I was going to post in the architectural career thread but instead will make this a question for it's own focus. Have Architects lost their status among the professional class and American society in general? Once upon a time the Architect was a noble profession and looked at with the utmost respect and admiration. The architect was characterized as the builder of the nation, a well to do businessperson or an authority figure in any town or city. And now the perception seems to have turned to bureaucratic necessity akin to getting your vehicle registered or an accountant to do your taxes. I see also images in popular culture of the Architect as loner, counter cultural artistic type in dockers, not someone to be taken seriously as an authority on anything really. Im picturing an Architect opposite Jenifer Aniston in some romantic comedy maybe? So are Architects facing a declining status in our society? Is the lack of respect for architecture and building arts in general carrying over to a degradation of the practitioners?
architects are taken seriously as facilitators once they have a contract.
if you want to get a picture of architect in today's american society, then, take a picture of today's american society.
in schools, architects still have that heroic image but outside of academia, nobody really cares. most of the teachers students brag about in schools, are literally unknown people block away from where your university is located.
architecture has lost a lot of interest of the society because it did not serve society's needs and benefit to a level it could. we are all responsible for that. architect or not.
There’s a problem with respect. I recently went to a doctor and was able to see a professor of medicine. She was so self-confident when she was going across the hall, you could tell it by her walking and greeting patients - she’s a respectful person, she’s helping people and they’re thankful for that. And who is an architect? A loser with ambitions of God. Nobody likes or respect him.
I think a lot of it has to do with our profession being reluctant to just flat out tell a client to "do what the F I tell you to do, or your project is going to be a failure". Because if they don't... then you have just condemned yourself to being a part of an unsuccessful project. Which is the kiss of death to most architect's psyche's.
If a doctor tells a a patient the same thing and they don't listen, then they are dead and no skin off the doctors ass.
We have emotional investments in projects and people sense it. Human nature tells us to listen more closely to people who analyze something with icy efficiency and don't seem to have an interest in the outcome.
Architects are not very professional these days lets face it guys. I would go on and explain but then you would all say i was spouting rhetoric that belongs in some past generation.
Most accountants don't spend there time offering advice; thats what they are trained to do, but because they are a licensed profession they make more money signing of on financial reports and taxes than advising. Few accountants sell them selves as planners. I think the same goes for architecture, we spend most of our time trying to make a great set of CD's so we don't get sued. Very little of the Budget is allocated to design development and planning. I also think most architects need to play a larger role in their community. A title and degree does not make you an authority.
"do what the F I tell you to do, or your project is going to be a failure."
The problem with this rather arrogant logic is that many clients - especially those who build consistently - typically have substantial design and technical expertise in-house. Such clients are responsible for the bulk of the commercial and institutional construction put-in-place each year. I'm pretty sure a client of this type is going to call your bluff and go find a design team that's a bit more inclined toward collaboration.
Clients respect credibility, talent and knowledge ... ego-centric arrogance, not so much.
I agree to a point quizzical that many clients are indeed experts in their own needs however it is the Architect who ends up putting it all to paper and managing all the little fiefdoms within a hospital, library large office complex, etc. Everyone from the nurse to the surgeons are masters of their rooms and equipment for sure. As far as developer driven design that is a topic for another thread.
it's 2010. projects of any real size are becoming increasingly more complex. architects have to navagate an uncertain sea of regulation, code and legislative changes and complex financial deals. few if any architects really know the whole thing. many architects build expertise in a select number of areas and rely on other experts for information. private projects are not really private anymore (eg public funds spent on developer driven projects) and public projects are not completely public (eg institutions, governments and agencies are increasingly seeking private partnerships to fund public projects). i believe the previous generations idea of an "architect" is archaic in today's definition. an architect can have a substantial amount of influence on the design aesthetic of a project without ever having put pen to paper. and quite frankly, they will know much more about the project than the "lead designer" ever will.
successful projects are a significantly collaborative endeavor. if a mid-career level architect beleives they can be Howard Rourke, they are extremely niave. the size of project they will eventually only work on will have an area of influence hardly larger than the footprint of the building. and that's just it, right? we wax philosophically about influence but can't lead a project to have a lasting and far reaching influence larger than the paper beneath our nose.
projects may be getting more complex, but that does not mean architects should marginalize there role and delegate it to a specialist, an architect is still the owners agent after all.
we as architects may just not be willing to step up to the place and that's why our profession is being invaded and divided by these so called specialist. I admit you do need them but should they be in charge of course not. Should we stand by idly while our profession give birth to another bastard profession?
We need to quit our delegation of duties and remember that we are the organizers the leaders of a project, and the owners representatives.
its a desert out there these days no strong architects left in this country.
ps. sorry for dissing the interior designers or anyone else i just had a hot coffee from dunking donuts first time in like 3 months. i hope it was splenda they put in it because I'm wound up.
while i don't propose that this discussion is pointless, it's missing what i think is a major point:
if you are respectful and act respectable, you will earn respect.
this is what your own status as an architect is based on, full stop.
the profession's reputation is tarnished by those who take either a wishy-washy non-confident cover-my-ass role or a i-know-everything/i'm-the-master role. this does not paint the whole profession in these colors, but they become the most impactful.
this is no different than the feeling that doctors can be aloof, cold, or hurried or that attorneys can be money-grubbing mercenaries. the worst-case stories are those that you hear.
decide for yourself that you will be a knowledgeable, confident, and an effective communicator and you'll foster others' respect in you - and begin to shift the perception of the profession and our effectiveness and value.
Liveload, my stance is to delegate specialty tasks to those who can perform them with a high degree of quality. Architects should be the leaders, communicators and facilitators of the Owner's vision. I'm not advocating that we roll over and be passive, I'm advocating that we become confident, strong, clear communicators who bring value to the Owner
As an example, an LCCA is extremely complex. It takes special knowledge by the architect, mechanical and electrical engineers, cost estimators, energy analyists and modelers, interior designers and space planners and the Owner to provide an accurate picture of true costs over the life of a project. These are all specialist who run very deep in their respective disciplines. Architects have neither the time nor the bandwidth to do high quality work in all of these areas. If they're doing it right, they're busy leading the project, not staying up late doing an energy model or doing quantity takeoffs or looking up energy use on pumps and fans.
I don't have time to manage all these people to the same high degree I manage my on staff. I'm too busy taking phone calls from the Owner. And that's what I want. . . the Owner to call me. When the owner calls me, it tells me I'm of value to them. They're not calling their Owner's rep, they're calling me. Most of my clients pay me to provide solutions and answers. The design and drawings are just a by product of those solutions (though done in a very beautiful, elegant and thoughtful way).
I actually kinda think it's the other way around. The 90% of society that does not have to deal with us on a day-to-day basis have a lot of respect for us. They do respect us and believe that we're big shots.. more deserving of respect than other, more highly paid professions, like lawyers and bankers.
Unfortunately, this logic does not apply to the 10% of society who actually hire architects.
We don't like the buildings because we don't "understand" global architecture.
You know, I don't "understand" the Renaissance, but am awed by the genius of Michelangelo and the beauty of his work.
I guess he just wasn't as good as the architects you like since you don't have to "understand more about" Renaissance art to appreciate Michelangelo's.
Personally, in all of the arts, whenever I hear "you have to understand" or "you have to know", I know instantly that I'm about to view bad art that needs intellectual excuses to be appreciated.
Great art speaks to the soul and does so in a universal vocabulary. Otherwise, it's nothing more than narcissism.
Somwhere I read that many of the big firms like the SOM's and HOK's of the world increased profits when the dropped the word "Architects" from their company name.
If that doesn't tell you the status of the Architect is in danger, what will?
My fellow architects and architecture educated comrades,
Some will argue that we architects deserve whats happening to us. We are being annihilated, and categorized every day by everybody, but more importantly by architecture firms and bosses who have forgotten or don't care about the building art. We must revolt against these people who want to obliterate us. Are we going to stand by idly as they increase their bottom line? while we the so called expendable production people draft all their bizarre and distasteful corporate cookie cutter buildings to life?
We have all scene Star Wars the movie. Well my fellow architects you are all metaphorically Jedis and they are the dark side. You are all part of a religion that is being annihilated, chopped up, used, abused, corrupted by money hungry scavengers. A thousand years from now people will excavate and when they find the remains what do you want them to say? Because right now we are not doing justice to the innovative spirit that Brunelleschi left us. We must remember that the recession we are going through right now is much more different from the great depression, and we are almost at 50% unemployment. In the great depression there just was no money! in this recession there is money but people are afraid to spend and invest, or for politically motivated reasons do not want the economy to recover while we have a sitting African American President.
What can we do? lets start by saying No! Start your own firms and lets flip this world upside down on these bureaucratic bastards! fight the power.
Are you guys serious? Worried about the status of an architect.. Just BE an architect. Interract with the public and show them your knowledge and expertise. And if you don't have any then shut up and stop whining. Here's a question. Have you thought about your community lately and how it could benefit from your talent? If not then keep comparing yourself to doctors and lawyers (if that's even a logical comparison) and feel sorry for yourself because it's clear that you're not worth anything to society and you're not really worth anything to architecture. You ARE worth something to your crumbling ego, which I think is the nature of this thread to begin with.
I agree, if you're not satisfied with what the profession has GIVEN you then consider starting your own practice. Take a chance, why not? I'm not exactly into the Jedi metaphor, but I like the attitude.
In the first comment, Orham said "architects are taken seriously as facilitators once they have a contract"
I think the problem is more with the public than the clients. If the community no longer respects the role of the architect as a defender of the public good, then architecture might decide "screw the community" because the community doesn't pay my salary. The client "gets" what i do, and the client pays me.
In a variety of areas outside of architecture, the community is deciding that institutions that have traditionally defended the public good are no longer relevant.
If architects have egos, its because they think that they're doing something noble. If thats not the case, then f*ck it.
Yes. No status except whiners and cynical sycophants.
Just look at the pics of the "about Archinect" folks. Irrelevant hippy grundge material. Who in their right mind with more than 50k in the bank is going to take such clowns seriously? seriously...
Over the 3 year period I have particpated in arch online forum banter you are going to get 1 of 2 different responses:
#1 "You suck for asking the question. Of course, "we" are important (including all the unlicensed hangers on, graphic artists, etc. etc). Stop trying to change "my" precious internal paradigm. Get lost and leave me and my lost buddies bury our heads further in thge sand. Its quite pleasant underground."
#2 "No, we've allowed clients, lawyers, insurance companies, software manufacturers, code officers, and the schools the make the profession and title of architect completely irrelevant and disrespected in society".
#1s are encouraged to keep on with keeping on with the delusions. Most posters on internet arch forums, about 98.5%, fit in this category of response.
#2s are simply banned outright. wouldn't want to rock the boat or anything.
Its interesting because the profession is currently like a patient with a festering, soccer ball sized tumor metastasizing under its own weight into a all the vital organs (aforementioned categories of lawyers, insurance, etc.) yet the patient, collectively speaking, insists on turning a blind eye to the truth and soldiers on in the name of all things they've been brainwashed by the AIA into thinking are holy, like AutoDesk software.
As for me, I've had enough of it and though I recently reached the ignominious milestone of achieving licensure and NCARB certificaiton last summer, I am abandoning architecture permanently and going to medicla school this fall.
I've been jerked around by the short hairs for long enough. I am going into something that still offers the things for which I got into architecture in the first place. Minus the typically hippy, schlub, archinect crowd.
Architecture (in the sense of what the profession meant to society prior to the end of the 20th century) is dead.
Ding Dong the witch is dead. Those with self respaect and worthwhile dreams are encouraged to move on. Thank you for listening.
What I've been narrowing in on is the perception of the product, the house that is "architected" is being looked at as an object and not a process by the contemporary buyer. The office building is a asset and not a monument to thrift and industry for which it's financiers may have once stood. The rec center is budget. Maybe the lens through which the buyers are looking has blurred what they see? If one looks at a house as simply an object to have then yes, after 10,000 years of building them we should be able to pull them off the shelves by God, is this what people think?
If you've already been accepted then why are you still going through the process of interviewing and taking courses? It's pretty much one or the other. If you've been accepted you're done the process of taking mcats courses and interviews. Which one I'm curious
Any answer to my question there? Have you actually been accepted? You can't be taking MCATs, biochemistry and interviewing if you've already been accepted. So which one is it?
My collegue quited architecture and went to med school after 20 years working as an architect. He was always kinda "boy" while he was in architecture, though he was 45 at the time.
First he went to solarization practice as he's been an expert in that, then he entered med school to be really aware of what he was doing. He's a recpectful person now in his 50s doing his solarization business.
I'm not sayin we all should go, but there's something wrong with the situation because we all doing not less inportant things than doctors do and we're screwed by society for some reason.
Fellas, we really need to get over this 'victim' mentality.
Nobody owes us anything. We choose to be architects, but that's no guarantee of anything. Like everybody else, we make our own way in this world by our wits and out talent and our ability to sell the value of what we do to those who might need the service.
To the extent our wits and our talent and our lack of salesmanship fail to make us rich and famous, that's hardly "society's" fault.
Architect's Status
Long time lurker, thrill seeker here
I was going to post in the architectural career thread but instead will make this a question for it's own focus. Have Architects lost their status among the professional class and American society in general? Once upon a time the Architect was a noble profession and looked at with the utmost respect and admiration. The architect was characterized as the builder of the nation, a well to do businessperson or an authority figure in any town or city. And now the perception seems to have turned to bureaucratic necessity akin to getting your vehicle registered or an accountant to do your taxes. I see also images in popular culture of the Architect as loner, counter cultural artistic type in dockers, not someone to be taken seriously as an authority on anything really. Im picturing an Architect opposite Jenifer Aniston in some romantic comedy maybe? So are Architects facing a declining status in our society? Is the lack of respect for architecture and building arts in general carrying over to a degradation of the practitioners?
architects are taken seriously as facilitators once they have a contract.
if you want to get a picture of architect in today's american society, then, take a picture of today's american society.
in schools, architects still have that heroic image but outside of academia, nobody really cares. most of the teachers students brag about in schools, are literally unknown people block away from where your university is located.
architecture has lost a lot of interest of the society because it did not serve society's needs and benefit to a level it could. we are all responsible for that. architect or not.
There’s a problem with respect. I recently went to a doctor and was able to see a professor of medicine. She was so self-confident when she was going across the hall, you could tell it by her walking and greeting patients - she’s a respectful person, she’s helping people and they’re thankful for that. And who is an architect? A loser with ambitions of God. Nobody likes or respect him.
I think a lot of it has to do with our profession being reluctant to just flat out tell a client to "do what the F I tell you to do, or your project is going to be a failure". Because if they don't... then you have just condemned yourself to being a part of an unsuccessful project. Which is the kiss of death to most architect's psyche's.
If a doctor tells a a patient the same thing and they don't listen, then they are dead and no skin off the doctors ass.
We have emotional investments in projects and people sense it. Human nature tells us to listen more closely to people who analyze something with icy efficiency and don't seem to have an interest in the outcome.
Architects are not very professional these days lets face it guys. I would go on and explain but then you would all say i was spouting rhetoric that belongs in some past generation.
what are some of those explanations then? I'm just curious.
Most accountants don't spend there time offering advice; thats what they are trained to do, but because they are a licensed profession they make more money signing of on financial reports and taxes than advising. Few accountants sell them selves as planners. I think the same goes for architecture, we spend most of our time trying to make a great set of CD's so we don't get sued. Very little of the Budget is allocated to design development and planning. I also think most architects need to play a larger role in their community. A title and degree does not make you an authority.
The problem with this rather arrogant logic is that many clients - especially those who build consistently - typically have substantial design and technical expertise in-house. Such clients are responsible for the bulk of the commercial and institutional construction put-in-place each year. I'm pretty sure a client of this type is going to call your bluff and go find a design team that's a bit more inclined toward collaboration.
Clients respect credibility, talent and knowledge ... ego-centric arrogance, not so much.
I agree to a point quizzical that many clients are indeed experts in their own needs however it is the Architect who ends up putting it all to paper and managing all the little fiefdoms within a hospital, library large office complex, etc. Everyone from the nurse to the surgeons are masters of their rooms and equipment for sure. As far as developer driven design that is a topic for another thread.
it's 2010. projects of any real size are becoming increasingly more complex. architects have to navagate an uncertain sea of regulation, code and legislative changes and complex financial deals. few if any architects really know the whole thing. many architects build expertise in a select number of areas and rely on other experts for information. private projects are not really private anymore (eg public funds spent on developer driven projects) and public projects are not completely public (eg institutions, governments and agencies are increasingly seeking private partnerships to fund public projects). i believe the previous generations idea of an "architect" is archaic in today's definition. an architect can have a substantial amount of influence on the design aesthetic of a project without ever having put pen to paper. and quite frankly, they will know much more about the project than the "lead designer" ever will.
successful projects are a significantly collaborative endeavor. if a mid-career level architect beleives they can be Howard Rourke, they are extremely niave. the size of project they will eventually only work on will have an area of influence hardly larger than the footprint of the building. and that's just it, right? we wax philosophically about influence but can't lead a project to have a lasting and far reaching influence larger than the paper beneath our nose.
projects may be getting more complex, but that does not mean architects should marginalize there role and delegate it to a specialist, an architect is still the owners agent after all.
we as architects may just not be willing to step up to the place and that's why our profession is being invaded and divided by these so called specialist. I admit you do need them but should they be in charge of course not. Should we stand by idly while our profession give birth to another bastard profession?
We need to quit our delegation of duties and remember that we are the organizers the leaders of a project, and the owners representatives.
its a desert out there these days no strong architects left in this country.
ps. sorry for dissing the interior designers or anyone else i just had a hot coffee from dunking donuts first time in like 3 months. i hope it was splenda they put in it because I'm wound up.
spelling correnctions,
but that does not mean architects should marginalize their role
we as architects may just not be willing to step up to the plate
gives birth
ok time to get back to reading my book
corrections was misspelled too, damn caffeine
while i don't propose that this discussion is pointless, it's missing what i think is a major point:
if you are respectful and act respectable, you will earn respect.
this is what your own status as an architect is based on, full stop.
the profession's reputation is tarnished by those who take either a wishy-washy non-confident cover-my-ass role or a i-know-everything/i'm-the-master role. this does not paint the whole profession in these colors, but they become the most impactful.
this is no different than the feeling that doctors can be aloof, cold, or hurried or that attorneys can be money-grubbing mercenaries. the worst-case stories are those that you hear.
decide for yourself that you will be a knowledgeable, confident, and an effective communicator and you'll foster others' respect in you - and begin to shift the perception of the profession and our effectiveness and value.
when was this? Have you read vitruvius? his whole thing is "architects add value to a project! people should use architects!"
us trying to gain respect as a profession is as old as the profession.
Koolhaas doesn't look like he's confident enough in his role, does he?
Liveload, my stance is to delegate specialty tasks to those who can perform them with a high degree of quality. Architects should be the leaders, communicators and facilitators of the Owner's vision. I'm not advocating that we roll over and be passive, I'm advocating that we become confident, strong, clear communicators who bring value to the Owner
As an example, an LCCA is extremely complex. It takes special knowledge by the architect, mechanical and electrical engineers, cost estimators, energy analyists and modelers, interior designers and space planners and the Owner to provide an accurate picture of true costs over the life of a project. These are all specialist who run very deep in their respective disciplines. Architects have neither the time nor the bandwidth to do high quality work in all of these areas. If they're doing it right, they're busy leading the project, not staying up late doing an energy model or doing quantity takeoffs or looking up energy use on pumps and fans.
I don't have time to manage all these people to the same high degree I manage my on staff. I'm too busy taking phone calls from the Owner. And that's what I want. . . the Owner to call me. When the owner calls me, it tells me I'm of value to them. They're not calling their Owner's rep, they're calling me. Most of my clients pay me to provide solutions and answers. The design and drawings are just a by product of those solutions (though done in a very beautiful, elegant and thoughtful way).
I actually kinda think it's the other way around. The 90% of society that does not have to deal with us on a day-to-day basis have a lot of respect for us. They do respect us and believe that we're big shots.. more deserving of respect than other, more highly paid professions, like lawyers and bankers.
Unfortunately, this logic does not apply to the 10% of society who actually hire architects.
Look at the comments that follow this article from The Huffington Post "Japanese Architects Win 2010 Pritzker Prize"
for example...
"Just another elitist.
We don't like the buildings because we don't "understand" global architecture.
You know, I don't "understand" the Renaissance, but am awed by the genius of Michelangelo and the beauty of his work.
I guess he just wasn't as good as the architects you like since you don't have to "understand more about" Renaissance art to appreciate Michelangelo's.
Personally, in all of the arts, whenever I hear "you have to understand" or "you have to know", I know instantly that I'm about to view bad art that needs intellectual excuses to be appreciated.
Great art speaks to the soul and does so in a universal vocabulary. Otherwise, it's nothing more than narcissism.
And, to restate, presumptuous elitism."
Should architects even care about public opinion?
Somwhere I read that many of the big firms like the SOM's and HOK's of the world increased profits when the dropped the word "Architects" from their company name.
If that doesn't tell you the status of the Architect is in danger, what will?
My fellow architects and architecture educated comrades,
Some will argue that we architects deserve whats happening to us. We are being annihilated, and categorized every day by everybody, but more importantly by architecture firms and bosses who have forgotten or don't care about the building art. We must revolt against these people who want to obliterate us. Are we going to stand by idly as they increase their bottom line? while we the so called expendable production people draft all their bizarre and distasteful corporate cookie cutter buildings to life?
We have all scene Star Wars the movie. Well my fellow architects you are all metaphorically Jedis and they are the dark side. You are all part of a religion that is being annihilated, chopped up, used, abused, corrupted by money hungry scavengers. A thousand years from now people will excavate and when they find the remains what do you want them to say? Because right now we are not doing justice to the innovative spirit that Brunelleschi left us. We must remember that the recession we are going through right now is much more different from the great depression, and we are almost at 50% unemployment. In the great depression there just was no money! in this recession there is money but people are afraid to spend and invest, or for politically motivated reasons do not want the economy to recover while we have a sitting African American President.
What can we do? lets start by saying No! Start your own firms and lets flip this world upside down on these bureaucratic bastards! fight the power.
Having a firm isn't going to solve anything financially, but I guess it could creatively.
Are you guys serious? Worried about the status of an architect.. Just BE an architect. Interract with the public and show them your knowledge and expertise. And if you don't have any then shut up and stop whining. Here's a question. Have you thought about your community lately and how it could benefit from your talent? If not then keep comparing yourself to doctors and lawyers (if that's even a logical comparison) and feel sorry for yourself because it's clear that you're not worth anything to society and you're not really worth anything to architecture. You ARE worth something to your crumbling ego, which I think is the nature of this thread to begin with.
I agree, if you're not satisfied with what the profession has GIVEN you then consider starting your own practice. Take a chance, why not? I'm not exactly into the Jedi metaphor, but I like the attitude.
vatoloco,
In the first comment, Orham said "architects are taken seriously as facilitators once they have a contract"
I think the problem is more with the public than the clients. If the community no longer respects the role of the architect as a defender of the public good, then architecture might decide "screw the community" because the community doesn't pay my salary. The client "gets" what i do, and the client pays me.
In a variety of areas outside of architecture, the community is deciding that institutions that have traditionally defended the public good are no longer relevant.
If architects have egos, its because they think that they're doing something noble. If thats not the case, then f*ck it.
Yes. No status except whiners and cynical sycophants.
Just look at the pics of the "about Archinect" folks. Irrelevant hippy grundge material. Who in their right mind with more than 50k in the bank is going to take such clowns seriously? seriously...
Over the 3 year period I have particpated in arch online forum banter you are going to get 1 of 2 different responses:
#1 "You suck for asking the question. Of course, "we" are important (including all the unlicensed hangers on, graphic artists, etc. etc). Stop trying to change "my" precious internal paradigm. Get lost and leave me and my lost buddies bury our heads further in thge sand. Its quite pleasant underground."
#2 "No, we've allowed clients, lawyers, insurance companies, software manufacturers, code officers, and the schools the make the profession and title of architect completely irrelevant and disrespected in society".
#1s are encouraged to keep on with keeping on with the delusions. Most posters on internet arch forums, about 98.5%, fit in this category of response.
#2s are simply banned outright. wouldn't want to rock the boat or anything.
Its interesting because the profession is currently like a patient with a festering, soccer ball sized tumor metastasizing under its own weight into a all the vital organs (aforementioned categories of lawyers, insurance, etc.) yet the patient, collectively speaking, insists on turning a blind eye to the truth and soldiers on in the name of all things they've been brainwashed by the AIA into thinking are holy, like AutoDesk software.
As for me, I've had enough of it and though I recently reached the ignominious milestone of achieving licensure and NCARB certificaiton last summer, I am abandoning architecture permanently and going to medicla school this fall.
I've been jerked around by the short hairs for long enough. I am going into something that still offers the things for which I got into architecture in the first place. Minus the typically hippy, schlub, archinect crowd.
Architecture (in the sense of what the profession meant to society prior to the end of the 20th century) is dead.
Ding Dong the witch is dead. Those with self respaect and worthwhile dreams are encouraged to move on. Thank you for listening.
What I've been narrowing in on is the perception of the product, the house that is "architected" is being looked at as an object and not a process by the contemporary buyer. The office building is a asset and not a monument to thrift and industry for which it's financiers may have once stood. The rec center is budget. Maybe the lens through which the buyers are looking has blurred what they see? If one looks at a house as simply an object to have then yes, after 10,000 years of building them we should be able to pull them off the shelves by God, is this what people think?
"I'm a driver, I'm winner...things are going to change, I can feel it" -Beck, I'm a Loser Baby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgSPaXgAdzE
Imaloserbaby--So you've already been accepted to med school? or are still in the process of applying? like MCAT and science courses, and interviews?
If you've already been accepted then why are you still going through the process of interviewing and taking courses? It's pretty much one or the other. If you've been accepted you're done the process of taking mcats courses and interviews. Which one I'm curious
Any answer to my question there? Have you actually been accepted? You can't be taking MCATs, biochemistry and interviewing if you've already been accepted. So which one is it?
My collegue quited architecture and went to med school after 20 years working as an architect. He was always kinda "boy" while he was in architecture, though he was 45 at the time.
First he went to solarization practice as he's been an expert in that, then he entered med school to be really aware of what he was doing. He's a recpectful person now in his 50s doing his solarization business.
I'm not sayin we all should go, but there's something wrong with the situation because we all doing not less inportant things than doctors do and we're screwed by society for some reason.
sorry for misspellings
Fellas, we really need to get over this 'victim' mentality.
Nobody owes us anything. We choose to be architects, but that's no guarantee of anything. Like everybody else, we make our own way in this world by our wits and out talent and our ability to sell the value of what we do to those who might need the service.
To the extent our wits and our talent and our lack of salesmanship fail to make us rich and famous, that's hardly "society's" fault.
"we all doing not less inportant things than doctors do"
are you kidding me? if that was true society would reflect it.
nb. please indulge us and explain how architects are as important as doctors.
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.