Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)
Pratt Institute
University of Southern California (USC)
Tulane University
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Temple University
University of Oregon
Cranbrook Academy of Art
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
Kansas State University
Is interior arch seen as a legit arch profession?
When I spoke with a person from the arch landscape program at the local extension school about why their program has financial aid available but not the arch ID program, she scoffed that its because they're not considered "real architecture". I thought, ouch what a slight. I thought they were peers. So what's the skinny? Is interior architecture seen as legit architecture?
The only people who look down on interior designers are architects. In reality a good interior designer is as important as the architect. You have to remember at the end of the day that the reason clients hire us is to make buildings that make their businesses better, or enhance there lives in some way. The shell of the building can be thought of as a way of keeping out the elements, but the real magic happens inside.
A well designed building does everything right. It looks good inside and out, it is built well, and it functions well. An interior architect/designer/decorator is an integral part of a well designed building.
I would suggest you think of it as "Interiors." Given that over 40-50% of buildings for the next 20 years have already been built, there is a huge need for professionals that know interiors.
I always share that architects can do interiors but interior designers cannot do architecture. Find a university that offers both interior design and architecture and do both.
Interiors is a valid discipline but learn architecture with a specialty of interiors.
int-arch is just a way for int-des to pimp themselves up a little. If you want to count furniture and waste time arguing over carpet tiles, then pick int-des, just don't call it architecture.
Snap. That was brutal. But isn't interior arch the most lucrative arch related field right now? Are you not confusing interior decorating with interior arch?
interior architecture is not a profession, some people/schools are trying to re-brand interior design as interior architecture because it sounds better. It's the same thing as Subway calling their staff sandwich artists... it doesn't matter how much glitter you add, that meatball sub is not a work of art. There is a beauty parlour near my office that claims to have "waxing architects"... no joke.
As for lucrative, that is relative to the market and client base. Interior design might make more since there is less work involved and, more often than not, less problems to deal with than real-construction but, that money comes as corporate/management profit, not salary raise to interns.
It is also important to understand that compensation is relative to skill and breath of knowledge. There is really no "base" salary in either field but good entry dollars can be had by anyone in all design fields if the applicant is competent. There are just many less-competent people complaining about an "unfair" market making it look (on these forum posts at least) like there is no money to be had.
The interior design school were I got my arch degree was #1 in the nation. The arch school was top 10. The programs were similar and I know many interior designers that are super talented. I think there is a problem with architects and their attitude about other professionals, especially professionals that we should be working with. Grow up, all of you. No more pooping in the sand box, please.
And manover, you are beyond troubling, you have no idea what you are doing. You want to work for your father-on-law? Why don't you ask if he has a job for you first, then see what you should study.
First off you ask for others to stop "pooing in the sandbox"yet you proceed to suggest that I am beyond troubled? Secondly, I already did ask my FIL and he said that I would bidding jobs and managing projects, he works for a drywall construction company, but I wouldn't just be working for him but many many of his associates in other fields of arch.
Third, I am pushing thirty and don't have time to keep jumping around and changing my mind anymore. I want to get it right the first time .I only asked about interiors because I was curious as to why the people in the Landscape Arch department were so dismissive of their peers in ID. That's all.
Because most people are little bitches. They need to smack others down to feel better about themselves. Simple as that.
Get a Civil Engineering degree and you can pretty much do it all, architecture, landscape architecture, and inferior refurbishment. You could pretty well bother the hell out of everybody.
The interior design school were I got my arch degree was #1 in the nation. The arch school was top 10. The programs were similar and I know many interior designers that are super talented. I think there is a problem with architects and their attitude about other professionals, especially professionals that we should be working with. Grow up, all of you. No more pooping in the sand box, please.
I agree. I tend to like the more practical aspects of architecture, though I like design as well. However, I can't stand the way people in the allied professions diss on interior designers. I wouldn't pick it as a career. The scope is too limited for my taste. I feel the same way about landscape architecture. But someone has to do this work. Some interior designers are of the "do lunch" ilk, because they are married to money or come from it, but some are very serious about being on the cutting edge of their craft. For important mega hotels, high end retail, and those condo towers in South Beach, they have their work cut out for them.
Mano, you've created a lot of threads here sort of picking our brains. You are free to do so. However, you have looked at landscape architecture, interiors, architecture, urban planning, and construction management. You've also looked at degrees and certificate programs, and have mentioned both California and Texas. The question now is: What do you see yourself doing as you step out the door every morning and where would you rather live?
I went through this, in a way. It was "do I do architecture or not?" for the most part. I also entertained landscape architecture because of a 3 year MLA that required no relocation from a place I very much liked, but that wasn't a good enough reason, and a second bachelor's degree in building construction ( construction management), but an architect at the c.c. I was going to at night prior to M.Arch. dissuaded me from it. At a certain point, I realized I was at an impasse and just made the decision. We can answer questions about conditions and perceptions of certain aspects of the design professions, but the decision is ultimately yours.
Is there even a difference between interior design and interior architecture that would merit a separate masters program?
What does it even mean for an architecture school to be #1? Employment rate after graduation? Competency of the architect? (latter- competency in terms of what?) Fame of the professors who teach there? Facilities? What makes a good architecture school a good architecture school? I know plenty of architectural firms that simply won't hire someone just because they went to a certain school... then again the opposite is also true, but for very different reasons. I simply don't know what a "good architectural school" means...
Did you post in the wrong thread? I asked if there was a difference between interior design and interior architecture? It seems as though there is a difference since it merits a separate masters program.
Manoverde84, there is no practical difference between both terms except for marketing. Int-arch is just the same as int-des but some people/schools want to boost their appeal so they borrow the term architecture eventhough it's no where near it. Imagine you're a cashier at a corner-store store but call yourself a "client relation service architect". Same job and same mundane tasks.
Many int-des I've come across always carry this idea that they know how to design buildings and more often than not, better than architects. I have no problems with their profession as they do parts of projects I would not want to but I find it sad that many just cannot accept the scope of their jobs and need to borrow superficial terms to feel equal.
Or could they not feel equal because there are condescending architects, who talk about the work that they've studies for years in such terms as "parts of projects I would not want to do" or "count furniture and waste time arguing over carpet tiles, then pick int-des". Your words are incredibly insulting, and this is coming from someone who is deciding between the two disciplines.
I do not want to become someone like you, on forums treating the people who are vital to the work YOU do with such little disrespect. I have not seen any interior designer or interior architect speak about architects that way you do about them. You, specifically you and your words, have made me decide against architecture. I'll spend the next 50 years of my interior design career breaking down the stereotypes that you so desperately cling to, to make your architecture degree feel valid.
Wow, its a marketing ploy by schools? I had thought ID and Arch were peer fields but apparently there is a chasm of a difference.
There are several interior architects in my office and they tend to have a skill set that is much more similar to interior designer than an architect.
@ Non Sequitur
From my limited experience with the interior architecture program at RISD, it seemed that the focus was on adaptive reuse of existing buildings instead of focusing on furniture/aesthetics of the existing interiors. I don't know if this applies to other programs and the industry in general, but I certainly didn't spend my days there picking out carpet samples, color swatches or furniture options... to me it felt like an architecture program but on a smaller scale, focusing on redesigning existing interior spaces to fit a new program rather than designing the whole building as in architecture.
I'm not saying that interior architecture is comparable to architecture, but I certainly don't buy your argument that the term interior architecture is a simply a marketing ploy. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about interior architects... what gives?
I'd love to revive this, now in 2021. I'm curious if the opinions of Non Sequitur are outdated now, and if Interior Architecture degrees are viewed differently than Interior design now.
Personally, I'm much more interested in the adaptive reuse of existing architecture, changing interior architecture AND pick tiles/paint/furniture. To me, interior architecture sounds like the perfect balance of both. But I don't want to deal with egos talking down my profession (regardless of how thick my skin is - of which is very thick)
From all my extensive research, Architecture sounds like paper, permits, and project management. Plus math. It also sounds like there is much less work, and often the work doesn't see light of day (mostly conceptual).
I'm currently a graphic designer in the advertising world. I can sniff out ego from a mile away, and boy did Non Sequitur reek... I would argue it is significantly harder to "waste time picking tiles" than you (condescendingly) made it seem.
...
In a building that is architecture the interior and the exterior of the building are both integral parts of the design. It is a false assumption that the interior and exterior of a building are unrelated. Imo interior architecture is an unnecessary and superfluous discipline.
There are work that doesn't involve structural alterations. Interior Designers should in any case, have some fundamental understanding of structural although they may not be quite like that of architects and building designers but they should nonetheless have some understanding of that but the extent the interior and exterior is integral depends on the building but more importantly, it would be what is involved in the scope of work. My work as a building designer will see your point more often where that work is integral. I always have seen and felt that interior design/architecture is kind of redundant when we have architects and building designers considering we can legally do what interior designers (interior architects) in many states due to lack of it being a licensed profession or one that is more than a title law. However, there are people who specializes in the interior design and aesthetics. The more busier I am, the more I am likely to be more willing to delegate some aspects to 'consultants' such as interior design while I retain overall building design and coordination.
Helo. I’m in a joint architecture and interior design office and Interior arch is not a thing here. Still just rebranding efforts and another example of piggy backing on the sex appeal of the term architecture.
Where I am, Interior Architecture is just the name of a degree program at University of Oregon. There is no such thing or title "Interior Architect" except a borderline illegal title used for interior design positions at an architectural firm that does interior design but otherwise would be flat out illegal because it consists of the word "architect" and there is no statutory law or licensure like there is for landscape architect title which was a title law in Oregon from 1961 to 2001 and prior to 1961, it was a borderline "title exception" dating all the way back to 1930s but no licensure program existed. Interior Architecture doesn't exist any legal framework as a "title exception", "title law" (title requiring a license), or a "title and practice law". The only lawful title they should be called is "Interior Designer". In California, they have a "Certified Interior Designer" license for the title but it's more a title law than any sort of practice law. After NCBDC certification, all I need to do for that is take the IDEX exam and some fees and paperwork in the process and I would have that title and stamp. I might do it someday.
i see no difference between where "landscape" architecture (which has not always been around) is and where int arch is headed. it's all a part of the same process of specialization and division of labor.
In my State, Interior Architect is a licensed architect that chosen to focus on interior aspects otherwise such title or profession doesn't exist as there is no licensure allowing for the title "Interior Architect" and that would result in persons not licensed as an Architect calling themselves an "Interior Architect" (capital letters or not) to be in violation of Architect title laws. There is no license required to practice interior design on ANY building as long as you are not making structural changes, building occupancy classification change or change to building construction type classification but nothing in architect law prohibits a person from making plans and specifications for exempt buildings (exempted under ORS 671.030). I am a building designer and also provide landscape design services and to an extent interior design services.
Interior Design is different than Interior Decoration, although these two "titles" or labels for services are erroneously used interchangeably just as some may say garden design and landscape design are the same. No. Interior decoration is like a subset of what may be included in Interior Design but Interior Design is broader than just decoration just as garden design is a subset of landscape design and that landscape design is broader in scope than garden design. While all these professions exists but in Oregon, all of these professions do not require an occupational license. Landscape Architect title does require a license and the scope of landscape architecture may be broader than the landscape design services of landscape designers due to the way the licensing laws are written in any given particular state in the United States.
there are enough buildings already, we need to learn what to do with the ones we already have, how to repurpose them smartly, sustainably etc. interior architecture can be essential in that, or not...
The fact that you could do interior design or interior architecture as a registered architect doesn't mean you have a talent for it or would be any good at it. Those who constantly demean those who do interior design for a living indicates they would probably be a failure in the field.
There are architects that are not good at architecture because they lack talent for it and somehow got a license. Point is? I'm not here demeaning interior design. "Interior Architect" title doesn't exist as a licensed occupational title. It would be a violation of the architectural licensing laws where I am.... but interior design is not regulated. Interior design is a focus area some people do develop their kinowledge and skills in that area and really do a great job at it.
I want to know exactly where the interior of a building starts and ends. It isn't that easy to separate out. If you do an interior renovation and need a new parking count or change of occupancy, is it still interior architecture? Do the interior architects hire architects to do the rest of the job as a consultant?
FWIW there are a lot of large well-known schools offering undergraduate and masters degrees in interior architecture and there are also quite a few job openings posted online for interior architects and interior designers.
https://www.universities.com/p...
THIS. and the program course work is different in IA than ID. It is more technical and building focused. The way the architects speak, like IA is so foreign or just a marketing term, make me feel that their opinions are dated. However, there is a difference when looking at school programs, master degrees, accreditation, and job requirements.
It's still academic and a degree curriculum doesn't define a profession and there is Interior Design and there is interior decoration. Interior Design as a profession can be technical but however, in Oregon, there is no such license so whether you take a more technical oriented degree or a more design/art oriented degree is besides the point. It's all stuff you can learn by reading and studying via self-directed learning/studying. In any case, you're just a 'person' and your practice is limited to the exemption. I'm a building designer and my professional field deals for with the building and structural design than that of "interior architecture" curriculum covers.
I will say working with good interior designers is very satisfying. Lots of trash out there but the good one are really worth it and can make projects better.
True. The same can be said about architects . . .
Good interior designers won't care about "interior architect" labels too. They don't need it to justify their work.
Also applies to architects . . . .
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.