I'm in a similar situation; I graduated a year ago and have spent the last year working for a small civil firm. Most of my job experience has been site development (design of everything but the building), but I took several structural engr courses in school.

So far, I've found that there is little creativity needed for civil engineering. The design process is almost like following a baking recipe. This contrary to what I believed when I chose engineering as a a career path.

I apologize if this question seems stupid, but how much room is the average practicing architect given to express their creativity? If this has been covered before or if it belongs in another thread, please correct me.

I think I have a pretty good perspective on this because I work in a EA firm where the majority are Civil Engineers with a structural focus or Architectural Engineers (mostly structural).

I did a rant about this before, but let me warn you that this is not a good perspective on architecture to begin with: "whole picture of building design; aesthetic and structural." If you think architects simply add aesthetics to a standing structure and this is what you want to do, you might want to think twice. There is so much more, both the mundane and the rewarding (and big picture).

The problem is you won't know what all that is until you're in architecture school or even when you're working as an architect. So basically it comes down to the fact that you won't really know, no matter how much someone convinces you should or shouldn't go into architecture, until you're in it. In which case you'll either hate yourself for wasting your time & money, OR feel lucky to have made such a difficult decision to follow your passion.

I don't understand why oil/gas company is an option though if you want to go into buildings. You can do the structural engineer thing and probably be paid similarly, although you might need a masters (which would probably take an extra year of school).

Oil and gas is an option because it pays well and has more stability, even in times like these.

I know architecture is more than just adding aesthetics, but to me a design is just art until it can be made to stand up (Engineer's point of view, I know). I am, however, very interested in the other components such as arrangement of space, interaction with environment, purpose, and aesthetics.

That being said, do you know anything about the schools I mentioned (reputations, stengths, weaknesses, etc.). Also, it seems like there are currently a ton of architects out of work. Will this hurt job prospects years into the future?

I hope others chime in on this for more variety of opinion. But for now, I guess I'll say a bit more.

You're right about the fact that the architecture field is more volatile to economic conditions than most other fields. This also applies to engineers in the construction field. Its a risk most of us take, sometimes unknowingly. I can tell you I didn't expect it could get this bad. But I can also tell you that I don't regret going to this field.

As for, "but to me a design is just art until it can be made to stand up," that really is an engineer's point of view, but you were trained as one so what can I say. Design as art in the architecture field is only one layer if existant at all in a certain project (thats kind of the point though, thats a decision). But then again, I also don't like how some architects are totally irresponsible to structure either.

Personally, I know nothing about the Texas schools.

In your position, I'd probably intern at a structural engineering company where I could have interaction with architects. And then based on that make a decision to pursue that field. I know the oil/gas companies pay better for internship, but I think internships (while still in school) should be more about learning than $.

Well, the reason I took the oil/gas internship is because the structural firms weren't really hiring interns, especially undergrads. My main goal is to go into non-industrial construction which, as you said, sucks for everyone right now. This makes grad school look like a much wiser option for the present.

As for you and anyone else, what made you decide to go into architecture in the first place? What aspect of architecture do you enjoy the most?

(I bet you could get into Tech also.) If I were you.. I would take my 4 yr eng degree , go get a PE stamp and then do all the friggin Architecture I wanted.

I have a degree in civil engineering, and I had the same thoughts during my final year – although sporting a 3.86 from a strong engineering program makes you a much better engineer than I would have ever been. As it turns out I did go back to school, and its one of the best decisions I ever made. I have a BArch and just finished a post-professional MArch. I went to a school very similar to Texas A&M for both of my undergrad degrees, and then to a private school for the masters.

I would reiterate what’s already been said – you won’t know until you are actually in architecture school. I remember thinking along the same lines that you are now about what architecture was all about, and that all changed my first semester in school. Good advice to me prior to beginning my BArch would have been to be prepared to not be prepared - especially regarding anything I thought Architecture actually was. My advice to you would be find some way to test the waters with architecture as a profession and an education before you dedicate the next 3 ½ years of your life to it. Find a way to do a career discovery program. Work with architects in what ever way you can. Sit down with them and pick their brain about what the work is like. Go talk to professors in the A&M school of architecture – they’d probably be willing to discuss your plans.

For the last two years I lived in Houston, so I am remotely familiar with some of the schools you mentioned. Each have their strengths and weaknesses, and since you’re in the general area I’d say go visit them and find out what they are all about. There was a recent thread about some of them – you may want to do a search for it. I know faculty members at all three schools, and they were all very intelligent, well trained educators. I would think that your grades would get you into those programs, but you need to present yourself as more than an engineer by showing creative work. I will say one thing about your computer work. If its drafting work on reinforced concrete projects, then its probably not something that should be presented in a portfolio for graduate school. You may want to look for other portfolios online to get an idea about what schools see when they review them.

If you’re set on the Texas schools, and at the risk of offending an Aggie, I would really recommend UT Austin. In my opinion, what someone getting their first degree in Architecture needs is a large program that can offer anything they end up being interested in when they finally figure that out. UT would definitely offer this. This comes from a neutral observer – I never attended the school, but I was accepted there when looking at graduate school. They did offer a good bit of money, but I went elsewhere. I have no idea about financial assistance at the schools you mentioned.

If you have any specific questions about the transition between civil engineering and architecture feel free to email me. Good luck.

I have no problem with UT Austin; I'm one of the few Aggies who will admit that it's a better overall school than A&M. The problem there is that the program seems geared more towards people with a creative design background. Also, I'm sure I'd be able to get better assistance elsewhere. A B.Arch is not in the picture at all; 5 more years of school is not worth it for me.

I do agree with you that I won't really know if I like it until I'm doing it, but I doubt I'd hate it. I could always go back into engineering after I'm done.

What finally pushed you over the edge and made you decide to switch? It seems like a pretty big decision to go into a 5 year program after already having a respectable degree.

As far as the studies go, do you think an engineering background helped you or hurt you as you learned about architecture?

I don’t necessarily recommend going back for another bachelor’s degree. My undergrad for engineering and architecture were from Auburn. Going back to school there I could complete my first year of studio in one summer of intense classes. I treated that as my ‘career discovery’ program. I figured if I didn’t like it, then it was only one summer, and if I did then I would be done with at least one year of studio. It was still a big decision though, and as far as what sent me over the edge – it was the daily grind of trying to work in a field that had so little creativity. The crazy thing was that there were probably about ten people out of eighty with previous bachelor’s degrees that entered the program the same year I did.

My second quarter at Auburn I did Rural Studio, and that basically made me want to remain at Auburn for thesis. I considered leaving and getting a master’s degree instead, but that would have only been one less year, and a more money. So I stayed, and ended up making a connection that got me into an office in Europe after graduation, and that led to much better options for graduate school than I would have had when I originally went back to school. It was a long road, but I wouldn’t change much about my education.

I can’t really say that engineering helped on anything specifically. I mean you can get out of a lot of classes, but what I found was that I’d been trained to think analytically. While in school, I chose to embrace as much as possible the creative methods that I had an opportunity to explore. I found the analytical processes that I went through as an engineer are far more rigorous in terms of analysis, than anything I encountered in architecture (undergrad). Grad school was a bit different, but in general going from engineering to architecture, you’ll need to get comfortable with the gray area as opposed to black and white.

Your point about always going back into engineering is a good one, and on that note, I should tell you my biggest fear was that I would eventually come to the conclusion that pursuing architecture was just ridiculous financially. I mean like you said you can go make $55K right now. That will take you years to reach in architecture depending on your location. I thought the pull of more money would make me quit. I’m very glad that I did not. I will say this though about the possibility of returning to engineering. After my first quarter in the undergrad architecture program, I came to the realization that even if I did quit I would be a better engineer having experienced the studio curriculum that architecture has to offer. I’ve worked with some damn good engineers – especially structural and the ones that set themselves apart are those that have the ability to think creatively and embrace the architect’s intent – at least in my experiences.

i am not engineer, but work with some very good ones. in my office we try to use a fellow who is i think world class or on cusp of being so. done the engineering for a few iconic buildings here in japan.

anyway, thing is he is very creative and i happily give credit to him for making our relatively good designs into much better ones. he has told us that he wouldn't want to design on his own because he is not of the mindset for it and i guess not trained for it either, but that notwithstanding he certainly gets what we are up to. the approach to engineering is also very much holistic and system-based, which is not always the case i can tell you from experience. the reason that is important is because his input is not just to make a building stand up, but rather to make the whole thing work and enhance the project.

when i worked in london we used similar engineers on projects and i have long thought that we were lucky to be able to use engineers who were trained to be creative on their own and not just work by numbers, which is actually more common i would say...


which is to say, if you could become an engineer like those people (OVE ARUP, sasaki, etc) then you probably would feel satisfied with job.

if that doesn't sound the thing for you then yes architecture school could be quite good choice. as mentioned above it would be good idea to be ready for anything, but apart from that i see no reason why not..

I did not mean to make it sound like engineering is not creative. It can be - but in a very different way than architecture. I hesitated to mention the firms like Arup, Nordenson, Buro Happold, etc., because I’ve heard its usually difficult to find a position at those offices. Also, the truly creative work seems to be done by certain individuals and not the low man on the totem pole.

Hmmmm, you may be better off becoming a really good engineer. The world needs as many of those as it can get, and there are several ways this could happen. Part of that could be to cultivate your understanding of the way that architects think. You sound like you’re already on your way to doing that, but there are special programs at various schools that might lend themselves to this as well. For instance, there was a guy I worked with at Arup that had a Master of Science in Building Technology from MIT. That degree seemed to begin to bridge the gaps that often occur between engineering and architecture, and you may be able to tailor your studies specifically to understanding architecture. You mentioned that UT Austin seemed too creative for your taste, and in this respect it might be better to stay within the field you’re in and make the most of it.

When I say UT Austin is too creative, I just mean to say that the program doesn't seem as friendly to someone without a creative design background. If I got in, I'd probably accept in a heartbeat.

The reason I'm interested in Arch. is not because I don't enjoy engineering; I just feel engineering offers only a specialized view of a larger picture. If I could go back I'd try for Northwestern's Arch. Engineering program which has the strongest studio program for any Arch. Engineering program I've seen.



"Also, the truly creative work seems to be done by certain individuals and not the low man on the totem pole.

I would assume this is the same for architecture as well. In any profession you're not going to be able to make the big calls until you "pay your dues" as people in architecture like to say.

One of my other worries about architecture is that the field seems overly populated. It might be better to be a great structural engineer as opposed to a mediocre to average architect. I think this is the reason engineers typically get paid more; there seem to be less qualified engineers who know the science and can also understand the architect's creative reasoning. An M.S. or M.Eng. is required to get a job at any decent structural firm these days though, so either way it's more schooling. I'm just trying to figure out which direction I would like to go.

I believe calatrava progressed from art degree to architecture to structural engineering...

Concrete detail for portfolio, just putting in a detail most likely designed by recipe is not a good idea, but going off on your own, on what else that detail could become is a good way of you and the portfolio reviewers realizing where you may be going in your career.

I almost switched to engineering my first year but decided against due to the possible extra year of school, I pretty much designed my way thru school with the disposition that all design was bullshit and if you couldn't detail it, who cares...to leap ahead about what architecture is about...its your bullshit you can pursue, the only thing is school will tell you there is universal architecural bullshit and some profs will try to convince you their bullshit is the truth...this is all part of you determining what you want to do.

I now do a lot of consulting for artists, designers, and structural engineers and given my computer skills find myself consulting on cpomplicated technical shit, because its aesthetically beautiful. You find your niche in architecture because that's the one you want.

Lately I had the joy of working with engineer to design details for connecting a construction rig to a building and dealing with new building department requests, hammering thru this required creating the recipe, which the engineer did, and the whole thing was fun because I spent as much time on mechanical fasteners as I might on a house plan...maybe I would find that oil gas stuff exciting...

I make very decent money even in this ecocomy because I work nonstop at a fair rate...

Do a masters, do internships...it may ake 5 years to find your niche, be patient most successful architects are over 50..

sadly that latter seems to be true.

i would add to the above statement that in fact many(most?) engineers are not creative, and like it that way, and it is only a few firms that take the alternate path. my expectation is that getting into arup could be as difficult as getting into OMA...but even if low man on totem in those kinds of firms, the process you learn is as valuable as masters degree...

if you do switch go to the schools first and check out the student work, the profs the students. finding right fit for you is impt.

On another note, how much more competitive is going for M.Arch I now that we're in a terrible recession? I would think most of the people going back to school would be past that level, but maybe not.

YOU ARE WAY WRONG IF u think architecture is about only aesthetics

I don't think it's only about aesthetics; really and truly I don't know what the hell it's about, I just know I can't get it out of the back of my mind. I'd rather take a very serious look into it and decide it's not for me than to always wonder "what if." My engineering degree will still be there either way.

There are two routes you could go

1. Get a job at an AE firm and get your hours under the engineer and do architecture. A small AE firm, there a re a few. And work your way into architecture. If you had your PE license and wanted to work at an architecure firm and could prove successful engineering you would be extremely competitive because the firm if flexible may find a way to use you as an engineer and make more money or save money is this econmy

2. Goto grad school to blow your mind, to figure out what is in the back of your mind. Maybe by the time you are done the economy will be swining up.

Check out Lebbeus Woods he began with an engineering degree (pretty sure). You would never guess that, considering he has barely built anthing.

i have not met an engineer who is any good as an architect without training in the field. even cecil balmond does rather horrible work on his own and he is pretty special as engineers go...

i hear that all the time about how an architect with an engineering degree would be invaluable and don't understand it...if i had a larger firm i would hire architects to do architecture and engineers to do engineering because both are full-time jobs. interdependent for certain but i wouldn't say they are remotely inter-changeable.

has anyone ever worked with someone where having another degree (or say years of experience in construction) was seen as a reason to give the person more money?

my point of view is heavily influenced by my experience here in japan where there is no such thing as a licensed architect only licensed structural engineers, and it is up to the individuals to decide whether they want to act like engineer or architect. the best in either category seem to be the ones who devote their lives to one or the other.

I agree. No one can do everything well. This goes for almost everything - design, drawings, graphics, etc.

"Jack of all trades, Master of none"

it depends on they type of work the AE firms does (USA). I'm not talking Ove Arup and Gehry here, I'm talking firms who do this for a living. Often a technical detail requires some calculations, whether it be thermal properties or structural, and having an engineer on staff who works with the archtects is very useful. You don't have to send it out to another consultant and you get your answer within hours. The architect can in theory stamp about everything the engineer does when it comes to buildings, but most firms in the US avoid the liablitity and hire an engineer. So if you're an architect who does their own engineering, having a staff engineer to verify or even solve your calculations is very useful. This also get the engineer more involved in the design process, because you're working thru possible details and scenarios with them from the start instead of asking them to solve what might be a ridiculously impossible design.