I found information on the web that architect is majorly anunderpaid job. People literally complained that they can never save money and some said most architects die poor. How true is this? What's actually an average wage for an architect, ranging from a lisenced graduate to someone with a few years of experience?
This is a topic I have thought about a lot more than I like to admit.
I get the impression that a typical salary in most parts of the country for someone fresh out of school might be from $30,000 to $40,000 for people graduating with B.Arch degrees and maybe $40,000 to $50,000 for people coming out of first-professional M.Arch programs. In big, expensive coastal cities (e.g. New York, Boston, SF, LA) those salaries are probably $5,000 to $10,000 higher. At big, high-profile corporate firms (e.g. Gensler, SOM, HOK) you might make $60,000 to $80,000 fresh out of an M.Arch.
Probably most peak-of-career architects across the country make around $75,000 to $100,000. But principals in well-established firms with a steady stream of high-budget projects easily earn $200,000 to $300,000. Principals at major corporate firms like Gensler, SOM, HOK, etc... earn more like $500,000 to $1,000,000.
Architects consider themselves poor because they always compare themselves to other white collar professionals like lawyers, doctors, and bankers who generally make more money. While a 26-year-old graduate from Harvard's architecture school would be lucky to earn $65,000 in her first year out of school, a 26-year-old graduate from Harvard's law school could expect to earn $160,000 in her first year with a big corporate firm. And a 26-year-old graduate from Harvard's business school who went to work for a banking or asset management firm might earn $300,000 her first year out of school. That relative "poverty" continues throughout the career ladder. $250,000 is plenty of money for a principal at a big architecture firm to make, but it pales in comparison to the one or two million that senior partners at big law firms often bring home each year.
yeah but law is for homos... I am new to the architect world, how do you become a "principal?" do you just mean like one of the main architects in the firm?
And what does that mean "you can make money in this profession if you want to. plenty of people have...."??
I dunno too many people that choose not to want to make money? care to elaborate on how exactly "you can make money if you want to?"
scottaway is probably talking about how much effort you are going to devote to your work, if you work like mad and do a great job you will most likely land a better paying job. You can only take what you have put in.
"In big, expensive coastal cities (e.g. New York, Boston, SF, LA) those salaries are probably $5,000 to $10,000 higher. At big, high-profile corporate firms (e.g. Gensler, SOM, HOK) you might make $60,000 to $80,000 fresh out of an M.Arch."
do architects really get "medicore" salaries? I understand there are fluctuations but from what I am to understand, especially with the way the economy is, your more than likely to come out of school owing mad loot in loans, and not even guarenteed a decent salary... I just dont get it... I wanted to go to grad school to get my MArch because I thought architecture was such an amazing job... To get paid to design fatanstic buildings, and to draw and create amazing structures just seems like it would be such a fullfilling and "rewarding" job... I thougth architects got paid really well also, I mean "MASTER BUILDER" sounds like a pretty important guy... but apparently not so much... I feel the more and more I hear, and the more and more I check salaries and such, its not what I thought at all... I could never see myself working in those companies like the guys in the movie office space, just plugging numbers and being miserable... The work of an architect hardly seems like work at all, and just seems like so much more... Alternatively, a guy has got to pay the bills, and maybe one day support a family... I want to learn how to make money as an architect, but I dont want to find out 3 years after I get my degree that this is easier said than done...
I have been thinking that simply getting an advanced graduate degree to become an architect and living happily ever after is more dillusional than realistic... I would love to do this but I feel the way the world is now with the global market becoming more competitive and the economy severely struggling, that a job as unpredictable, or one that is so influenced by the economy, just getting an architecture degree is not enough... I feel the only way to be sure to make money and have the ability to practice architecture freely is going far and beyond what was expected in the past... I have been thinking of applying to the city college of new york for my MArch degree because it is cheap, local and located in the city which I am sure would be a great studio environment... The more I think about it though I think dual master degrees is really the only way to go if you want to make money... like a joint MBA/MArch, or an MUP/MArch... obviously the MBA/MArch track is ideal but I just dont know, I am knew to this profession and I wish it was alot more simply in terms of applying and going...
"In big, expensive coastal cities (e.g. New York, Boston, SF, LA) those salaries are probably $5,000 to $10,000 higher. At big, high-profile corporate firms (e.g. Gensler, SOM, HOK) you might make $60,000 to $80,000 fresh out of an M.Arch."
4 years out of an M.Arch and I'd barely broken $50,000!
That was when I was still employed.
commuter,
salaries are not only based on how long you are out of school, but also on how much you learned, how hard you work, how good you are etc. I know people with same years out of school and some are making almost double than the other person simply because of their talent! With all that said, I agree with your comment and I would disagree with the figures of 60,000-80,000 right out of school!
Whoa! What a lot of misinformation! As someone who actually hires people (though not in this economy) for one of the companies cited above, I think some of the posters here need a reality check.
First of all, an MArch is not likely to get you a higher salary than a BArch. Many MArch's have some experience working in an architecture office and that will merit a higher salary. What you can do for us is what matters and an MArch usually doesn't have any advantage.
Secondly, there may be some overall difference in pay in "big expensive coastal cities" but in the major firms that are cited, it is minimal. In other words, you might live better in say Houston, Detroit, Charlotte, or low cost cities than in New York, San Diego, DC, or San Francisco. The trade-off is in culture and environment.
Third, "big, high-profile firms" don't pay that much more than mid-size firms. They usually have better benefits--better insurance, dental, vision, 401Ks, training opportunities, and often, more diverse and glamorous jobs to work on. Small firms' salaries and benefits vary the most.
Fourth, $1 million a year at a corporate firm? REALLY?? I laugh. Not a common occurrence!
Fifth, you probably won't make more with a joint MBA/MArch, but you might advance faster or on a different track. Architecture school does not prepare you well for the business of architecture.
Sixth, salaries are based on supply and demand. A couple of years back, new graduates could demand more than they were worth because we were desperate to fill desks. Now, there are no jobs at all. Architecture is notoriously subject to boom and bust periods. Periods of unemployment are, sadly, all too frequent.
Seventh, if you are in architecture for the money, you are a fool. It is a great and honorable profession, but it is demanding. You must work hard, you must want to do the work or you will be disillusioned. Most people fresh out of school can't put a building together--they are most useful doing CAD work while they learn--so be prepared. Also, if you think you will be given the assignment to design the next Taj Mahal or glamor project straight out of school (or seriously--EVER) you are a fool.
That being said, a new BArch or MArch will probably start somewhere in the $40s. Overtime and bonuses (if applicable) will increase that figure--more in good years and less in bad ones.
Salaries start varying more as people get more experience and show what they can do (or can't do), when people find niches that suit them (or fail to do so), when they are lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, or know the right people, when they get their registration and LEED (or fail to do so), when they take responsibility and leadership (or fail to do so).
"Seventh, if you are in architecture for the money, you are a fool"
This is the number one reason why architects don't make money. You are taught from school to hate money. Generally speaking, doctors don't do if for the money either but they get paid because they are professionals. Every profession that requires some sort of educations and dedication to work does make money. Architecture is literally the ONLY profession in this category that doesn’t make money and that doesn’t want to make money. We continue playing the “don’t get into architecture for money” card which is killing the profession. No one gets into architecture for the money, but everyone expects to be paid as any other professional. Apparently, that’s too much to ask for.
Just think about it, many firms are not even able to pay the rent for a "normal" standard office space. They are always stuck in some old cramped garage. His says alot.
cm, thank you for your insightful post. It seems like I was a little off with some of the figures I had. I really appreciate information from someone in your position.
I got the figures I had from a combination of tactfully trying to talk about salaries, overtime, and bonuses with architect friends and from reading Design Intelligence's compensation survey.
DI says the average starting salary for a B.Arch this year is $41,012, and for an M.Arch it's $47,263.
As for principals (joben - the old people in charge of the firm who typically own shares of the company), DI says the top 20% of firm CEOs (or people in charge of the firm, whether or not they have the title of CEO) earned $645,049 on average in 2008 including base salary and bonus. They say bonuses for these people can be two to three times base salary.
Finally, the DI article says, "The most highly compensated (average per year over three years) can earn $2.2 million per year when their bonus is included in the total. This includes the elite or “starchitect” category as well as highly differentiated medium-size firms and some of the global giants." Obviously they don't say which architect earned $2.2 million last year (anyone want to take a guess?), but at least someone on their survey claimed they made this much. But maybe it was a typo.
But of course, we all know how wonderfully misleading DI's surveys can be. So I would take this with a grain of salt.
Also, I think Harold makes a really good point about architects being encouraged to 'not be in it for the money' and to do it 'for the love of architecture.'
I completely understand why people say this and what they mean (and for the record I'm doing architecture because I love it and because I couldn't not do it), but I wonder if this not-in-it-for-the-money mindset has discouraged architects from thinking creatively about new services to offer, or new, more lucrative ways of offering their core services, or from simply agressively pushing fees.
I would be really curious to hear from people with more architecture experience than I have (which is probably most people reading this) about how much their firm has sat down and thought about what to do differently to make more money. (And not just by getting more work). Has anyone pushed fees way up and lost clients? Has anyone tried to offer some totally different kind of design service to hit a bigger or better market?
Maybe those questions are incredibly naive, and maybe everyone pushes fees and loses work, and maybe I'll be shouted down as crass for even suggesting architects think about making more money.
the easiest way to think about money is like this: to make it, you have to produce an item for less than it costs you to sell it. so, if i'm selling services, i've got to deliver them for a whole lot less. or bill a whole lot more.
i know of one guy who's making in the mid six figures each year as a firm leader. huge global firm, many offices, lots of big projects. clawed his way to the leadership position he's in. hates his job. can't leave because of the money.
otherwise, most principals in 'larger' firms - 120-250 people - who have small equity stakes are probably making 120-170/yr. at least that's what i've been told by a differing range of them.
on raising fees: it's all a perception of value. with some clients we can do it, but some push back very hard. for almost every client right now, fees are an issue. quite a few of those firms mentioned above have begun offering other services in addition to traditional design services. project management, leed, cost estimating, planning, etc. - those kinds of services are much less costly to provide and can return a fair bit of profit compared to design.
i don't think it's wrong at all to think about making more money. in fact, i've gotten much more active about looking for different ways to diversify our revenue stream over the past year. it's not always easy nor something that can always be done within the firm itself, but it's not a wrong headed thing.
Let's not forget that currently there is a huge downturn in architectural billings. This has resulted in w-i-d-e-s-p-r-e-a-d layoffs leaving an industry unemployment rate well in excess of the national statistics.
With such a huge glut of labor, generous raises and bonuses are sure to be hard to find in the coming years. Expect current salaries to either trend downward or stagnate in the coming years.
Also remember that although principals/partners in large firms do tend to make decent income, most Architect's never acheive that level of employment. The vast, and I mean VAST, majority of registered Architects would be happy to break $100k salary in their lifetime. Architecture simply stated is NOT a lucrative profession.
I have a friend who graduated last year from a four year undergraduate arch program and was hired at $60,000, and he is still employed and living quite comfortably.
who do I have to fuck to make money in this profession?
Why do alot of people I talk to think architects make money? Thats what I used to think, but after visiting this site, it seems to be quite the opposite.
is starting your own firm so you can one day be a "principal" the only way to make them $$?
I want to get into this profession, and I am pretty "passionate" about it, but if im going to spend 3+ years getting my MArch (possibly dual MArch/???) than I would like to know that I will be doing something I am "passionate" about, but also able to feed my family
i agree with simples - that kind of figure for someone right out of school is very, very rare. they would have to have a very specialized set of skills that i needed desperately.
joben - the only way to make 'real' money in any business is to have an equity stake. it also means taking on greater exposure and risk. you simply won't be able to take on a 'regular' position, especially coming right out of school, and make big money like the top law firms.
Specialized skills worth hiring for ='s things your currently hiring expensive consultants (hehe me!) to help do/parts of projects your out-sourcing (like movies and renderings...) for lots of money and limited creative input.
For example: you hire someone young who's interned for a year or two to do the job of a CAD/BIM manager for less than it would cost to hire an experienced BIM manager (who's salaries usually start at $75K and typically go to $90K) or a consultant ($150+ an hour).
They have what you need (computer/software skills and industry experience) for less. It works well for both parties-except, of course the consulting firm (now's the time I should really place my foot in my mouth- but hey, I'd rather do it in-house if anyone's hiring ;)...)
joben - if you were an expert in bsl3 or above type labs, that would be one kind of specialized. if you had skills in cfd modeling that would allow you to calculate buildings very quickly, that would be another kind.
rendering and bim wouldn't be enough for our firm. but i can see where someone might see that as a specialty.
Having worked in large corporate firms I don't think that applies, especially at entry level. All people starting out are paid more or less about the same. Promotion largely seems based on personal relationships with management and actual talent seems secondary. I've met many principals running firms that were mostly good people persons and could bring in work, yet their actual talents when it comes to architecture were mediocre at best. Many have admitted this...one particular person was leading a very very large national firm.
High profile/published firms in boom times could on average get a few more % in fee because they were worth more, or get a decent fee for "design" and let some production firm pick up the DD's and take it through to completion. Guess that's a sign of getting paid what you're worth, but from what I've seen pay at big production firms is equal or better based on volume of work and not higher fees.
i have a friend fresh out of grad school, who was offered three jobs this year at $50,000/yr.
one with a starchitect office in amsterdam, one with a new york based corporate giant who has had the 'we are not hiring post' on their website for almost a year now and another one from a local firm(also a large corporate firm). all the firms said they would match w/e the others offered, and we are in one of the worst recessions to hit the global economy. They had said that they would have offered him $60,000+ if the economy wasn't this shitty..but anyone can say that so w/e..so yes it is your ability and talent that matters that can also bring you riches.(i'm not saying that 50.000 is riches here) I think it truly is a case-by-case matter.
Another friend of mine went to korea after graduation, was offered a package that featured $65,000 in salaries + $25,000 worth of housing + two round trip tickets to the US, full benefits + profit sharing. This year they offered him a raise and offered a part-time teaching position at a school in Seoul, raising the entire package to an amount of roughly $120,000 +. He had a couple years of experience before, but this was his first job out of grad school.
I know this profession is hard to make a fortune, but definitely not impossible. But i think like 'outed' mentioned, special skills helps.
My friend who got the three offers is very proficient with parametric modeling and high quality rendering software, not to mention design skills. The one who went to Korea is very adept in emerging softwares and also gives lectures to the employees there and currently leads a design team. (doing mostly competitions)
I think in current market situations, you either need to have years of experience, or special skill sets that truly differentiates u from the pack to land jobs to start out with, then survive and to thrive.
Joben when the times were good (2007) I was coming out of grad school and I saw a lot of offers and everyone in my march class had good offers themselves.
I saw anywhere between 45-65k . The one offered 65k was in NYC at a corportate firm and fortunately declined it knowing their ridiculous hiring/firing policy. He also had a previous 5 years of experience before grad school and was a mad talented!
Since you have very little experience there is no reason for you to make any more than that. Remember, with a few exceptions architecture firms aren't fortune-500 companies and don't really have deep pockets like law firms to be paying people out of school insanely high. They save that money for the highly experienced and talented mid to senior level architects.
Architecture is a tough profession and when the economy goes bad, so does the profession so expect to see low salaries, pay cuts, and worst of all, layoffs.
cryz - it's not having to bow down. look, most grads think they're the world's greatest gift to design. but creating value for a firm is likely not to begin or stop with those limited set of design skills. someone who can design (and i mean that in every best sense of the word) bl3 labs very quickly is a huge bonus to a firm that does lab work, or one that aspires to doing that kind of work. they're worth far more than a generic grad.
even the example about the parametric expert - that may be a big thing for the firm in amsterdam to master, in order to keep their international 'stature' intact. i guarantee if they're a mid grade ivy league designer, they don't make that kind of jack. those people (and i was one once upon a time) are a dime a dozen.
there are many ways to show value to a firm - figure out some kind of niche, be the best expert in the world in it and then have a broad understanding of everything else. that's what clients will pay well for...
When I stated that you are a fool to get into architecture for the money, I meant that you must first like the work you do or you will be unhappy and disappointed. The same goes for doctors, lawyers, and pro basketball players. (They just might be better compensated fools.) If you are entering this competitive field without talent and drive and interest, it is less likely that you will succeed.
I hear stories of people who watched Mr. Ed reruns and the Brady Bunch
and decided architecture would be easy--you could stand around all day talking to a horse and still afford to feed him. Arch schools lead students to believe that architecture is a life of free form design and that the world is just waiting for your opinion and critique. Reality is more like working out a stair detail--(BUT that great stair detail can lead to bigger and better things.)
Salaries are a function of supply and demand and what value you offer an employer. Right now demand for most architectural services is low so new salaries (the few that exist) will probably be lower than in previous years. Some people are begging to work for free! (That's another topic.)
Also, be careful when you hear anecdotal stories of what others claim to have been offered--and take it with a grain of salt. People tend to inflate their salaries, SAT scores, golf scores, sexual scores... :-p
Great post cm and outed. You are right on target. Starting salaries are, in general, supply and demand, a function of macroeconomic. It is also important to make your own place in a firm, but I think it goes beyond finding a niche or being an expert. I think one can make themselves invaluable in another way.
A persons ability to work with others, be inquisitive, be inspiring, be aggressive (in a positive way) is all under their control. An employee who asks for work or asks to be part of a team has a greater chance of getting on that team, getting noticed and getting promoted. The ugly truth is firm don't give out partnership or associates to just anyone. They look for team players.
When you speak to teaching the business of architecture I think these are lessons that are sometimes overlooked.
You may be at the mercy of supply and demand when you are looking for a job but once you are employed your ability to make more money increases greatly.
Got to be careful with that one. If the office is already an economically sinking ship asking for work can be seen as admission of not having anything to do and can increase your chances of getting let go. I've seen this happen on more than one occasion, the employee who feels he/she is doing the right thing by looking for work get axed over the person who really overall contributed less but was much better at appearing busy.
But then again, places like suck to work at anyway so getting let go is probably for the best.
Just a question... could having an MBA be considered as a "specialized skill(s)"? how bout having a masters in urban planning or urban design?
I have had a feeling for a while a simply MArch wont make me as competitive as I want, and since I am just starting to take art classes I really dont know how "creative" I actually am... I feel this other knowledge would be a good backup
great question about the mba - probably better than you realize. i think it would be very, very helpful to have an mba, but not for the reasons you might think. meaning this: if you're asking that in the context of running a 'normal' design practice, no, an mba won't help much. unless you want to fast track to managing principal at some mid to large firm (which, in the business world is still a small business, even at 200 people ).
however, if you can take that mba and use it to leverage other types of businesses/services that architects could be offering, especially something that has scalability to it (say in software, products, etc), it could be invaluable in terms of giving you insights on how to actually structure and run a business of that type.
i'm convinced, after seeing more of the 'real' business world, that we're idiots (as architects). we create tremendous value throughout the design and construction chain but we don't know how to leverage any of it. we don't 'get' intellectual property, we don't 'get' how to scale up ideas, we don't understand diverse revenue streams and how to generate them. for the most part, it isn't embedded into our consciousness as being 'worthy'.
i've told this anecdote before but just to hammer the point home: during my stay at the gsd, i took an entreprenurial management course at the harvard b-school. they only let 3 of us 'outsiders' into a class of 40 - me and two law school students. a truly eye opening experience all the way around, from the case study method to the fact that they had real stars from the business world come in to discuss the cases. the main point i want to make, though, is this: we, as architects, like to believe we're all going to go on and 'rule the world' with our ideas. we're clueless in how it works. those kids - they KNOW they're going to rule the world one day. and it shows.
if you want to be partner i think more than being team player you need to bring in work. it all starts from there. maybe the team player thing comes in as a result of being able to bring in work and putting teams together to manage projects etc (or maybe not, there are lots of ways to bring in large projects). but being "team player" in itself is kind of american fluff double-speak for padding resumes. i have learned to ignore that kind of bullshit, as a matter of course.
we are not hiring. if we were i would prefer people who could demonstrate what they can do, not what they think they can do. we talk to bankers and financial people a lot. there is a different kind fo bullshit going on, but basically it comes down to proving what you can do and i am very much impressed by how fast that attitude cuts through the bullshit.
so mba or bim (is that even a specialised skill anymore?), the thing that really matters is what you did with those skills. where it gets tricky is making others understand too.
anyway, this is how i see things lately after running own office for a few years in tokyo. it is very far removed from what i used to believe, but reality will do that to you. our office, btw has not abandoned interest in theory and good design as a result of this point of view. to be honest i am finding that the really good high-end design-led firms like OMA and BIG, Wiel Arets (sorry for the dutchness of the list) figured this out a long time ago and that is part of why they are successful...
jump - i'll echo that. you're not making partner in almost any firm unless you can bring the work in. pure 'design' partners are for big, mostly nameless companies. even then, you're still helping bring the work in.
bringing work in means getting clients to trust YOU to get the job done better than someone else. that's it, really.
so jump what your saying is being an architect doesnt mean just being an architect... you need to know how to booze and shmooze to get people to like YOU... not just your designs?
... so mba/MArch? specialization mba in dlck sucking?
Well I guess I was way off with thinking you could get $60-80K out of grad school at big revenue firms. That came from a couple people I've talked to who said they made in the low 60s out of grad school at SOM and Gensler several years ago, who were not rock stars (though they were decent), and I guessed - or hoped :-) - that salaries might have gone up a little since then, or might be higher for peopel with special skills.
What I wonder though is why companies will pay so much bigger fees for legal services than they will for architectural services. I'm not saying that I can't see why there would be a difference, but why is architecture so cheap?
Do architectural clients feel like there isn't much difference between architecture firms, and they could always go to someone else? While at the same time only one or two law firms are truly capable of handling their most important deals? That seems odd to me because it seems like a lot of corporate law is fairly routine (not that it's easy), but it still commands huge fees.
Just to compare hourly billing rates for lawyers and architects. Corporate lawyers can bill at $500, $600, even $1,000 per hour. While roughly equivalent, well established architects bill at $150, $200, $300 per hour, right? (but I could be way off on this).
For the last few years I worked at a real estate development development consulting firm. We did market studies and strategy consulting for developers and investors. I started working there right after getting a B.A. in Art History. As a early-20-something with only a couple years of experience my billing rate was $135/hour. The senior people in the firm billed at $600/hour. What amazes me is that after I get my M.Arch and have much more specific, rarified knowledge (of construction, of software, of design), clients will likely pay LESS money for my input on a building project than before.
This all makes me think that either architects aren't asking for enough money, or, more likely, there are simply too many architects out there relative to demand (in general, let alone the slump we're in now).
It seems like the image of the wealthy architect that is so common in non-architects' minds was created in the early to middle 20th century. And I wonder if at that time architects were able to command relatively higher fees. And I wonder if that might have had something to do with there being fewer architects? But maybe not. Just an idea.
When you're in college, Architecture is more important than money. When you have a mortgage, kids to feed and a huge student loan debt, money is more important than architecture. Most architects don't even make middle class income.
The misconception architects are rich comes form the days when arch was only pursued by the offspring of already the extremely wealthy old money upper-middle class. Now any pleb can study arch but they don't have rich parents to prop up their years of arch ed nor do they have the social network to fall into big paying clients.
People don't pay architects big bucks because architecture and it's results are speculative and subjective.
Law and medicine on the other hand have strongly defined outcomes and deal with the two most important things in the world to everyone but architects and architecture students.
scottaway - my money is on those guys not exactly telling you the truth. "A few years ago" people were making around 30% less or more, with specialized skills (like 3D), coming out of grad school.
"Middle Class" - technically starts a lot lower than what most 'feel' is middle class. I believe 50k a year is about 'middle class', which I think most would suggest is a low income overall.
Architect's also don't make money because there are plenty of builders making thousands of homes without an architect designing them (perhaps overseeing, but generally copied/pasted everywhere).
Then we've got the AIA suing over 'misuse' of terminology, which just takes more money out of profits.
Lawyers and Doctors control their markets. Although a Dr. can call himself a Dr. out of school, prior to licensure, he/she cannot practice (and no one can do what a doc does legally, anyone can design and build a house).
This all makes me think that either architects aren't asking for enough money, or, more likely, there are simply too many architects out there relative to demand (in general, let alone the slump we're in now).
You said it scottaway...this has been my point for quite some time. I think there are way too many Architecture colleges graduating way too many people flooding a market that could only sustain the glut of labor with large boom cycles in construction.
Contrarians will claim that if we reduce the number of architects we'll end up with non-architects moving in on our work which I am skeptical of. I'd rather go after the already registered architects that are stamp whores working in places that could only loosely be considered arch/design firms. Even though we are awash in architects now we still have contractors/engineers/etc. claiming they can do the work of an architect. Quite frankly, being strong in numbers isn't stopping anything. I'd rather be smaller numbers but higher qualified and more elite of a group.
Median income in the USA, last time I checked, was about $45k/year. Amongst college grads, especially those with graduate degrees (MArch), it is much much higher.
"Middle class" income depends on where you live for the most part given cost of living. Regardless, over the past 15 years we've seen huge inflation in cost of housing, transportation and food. All of which have put huge pressure on "middle class families." A family of four living on $100k annual isn't that well off, even though a salary of $100k is still seen as a "good" income.
My brother works for a Fortune 500 that sets starting salaries based on level of education & years of work experience. Starting pay scales largely resemble military pay scales where he works. For a bachelor's degree (in anything) and 7-10 years work experience (in anything) starting pay is $90k + benefits. Middle class is well into the $100k + range these days.
harold hit exactly what I am trying to get at "When you're in college, Architecture is more important than money. When you have a mortgage, kids to feed and a huge student loan debt, money is more important than architecture. Most architects don't even make middle class income."
This is why I felt having an alternate plan, say for instance having an MBA or a MSRED, or a MUP, than couldnt you possibly go into that field work off your loans, acrue some nice bank and on the side or maybe a little bit later down the line practice your love for architecture? I know this is a very roundabout route, but at the same time its like someone stated before its all about sacrifices and sometimes you cant always jump headfirst into this field.
i have a phd in urban planning as well as m. arch and we are recently working at expanding our office to take on planning projects but i would not say it has made things any easier. i am now able to work as consultant because of academic credentials and we are pursuing that too, but again nothing is necessarily easier.
business is never easier just because of a piece of paper, including mba or whatever else. in fact i would say mba is worth much less than it ever was. if you want to work for goldman sachs your mba is not going to be enough unless you get it a princeton and work hard to become top student (ok, i exagerate but only a little bit). if you plan to use it in an architectural office then don't bother going to architecture school, cuz mba is best used in that setting only if you want to become HR leader or some other kind of office manager.
best way to become wealthy architect is to marry well or try and get born into a rich family.if you want to become developer this is perhaps not necessary but then you need to find someone to bankroll you. which is where those people skills mentioned above come in. such a job need not involve fellacio but will most certainly require political and economic savy if you intend to do as career. mba maybe help in that respect, but i don't think is an actual necessity. not that it isn't worth having, just don't put too much faith in it...
poor architects???
I found information on the web that architect is majorly anunderpaid job. People literally complained that they can never save money and some said most architects die poor. How true is this? What's actually an average wage for an architect, ranging from a lisenced graduate to someone with a few years of experience?
iris,
there are tons of resources out on the web about salary information. go dig some more there and see if that can answer your questions.
you can make money in this profession if you want to. plenty of people have....
Check out the salary poll in the left navigation
<-----
check this out though.
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/081215salaries.asp
but from what i hear, architect's pay seem to range quite a bit.
This is a topic I have thought about a lot more than I like to admit.
I get the impression that a typical salary in most parts of the country for someone fresh out of school might be from $30,000 to $40,000 for people graduating with B.Arch degrees and maybe $40,000 to $50,000 for people coming out of first-professional M.Arch programs. In big, expensive coastal cities (e.g. New York, Boston, SF, LA) those salaries are probably $5,000 to $10,000 higher. At big, high-profile corporate firms (e.g. Gensler, SOM, HOK) you might make $60,000 to $80,000 fresh out of an M.Arch.
Probably most peak-of-career architects across the country make around $75,000 to $100,000. But principals in well-established firms with a steady stream of high-budget projects easily earn $200,000 to $300,000. Principals at major corporate firms like Gensler, SOM, HOK, etc... earn more like $500,000 to $1,000,000.
Architects consider themselves poor because they always compare themselves to other white collar professionals like lawyers, doctors, and bankers who generally make more money. While a 26-year-old graduate from Harvard's architecture school would be lucky to earn $65,000 in her first year out of school, a 26-year-old graduate from Harvard's law school could expect to earn $160,000 in her first year with a big corporate firm. And a 26-year-old graduate from Harvard's business school who went to work for a banking or asset management firm might earn $300,000 her first year out of school. That relative "poverty" continues throughout the career ladder. $250,000 is plenty of money for a principal at a big architecture firm to make, but it pales in comparison to the one or two million that senior partners at big law firms often bring home each year.
yeah but law is for homos... I am new to the architect world, how do you become a "principal?" do you just mean like one of the main architects in the firm?
And what does that mean "you can make money in this profession if you want to. plenty of people have...."??
I dunno too many people that choose not to want to make money? care to elaborate on how exactly "you can make money if you want to?"
joben,
scottaway is probably talking about how much effort you are going to devote to your work, if you work like mad and do a great job you will most likely land a better paying job. You can only take what you have put in.
"In big, expensive coastal cities (e.g. New York, Boston, SF, LA) those salaries are probably $5,000 to $10,000 higher. At big, high-profile corporate firms (e.g. Gensler, SOM, HOK) you might make $60,000 to $80,000 fresh out of an M.Arch."
Hilarious!
do architects really get "medicore" salaries? I understand there are fluctuations but from what I am to understand, especially with the way the economy is, your more than likely to come out of school owing mad loot in loans, and not even guarenteed a decent salary... I just dont get it... I wanted to go to grad school to get my MArch because I thought architecture was such an amazing job... To get paid to design fatanstic buildings, and to draw and create amazing structures just seems like it would be such a fullfilling and "rewarding" job... I thougth architects got paid really well also, I mean "MASTER BUILDER" sounds like a pretty important guy... but apparently not so much... I feel the more and more I hear, and the more and more I check salaries and such, its not what I thought at all... I could never see myself working in those companies like the guys in the movie office space, just plugging numbers and being miserable... The work of an architect hardly seems like work at all, and just seems like so much more... Alternatively, a guy has got to pay the bills, and maybe one day support a family... I want to learn how to make money as an architect, but I dont want to find out 3 years after I get my degree that this is easier said than done...
I have been thinking that simply getting an advanced graduate degree to become an architect and living happily ever after is more dillusional than realistic... I would love to do this but I feel the way the world is now with the global market becoming more competitive and the economy severely struggling, that a job as unpredictable, or one that is so influenced by the economy, just getting an architecture degree is not enough... I feel the only way to be sure to make money and have the ability to practice architecture freely is going far and beyond what was expected in the past... I have been thinking of applying to the city college of new york for my MArch degree because it is cheap, local and located in the city which I am sure would be a great studio environment... The more I think about it though I think dual master degrees is really the only way to go if you want to make money... like a joint MBA/MArch, or an MUP/MArch... obviously the MBA/MArch track is ideal but I just dont know, I am knew to this profession and I wish it was alot more simply in terms of applying and going...
-Pesimistic youth
"In big, expensive coastal cities (e.g. New York, Boston, SF, LA) those salaries are probably $5,000 to $10,000 higher. At big, high-profile corporate firms (e.g. Gensler, SOM, HOK) you might make $60,000 to $80,000 fresh out of an M.Arch."
4 years out of an M.Arch and I'd barely broken $50,000!
That was when I was still employed.
commuter,
salaries are not only based on how long you are out of school, but also on how much you learned, how hard you work, how good you are etc. I know people with same years out of school and some are making almost double than the other person simply because of their talent! With all that said, I agree with your comment and I would disagree with the figures of 60,000-80,000 right out of school!
Whoa! What a lot of misinformation! As someone who actually hires people (though not in this economy) for one of the companies cited above, I think some of the posters here need a reality check.
First of all, an MArch is not likely to get you a higher salary than a BArch. Many MArch's have some experience working in an architecture office and that will merit a higher salary. What you can do for us is what matters and an MArch usually doesn't have any advantage.
Secondly, there may be some overall difference in pay in "big expensive coastal cities" but in the major firms that are cited, it is minimal. In other words, you might live better in say Houston, Detroit, Charlotte, or low cost cities than in New York, San Diego, DC, or San Francisco. The trade-off is in culture and environment.
Third, "big, high-profile firms" don't pay that much more than mid-size firms. They usually have better benefits--better insurance, dental, vision, 401Ks, training opportunities, and often, more diverse and glamorous jobs to work on. Small firms' salaries and benefits vary the most.
Fourth, $1 million a year at a corporate firm? REALLY?? I laugh. Not a common occurrence!
Fifth, you probably won't make more with a joint MBA/MArch, but you might advance faster or on a different track. Architecture school does not prepare you well for the business of architecture.
Sixth, salaries are based on supply and demand. A couple of years back, new graduates could demand more than they were worth because we were desperate to fill desks. Now, there are no jobs at all. Architecture is notoriously subject to boom and bust periods. Periods of unemployment are, sadly, all too frequent.
Seventh, if you are in architecture for the money, you are a fool. It is a great and honorable profession, but it is demanding. You must work hard, you must want to do the work or you will be disillusioned. Most people fresh out of school can't put a building together--they are most useful doing CAD work while they learn--so be prepared. Also, if you think you will be given the assignment to design the next Taj Mahal or glamor project straight out of school (or seriously--EVER) you are a fool.
That being said, a new BArch or MArch will probably start somewhere in the $40s. Overtime and bonuses (if applicable) will increase that figure--more in good years and less in bad ones.
Salaries start varying more as people get more experience and show what they can do (or can't do), when people find niches that suit them (or fail to do so), when they are lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, or know the right people, when they get their registration and LEED (or fail to do so), when they take responsibility and leadership (or fail to do so).
Best of luck.
"Seventh, if you are in architecture for the money, you are a fool"
This is the number one reason why architects don't make money. You are taught from school to hate money. Generally speaking, doctors don't do if for the money either but they get paid because they are professionals. Every profession that requires some sort of educations and dedication to work does make money. Architecture is literally the ONLY profession in this category that doesn’t make money and that doesn’t want to make money. We continue playing the “don’t get into architecture for money” card which is killing the profession. No one gets into architecture for the money, but everyone expects to be paid as any other professional. Apparently, that’s too much to ask for.
Just think about it, many firms are not even able to pay the rent for a "normal" standard office space. They are always stuck in some old cramped garage. His says alot.
cm, thank you for your insightful post. It seems like I was a little off with some of the figures I had. I really appreciate information from someone in your position.
I got the figures I had from a combination of tactfully trying to talk about salaries, overtime, and bonuses with architect friends and from reading Design Intelligence's compensation survey.
Here's a link to a recent DI article that quotes a lot of figures from their survey
DI says the average starting salary for a B.Arch this year is $41,012, and for an M.Arch it's $47,263.
As for principals (joben - the old people in charge of the firm who typically own shares of the company), DI says the top 20% of firm CEOs (or people in charge of the firm, whether or not they have the title of CEO) earned $645,049 on average in 2008 including base salary and bonus. They say bonuses for these people can be two to three times base salary.
Finally, the DI article says, "The most highly compensated (average per year over three years) can earn $2.2 million per year when their bonus is included in the total. This includes the elite or “starchitect” category as well as highly differentiated medium-size firms and some of the global giants." Obviously they don't say which architect earned $2.2 million last year (anyone want to take a guess?), but at least someone on their survey claimed they made this much. But maybe it was a typo.
But of course, we all know how wonderfully misleading DI's surveys can be. So I would take this with a grain of salt.
Also, I think Harold makes a really good point about architects being encouraged to 'not be in it for the money' and to do it 'for the love of architecture.'
I completely understand why people say this and what they mean (and for the record I'm doing architecture because I love it and because I couldn't not do it), but I wonder if this not-in-it-for-the-money mindset has discouraged architects from thinking creatively about new services to offer, or new, more lucrative ways of offering their core services, or from simply agressively pushing fees.
I would be really curious to hear from people with more architecture experience than I have (which is probably most people reading this) about how much their firm has sat down and thought about what to do differently to make more money. (And not just by getting more work). Has anyone pushed fees way up and lost clients? Has anyone tried to offer some totally different kind of design service to hit a bigger or better market?
Maybe those questions are incredibly naive, and maybe everyone pushes fees and loses work, and maybe I'll be shouted down as crass for even suggesting architects think about making more money.
scottaway -
the easiest way to think about money is like this: to make it, you have to produce an item for less than it costs you to sell it. so, if i'm selling services, i've got to deliver them for a whole lot less. or bill a whole lot more.
i know of one guy who's making in the mid six figures each year as a firm leader. huge global firm, many offices, lots of big projects. clawed his way to the leadership position he's in. hates his job. can't leave because of the money.
otherwise, most principals in 'larger' firms - 120-250 people - who have small equity stakes are probably making 120-170/yr. at least that's what i've been told by a differing range of them.
on raising fees: it's all a perception of value. with some clients we can do it, but some push back very hard. for almost every client right now, fees are an issue. quite a few of those firms mentioned above have begun offering other services in addition to traditional design services. project management, leed, cost estimating, planning, etc. - those kinds of services are much less costly to provide and can return a fair bit of profit compared to design.
i don't think it's wrong at all to think about making more money. in fact, i've gotten much more active about looking for different ways to diversify our revenue stream over the past year. it's not always easy nor something that can always be done within the firm itself, but it's not a wrong headed thing.
Let's not forget that currently there is a huge downturn in architectural billings. This has resulted in w-i-d-e-s-p-r-e-a-d layoffs leaving an industry unemployment rate well in excess of the national statistics.
With such a huge glut of labor, generous raises and bonuses are sure to be hard to find in the coming years. Expect current salaries to either trend downward or stagnate in the coming years.
Also remember that although principals/partners in large firms do tend to make decent income, most Architect's never acheive that level of employment. The vast, and I mean VAST, majority of registered Architects would be happy to break $100k salary in their lifetime. Architecture simply stated is NOT a lucrative profession.
I have a friend who graduated last year from a four year undergraduate arch program and was hired at $60,000, and he is still employed and living quite comfortably.
You'll get paid what you're worth
who do I have to fuck to make money in this profession?
Why do alot of people I talk to think architects make money? Thats what I used to think, but after visiting this site, it seems to be quite the opposite.
is starting your own firm so you can one day be a "principal" the only way to make them $$?
I want to get into this profession, and I am pretty "passionate" about it, but if im going to spend 3+ years getting my MArch (possibly dual MArch/???) than I would like to know that I will be doing something I am "passionate" about, but also able to feed my family
loremipsum, those figures are really not representative of the situation out there, regardless of how talented the intern is.
i agree however, with your last sentence (and that goes for the Fee tangent as well): "You'll get paid what you're worth"
i agree with simples - that kind of figure for someone right out of school is very, very rare. they would have to have a very specialized set of skills that i needed desperately.
joben - the only way to make 'real' money in any business is to have an equity stake. it also means taking on greater exposure and risk. you simply won't be able to take on a 'regular' position, especially coming right out of school, and make big money like the top law firms.
what kind of "specialized skills" are you speaking of?
Specialized skills worth hiring for ='s things your currently hiring expensive consultants (hehe me!) to help do/parts of projects your out-sourcing (like movies and renderings...) for lots of money and limited creative input.
For example: you hire someone young who's interned for a year or two to do the job of a CAD/BIM manager for less than it would cost to hire an experienced BIM manager (who's salaries usually start at $75K and typically go to $90K) or a consultant ($150+ an hour).
They have what you need (computer/software skills and industry experience) for less. It works well for both parties-except, of course the consulting firm (now's the time I should really place my foot in my mouth- but hey, I'd rather do it in-house if anyone's hiring ;)...)
joben - if you were an expert in bsl3 or above type labs, that would be one kind of specialized. if you had skills in cfd modeling that would allow you to calculate buildings very quickly, that would be another kind.
rendering and bim wouldn't be enough for our firm. but i can see where someone might see that as a specialty.
Having worked in large corporate firms I don't think that applies, especially at entry level. All people starting out are paid more or less about the same. Promotion largely seems based on personal relationships with management and actual talent seems secondary. I've met many principals running firms that were mostly good people persons and could bring in work, yet their actual talents when it comes to architecture were mediocre at best. Many have admitted this...one particular person was leading a very very large national firm.
High profile/published firms in boom times could on average get a few more % in fee because they were worth more, or get a decent fee for "design" and let some production firm pick up the DD's and take it through to completion. Guess that's a sign of getting paid what you're worth, but from what I've seen pay at big production firms is equal or better based on volume of work and not higher fees.
i have a friend fresh out of grad school, who was offered three jobs this year at $50,000/yr.
one with a starchitect office in amsterdam, one with a new york based corporate giant who has had the 'we are not hiring post' on their website for almost a year now and another one from a local firm(also a large corporate firm). all the firms said they would match w/e the others offered, and we are in one of the worst recessions to hit the global economy. They had said that they would have offered him $60,000+ if the economy wasn't this shitty..but anyone can say that so w/e..so yes it is your ability and talent that matters that can also bring you riches.(i'm not saying that 50.000 is riches here) I think it truly is a case-by-case matter.
Another friend of mine went to korea after graduation, was offered a package that featured $65,000 in salaries + $25,000 worth of housing + two round trip tickets to the US, full benefits + profit sharing. This year they offered him a raise and offered a part-time teaching position at a school in Seoul, raising the entire package to an amount of roughly $120,000 +. He had a couple years of experience before, but this was his first job out of grad school.
I know this profession is hard to make a fortune, but definitely not impossible. But i think like 'outed' mentioned, special skills helps.
My friend who got the three offers is very proficient with parametric modeling and high quality rendering software, not to mention design skills. The one who went to Korea is very adept in emerging softwares and also gives lectures to the employees there and currently leads a design team. (doing mostly competitions)
I think in current market situations, you either need to have years of experience, or special skill sets that truly differentiates u from the pack to land jobs to start out with, then survive and to thrive.
You will NOT get 60-80k fresh out of grad school no matter what city and no matter what firm. Let's just make that final.
"special skills"
i.e. be good with your mouth and pack your own knee pads.
Joben when the times were good (2007) I was coming out of grad school and I saw a lot of offers and everyone in my march class had good offers themselves.
I saw anywhere between 45-65k . The one offered 65k was in NYC at a corportate firm and fortunately declined it knowing their ridiculous hiring/firing policy. He also had a previous 5 years of experience before grad school and was a mad talented!
Since you have very little experience there is no reason for you to make any more than that. Remember, with a few exceptions architecture firms aren't fortune-500 companies and don't really have deep pockets like law firms to be paying people out of school insanely high. They save that money for the highly experienced and talented mid to senior level architects.
Architecture is a tough profession and when the economy goes bad, so does the profession so expect to see low salaries, pay cuts, and worst of all, layoffs.
cryz - it's not having to bow down. look, most grads think they're the world's greatest gift to design. but creating value for a firm is likely not to begin or stop with those limited set of design skills. someone who can design (and i mean that in every best sense of the word) bl3 labs very quickly is a huge bonus to a firm that does lab work, or one that aspires to doing that kind of work. they're worth far more than a generic grad.
even the example about the parametric expert - that may be a big thing for the firm in amsterdam to master, in order to keep their international 'stature' intact. i guarantee if they're a mid grade ivy league designer, they don't make that kind of jack. those people (and i was one once upon a time) are a dime a dozen.
there are many ways to show value to a firm - figure out some kind of niche, be the best expert in the world in it and then have a broad understanding of everything else. that's what clients will pay well for...
When I stated that you are a fool to get into architecture for the money, I meant that you must first like the work you do or you will be unhappy and disappointed. The same goes for doctors, lawyers, and pro basketball players. (They just might be better compensated fools.) If you are entering this competitive field without talent and drive and interest, it is less likely that you will succeed.
I hear stories of people who watched Mr. Ed reruns and the Brady Bunch
and decided architecture would be easy--you could stand around all day talking to a horse and still afford to feed him. Arch schools lead students to believe that architecture is a life of free form design and that the world is just waiting for your opinion and critique. Reality is more like working out a stair detail--(BUT that great stair detail can lead to bigger and better things.)
Salaries are a function of supply and demand and what value you offer an employer. Right now demand for most architectural services is low so new salaries (the few that exist) will probably be lower than in previous years. Some people are begging to work for free! (That's another topic.)
Also, be careful when you hear anecdotal stories of what others claim to have been offered--and take it with a grain of salt. People tend to inflate their salaries, SAT scores, golf scores, sexual scores... :-p
Great post cm and outed. You are right on target. Starting salaries are, in general, supply and demand, a function of macroeconomic. It is also important to make your own place in a firm, but I think it goes beyond finding a niche or being an expert. I think one can make themselves invaluable in another way.
A persons ability to work with others, be inquisitive, be inspiring, be aggressive (in a positive way) is all under their control. An employee who asks for work or asks to be part of a team has a greater chance of getting on that team, getting noticed and getting promoted. The ugly truth is firm don't give out partnership or associates to just anyone. They look for team players.
When you speak to teaching the business of architecture I think these are lessons that are sometimes overlooked.
You may be at the mercy of supply and demand when you are looking for a job but once you are employed your ability to make more money increases greatly.
"An employee who asks for work..."
Got to be careful with that one. If the office is already an economically sinking ship asking for work can be seen as admission of not having anything to do and can increase your chances of getting let go. I've seen this happen on more than one occasion, the employee who feels he/she is doing the right thing by looking for work get axed over the person who really overall contributed less but was much better at appearing busy.
But then again, places like suck to work at anyway so getting let go is probably for the best.
Just a question... could having an MBA be considered as a "specialized skill(s)"? how bout having a masters in urban planning or urban design?
I have had a feeling for a while a simply MArch wont make me as competitive as I want, and since I am just starting to take art classes I really dont know how "creative" I actually am... I feel this other knowledge would be a good backup
joben -
great question about the mba - probably better than you realize. i think it would be very, very helpful to have an mba, but not for the reasons you might think. meaning this: if you're asking that in the context of running a 'normal' design practice, no, an mba won't help much. unless you want to fast track to managing principal at some mid to large firm (which, in the business world is still a small business, even at 200 people ).
however, if you can take that mba and use it to leverage other types of businesses/services that architects could be offering, especially something that has scalability to it (say in software, products, etc), it could be invaluable in terms of giving you insights on how to actually structure and run a business of that type.
i'm convinced, after seeing more of the 'real' business world, that we're idiots (as architects). we create tremendous value throughout the design and construction chain but we don't know how to leverage any of it. we don't 'get' intellectual property, we don't 'get' how to scale up ideas, we don't understand diverse revenue streams and how to generate them. for the most part, it isn't embedded into our consciousness as being 'worthy'.
i've told this anecdote before but just to hammer the point home: during my stay at the gsd, i took an entreprenurial management course at the harvard b-school. they only let 3 of us 'outsiders' into a class of 40 - me and two law school students. a truly eye opening experience all the way around, from the case study method to the fact that they had real stars from the business world come in to discuss the cases. the main point i want to make, though, is this: we, as architects, like to believe we're all going to go on and 'rule the world' with our ideas. we're clueless in how it works. those kids - they KNOW they're going to rule the world one day. and it shows.
if you want to be partner i think more than being team player you need to bring in work. it all starts from there. maybe the team player thing comes in as a result of being able to bring in work and putting teams together to manage projects etc (or maybe not, there are lots of ways to bring in large projects). but being "team player" in itself is kind of american fluff double-speak for padding resumes. i have learned to ignore that kind of bullshit, as a matter of course.
we are not hiring. if we were i would prefer people who could demonstrate what they can do, not what they think they can do. we talk to bankers and financial people a lot. there is a different kind fo bullshit going on, but basically it comes down to proving what you can do and i am very much impressed by how fast that attitude cuts through the bullshit.
so mba or bim (is that even a specialised skill anymore?), the thing that really matters is what you did with those skills. where it gets tricky is making others understand too.
anyway, this is how i see things lately after running own office for a few years in tokyo. it is very far removed from what i used to believe, but reality will do that to you. our office, btw has not abandoned interest in theory and good design as a result of this point of view. to be honest i am finding that the really good high-end design-led firms like OMA and BIG, Wiel Arets (sorry for the dutchness of the list) figured this out a long time ago and that is part of why they are successful...
jump - i'll echo that. you're not making partner in almost any firm unless you can bring the work in. pure 'design' partners are for big, mostly nameless companies. even then, you're still helping bring the work in.
bringing work in means getting clients to trust YOU to get the job done better than someone else. that's it, really.
Can someone find what the average salary for americans is? I am pretty sure the starting architect salary, not licensed, is above that average.
Sure you could make a lot in finance, 2 years ago, I have a friend who has many friends he grauduated with from wharton, most of them are unemployed.
cut threw bullshit... check
umm, so mba or not?
so jump what your saying is being an architect doesnt mean just being an architect... you need to know how to booze and shmooze to get people to like YOU... not just your designs?
... so mba/MArch? specialization mba in dlck sucking?
If there is ONE thing arch school will teach you it is that:
ARCHITECTURE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MONEY.
agree to that rodgerT. as long as i have middle class income, i'm not complaining doing architecture.
Well I guess I was way off with thinking you could get $60-80K out of grad school at big revenue firms. That came from a couple people I've talked to who said they made in the low 60s out of grad school at SOM and Gensler several years ago, who were not rock stars (though they were decent), and I guessed - or hoped :-) - that salaries might have gone up a little since then, or might be higher for peopel with special skills.
What I wonder though is why companies will pay so much bigger fees for legal services than they will for architectural services. I'm not saying that I can't see why there would be a difference, but why is architecture so cheap?
Do architectural clients feel like there isn't much difference between architecture firms, and they could always go to someone else? While at the same time only one or two law firms are truly capable of handling their most important deals? That seems odd to me because it seems like a lot of corporate law is fairly routine (not that it's easy), but it still commands huge fees.
Just to compare hourly billing rates for lawyers and architects. Corporate lawyers can bill at $500, $600, even $1,000 per hour. While roughly equivalent, well established architects bill at $150, $200, $300 per hour, right? (but I could be way off on this).
For the last few years I worked at a real estate development development consulting firm. We did market studies and strategy consulting for developers and investors. I started working there right after getting a B.A. in Art History. As a early-20-something with only a couple years of experience my billing rate was $135/hour. The senior people in the firm billed at $600/hour. What amazes me is that after I get my M.Arch and have much more specific, rarified knowledge (of construction, of software, of design), clients will likely pay LESS money for my input on a building project than before.
This all makes me think that either architects aren't asking for enough money, or, more likely, there are simply too many architects out there relative to demand (in general, let alone the slump we're in now).
It seems like the image of the wealthy architect that is so common in non-architects' minds was created in the early to middle 20th century. And I wonder if at that time architects were able to command relatively higher fees. And I wonder if that might have had something to do with there being fewer architects? But maybe not. Just an idea.
When you're in college, Architecture is more important than money. When you have a mortgage, kids to feed and a huge student loan debt, money is more important than architecture. Most architects don't even make middle class income.
The misconception architects are rich comes form the days when arch was only pursued by the offspring of already the extremely wealthy old money upper-middle class. Now any pleb can study arch but they don't have rich parents to prop up their years of arch ed nor do they have the social network to fall into big paying clients.
People don't pay architects big bucks because architecture and it's results are speculative and subjective.
Law and medicine on the other hand have strongly defined outcomes and deal with the two most important things in the world to everyone but architects and architecture students.
Money and health.
WRONG
- depending on how you define "middle class".
scottaway - my money is on those guys not exactly telling you the truth. "A few years ago" people were making around 30% less or more, with specialized skills (like 3D), coming out of grad school.
"Middle Class" - technically starts a lot lower than what most 'feel' is middle class. I believe 50k a year is about 'middle class', which I think most would suggest is a low income overall.
Architect's also don't make money because there are plenty of builders making thousands of homes without an architect designing them (perhaps overseeing, but generally copied/pasted everywhere).
Then we've got the AIA suing over 'misuse' of terminology, which just takes more money out of profits.
Lawyers and Doctors control their markets. Although a Dr. can call himself a Dr. out of school, prior to licensure, he/she cannot practice (and no one can do what a doc does legally, anyone can design and build a house).
You said it scottaway...this has been my point for quite some time. I think there are way too many Architecture colleges graduating way too many people flooding a market that could only sustain the glut of labor with large boom cycles in construction.
Contrarians will claim that if we reduce the number of architects we'll end up with non-architects moving in on our work which I am skeptical of. I'd rather go after the already registered architects that are stamp whores working in places that could only loosely be considered arch/design firms. Even though we are awash in architects now we still have contractors/engineers/etc. claiming they can do the work of an architect. Quite frankly, being strong in numbers isn't stopping anything. I'd rather be smaller numbers but higher qualified and more elite of a group.
Median income in the USA, last time I checked, was about $45k/year. Amongst college grads, especially those with graduate degrees (MArch), it is much much higher.
"Middle class" income depends on where you live for the most part given cost of living. Regardless, over the past 15 years we've seen huge inflation in cost of housing, transportation and food. All of which have put huge pressure on "middle class families." A family of four living on $100k annual isn't that well off, even though a salary of $100k is still seen as a "good" income.
My brother works for a Fortune 500 that sets starting salaries based on level of education & years of work experience. Starting pay scales largely resemble military pay scales where he works. For a bachelor's degree (in anything) and 7-10 years work experience (in anything) starting pay is $90k + benefits. Middle class is well into the $100k + range these days.
harold hit exactly what I am trying to get at "When you're in college, Architecture is more important than money. When you have a mortgage, kids to feed and a huge student loan debt, money is more important than architecture. Most architects don't even make middle class income."
This is why I felt having an alternate plan, say for instance having an MBA or a MSRED, or a MUP, than couldnt you possibly go into that field work off your loans, acrue some nice bank and on the side or maybe a little bit later down the line practice your love for architecture? I know this is a very roundabout route, but at the same time its like someone stated before its all about sacrifices and sometimes you cant always jump headfirst into this field.
i have a phd in urban planning as well as m. arch and we are recently working at expanding our office to take on planning projects but i would not say it has made things any easier. i am now able to work as consultant because of academic credentials and we are pursuing that too, but again nothing is necessarily easier.
business is never easier just because of a piece of paper, including mba or whatever else. in fact i would say mba is worth much less than it ever was. if you want to work for goldman sachs your mba is not going to be enough unless you get it a princeton and work hard to become top student (ok, i exagerate but only a little bit). if you plan to use it in an architectural office then don't bother going to architecture school, cuz mba is best used in that setting only if you want to become HR leader or some other kind of office manager.
best way to become wealthy architect is to marry well or try and get born into a rich family.if you want to become developer this is perhaps not necessary but then you need to find someone to bankroll you. which is where those people skills mentioned above come in. such a job need not involve fellacio but will most certainly require political and economic savy if you intend to do as career. mba maybe help in that respect, but i don't think is an actual necessity. not that it isn't worth having, just don't put too much faith in it...
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.