For those that haven’t been laid off... I am hoping you can share with the rest of us what benefits have been stripped away from you and what percentage of your salary has been cut. I feel like any gains we made in the past 10 years have been eliminated, more than any other profession.
Also....
Does the business of architecture need reform? Where has this profession gone wrong to make us less relevant? Should architecture be practiced the way it was in the past before insurance companies and national organizations started setting the rules? All these rules have had a direct impact on what architects are actually prepared for when they begin to practice. Why isn’t the architect trained to be more relevant? What ever happened to IPD?? Is anyone doing this? We are slowly losing our seat at the table....
another provocative title that will hang out on the board too long...
[sigh.]
while we haven't given any raises for 18mos, our office has also had no layoffs and no loss of benefits. and we're busy!...albeit on smaller projects with smaller profits, making it hard to either hire or increase wages/benefits.
we certainly don't feel less relevant. we're seeing more and more places where we can be of use as long as we're flexible and take the initiative to make things happen and show our value.
ipd may come, but clients are wary of it so far, in my experience. i've seen one major project come through that was based on ipd, but we weren't successful in our bid to get involved, so i don't have any insight into how it's going. our dept of education (with whom i work with a lot) is not likely to allow use of the ipd contracts any time soon - too unfamiliar and they'd rather have the private sector test it first.
as you can tell, though, i'm not particularly gloomy about things. we're seeing glimpses of light. the profession won't die based on this recession anyway.
depending on the job, we can and do still do all of these things. for some jobs it makes more sense to peel them out to other consultants, especially if you're a small-ish office overseeing a big project.
generally we, as architects, help the client decide on the makeup of the design team and serve as the umbrella/coordinator for them.
doesn't make us less relevant, in my mind, unless we neglect our oversight role. but those who would do that would just be lazy and stupid, not in need of reform.
tagalong, thats a good list. This goes back to architects not taking responsibilty for there work, or not being able to because we have become too general. This also allows for spreading the risk when the owner comes knocking.
I understand you point Steven, and certainly agree that there are times when it is appropriate to bring in the relevant consultants. The unfortunate side effect however being that with each new consultant, you're ending up with a smaller piece of the pie (regarding your fee)... therein leading to the "why are we being compensated so little for this project? thread"
A big issue is in my mind has always been drawings and set coordination and the iron-grip that insurance companies and lawyers have had in increasing their complexity.
It is very difficult not to lose money during the herculean effort that goes into coordinating a modern 200+ page drawing set.
I could be wrong, but I remember once reading somewhere that the Empire State Building's working drawings consisted of 10 sheets produced in two weeks and that construction on Fallingwater began with only 3.
We end up spending most of our time time on CYA exercises and trying to think like a contractor to avoid getting burned when the inevitable finger-pointing begins.
That's not even getting into the 50%+ of each day I spend writing emails so everything is on the record rather than just working through issues as they occur on site.
tagalong, a lot of those elements you listed can still be performed by architects who have decided at some point to specialize.
I see no problem with specialization and in fact find it counter-productive with the complexities of our industry to assume that all architects will excel equally at all aspects of architectural practice.
"Generally we, as architects, help the client decide on the makeup of the design team and serve as the umbrella/coordinator for them"
That’s the same client that is cutting our fees. When your doctor sends you to a specialist do you cut his fee, No. But the reality is you know if your foot hurts you’re going to go to Podiatrist; you don’t need your general practioner to tell you that.
For the most part we are the middle person... the middle person always gets taken out of the equation as cost rise. That’s also why medical insurance companies offer PPO's.
At some point the owner will do this all in house (most are doing it now), he will go out hire all the engineers and have an in house architect to coordinate. And continue to pay general contractors for pre-construction services and construction management.
What about private developments that need funding... banks are not loosening requirements and they are requiring more money down from owners. There is already very little fat to trim. After you take landscaping out we are sure to be next...
Im not trying to inflame emotions here but this should be an awakening... a call to action, a rebirth of the profession. its funny how reform happens in the financial and medical sector but where is the reform for the building industry. Throwing (stimulus) money at the problem will not fix it. Public work will dry up with the next budget... government lags behind by a year or two, we better hope the private sector turns soon....
At my last firm (this is a nationally known firm!):
After round three of layoffs the "stip-down" was in this order:
- Salary Freezes for all the younger staff
- 6% paycuts for all younger staff (this is when I resigned)
- 15% paycuts for everyone but still 5-day work week!
- Suspension of 401k match for everyone
- elimination of overtime
- elimination of some health benefits
- elimination of ALL health benefits (mass exodus followed)
- elimination of paid vacation
"Architects, on the other hand, are charged with representing the needs of their paying clients as well as the often contradictory needs of the non-paying users and the non-paying public. There is no other designated agent for these unorganized interest groups."
I've been thinking and expressing this same thing, although my words aren't as efficient. To me this is one of the single most important contribution to the state of our profession. By important, I don't necessarily mean the biggest, but one that truly defines our place as professionals.
I agree with SW, that if anything specialized consultants can allow architects to get jobs that would otherwise be unfeasible or unprofitable. The only one that I think have taken too much of the pie without providing value is construction managers. They have too much control now without the liability for their actions and choices. Architects could easily fill that position though, even if it has to be by a 3rd party architect for the sake of reducing conflict of interest.
I had a 9% paycut and a salary freeze after that cut, but received a 15% bonus last year. All benefits remained and the number of paid vacation days actually increased. But then again, I don't work at an architecture firm. Yet.
what about the idea that there are too many skilled architects relative to the amount of current work? thus, everyone is undercutting each other's fees to stay alive.
I think that an architectural education, in most schools, is broad. You get a taste of everything from urban planning and history to engineering concepts and materials. This gives you a relatively fair understand of architecture but its also sets up high expectations. When we begin to practice, 95% of graduates act as CAD monkeys or are stuck putting together presentation boards. This is not "intern development" its exploitation! An engineer in training does not go thru this, they concentrate on engineering and have drafters who support them. In most offices IDP worksheets are falsified because allowing the intern to achieve each section would not benefit the employer. And employers are ok with signing of on the hours because it keeps the intern content.
And yes, licensure does not mean you are qualified to practice, in my opinion it shows discipline, and there is a lot to be said for that. It also means you know what your minimum expectaions are as an architect.
This is a good one:
"As architects surrender their leadership positions, the odds that buildings might serve interests beyond those of their developers worsen. Many architects now sit in the back offices of these developers and are economically dependent upon them – a circumstance that was ethically prohibited a century ago."
This is one persons opinion (well maybe two) but the truth is we will not bite the hands that feed us... we will take it whichever way it comes... oh, and a smile of course.
Seems like everytime this type of thread comes along, it only takes 3 or 4 posts before we get into comparing architects to doctors and lawyers. What is with this professions fixation on them? I frankly don't see why they are held up as the model professions. Is it just because they make more money? Because they get more oohs and aahs when they introduce themselves?
Frit, this has to do with being part of a licensed profession, and nothing to do with oohs and aahs. We cant compare ourselves to an accountant or a veterinarian because peoples lives dont really depend on them. They are also good models because they do have model training and education programs.
med. - they really cut vacation and health benefits? I have yet to hear of any firms cutting either of those benefits. Most just resort to massive layoffs.
I've lost my 401k match and taken a 15% pay cut.
Just for perspective, an average CAD Tech wage around here would be about $40k/year. That 15% is $6000/year taking said person down to $34k.
Now a senior staff member going from $100k to $85k is going to feel it, but I'd argue that the pay cuts are much harder on the lowest paid people and why I don't agree with across-the-board-for-everyone std. percentage cuts.
oh...doo..doo..ah da...a dah....so...we do.....chasing projects...to pay the bills when they land in our lap..ane we forget architecture because it demands so many things of us...and well the owner doesn't want us doddling on thing which they could have solved..leat the architect doesn't know better. I don't give a rats ass....dudes this happen on the highest level of architcture. So we fret..and usually end up missing the big picture and that is what the client wants.
not glass houses where a stone can be a problem.oh...doo..doo..ah da...a dah....so...we do.....
You said, "Seems like everytime this type of thread comes along, it only takes 3 or 4 posts before we get into comparing architects to doctors and lawyers. What is with this professions fixation on them? I frankly don't see why they are held up as the model professions."
It is being fed to us by NCARB as a justification for their testing model. The title of their latest Direct Connect mailing is, "The Burning Question: Why do we need an ARE Anyway?" The first paragraph in it begins like this:
"You're on the operating table. The bright light above you is suddenly obscured by your doctor, who already has a scalpel in her hand. She looks down at you and nods. "Don't worry," she comfortingly reassures, "I'm a professional." And you know that she is. Somewhere in the back of your mind, you take comfort in the face that she's gone through medical school, spent years in training, and has successfully passed a rigorous test of her knowledge and skills. Your life is in her hands; you should expect nothing less.
Why should it be any different for architects?
When medical doctors-or engineers, accountants, or lawyers, for that matter-are not held to these strict standards, they run the risk of endangering public safety and pose a threat to consumers. Architects plan and design the buildings and structures in which many of us live and work and have a direct effect on the public's health, safety, and welfare."
Since this elaborate and expensive testing procedure we have to go through is justified almost completely by comparing architects to doctors and lawyers, it seems natural that architects look for similarities in compensation as well.
My pay rate has not been cut, but hours have been cut 30%. Health coverage switched to a cheaper plan in which my out-of-pocket expenses are doubled. There haven't been bonuses or raises in two years.
Aqua, I had worked there for two years (in the good times) with no raises and had a lousy pay. I live in an expensive city and was REALLY struggling! Add to the fact that it was an extremely hostile atmosphere there and it just wasn't a good fit.
With already two rounds of layoffs, I had begun shopping around for new horrizons as some firms were still hiring.
It just so happened the day, they anounced pay cuts, I got a really good offer (15% pay increase) and at that moment turned in my resignation letter.
Some junior level staff who are still there are making around 29k a year. That is unacceptable no matter how much some of you guys condone it. It is virtually impossible to live off that.
Yes they suspended paid vacations and they eliminated all health benefits. Since then I've lured several people away from there to join the firm I'm working for now.
When my salary dropped to less than what I would have gotten in unemployment, but I was still expected to put in a 40+ hour week, that was my sign to run, fast and far. When I pointed that out, the principal told me he hadn't taken a paycheck in almost a year, but it didn't make me feel any better.
"what about the idea that there are too many skilled architects relative to the amount of current work? thus, everyone is undercutting each other's fees to stay alive."
I would love to argue the definition of the term "skilled" at this point.
Any? Sure I do. Too many? Well, let's just say I don't think that just because a state issued someone a license makes them skilled. Maybe they are just unemployed.
I didnt lose my 401K because I didnt have one.
I did lose insurance
took 20% pay cut of an already 20% lower thn avg. salary
increased workload since 3/4 of firm was eliminated
licensed LEED AP earning less than intern wages
This "crunch" has been a long time coming. The last 15 years have seen a steady erosion from the bottom up. Salaries for starting architects in the late 90s were 28-35K. That was almost unchanged from the late 80s, if you even had a chance for internship in the late 80s. Same thing is happening to lawyers ( oh no I just dropped the L word ). What we need is good plague or better yet a post 65 income tax hike to level out the old folks who rode the wave for the last 30 years and want to ride our wave too. Hey man - get off my cloud!
in my city, firms generally went two routes:
1) lay off some employees, everyone remaining keep their salaries
2) everyone keeps their jobs, but gets a 10-20% salary cut
pros and cons of each strategy? which do you prefer?
Apr 30, 10 1:52 pm ·
·
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 "strip club" "salary Pole"
For those that haven’t been laid off... I am hoping you can share with the rest of us what benefits have been stripped away from you and what percentage of your salary has been cut. I feel like any gains we made in the past 10 years have been eliminated, more than any other profession.
Also....
Does the business of architecture need reform? Where has this profession gone wrong to make us less relevant? Should architecture be practiced the way it was in the past before insurance companies and national organizations started setting the rules? All these rules have had a direct impact on what architects are actually prepared for when they begin to practice. Why isn’t the architect trained to be more relevant? What ever happened to IPD?? Is anyone doing this? We are slowly losing our seat at the table....
another provocative title that will hang out on the board too long...
[sigh.]
while we haven't given any raises for 18mos, our office has also had no layoffs and no loss of benefits. and we're busy!...albeit on smaller projects with smaller profits, making it hard to either hire or increase wages/benefits.
we certainly don't feel less relevant. we're seeing more and more places where we can be of use as long as we're flexible and take the initiative to make things happen and show our value.
ipd may come, but clients are wary of it so far, in my experience. i've seen one major project come through that was based on ipd, but we weren't successful in our bid to get involved, so i don't have any insight into how it's going. our dept of education (with whom i work with a lot) is not likely to allow use of the ipd contracts any time soon - too unfamiliar and they'd rather have the private sector test it first.
as you can tell, though, i'm not particularly gloomy about things. we're seeing glimpses of light. the profession won't die based on this recession anyway.
Thanks Steven... hopefully this title/topic dies with the recession and architectures unemployment rate.
"Does the business of architecture need reform? Where has this profession gone wrong to make us less relevant?"
Services that use to be architectural that are now provided by others back to Architects:
1) Construction Managers
2) Interior Designers
3) Curtain Wall Designers
4) Waterproofing Consultants
5) Specification Writers
6) Interpretive Designers
7) Planners
8) Cost Estimators
depending on the job, we can and do still do all of these things. for some jobs it makes more sense to peel them out to other consultants, especially if you're a small-ish office overseeing a big project.
generally we, as architects, help the client decide on the makeup of the design team and serve as the umbrella/coordinator for them.
doesn't make us less relevant, in my mind, unless we neglect our oversight role. but those who would do that would just be lazy and stupid, not in need of reform.
tagalong, thats a good list. This goes back to architects not taking responsibilty for there work, or not being able to because we have become too general. This also allows for spreading the risk when the owner comes knocking.
I understand you point Steven, and certainly agree that there are times when it is appropriate to bring in the relevant consultants. The unfortunate side effect however being that with each new consultant, you're ending up with a smaller piece of the pie (regarding your fee)... therein leading to the "why are we being compensated so little for this project? thread"
A big issue is in my mind has always been drawings and set coordination and the iron-grip that insurance companies and lawyers have had in increasing their complexity.
It is very difficult not to lose money during the herculean effort that goes into coordinating a modern 200+ page drawing set.
I could be wrong, but I remember once reading somewhere that the Empire State Building's working drawings consisted of 10 sheets produced in two weeks and that construction on Fallingwater began with only 3.
We end up spending most of our time time on CYA exercises and trying to think like a contractor to avoid getting burned when the inevitable finger-pointing begins.
That's not even getting into the 50%+ of each day I spend writing emails so everything is on the record rather than just working through issues as they occur on site.
tagalong, a lot of those elements you listed can still be performed by architects who have decided at some point to specialize.
I see no problem with specialization and in fact find it counter-productive with the complexities of our industry to assume that all architects will excel equally at all aspects of architectural practice.
"Generally we, as architects, help the client decide on the makeup of the design team and serve as the umbrella/coordinator for them"
That’s the same client that is cutting our fees. When your doctor sends you to a specialist do you cut his fee, No. But the reality is you know if your foot hurts you’re going to go to Podiatrist; you don’t need your general practioner to tell you that.
For the most part we are the middle person... the middle person always gets taken out of the equation as cost rise. That’s also why medical insurance companies offer PPO's.
At some point the owner will do this all in house (most are doing it now), he will go out hire all the engineers and have an in house architect to coordinate. And continue to pay general contractors for pre-construction services and construction management.
What about private developments that need funding... banks are not loosening requirements and they are requiring more money down from owners. There is already very little fat to trim. After you take landscaping out we are sure to be next...
Im not trying to inflame emotions here but this should be an awakening... a call to action, a rebirth of the profession. its funny how reform happens in the financial and medical sector but where is the reform for the building industry. Throwing (stimulus) money at the problem will not fix it. Public work will dry up with the next budget... government lags behind by a year or two, we better hope the private sector turns soon....
Check this post... it was a link on archnewsnow that came thru today.
At my last firm (this is a nationally known firm!):
After round three of layoffs the "stip-down" was in this order:
- Salary Freezes for all the younger staff
- 6% paycuts for all younger staff (this is when I resigned)
- 15% paycuts for everyone but still 5-day work week!
- Suspension of 401k match for everyone
- elimination of overtime
- elimination of some health benefits
- elimination of ALL health benefits (mass exodus followed)
- elimination of paid vacation
"Architects, on the other hand, are charged with representing the needs of their paying clients as well as the often contradictory needs of the non-paying users and the non-paying public. There is no other designated agent for these unorganized interest groups."
I've been thinking and expressing this same thing, although my words aren't as efficient. To me this is one of the single most important contribution to the state of our profession. By important, I don't necessarily mean the biggest, but one that truly defines our place as professionals.
I agree with SW, that if anything specialized consultants can allow architects to get jobs that would otherwise be unfeasible or unprofitable. The only one that I think have taken too much of the pie without providing value is construction managers. They have too much control now without the liability for their actions and choices. Architects could easily fill that position though, even if it has to be by a 3rd party architect for the sake of reducing conflict of interest.
I had a 9% paycut and a salary freeze after that cut, but received a 15% bonus last year. All benefits remained and the number of paid vacation days actually increased. But then again, I don't work at an architecture firm. Yet.
what about the idea that there are too many skilled architects relative to the amount of current work? thus, everyone is undercutting each other's fees to stay alive.
supply and demand.
A few points on the blog link above....
I think that an architectural education, in most schools, is broad. You get a taste of everything from urban planning and history to engineering concepts and materials. This gives you a relatively fair understand of architecture but its also sets up high expectations. When we begin to practice, 95% of graduates act as CAD monkeys or are stuck putting together presentation boards. This is not "intern development" its exploitation! An engineer in training does not go thru this, they concentrate on engineering and have drafters who support them. In most offices IDP worksheets are falsified because allowing the intern to achieve each section would not benefit the employer. And employers are ok with signing of on the hours because it keeps the intern content.
And yes, licensure does not mean you are qualified to practice, in my opinion it shows discipline, and there is a lot to be said for that. It also means you know what your minimum expectaions are as an architect.
This is a good one:
"As architects surrender their leadership positions, the odds that buildings might serve interests beyond those of their developers worsen. Many architects now sit in the back offices of these developers and are economically dependent upon them – a circumstance that was ethically prohibited a century ago."
This is one persons opinion (well maybe two) but the truth is we will not bite the hands that feed us... we will take it whichever way it comes... oh, and a smile of course.
Seems like everytime this type of thread comes along, it only takes 3 or 4 posts before we get into comparing architects to doctors and lawyers. What is with this professions fixation on them? I frankly don't see why they are held up as the model professions. Is it just because they make more money? Because they get more oohs and aahs when they introduce themselves?
Frit, this has to do with being part of a licensed profession, and nothing to do with oohs and aahs. We cant compare ourselves to an accountant or a veterinarian because peoples lives dont really depend on them. They are also good models because they do have model training and education programs.
med. - they really cut vacation and health benefits? I have yet to hear of any firms cutting either of those benefits. Most just resort to massive layoffs.
I've lost my 401k match and taken a 15% pay cut.
Just for perspective, an average CAD Tech wage around here would be about $40k/year. That 15% is $6000/year taking said person down to $34k.
Now a senior staff member going from $100k to $85k is going to feel it, but I'd argue that the pay cuts are much harder on the lowest paid people and why I don't agree with across-the-board-for-everyone std. percentage cuts.
oh...doo..doo..ah da...a dah....so...we do.....chasing projects...to pay the bills when they land in our lap..ane we forget architecture because it demands so many things of us...and well the owner doesn't want us doddling on thing which they could have solved..leat the architect doesn't know better. I don't give a rats ass....dudes this happen on the highest level of architcture. So we fret..and usually end up missing the big picture and that is what the client wants.
not glass houses where a stone can be a problem.oh...doo..doo..ah da...a dah....so...we do.....
Frit,
You said, "Seems like everytime this type of thread comes along, it only takes 3 or 4 posts before we get into comparing architects to doctors and lawyers. What is with this professions fixation on them? I frankly don't see why they are held up as the model professions."
It is being fed to us by NCARB as a justification for their testing model. The title of their latest Direct Connect mailing is, "The Burning Question: Why do we need an ARE Anyway?" The first paragraph in it begins like this:
"You're on the operating table. The bright light above you is suddenly obscured by your doctor, who already has a scalpel in her hand. She looks down at you and nods. "Don't worry," she comfortingly reassures, "I'm a professional." And you know that she is. Somewhere in the back of your mind, you take comfort in the face that she's gone through medical school, spent years in training, and has successfully passed a rigorous test of her knowledge and skills. Your life is in her hands; you should expect nothing less.
Why should it be any different for architects?
When medical doctors-or engineers, accountants, or lawyers, for that matter-are not held to these strict standards, they run the risk of endangering public safety and pose a threat to consumers. Architects plan and design the buildings and structures in which many of us live and work and have a direct effect on the public's health, safety, and welfare."
Since this elaborate and expensive testing procedure we have to go through is justified almost completely by comparing architects to doctors and lawyers, it seems natural that architects look for similarities in compensation as well.
My pay rate has not been cut, but hours have been cut 30%. Health coverage switched to a cheaper plan in which my out-of-pocket expenses are doubled. There haven't been bonuses or raises in two years.
This is the "Income Implosion" Architect magazine article and comments online...
Aqua, I had worked there for two years (in the good times) with no raises and had a lousy pay. I live in an expensive city and was REALLY struggling! Add to the fact that it was an extremely hostile atmosphere there and it just wasn't a good fit.
With already two rounds of layoffs, I had begun shopping around for new horrizons as some firms were still hiring.
It just so happened the day, they anounced pay cuts, I got a really good offer (15% pay increase) and at that moment turned in my resignation letter.
Some junior level staff who are still there are making around 29k a year. That is unacceptable no matter how much some of you guys condone it. It is virtually impossible to live off that.
Yes they suspended paid vacations and they eliminated all health benefits. Since then I've lured several people away from there to join the firm I'm working for now.
"Less = the NEW More"
What a crock of shit.
Who the hell do these people think they are???
When my salary dropped to less than what I would have gotten in unemployment, but I was still expected to put in a 40+ hour week, that was my sign to run, fast and far. When I pointed that out, the principal told me he hadn't taken a paycheck in almost a year, but it didn't make me feel any better.
"what about the idea that there are too many skilled architects relative to the amount of current work? thus, everyone is undercutting each other's fees to stay alive."
I would love to argue the definition of the term "skilled" at this point.
you don't know any talented, but unemployed, architects? lucky you.
Any? Sure I do. Too many? Well, let's just say I don't think that just because a state issued someone a license makes them skilled. Maybe they are just unemployed.
I didnt lose my 401K because I didnt have one.
I did lose insurance
took 20% pay cut of an already 20% lower thn avg. salary
increased workload since 3/4 of firm was eliminated
licensed LEED AP earning less than intern wages
This "crunch" has been a long time coming. The last 15 years have seen a steady erosion from the bottom up. Salaries for starting architects in the late 90s were 28-35K. That was almost unchanged from the late 80s, if you even had a chance for internship in the late 80s. Same thing is happening to lawyers ( oh no I just dropped the L word ). What we need is good plague or better yet a post 65 income tax hike to level out the old folks who rode the wave for the last 30 years and want to ride our wave too. Hey man - get off my cloud!
in my city, firms generally went two routes:
1) lay off some employees, everyone remaining keep their salaries
2) everyone keeps their jobs, but gets a 10-20% salary cut
pros and cons of each strategy? which do you prefer?
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.