Ok, I'm far from an expert on this topic, so that's why I try posting it here. There are just some things that I, as an outsider, don't understand about the state of architecture (in general) in the USA.
First off: the school work that I see, is among the most imaginative, intellectual, and of the highest quality world wide. Granted, there might be enough crap schools, but there are plenty of brilliant, good and half decent students around.
Then, most of those people that did well in design are going to end up as "interns". This baffles me: for me an intern is someone who works in an office during studies, or shortly after. How can one be an intern for that long?
That having said: why does it take a million years for someone to be licensed? Is the liability/responsibility in the USA that much higher than in other countries? For example: to my knowledge, architects in Germany have one of the heaviest liabilities in the world. But still, you are a licensed architect if you've worked for two/three years after graduation. I don't understand why it's that much different in the USA.
Other than that: with some exeptions, most of the architecture coming out of the USA isn't among the most creative, most imaginative that can be found in the world. I'd sooner say Japan, or Spain, or Switzerland, or whereever are producing much higher quality architecture. Even a small country like the Netherlands, about 1/25th the size of the USA is pretty much producing more good architecture. What happens to all the good designers in education? Is the system of interning (cad-monkeying) wearing them down, wrenching all creativity out? Or do the developers/clients have a legally strong position to force the architects to do whatever they want?
That brings me to my final question: there are three things a lot of american architects seem to complain about, if websites like archinect are anything to go by. First: the money that architects make. Granted, you're not making insane amounts as an architect, but it's more than half decent for a middle-class job, right?
Secondly: the long hours: well, that's a different thing all together - for some reasons, people are prone to think they need to put in long hours, to "suffer" for their "art". While balance (in work vs. private life), with peaks at deadlines, can be more productive, with more effective work, more creative output etcetera.
The third, however, seems to be the most important to me: a lot of complaints are about the quality of architecture, the system of working for ages before even having the chance to pass some rather heavy exams to even have a chance of being licensed. Apart from the so-called "elite" architects, that are fighting for their position, the AIA and the entire structure doesn't seem to be helping anyone - especially the people that need the help (the starters).
Honestly, my analysis could be far off, since I have no close personal experience of the American architecture system. But why are things the way they are, and why is nobody on the barricades fighting for change? Do people conceive things to be impossible to change? Or is everybody too busy putting in 100 hours a week drawing McMansions for a tyrranical boss to even have the energy to try and do something about it? I just don't get it - there should be enough resources (good quality designers, money, infrastructure etcetera) in the USA to have heaps of the best architects in the world...
Here is why things suck in Architecture in the USA at the moment:
-the unions
-the lawyers
-the insurance companies
-the government
have all positioned themselves at the head of the table and all eat first.
-the AIA
-the Arch Schools
-"the brand name "Star"rchitect system
have gutted the profession of relevancy in the marketplace by promoting the architect as more artist than Licensed Professional protecting the physical well-being of the public.
-the corporate Software Companies
giving credit to the computer where credit is NOT due for the accomplishments of the problem solving architect.
-the IRS
now effectively bans the small thoughtful practicioner from relevant practice through overly cumbersome restrictions on company operations in favor of the large, Taco Bell style, corporate A/E/C firms.
There are simply no longer even any crumbs under the table left after everyone else gets donw with their deliicous meal purchased by the blood sweat and tears of the honest worka day Architect. period.
The layers of explanations to each facet of these dynamics can get really complicated but this is pretty much the problem in a nutshell!
I'm not sure how it is where you are but in Texas one only needs to "intern" under a licensed architect for 2 years before sitting for the exam to become licensed in Texas. Is it different where you are? Or perhaps I am unaware of some requirements?
Is the system of interning (cad-monkeying) wearing them down, wrenching all creativity out?
this.
having worked with a few european design firms, there is an energy to european design that is less present in the u.s. i think the long internship process is partially to blame.
like many things, the art of architecture here suffers from death by a thousand cuts.
in terms of the schools - yes, the work is formally imaginative. but, i'd argue, it is rarely (across the board) intimately connected to material based practice the way, say swiss architects or the ETH seem to be. this translates into immense difficulties once you graduate and realize that there are silly little things like structure, gravity, and water to negotiate around that all that formal exuberance.
budgets here are also an issue, but more importantly it's a construction culture that values expediency above all else. there's little meaningful retribution against work that's done poorly unless someone dies or a building collapses. also, though, too many architects here (again by percentages) are all to accommodating in terms of 'designing to the trade'.
i don't think the long hours are an issue in and of themselves. people who excel in anything they do put in the time. tell me steve jobs or johnnie ivie clock an 8-5 day. that said, we do seem to excel at a kind of needless suffering, something i would attribute to a perverse desire to achieve 'originality' above everything else.
finally - people can get registered here within 2 years of graduating, if you've clocked the time over the summers while in school. most people, though, after 3 years in practice are so ill prepared to actually 'practice' that, in just my opinion, it shows in the exam data.
(piggy/winston/paul - glad to see you've risen from the ashes again...)
That having said: why does it take a million years for someone to be licensed?
I went through the system and agree that "intern" is a demeaning title and should go. That said, I think the IDP process has merits and is good intentioned. One could write a book about the problems with the long path the licensure, but the reality is, a lot of people simply don't bother to get licensed at all.
What happens to all the good designers in education?
First of all, I'd put an American designer up against anyone across the globe. As you mentioned, there is talent here. Problem is, Architects don't design what they want, they design what clients hire them to design, and to the clients budget. There simply isn't the appreciation for good architecture over here, and certianly not the budgets.
First: the money that architects make.
Funny thing about that is most of our clients are people with money and I think Architect's get a little jealous at times. That said, while our incomes are above meadian by and large, it's not great either. Especially when most architecture jobs are located in the highest cost of living places, i.e. big cities. Far less glamorous job like insurance sales or retail management can be much more lucrative. And well, pay is low because of the cheap ass clients, see above.
Secondly: the long hours
I don't think our hours are all that bad. Sure, there are horror stories out there, but I've never been forced to work 60+ hour weeks for years on end. Most professionals in America work over 40 hrs so Architects generally work similar hours as everyone else. I think the lower pay is what bothers people more about the hours. At a std 40 hour week the pay might look more appealing.
The third, however, seems to be the most important to me: a lot of complaints are about the quality of architecture
Well, that goes back to the clients. To a lesser extent the regulating bodies such as planning, zoning, building codes, etc. Still, the client determines the budget, which often kills the "design."
I think it's a bit weird to try to characterize the architectural output of nations, and say that the level of work coming from one nation is higher than another. How can we possibly hope to come to such a conclusion about the work product of hundreds of thousands of practitioners?
In my opinion, the most one could hope to conclude is something like, "...of the few dozen projects I've seen in magazines, I really like a lot of work from what the editors have shown us from a few of the Japanese and European practitioners".
"The third, however, seems to be the most important to me: a lot of complaints are about the quality of architecture
Well, that goes back to the clients. To a lesser extent the regulating bodies such as planning, zoning, building codes, etc. Still, the client determines the budget, which often kills the 'design.'"
This times a thousand!
I know in some places in Europe (and in Japan) that legislation has pushed up the cost of building by a lot through demands in structure, materials and special uses. Because the assume basic cost is higher and you break the "economical" barrier, design looks more approachable.
If you're having to pay $220 a square foot for a house and you can get the designer version for $245, what's an extra $25 a square foot?!?
There's a lot revolving here around government regulation-- it doesn't always have to degrade into "OMIGOD, THE GUBMENT... THEY STEALIN MY RIFLE AND MY BABY."
Some areas specifically have blockades on 'modern' design-- usually extremely wealth areas and these areas are also synonymous with 'historical.' But despite architecture's rabid opinion over the validity of "faking it," a good architect should be able to stay well enough within the parameters to get it passed the planning board.
The reason I am going into this? A lot of money being spent in the world of "architecture" is spent on revivalist architecture. In Europe, many of these building styles just don't exist. You have maybe 4 or 5 specific building styles (each generally specific to area of river valley).
So, you don't really have the individuals who want or are forced to spend millions of dollars building some trite display of Americana. That and building semi-authentic classical or gothic architecture is far, far less cheap than going ultra modern!
What of us who have lived, studied, and/or practiced in multiple countries EKE?
Is it safe for me to say that (for myriad reasons) the architectural output of Germany is of a significantly higher quality than that of Canada? Of course, I'm not familiar with every single project, and I acknowledge that there are many, many, exceptions, and of course, there are great regional differences within both countries themselves. Nevertheless, I don't feel such a statement, as far as generalizations go, is incorrect.
I'm simply saying that we should beware generalizing about such things. Even if there was any such thing definable as "the architectural output" of a specific country, it's probably useful to ask, just what is "architectural output"? Is it "the subjectively-defined quality of the handful of projects published in design journals internationally"?
"Revivalism" suggests that the language died and needs to be "revived". In most places of the world, there are vernacular architectures that are loved by people and have never faded away. One person's "trite display of Americana" is another's "living tradition".
some of those afore-mentioned countries have insanely awesome design development programs-like the Netherlands.
In school I took several classes relating to Dutch architecture and its contemporary designed environment. I really recommend "SuperDutch" by Bart Lootsma?, its a really comprehensive book that details the governmental/historical/economic/cultural framework that props up their design discipline. because thats what it takes to generate a culture that encourages stellar design/output.
basically b/c of their unique ecological limitations and their homogeneous, wealthy political history, there was a deliberate choice to value collaboration and design in the 1970s. since then, the government has encouraged collaborative urban growth and offered tons architectural opportunities. it actually goes back several generations with Berlage et. al. there is some insane statistic, that most Dutch architects have fully built large projects by the time they are in late 20s. volume=expertise.
the usa is forever obstinate in recognizing Design. it is a misunderstood, undervalued commodity. frankly, our economical and political system have not yet serendipitous joined to demand high volume, high performance built environments.
Another big difference between the States and Europe, at least, is the nature of the clients: in the States, many projects are built by developers who have little incentive to invest in design or enduring quality, as their goal is to simply sell the building for the highest possible price once it's complete. This leads to the view of buildings simply as commodities, without much cultural or social relevance. My impression is that in Europe, more development is owner-occupied, so there is an interest on the part of the client to add qualitative value to a project they will be occupying for a long period of time, and up-front costs are less of an issue.
Now, I'm not making the argument that this is entirely a bad thing; the towers of New York and Chicago, and the innovation they represent would not have been possible without some lack of sentimentality towards what was there before, and a relentless drive to maximize the built potential of each site. Too often, however, this isn't the case, and low-quality design is the result.
What the F*CK do you guys mean by a 'long' internship process? It is only roughly 5000 hours, for chrissakes! That is equivalent to 2.6 years, counting 42 hours per week.
Now the reason for this internship nonsense is that american schools do not teach the basics of how real architecture is conducted outside school.
The licensing process is ardous (and at times, demeaning), but 2.6 years is really not that much - just go and do it!
In US vs. Europe, I think a big problem is that Europeans generally are smart enough to know what they don't know (i.e. that they as Joe Schmo don't have to ability to design a building). They get this realization by living 6 blocks from a cathedral that took some town like 300 years to build, which kind of makes you think a little more intently on how hard it is to do... In America, your typical citizen is mesmerized by the proliferation of shows on cable TV that make it seem like any one with a nail apron and a bad haircut can be a "designer".
When that mentality takes over the general population, why on earth would anyone think that there is widespread appreciation for quality architecture? For further proof of this, the majority of people in this county consider Olive Garden to be a high end dining experience and believe that because they can play "Foxy Lady" on Guitar Hero that they could probably have done what Jimi Hendrix did, but they just don't have that cool afro. It's not just architecture, everything is a race to the (lower) middle.
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, I didn't read them all, but there is a fundamental difference in the value of public space between say, Europe and the US. A lot of what architects are trained to provide goes beyond the client's desires in space and time, but the clients aren't sophisticated enough to provide those things, and the economy in which they operate their business (build their buildings) doesn't reward such choices, but rewards other choices (square footage, fast, easy, cheap). American prosperity thrives on flexibility and freedoms, not aristocrats and old money. Architecture loses out.
haha
they also come to the gulf arab countries and build shit..so its not just the context, or the legal matters, or the ira, or the government... its an inculcation, they train themselves for a non-offensive professionaism. creativity can be offensive.
Apr 23, 10 4:54 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
the state of architecture in the USA
Ok, I'm far from an expert on this topic, so that's why I try posting it here. There are just some things that I, as an outsider, don't understand about the state of architecture (in general) in the USA.
First off: the school work that I see, is among the most imaginative, intellectual, and of the highest quality world wide. Granted, there might be enough crap schools, but there are plenty of brilliant, good and half decent students around.
Then, most of those people that did well in design are going to end up as "interns". This baffles me: for me an intern is someone who works in an office during studies, or shortly after. How can one be an intern for that long?
That having said: why does it take a million years for someone to be licensed? Is the liability/responsibility in the USA that much higher than in other countries? For example: to my knowledge, architects in Germany have one of the heaviest liabilities in the world. But still, you are a licensed architect if you've worked for two/three years after graduation. I don't understand why it's that much different in the USA.
Other than that: with some exeptions, most of the architecture coming out of the USA isn't among the most creative, most imaginative that can be found in the world. I'd sooner say Japan, or Spain, or Switzerland, or whereever are producing much higher quality architecture. Even a small country like the Netherlands, about 1/25th the size of the USA is pretty much producing more good architecture. What happens to all the good designers in education? Is the system of interning (cad-monkeying) wearing them down, wrenching all creativity out? Or do the developers/clients have a legally strong position to force the architects to do whatever they want?
That brings me to my final question: there are three things a lot of american architects seem to complain about, if websites like archinect are anything to go by. First: the money that architects make. Granted, you're not making insane amounts as an architect, but it's more than half decent for a middle-class job, right?
Secondly: the long hours: well, that's a different thing all together - for some reasons, people are prone to think they need to put in long hours, to "suffer" for their "art". While balance (in work vs. private life), with peaks at deadlines, can be more productive, with more effective work, more creative output etcetera.
The third, however, seems to be the most important to me: a lot of complaints are about the quality of architecture, the system of working for ages before even having the chance to pass some rather heavy exams to even have a chance of being licensed. Apart from the so-called "elite" architects, that are fighting for their position, the AIA and the entire structure doesn't seem to be helping anyone - especially the people that need the help (the starters).
Honestly, my analysis could be far off, since I have no close personal experience of the American architecture system. But why are things the way they are, and why is nobody on the barricades fighting for change? Do people conceive things to be impossible to change? Or is everybody too busy putting in 100 hours a week drawing McMansions for a tyrranical boss to even have the energy to try and do something about it? I just don't get it - there should be enough resources (good quality designers, money, infrastructure etcetera) in the USA to have heaps of the best architects in the world...
Here is why things suck in Architecture in the USA at the moment:
-the unions
-the lawyers
-the insurance companies
-the government
have all positioned themselves at the head of the table and all eat first.
-the AIA
-the Arch Schools
-"the brand name "Star"rchitect system
have gutted the profession of relevancy in the marketplace by promoting the architect as more artist than Licensed Professional protecting the physical well-being of the public.
-the corporate Software Companies
giving credit to the computer where credit is NOT due for the accomplishments of the problem solving architect.
-the IRS
now effectively bans the small thoughtful practicioner from relevant practice through overly cumbersome restrictions on company operations in favor of the large, Taco Bell style, corporate A/E/C firms.
There are simply no longer even any crumbs under the table left after everyone else gets donw with their deliicous meal purchased by the blood sweat and tears of the honest worka day Architect. period.
The layers of explanations to each facet of these dynamics can get really complicated but this is pretty much the problem in a nutshell!
I'm not sure how it is where you are but in Texas one only needs to "intern" under a licensed architect for 2 years before sitting for the exam to become licensed in Texas. Is it different where you are? Or perhaps I am unaware of some requirements?
this.
having worked with a few european design firms, there is an energy to european design that is less present in the u.s. i think the long internship process is partially to blame.
user -
like many things, the art of architecture here suffers from death by a thousand cuts.
in terms of the schools - yes, the work is formally imaginative. but, i'd argue, it is rarely (across the board) intimately connected to material based practice the way, say swiss architects or the ETH seem to be. this translates into immense difficulties once you graduate and realize that there are silly little things like structure, gravity, and water to negotiate around that all that formal exuberance.
budgets here are also an issue, but more importantly it's a construction culture that values expediency above all else. there's little meaningful retribution against work that's done poorly unless someone dies or a building collapses. also, though, too many architects here (again by percentages) are all to accommodating in terms of 'designing to the trade'.
i don't think the long hours are an issue in and of themselves. people who excel in anything they do put in the time. tell me steve jobs or johnnie ivie clock an 8-5 day. that said, we do seem to excel at a kind of needless suffering, something i would attribute to a perverse desire to achieve 'originality' above everything else.
finally - people can get registered here within 2 years of graduating, if you've clocked the time over the summers while in school. most people, though, after 3 years in practice are so ill prepared to actually 'practice' that, in just my opinion, it shows in the exam data.
(piggy/winston/paul - glad to see you've risen from the ashes again...)
I went through the system and agree that "intern" is a demeaning title and should go. That said, I think the IDP process has merits and is good intentioned. One could write a book about the problems with the long path the licensure, but the reality is, a lot of people simply don't bother to get licensed at all.
What happens to all the good designers in education?
First of all, I'd put an American designer up against anyone across the globe. As you mentioned, there is talent here. Problem is, Architects don't design what they want, they design what clients hire them to design, and to the clients budget. There simply isn't the appreciation for good architecture over here, and certianly not the budgets.
First: the money that architects make.
Funny thing about that is most of our clients are people with money and I think Architect's get a little jealous at times. That said, while our incomes are above meadian by and large, it's not great either. Especially when most architecture jobs are located in the highest cost of living places, i.e. big cities. Far less glamorous job like insurance sales or retail management can be much more lucrative. And well, pay is low because of the cheap ass clients, see above.
Secondly: the long hours
I don't think our hours are all that bad. Sure, there are horror stories out there, but I've never been forced to work 60+ hour weeks for years on end. Most professionals in America work over 40 hrs so Architects generally work similar hours as everyone else. I think the lower pay is what bothers people more about the hours. At a std 40 hour week the pay might look more appealing.
The third, however, seems to be the most important to me: a lot of complaints are about the quality of architecture
Well, that goes back to the clients. To a lesser extent the regulating bodies such as planning, zoning, building codes, etc. Still, the client determines the budget, which often kills the "design."
I think it's a bit weird to try to characterize the architectural output of nations, and say that the level of work coming from one nation is higher than another. How can we possibly hope to come to such a conclusion about the work product of hundreds of thousands of practitioners?
In my opinion, the most one could hope to conclude is something like, "...of the few dozen projects I've seen in magazines, I really like a lot of work from what the editors have shown us from a few of the Japanese and European practitioners".
"The third, however, seems to be the most important to me: a lot of complaints are about the quality of architecture
Well, that goes back to the clients. To a lesser extent the regulating bodies such as planning, zoning, building codes, etc. Still, the client determines the budget, which often kills the 'design.'"
This times a thousand!
I know in some places in Europe (and in Japan) that legislation has pushed up the cost of building by a lot through demands in structure, materials and special uses. Because the assume basic cost is higher and you break the "economical" barrier, design looks more approachable.
If you're having to pay $220 a square foot for a house and you can get the designer version for $245, what's an extra $25 a square foot?!?
There's a lot revolving here around government regulation-- it doesn't always have to degrade into "OMIGOD, THE GUBMENT... THEY STEALIN MY RIFLE AND MY BABY."
Some areas specifically have blockades on 'modern' design-- usually extremely wealth areas and these areas are also synonymous with 'historical.' But despite architecture's rabid opinion over the validity of "faking it," a good architect should be able to stay well enough within the parameters to get it passed the planning board.
The reason I am going into this? A lot of money being spent in the world of "architecture" is spent on revivalist architecture. In Europe, many of these building styles just don't exist. You have maybe 4 or 5 specific building styles (each generally specific to area of river valley).
So, you don't really have the individuals who want or are forced to spend millions of dollars building some trite display of Americana. That and building semi-authentic classical or gothic architecture is far, far less cheap than going ultra modern!
far, far more expensive* whoops.
What of us who have lived, studied, and/or practiced in multiple countries EKE?
Is it safe for me to say that (for myriad reasons) the architectural output of Germany is of a significantly higher quality than that of Canada? Of course, I'm not familiar with every single project, and I acknowledge that there are many, many, exceptions, and of course, there are great regional differences within both countries themselves. Nevertheless, I don't feel such a statement, as far as generalizations go, is incorrect.
I know you feel that way.
I'm simply saying that we should beware generalizing about such things. Even if there was any such thing definable as "the architectural output" of a specific country, it's probably useful to ask, just what is "architectural output"? Is it "the subjectively-defined quality of the handful of projects published in design journals internationally"?
"Revivalism" suggests that the language died and needs to be "revived". In most places of the world, there are vernacular architectures that are loved by people and have never faded away. One person's "trite display of Americana" is another's "living tradition".
some of those afore-mentioned countries have insanely awesome design development programs-like the Netherlands.
In school I took several classes relating to Dutch architecture and its contemporary designed environment. I really recommend "SuperDutch" by Bart Lootsma?, its a really comprehensive book that details the governmental/historical/economic/cultural framework that props up their design discipline. because thats what it takes to generate a culture that encourages stellar design/output.
basically b/c of their unique ecological limitations and their homogeneous, wealthy political history, there was a deliberate choice to value collaboration and design in the 1970s. since then, the government has encouraged collaborative urban growth and offered tons architectural opportunities. it actually goes back several generations with Berlage et. al. there is some insane statistic, that most Dutch architects have fully built large projects by the time they are in late 20s. volume=expertise.
the usa is forever obstinate in recognizing Design. it is a misunderstood, undervalued commodity. frankly, our economical and political system have not yet serendipitous joined to demand high volume, high performance built environments.
Another big difference between the States and Europe, at least, is the nature of the clients: in the States, many projects are built by developers who have little incentive to invest in design or enduring quality, as their goal is to simply sell the building for the highest possible price once it's complete. This leads to the view of buildings simply as commodities, without much cultural or social relevance. My impression is that in Europe, more development is owner-occupied, so there is an interest on the part of the client to add qualitative value to a project they will be occupying for a long period of time, and up-front costs are less of an issue.
Now, I'm not making the argument that this is entirely a bad thing; the towers of New York and Chicago, and the innovation they represent would not have been possible without some lack of sentimentality towards what was there before, and a relentless drive to maximize the built potential of each site. Too often, however, this isn't the case, and low-quality design is the result.
What the F*CK do you guys mean by a 'long' internship process? It is only roughly 5000 hours, for chrissakes! That is equivalent to 2.6 years, counting 42 hours per week.
Now the reason for this internship nonsense is that american schools do not teach the basics of how real architecture is conducted outside school.
The licensing process is ardous (and at times, demeaning), but 2.6 years is really not that much - just go and do it!
In US vs. Europe, I think a big problem is that Europeans generally are smart enough to know what they don't know (i.e. that they as Joe Schmo don't have to ability to design a building). They get this realization by living 6 blocks from a cathedral that took some town like 300 years to build, which kind of makes you think a little more intently on how hard it is to do... In America, your typical citizen is mesmerized by the proliferation of shows on cable TV that make it seem like any one with a nail apron and a bad haircut can be a "designer".
When that mentality takes over the general population, why on earth would anyone think that there is widespread appreciation for quality architecture? For further proof of this, the majority of people in this county consider Olive Garden to be a high end dining experience and believe that because they can play "Foxy Lady" on Guitar Hero that they could probably have done what Jimi Hendrix did, but they just don't have that cool afro. It's not just architecture, everything is a race to the (lower) middle.
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, I didn't read them all, but there is a fundamental difference in the value of public space between say, Europe and the US. A lot of what architects are trained to provide goes beyond the client's desires in space and time, but the clients aren't sophisticated enough to provide those things, and the economy in which they operate their business (build their buildings) doesn't reward such choices, but rewards other choices (square footage, fast, easy, cheap). American prosperity thrives on flexibility and freedoms, not aristocrats and old money. Architecture loses out.
haha
they also come to the gulf arab countries and build shit..so its not just the context, or the legal matters, or the ira, or the government... its an inculcation, they train themselves for a non-offensive professionaism. creativity can be offensive.
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.