that apply to this country.
Jul 22, 09 4:02 pm ·
·
I have no lucrative goals. Does that mean game over for me? In many ways, yes.
Shock Me, I'm Bourgeois, i don't think so. having no lucrative goals doesn't free you from the capitalist system as long as you live a life under one. in some ways yes, but in some others no. so, it is no. the game is not over for you. at least from the daily dealings stand point. you can come close but ultimately you can't cross the line.
these are more philosophical arguments which i believe this thread is ultimately about.
however, i'll admit that this is more livelier, engaging and useful discussion leaving the philosophical discussion aside.
on an another response, i agree with what slartibartfast said abut re assigning existing buildings in the near future. in fact i was asked what i thought would be a major architectural market / project nature in coming years about a couple of years ago and i said the re assignment of the existing programs for different uses in a large scale. people looked at me like 'what are you talking about," it still didn't happen in the scales we can effectively call it is happening but i still think that is what waiting ahead of us in terms of nature of architectural work. less new buildings and more retrofits. i think it is very interesting and very far reaching than just looking at it as 'interior design.'
I guess my point was that the nature of the entire system places a lucrative goals over benevolent goals. Im not certain what you mean by putting a revisionist face on it.
I dont want to be so reactionary as to declare capitalism a destructive system because i dont believe it is. I believe it to be, probably, the best system we have for CREATING new weath, but perhaps the worst system we have for spreading and sustaining that wealth with any kind of constancy. Creating good for others (benevolence) is most often a negative quality in a free market.
That basic idea in mind is why i said that capitalism is the structural deficiency that allows people to continuously be flooded with wealth and continuously busted to pieces. Moving away from a free market once wealth is obtained seems the smart thing to do. As is proven by most other wealthy western nations, many if not all have now surpassed us in health, stability, standard of living and education.
That being said, i also understand that the comparison to more socialist western nations as examples of the direction the US should move is flawed.
Capitalism is a great system for growth. And history has shown that free markets grow economies faster than more controlled ones.
Our birthrates are higher than other western nations; our immigration rates are higher than other western nations, and our population is much higher than most other nations we might be compared to.
That being the case, our growth rates must be much much higher than typical wealthy western nations.
It is entirely possible that our nation cant survive with in its current capacity without capitalism. In order for the european style shift to occur, immigration would need to be mostly halted, and wed have to stop having so much sex... at least one of those would be a highly unpopular suggestion to pretty much everyone...
Jul 22, 09 5:11 pm ·
·
Having no lucrative goals doesn't free me from life in a capitalist system, but it does make me a less active participant in the capitalist system.
personal aside:
Having no lucrative goals does not preclude having no goals at all, although, along with having no lucrative goals, I have very few consumer goals (beyond the basic consumer needs for a comfortable living).
general aside:
Is it true to say that most people within a capitalist system have more consumer goals than lucrative goals?
Shock Me, i think you might be interpreting my assertion too personally... i dont mean that people within a capitalist system arent able to prioritize greater good over lucrative business dealings...
i mean that overall tendency of a free market is to prioritize in that manner... the system incentives that particular arrangement of priorities
Jul 22, 09 5:14 pm ·
·
lletdownl, what I'm more asserting is that lucrative goals are more objective and "the greater good" is more subjective (if not altogether ephemeral).
What's the object of the new (architecture) game?
What's the subject of the new (architecture) game?
yes very true... but there are clearly 'greater good' goals that we bypass all the time for more lucrative goals...
the example that started this whole conversation is a perfect one...
youd be very hard pressed to find any rational person that would argue building 100 condo towers does more good for more people than renovating 100 existing structures... yet in this and many cases like it, where the 'greater good' option is really not so subjective, the maximum profit always wins
I have nothing intelligent to report on the market, though I think it's significantly different than anything in history, but I have to say this: I'm a "glorified interior designer" and scoff all you want at renovation work it's architecture sure as building a school, church, or tower is. If, that is, you're a designer who is willing to take on a project seriously w/o denigrating it as just interior design.
Architects are in charge of shaping space, after all, not only making erections.
LB I think it was pretty clear that we were talking about how using existing buildings doesn't exclude structure, the exterior, and etc which interior design by definition does not include. The point was that using existing buildings was not "below" architects, not whether or not interior design is "below" architects. I did enjoy the metaphor there though, intentional or not.
Also, my optimism doesn't mean I was thinking that was going to happen, but more along the lines of what I want to happen. There are so much wasted resources when there are so many underutilized structures.
"youd be very hard pressed to find any rational person that would argue building 100 condo towers does more good for more people than renovating 100 existing structures..."
From within a particular world view, yes. Beyond that particular world view, no.
You may be surprised to learn that many fine people would disagree most of this thread.
Sorry, slart, I should have clarified that I agree with your initial post (as well as the one above) that re-using existing structures is - I hope - the bulk of architectural work in the coming years, or at least will be seen as a more tenable way to create our built world. And as it happens, the entirety of my career - 16 years practicing - has been doing combination renovation/addition work. I've done only one project from the ground up, that's it, and I'd challenge any architect to tell me I'm not doing capital-A architecture.
Sorry to be hijacking the thread, but I think students coming out of school thinking it's going to be one enormous mixed use tower after another are, as of last November, really misguided. Very small projects, on the other hand, that require creativity beyond getting the most leasable SF at the lowest cost, are actually happening, even now.
lletdownl, this paragraph fascinates me, so I'm going to repost it, hope you don't mind:
Capitalism is a great system for growth. And history has shown that free markets grow economies faster than more controlled ones.
Our birthrates are higher than other western nations; our immigration rates are higher than other western nations, and our population is much higher than most other nations we might be compared to.
That being the case, our growth rates must be much much higher than typical wealthy western nations.
It is entirely possible that our nation cant survive with in its current capacity without capitalism. In order for the european style shift to occur, immigration would need to be mostly halted, and wed have to stop having so much sex... at least one of those would be a highly unpopular suggestion to pretty much everyone...
I've never thought about it in that way before. On a very basic, instinctive level, is it our species' disposition to create more and more of us? Because I'm not sure that that's what *I* want to happen... in which case I would prefer a more European system. Previously I just wanted more social equity and less greed, which is why that system appealed to me. Hmmm. Very interesting.
What's even more interesting is that if you think about it, Capitalism seems like a more Darwinian system. "Only the strongest survive and the weak fail" whereas Socialism levels the playing field more, in theory, perhaps. But they work in opposite ways within their respective countries, don't they? I'm just thinking out loud....
~~~~~
Mr. Malcontent, if you want to contribute, contribute. Saying "You may be surprised to learn that many fine people would disagree most of this thread tells us nothing, nor does it give us anything to talk about or respond to.
My apologies for using the term "glorified interior designer." I've done several addition/renovation projects and they can be equally or more fulfilling than new construction.
I was hinting more at what has come across my desk lately from corporate clients that have severely tightened up their budgets. A re-hab of commerical office being nothing more than new carpeting, some new paint and new systems furniture. Retail renovations being not much more than new wall coverings and a rebuilt fitting room, etc. Lately the work for me personally has left a little to be desired. I'm sure that with time the more involved and exciting renovation projects will come.
Still, I do think at least for the near term Architects will be spending a lot of time on these smaller scale renovation projects. From a sustainability perspective it's nice and on larger scale it can be quite exciting. But going from high profile new construction projects as your bread and butter to minor remodels is quite a game changer.
No apology needed, aqua, and to everyone I apologize for taking too much umbrage at aqua's term - blame my vacation-level intake of margaritas. Sorry.
What I thought about this morning (while unable to sleep and worrying at 4am, as I am wont to do) is this question: what will the professors be teaching this year? Will we see the mixed-use towers and large-scale planning/redevelopment projects that have been popular in schools recently? Or will any professors take on the realities of the market we're facing right now, in a way that helps the profession, and onlookers, consider our options? I'm curious.
Emily, i absolutely agree that capitalism is a very darwinian economic style... eat or be eaten...
That sort of argument is used indirectly all the time by free market supporters... You dont really hear 'hey screw the poor, its survival of the fittest' ... but you do often hear, "i pulled myself up by the bootstraps, no one helped me". Which is in essence the same sentiment.
As for this economy really redefining the role of architect, i still am not convinced it will happen. As was said above many times... as long as people are moving from one place to another, and making babies, there will always be large mixed use buildings, shopping malls and condo towers to build. Granted, they may decrease in number, and our profession may contract, but a change in role seems unlikely... there is just way too much money to be made in new construction...
that being said, i hope im wrong, id love to see retrofitting, reuse and renovation become a more substantial part of our profession and our culture...
lletdownl, I think there will be a bit of both. What you say makes sense, but redefining our profession does not solely rely upon external forces. Internally as professionals, we can lead some of that change. The market in the past year or so hasn't been good for a lot of professions, but we were hit especially hard and there is no denying that.
We can position ourselves a bit differently so we can mitigate the damage we take in a down market. It doesn't have to be a complete rewrite of the "game"; change one simple rule and we have a different game don't we?
"I don't think we are in a recession, I think we have reset," he said. "A recession implies recovery [to pre-recession levels] and for planning purposes I don't think we will. We have reset and won't rebound and re-grow."
I think this quote makes a lot of sense.
To put it into some sort of idea I can convey being this hungover, I'll explain it like this.
If you watch a few shows on the history channel (not that WWII crap) but the shows about actual history, it tends to always be war history.
But this is the problem with the history channel, it feeds into this older American mindset of power. This same mindset is the kind of "American Dream" post-WWII mindset shared by older generations. Now, this isn't to knock them or an attempt to be condescending to a generation.
But rather that the history channel simply never asks the question of how. Not how do wars happen or how do sides win necessarily but how are wars facilitated.
The line of reasoning I'm having here is few people stop to think how do you facilitate a war. Armies of the 16th-19th century were massive. Someone has to feed them, clothe them, arm them et cetera.
What this implies to me is industrial output... industrial output in an economy of scale mode. You need massive amounts of people in centralized locations constantly putting out products to meet the demand of war. And I don't think, because of military standardization that's been present for some time, that you get ready by bringing stuff from home.
I bring this up is because the current state of affairs in America is that most people live in non-adaptable, non-reusable environment. If we reset, what can de do with the money from days past invested in this current lifestyle.
And I add in war... well, what if we do get into another world war? I feel at a point right now we can't instantly convert our economy and industrial output to a war output. I don't think we have the centralization or the infrastructure to wage a massive campaign. So, if we're instantly forced to reset... where and what do we reset too?
huh? thats the second time youve claimed that. and you haven't contibuted anything other than claiming i'm someone else in the past two... almost three months.
be civil and nice... or perhaps do something than try to troll the troll i supposedly am.
the "game changer" to me is a shift in the type of work that architect's are doing. For example, in many jurisdictions, schools are closing and being consolidated to reduce costs. As a result, governments who own the school property are collocating various agencies into existing schools and grouping non-profit agencies, etc.. into those buildings as well. Additionally, many of these jurisdictions are moving their agencies out of leased office space and consolidating into buildings the government already owns.
Since governments don't pay taxes on leased office space, there is no income for cities through this model. The freeing of leased office space conceptually provides more opportunity for greater tax revenue. (if there were people to lease the space.)
So I totally agree with the poster above that interior fit-out work will be huge in the future. Anything related to analysis of existing building systems (structural, MEP, fire alarm, etc..) will continue to be lucrative. There will be work, it may just be a different type of work than what most firms are accustomed to doing.
What I thought about this morning (while unable to sleep and worrying at 4am, as I am wont to do) is this question: what will the professors be teaching this year? Will we see the mixed-use towers and large-scale planning/redevelopment projects that have been popular in schools recently? Or will any professors take on the realities of the market we're facing right now, in a way that helps the profession, and onlookers, consider our options? I'm curious.
I've been wondering this too... I agree that the days of giant whole neighborhood projects in china and algorithm-generated towers are over. However, I think the allure of "objectecture" and sexy graphics are still too strong. I'd hate to see a resurgence of eisenman-style philosophy-driven paper explorations - This stuff corrupted a whole generation of architecture professors.
I've been seeing a lot more material/tectonic explorations and integration of technology lately. a couple areas that I'd like to see more serious research in architecture schools are in "sustainability" and environmental psychology - I don't think it'll happen any time soon, though... it's far easier to stick with philosophy than psychology/sociology because you don't actually have to collect and analyze data.
Jul 24, 09 11:10 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
"This market is a game changer"
"This market is a game changer"....
I keep reading that, but I'm not sure exactly what people mean by it.
Obviously I can see connection to game change when referring to being unemployed vs. employed but in what other sense?
Is it changing the way you design? The way you go after projects? Is the current market condition REALLY going to change the nature of the profession?
I would think that the advent of computer drafting from hand drafting was a game changer and that once BIM becomes the mainstream, that will be another game changer, more so than an a market condition.
Really I'm just trying to clarify what people mean by this, opinions are welcome....
I look at it as meaning that this market is forcing Americans to re-evaluate their economy, and for individual businesses to re-evaluate the basic structure of their practices. You only fail this miserably by failing in structure, so it's time for some re-structuring in a very literal sense.
it's definitely changing the way firms go after projects and market themselves.
i think we'll find firms that are smaller and easily adaptable will have definite advantages.
Well, hello "my words", how are you doing up there at the top of the thread? :-D
tagalong, I think when *I* say it, it comes with a few very basic assumptions that I'm working off of. They are:
1) Is this the worst market for the building industry since the mid-1970's?
2) Is the economic sickness of many firms affecting designers of all stripes, old, young, experienced, in this country, in other countries? Basically, it's NOT discriminating against one group of designers, correct?
3) Is it causing said designers to rethink our skill sets, adapt new ones, work in different roles within the profession, or change professions entirely? And, if so, is the extent that this is happening on a broader scale than we have ever seen?
Having barely been alive for the recession of the early 80's, just in middle school for the '92 recession, and very well aware of how long it took to get a job in the 2002 recession (post-9/11), my answer for all of the above is YES.
I think what's interesting is that I have heard a lot of stories about the oil embargo and energy crises of the mid-1970's. What frustrates me is that some people learned from that, and they are today the people that run the Rocky Mountain Institute and Solar Design Associates today. They are the people I look up to. Unfortunately not enough people learned, however - I suspect some of them were taken in by Reagonomics - and now, here we are again, 35 years later, talking about a new energy economy. This should have been happening the year I was born.
To give you an example of #3, a friend of mine just moved from SanFran, after losing his job in a massive lay-off there, to Washington, DC. He has 7 years of architecture school but is now working as an IT manager at a design firm. For QUITE a bit less than a regular IT manager would normally work mind you. But, it's a salary and it's more than what he was making before.
I have a lot to say on this but will pause to let others talk!
creative folks will seek other creative outlets....
I think Architects will need to adapt to become more business minded... market awareness, alignment of organizational strategies with marketing strategies...
I think we're going to see different kinds of design firms branching out into different markets, more competition for jobs
firms will need to adapt by investing in their human capital, technology, efficiencies in process and designing to sell... we might see some of the good people leaving the profession as the AEC industry lags behind other sectors, and new jobs for creative professionals in other industries begin to attract some of the design talent that's currently out there
Regarding the economy broadly, I think we will see a shift in lifestyles and business practices of clients... I see a new technology and communications driven economy, sustainable and more efficient living, maybe a shift towards urban centers or investment in transportation infrastructure to connect cities, even as individuals become increasingly mobile (technology, etc.) in their day to day living and work styles... computing is going cloud... operating systems will be only half local to your device and half driven on internet servers... within the context of this market downturn, consumer spending patterns shift around a bit, people are becoming more picky, which means they expect more value... forces more quality and creativity, and competitive fee...
Long term we'll see a new energy economy, and I think out of this economic crisis, we'll see a shift in economic power... Emerging economies will become the marketplace for all kinds of goods and services including design, and countries will compete with us for resources... We'll be forced to *step up* or *go away*, forces companies and individuals to do better work... China will surpass Japan as the second largest economy in the world next year they say... There will be a lot more work coming up in emerging markets and developing countries... Alot of these other markets have been crushed, but the damage done by this recession has accelerated changes in some places like China where there is aggressive infrastructure investment
Emily - Sounds like I'm about your same age so like you cannot compare this downturn to any other experiences. Like you I did struggle finding employment in the post 9/11 downturn, which most more senior Architects scoff at as not being a downturn at all. For those of us that were quite green at the time it was a real downturn. That said, what we have today is completely different.
When I think of the term "Game Changer" I look back at what business as usual has been for the better part of the 1995-2007 time period. Basically good times with a lot of building, especially in the past couple years. I think we could all agree that most everything has been overbuilt - residential, retail, commercial office, etc. The only thing that I can see that might not be overbuilt is K-12 educational, although IMO it's overbuilt in some areas and under built in others.
So...in this recession I see the "Game Changer" being the fact that rampant construction and over building has ceased to exist. Residential and retail have skidded to a sudden halt. There is so much vacant commerical office space the only jobs I'm seeing are tenant fit outs. Etc. Etc.
I see a long future of Architects as glorified interior designers. We have the building stock already and few people are going to build new, even if they have the cash for it. At least from what I've seen, clients today are more interested in existing structure take over than new construction. I don't see that changing soon, i.e. game changing.
I guess we'll all just have to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the extreme pollution and human rights problems in these "emerging markets" to make a buck. But I don't necessarily agree chasing after work in emerging markets is our future anyway. That seems to be where we were headed 5 years ago, but not so much right now.
Sad to say, but I've been experiencing the cyclicality of design since the mid-70s - yes, I'm really that old. Every single time, people in the industry have believed the "overbuilding" has taught the proper lessons to bankers and developers and it won't happen again. Sad to say, it always seems to happen again.
As I see it, the people who are in the business of building and financing commercial structures don't intentionally "overbuild" -- they just can't see that it's happening until it's too late. This is indicative of a free and unregulated real estate market.
Market's tend to swing overnight, yet the process of putting together a complex commercial project typically takes years. Once the foundations are being dug, it's generally too late to do anything but hang on tight and hope for the best. Those who have the worst timing take a tremendous economic beating.
i'm not as old as stone, but i am in agreement with stone. i tend to compare this market in the same terms as the H1N1 virus. some people will get sick, some people will die, and everyone will over react. at the end of the day the more you are informed, the better prepared you are to handle the situation. people will step back for a moment - and moment could be any length of time not to exceed x - but at the end of the day, like stone said, they'll be back to doing the same things.
Stone - I agree that historically there have been cyclical times of overbuilding followed by recessions in this profession. That said, we haven't experienced a wide scale credit crunch like we have today. Many of the developers I once worked with have gone out of business. Others have exited once profitable markets, i.e. retail. Other large corporate clients are turning to self developing what little expansion they need. All in all this isn't over yet and is looking to be worse than the early 80's...already is according to the old timers in my office.
Time will tell but I think developers/clients still standing in the end will be very cautious going forward and it will take at least a generation before we see "boom" times that lead to overbuilding. Many of us may well be retired and gone before something like that happens again.
Think of it this way. The generation that lived through the Great Depression never forgot about living without and in turn lived their entire lives in frugality. The longer this recession lasts the greater effect it will have on our clients taking extra care before they give the go ahead on new projects. That equates to a Game Changer for those of us currently in the profession. I hope I'm wrong, but fear that I'm right.
aqua: you put forward a strong analysis. I think you're right that the "old guys" who survive this downturn will remember these bad times and operate more conservatively going forward. However, I think you miss one very important ingredient.
There's always new players coming into both real estate and banking who are aggressive and ambitious and out to make a killing. It's those guys -- who don't have the same perspective as the "old guys" -- that you have to worry about.
"There's always new players coming into both real estate and banking who are aggressive and ambitious and out to make a killing."
Yeah, some madoffs-in-progress lurking around there somewhere.
Could be anyone, someone you trust...that's a game changer.
I agree with you guys.
aqua I think you make a good point when you say "I see a long future of Architects as glorified interior designers." I'm trying to be more optimistic about it... renovations are fun, right?!? Knocking down walls and such. Le sigh.
Although Steve Ballmer was referring to online-advertising and media related business, this is something that may apply with the game change:
"I don't think we are in a recession, I think we have reset," he said. "A recession implies recovery [to pre-recession levels] and for planning purposes I don't think we will. We have reset and won't rebound and re-grow."
I am totally optimistic about using more existing buildings, although I don't think of them as interior renovations. I think there are a lot of interesting things we can do with existing buildings that go beyond putting up new partitions. Having pretty much worked only with existing buildings when I was in an architecture firm, I know for a fact that there is more to do than as "a glorified interior designer." There is so much there; the choices to reuse existing materials, existing infrastructure, the history of the building/area and playing off of it, the natural patina/aging that some of us try so hard to fake, general urban focus, and not to mention the fact that it is so much more environmentally friendly to begin with. There is also much more survey and observation involved, which I actually enjoy.
in college I did a research project that took a close look at what drives construction volume. more than anything else, the inflation adjusted dollar volume of new construction -- especially new building construction -- is very closely linked to population growth. if the population increases, construction volume increases; if the population is stagnant, construction volume is stagnant; if the population declines, construction volume declines.
while short-term deviations occur (such as is happening right now) the long term link between construction volume and population level is very, very strong. simply put, people need shelter and places to work and places to play and places to shop and places to receive medical services.
for this reason, I don't really think the underlying concept in Ballmer's quote is meaningful to us as architects -- what I think Ballmer addresses is the profound shift of advertising away from print to electronic.
still, it's a pretty cool statement and warrants thinking about.
Slart... i admire your optimism but you are neglecting the key to this whole mess up...
the US depends on a capitalist system which every case i can possibly think of will trade benevolent goals for lucrative ones. When the economy begins to pick up, new construction will come back and in some markets may boom. Not because its the right thing to do, but because its how people make the most money.
like rationalist says, failures of this nature only get this big from some basic structural deficiency. In this case, it seems to me that the structural failure is not in the organization of firms... or the overbuilding of condos or the over lending of moneys. Those are all symptoms of an even more basic structure. Capitalism will in every single case choose the lucrative goal over the benevolent one. The structural issue that allows for booms and busts in the entire economic system.
lletdownl,
is it possible for capitalism to be benevolent or did you use the term for putting a revisionist face on it?
and i ask that with all due respect for your knowledge and educated opinion on the subject over few years i've been reading your posts.
Capitalism does not choose the lucrative goal; capitalism is the lucrative goal.
perhaps you've also meant what Shock Me, I'm Bourgeois said above, which i agree.
i also agree with your assesment regarding the return of the same market expansion when the economy evens itself out. if there is no deep structural change, the game will be the same or derivative of what we have for the immediate future under these prevailing political ideologies. i am a firm believer of the fundemental marxist ideology that the ultimate success of capitalism will lead to socialist society and there on to more sophisticated social systems. but i can't put a reasonable time estimation under the circumstances that apply to this country.
I have no lucrative goals. Does that mean game over for me? In many ways, yes.
Shock Me, I'm Bourgeois, i don't think so. having no lucrative goals doesn't free you from the capitalist system as long as you live a life under one. in some ways yes, but in some others no. so, it is no. the game is not over for you. at least from the daily dealings stand point. you can come close but ultimately you can't cross the line.
these are more philosophical arguments which i believe this thread is ultimately about.
however, i'll admit that this is more livelier, engaging and useful discussion leaving the philosophical discussion aside.
on an another response, i agree with what slartibartfast said abut re assigning existing buildings in the near future. in fact i was asked what i thought would be a major architectural market / project nature in coming years about a couple of years ago and i said the re assignment of the existing programs for different uses in a large scale. people looked at me like 'what are you talking about," it still didn't happen in the scales we can effectively call it is happening but i still think that is what waiting ahead of us in terms of nature of architectural work. less new buildings and more retrofits. i think it is very interesting and very far reaching than just looking at it as 'interior design.'
Orhan,
I guess my point was that the nature of the entire system places a lucrative goals over benevolent goals. Im not certain what you mean by putting a revisionist face on it.
I dont want to be so reactionary as to declare capitalism a destructive system because i dont believe it is. I believe it to be, probably, the best system we have for CREATING new weath, but perhaps the worst system we have for spreading and sustaining that wealth with any kind of constancy. Creating good for others (benevolence) is most often a negative quality in a free market.
That basic idea in mind is why i said that capitalism is the structural deficiency that allows people to continuously be flooded with wealth and continuously busted to pieces. Moving away from a free market once wealth is obtained seems the smart thing to do. As is proven by most other wealthy western nations, many if not all have now surpassed us in health, stability, standard of living and education.
That being said, i also understand that the comparison to more socialist western nations as examples of the direction the US should move is flawed.
Capitalism is a great system for growth. And history has shown that free markets grow economies faster than more controlled ones.
Our birthrates are higher than other western nations; our immigration rates are higher than other western nations, and our population is much higher than most other nations we might be compared to.
That being the case, our growth rates must be much much higher than typical wealthy western nations.
It is entirely possible that our nation cant survive with in its current capacity without capitalism. In order for the european style shift to occur, immigration would need to be mostly halted, and wed have to stop having so much sex... at least one of those would be a highly unpopular suggestion to pretty much everyone...
Having no lucrative goals doesn't free me from life in a capitalist system, but it does make me a less active participant in the capitalist system.
personal aside:
Having no lucrative goals does not preclude having no goals at all, although, along with having no lucrative goals, I have very few consumer goals (beyond the basic consumer needs for a comfortable living).
general aside:
Is it true to say that most people within a capitalist system have more consumer goals than lucrative goals?
oops missed an important word
That being the case, our ECONOMIC growth rates must be much much higher than typical wealthy western nations.
Shock Me, i think you might be interpreting my assertion too personally... i dont mean that people within a capitalist system arent able to prioritize greater good over lucrative business dealings...
i mean that overall tendency of a free market is to prioritize in that manner... the system incentives that particular arrangement of priorities
lletdownl, what I'm more asserting is that lucrative goals are more objective and "the greater good" is more subjective (if not altogether ephemeral).
What's the object of the new (architecture) game?
What's the subject of the new (architecture) game?
yes very true... but there are clearly 'greater good' goals that we bypass all the time for more lucrative goals...
the example that started this whole conversation is a perfect one...
youd be very hard pressed to find any rational person that would argue building 100 condo towers does more good for more people than renovating 100 existing structures... yet in this and many cases like it, where the 'greater good' option is really not so subjective, the maximum profit always wins
I have nothing intelligent to report on the market, though I think it's significantly different than anything in history, but I have to say this: I'm a "glorified interior designer" and scoff all you want at renovation work it's architecture sure as building a school, church, or tower is. If, that is, you're a designer who is willing to take on a project seriously w/o denigrating it as just interior design.
Architects are in charge of shaping space, after all, not only making erections.
tehehe...making erections...
LB I think it was pretty clear that we were talking about how using existing buildings doesn't exclude structure, the exterior, and etc which interior design by definition does not include. The point was that using existing buildings was not "below" architects, not whether or not interior design is "below" architects. I did enjoy the metaphor there though, intentional or not.
Also, my optimism doesn't mean I was thinking that was going to happen, but more along the lines of what I want to happen. There are so much wasted resources when there are so many underutilized structures.
this is via GQ magazine:
man lives with no money since 2000.
shall we call him the new chic?
"youd be very hard pressed to find any rational person that would argue building 100 condo towers does more good for more people than renovating 100 existing structures..."
From within a particular world view, yes. Beyond that particular world view, no.
You may be surprised to learn that many fine people would disagree most of this thread.
Sorry, slart, I should have clarified that I agree with your initial post (as well as the one above) that re-using existing structures is - I hope - the bulk of architectural work in the coming years, or at least will be seen as a more tenable way to create our built world. And as it happens, the entirety of my career - 16 years practicing - has been doing combination renovation/addition work. I've done only one project from the ground up, that's it, and I'd challenge any architect to tell me I'm not doing capital-A architecture.
Sorry to be hijacking the thread, but I think students coming out of school thinking it's going to be one enormous mixed use tower after another are, as of last November, really misguided. Very small projects, on the other hand, that require creativity beyond getting the most leasable SF at the lowest cost, are actually happening, even now.
lletdownl, this paragraph fascinates me, so I'm going to repost it, hope you don't mind:
Capitalism is a great system for growth. And history has shown that free markets grow economies faster than more controlled ones.
Our birthrates are higher than other western nations; our immigration rates are higher than other western nations, and our population is much higher than most other nations we might be compared to.
That being the case, our growth rates must be much much higher than typical wealthy western nations.
It is entirely possible that our nation cant survive with in its current capacity without capitalism. In order for the european style shift to occur, immigration would need to be mostly halted, and wed have to stop having so much sex... at least one of those would be a highly unpopular suggestion to pretty much everyone...
I've never thought about it in that way before. On a very basic, instinctive level, is it our species' disposition to create more and more of us? Because I'm not sure that that's what *I* want to happen... in which case I would prefer a more European system. Previously I just wanted more social equity and less greed, which is why that system appealed to me. Hmmm. Very interesting.
What's even more interesting is that if you think about it, Capitalism seems like a more Darwinian system. "Only the strongest survive and the weak fail" whereas Socialism levels the playing field more, in theory, perhaps. But they work in opposite ways within their respective countries, don't they? I'm just thinking out loud....
~~~~~
Mr. Malcontent, if you want to contribute, contribute. Saying "You may be surprised to learn that many fine people would disagree most of this thread tells us nothing, nor does it give us anything to talk about or respond to.
My apologies for using the term "glorified interior designer." I've done several addition/renovation projects and they can be equally or more fulfilling than new construction.
I was hinting more at what has come across my desk lately from corporate clients that have severely tightened up their budgets. A re-hab of commerical office being nothing more than new carpeting, some new paint and new systems furniture. Retail renovations being not much more than new wall coverings and a rebuilt fitting room, etc. Lately the work for me personally has left a little to be desired. I'm sure that with time the more involved and exciting renovation projects will come.
Still, I do think at least for the near term Architects will be spending a lot of time on these smaller scale renovation projects. From a sustainability perspective it's nice and on larger scale it can be quite exciting. But going from high profile new construction projects as your bread and butter to minor remodels is quite a game changer.
No apology needed, aqua, and to everyone I apologize for taking too much umbrage at aqua's term - blame my vacation-level intake of margaritas. Sorry.
What I thought about this morning (while unable to sleep and worrying at 4am, as I am wont to do) is this question: what will the professors be teaching this year? Will we see the mixed-use towers and large-scale planning/redevelopment projects that have been popular in schools recently? Or will any professors take on the realities of the market we're facing right now, in a way that helps the profession, and onlookers, consider our options? I'm curious.
Emily, i absolutely agree that capitalism is a very darwinian economic style... eat or be eaten...
That sort of argument is used indirectly all the time by free market supporters... You dont really hear 'hey screw the poor, its survival of the fittest' ... but you do often hear, "i pulled myself up by the bootstraps, no one helped me". Which is in essence the same sentiment.
As for this economy really redefining the role of architect, i still am not convinced it will happen. As was said above many times... as long as people are moving from one place to another, and making babies, there will always be large mixed use buildings, shopping malls and condo towers to build. Granted, they may decrease in number, and our profession may contract, but a change in role seems unlikely... there is just way too much money to be made in new construction...
that being said, i hope im wrong, id love to see retrofitting, reuse and renovation become a more substantial part of our profession and our culture...
lletdownl, I think there will be a bit of both. What you say makes sense, but redefining our profession does not solely rely upon external forces. Internally as professionals, we can lead some of that change. The market in the past year or so hasn't been good for a lot of professions, but we were hit especially hard and there is no denying that.
We can position ourselves a bit differently so we can mitigate the damage we take in a down market. It doesn't have to be a complete rewrite of the "game"; change one simple rule and we have a different game don't we?
I love start's comment! And that quote!
"I don't think we are in a recession, I think we have reset," he said. "A recession implies recovery [to pre-recession levels] and for planning purposes I don't think we will. We have reset and won't rebound and re-grow."I think this quote makes a lot of sense.
To put it into some sort of idea I can convey being this hungover, I'll explain it like this.
If you watch a few shows on the history channel (not that WWII crap) but the shows about actual history, it tends to always be war history.
But this is the problem with the history channel, it feeds into this older American mindset of power. This same mindset is the kind of "American Dream" post-WWII mindset shared by older generations. Now, this isn't to knock them or an attempt to be condescending to a generation.
But rather that the history channel simply never asks the question of how. Not how do wars happen or how do sides win necessarily but how are wars facilitated.
The line of reasoning I'm having here is few people stop to think how do you facilitate a war. Armies of the 16th-19th century were massive. Someone has to feed them, clothe them, arm them et cetera.
What this implies to me is industrial output... industrial output in an economy of scale mode. You need massive amounts of people in centralized locations constantly putting out products to meet the demand of war. And I don't think, because of military standardization that's been present for some time, that you get ready by bringing stuff from home.
I bring this up is because the current state of affairs in America is that most people live in non-adaptable, non-reusable environment. If we reset, what can de do with the money from days past invested in this current lifestyle.
And I add in war... well, what if we do get into another world war? I feel at a point right now we can't instantly convert our economy and industrial output to a war output. I don't think we have the centralization or the infrastructure to wage a massive campaign. So, if we're instantly forced to reset... where and what do we reset too?
oh good ... hillandrock's back under yet another screen name.
huh? thats the second time youve claimed that. and you haven't contibuted anything other than claiming i'm someone else in the past two... almost three months.
be civil and nice... or perhaps do something than try to troll the troll i supposedly am.
but oh good ... digger is back.
the "game changer" to me is a shift in the type of work that architect's are doing. For example, in many jurisdictions, schools are closing and being consolidated to reduce costs. As a result, governments who own the school property are collocating various agencies into existing schools and grouping non-profit agencies, etc.. into those buildings as well. Additionally, many of these jurisdictions are moving their agencies out of leased office space and consolidating into buildings the government already owns.
Since governments don't pay taxes on leased office space, there is no income for cities through this model. The freeing of leased office space conceptually provides more opportunity for greater tax revenue. (if there were people to lease the space.)
So I totally agree with the poster above that interior fit-out work will be huge in the future. Anything related to analysis of existing building systems (structural, MEP, fire alarm, etc..) will continue to be lucrative. There will be work, it may just be a different type of work than what most firms are accustomed to doing.
Do we all agree that this market is a "game changer" then? I'm quite impressed that we've managed to stay on topic, for the most part. Good job team.
I've been wondering this too... I agree that the days of giant whole neighborhood projects in china and algorithm-generated towers are over. However, I think the allure of "objectecture" and sexy graphics are still too strong. I'd hate to see a resurgence of eisenman-style philosophy-driven paper explorations - This stuff corrupted a whole generation of architecture professors.
I've been seeing a lot more material/tectonic explorations and integration of technology lately. a couple areas that I'd like to see more serious research in architecture schools are in "sustainability" and environmental psychology - I don't think it'll happen any time soon, though... it's far easier to stick with philosophy than psychology/sociology because you don't actually have to collect and analyze data.
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.