The problem with Urban Design is seeking your AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners) status.

AICP doesn't technically grant you any protected status and it is somewhat more of a challenging thing to acquire than an architectural license.

If you get your Master's in Urban Design, it takes two years of work plus testing to qualify to sit for the exam. Here's the tricky part-- there is a pretty narrow definition of what is considered work experience.

Your work experience will not count is you are:

1. Employed with a firm that does exceptionally crappy design and planning (subdivisions, cookie cutters).
2. Employed with a firm that have a predominate architectural focus (i.e., doing the planning for buildings that your firm does is not technically considered planning). This includes architecture, landscape architecture and number crunching (analysis).
3. Employed as an intern or a technician.
4. Working in a political capacity-- adviser, assistant, blah blah blah for an elected position (i.e., community boards, volunteerism et cetera is not experience).
5. Social sciences, social work, statistician are all out.

So, to get AICP... you really have to become a bonafide urban designer or planner.

And ultimately, that is the hardest thing in the entire planning profession. Meaning, your first job is your hardest job.

All urban design and planning work does not require a license-- something I've never really understood is that planners are allowed to design highways but not sheds (I know that's short changing it since engineers have to rework those plans but... I think my point is somewhat valid).

If you do not get a design or planning degree for a PAB accredited program, your M.Arch doesn't hold much water. It takes three or four years to sit for the AICP.

Lastly, as far as pay and design work goes... that's tricky. In general, planners and urban designers are paid more... but it depends on the kind of firm you or job you work for.

There's three general firm types:
1) Policy type firms who are general RFP chasers and do a lot of master planning
2) Neighborhood type firms -- these are generally more in line with standard architecture practice
3) Government work-- either outright public or working for a public-private partnership (like a economic development commitee or a metropolitan planning organizzation).

The only other thing to really consider is that you will move around a lot since planners have to chase the money.

bumping this up because i'd still like to know what academia is like

Academia is boring. Unless you just like to talk about architecture and not actually do anything. However, it does come with a really sweet schedule. Until you're tenured, there is no job security, which is a worthless goal in my opinion.


Alternatives to Architectural Career Options

1. work at fast food restaurant
2. work at boutique restarant
3. walk the earth or become a "traveler"
4. Start a childen's birthday party clown company
5. work for the post office
6. work for the national park service
7. work for city government, inspector, paper pusher, general moocher, whatever.
8. start a cult and extract all your members life savings to acquire small arms and to build a compound in some remote area.
9...

If you haven't read it, there is a great forum on this website called outside the box or something like that.

jiashik,

You talk a lot about in this and the other thread about "slaving yourself" to a firm and about the mundanity of the profession but I would argue that unless you feel that teaching and/or research are your true, deep-seeded calling, you may expereince just as many mundane moments and feel just as enslaved to a university as you would to a firm.

In the early years of our careers almost all of us have to do a certain amount of mundane work in any profession unless we're rich enough to buy our way out or smooth enough to talk our way out. The key is to make the most out of the drudgery and turn it into the experience and opportunities we need to open doors and have more choices as our careers move on.

Spending the first ten years of your career working toward an architect's license will give you a lot more options than will spending those years working toward university tenure.

Anyway, you are probably not going to be able to get a faculty position even at a mid-tier school anymore with just an MArch right out of school. Schools may put MArch on their job listings but keep in mind that the requirements they set out are only minimums and there are almost always bound to be applicants who exceed the minimums in one way or another. There are only 151 NAAB accredited schools out there so it doesn't equate to a lot of jobs in total.

Oh brother 4arch...not the old "do it because you love it and that makes not getting a reasonable paycheck for working so hard your brains bleed out your ears"...mantra.

Spare me the poetics. I have a mortgage to pay and children to feed, clothe, shelter and educate.

And, no, I am not okay with sending them to just any old public school that just so happens to be nearest the local trailer park and living on food stamps.

WS ... ok ... we get it that you've failed as an architect and you didn't make a million bucks in the process. What possible purpose is served by your perpetual harping about a profession you've already stated you're leaving?

Some of us still have jobs, still have clients who respect what we do, still make a decent living, don't hate what we do, don't wish we had done something else. I don't for a moment apologize for the fact that I made the choices that are right for me or for the fact that I'm successful in this field. I like being an architect.

If you want to leave, leave ... we don't care.

Winston,

You've misinterpreted the advice I'm giving to jiashik here. This is not the "old do it because you love it mantra". What I'm saying is that he needs to take the long view and not necessarily run away from a career that could be more lucrative and rewarding over the long haul to chase after something that could have more rewards up front but won't keep paying off down the road if his heart isn't really in it.

I maybe feeding the beast here, but I'm curious, what school did you go to, and what degree did you get Winston?

What do you think of all the people in the 2010 commiserate thread getting ecstatic for getting into architecture grad school?

"I maybe feeding the beast here, but I'm curious, what school did you go to, and what degree did you get Winston?"

For the purposes of anonymity it is not likely that I will be answering this question.

"What do you think of all the people in the 2010 commiserate thread getting ecstatic for getting into architecture grad school? "

I think they have a right to know:

#1 the salary for an MArch was 35k BEFORE the current economic meltdown

#2 the average time to complete IDP is NOT 3 years as suggested by the lawyers at the AIA...it is 10.5

#3 only 33% of arch professors at the accredited schools are actually Licensed Architects

#4 only approx. 1 in 32 of any one of them will actually become a Licensed Architect

And I think there should be a required signed disclosure form as part of the application process that includes this and other key points that the profession, and more esp. academia purposely obfuscates.

I can tell you that the school I went to is fully NAAB accredited and has been for many decades.

#5 Academia is actually extremely closed minded...do not even think of stepping one foot outside the box or your a$$ is grass. Of course, they'll inundate you with their speeches about "innovation" and "collaboration" and "inter-disciplinary transformation" but it really is all just the same turd theory of white male anglo saxon Christian bashing hate-fest cleverly disguised as "post colonial critique". Its quite disgusting, really.

which leads to #6

#6 Do not ever question the status quo of the religion of "modernism" within the walls of an architecture school. Or you will be branded a heretic and flayed alive (then kicked out). And whatever you do do not ever take Gehry, or the other 11 apostles lightly (Libeskind, REM, Hadid, etc.). Then your punishment will be immediate death by stoning. Always speak of the "Master Designers" in humbled speech and diligent supplication for the blessings of these architecture gods.

"but I would argue that unless you feel that teaching and/or research are your true, deep-seeded calling, you may expereince just as many mundane moments and feel just as enslaved to a university as you would to a firm. "

yeah this is a good point

Teaching shouldnt be a fallback option because you are bored with your career as an architect. Unless you had an interest in teaching before, I dont think it is something that can fill some void you have in your career


Perhaps it could lead to more "theoretical" design opportunities, but I dont think it will lead to much else, at least not for a while. You will most likely just have to pay your dues all over again in a different setting (university rather than in an architectural firm), so any rewards will still have to be earned.

It isnt a quick fix


Then again, it definitely could help someone who isnt fully happy with their career. But I dont think it is the type of solution that will solve a young architect's problem of not liking the mundane aspects of the profession. You wont all of a sudden become lead designer for a very cool project or anything

What it will do is change up your daily routine, and give you exposure to different people than you normally would deal with. That in itself could be something of a bonus I imagine for anyone feeling stuck

"#6 Do not ever question the status quo of the religion of "modernism" within the walls of an architecture school. Or you will be branded a heretic and flayed alive (then kicked out). And whatever you do do not ever take Gehry, or the other 11 apostles lightly (Libeskind, REM, Hadid, etc.). Then your punishment will be immediate death by stoning. Always speak of the "Master Designers" in humbled speech and diligent supplication for the blessings of these architecture gods."

I was just reading another discussion that mentioned a similar status quo. I don't feel this is the case at my school. Is this really the norm? Of course, I don't generally take architecture lightly - no matter who the architect may be - there is always something to be learned by looking at architectural precedents whether "good" or "bad", modern, postmodern, renaissance, whatever.