btw, I'm not pissed off or anything, just wanting to engage in dialogue and learn. I think it's BS that it takes 10-20 years to become an architect. Take a look around, if you do anything else for a few years you are considered an expert in it. I can look up some scientific evidence on this. Problem is as a young architect, if becoming an Architect was truly the goal, it would look much different than the school/IDP/ARE thing that most of us do, but that's not the goal, as I am attemping to illustrate by the notion that only 1 out of 3 realistically will achieve that goal, but meanwhile who is going to do all these drawings???
Strawbeary: Sad to say, I have no magic wand here -- only certain insights into the problem.
Every industry has its own economic laws. Our greatest problem as an industry is the relative ease with which people can enter the profession (low barriers to entry) and the relative difficulty architects have going on to something else (high barriers to exit) -- this combination leads to a mismatch between supply and demand (i.e. an overabundance of practitioners relative to available work) driving down fees and wages for everybody. In such a overpopulated and fragmented industry, few of the participants have any real bargaining power when it comes to economic matters.
While it's fundamentally impossible to change the basic economics of an industry overnight, standard economic theory suggests several strategies when competing in such industries -- including: a) focus on a niche, and b) drive down the cost of operations, and c) hoard cash. This trio of suggestions allows the firm to compete as an "expert" in one or two building types, allows the firm to compete on price when necessary, and allows the firm to ride out the inevitable economic cycles when they occur.
Warren Buffett is supposed to have said that "'When a manager with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact." I'm pretty sure Warren's warning applies to the practice of architecture.
Cash hoarding is a dangerous game. Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the practice... simply stating it is dangerous.
As far as the first part of your post, I want to disagree so bad. But I think there's a lot of merit of what you have to say, too.
In some cases, I think you are absolutely 100% on the money. In other cases, I think the exact opposite is true too.
There is both high and low barriers to entering and exiting the profession. I'd even extend that to most of the AEC industry too-- planning, development, economics, policy and even interior decorating suffer many of the same problems.
My biggest gripe with the planning profession is that lack of ... well, any sort of performance metric. Now, I understand elsewhere in the world this is not the case.
But, from my experience, various urban planning programs are essentially one of the easiest programs to get into. Like basically anyone can get into them. And that's not to say the students who graduate from them are bad, a lot of them aren't very many good.
(Do I have to bring up the story about the Master's students giving powerpoint presentations about butterflies and butterfly gardens in a Graduate level class? A graduate level class about infrastructural systems.)
There is where I respect architecture proper a little bit more because they're a lot more restrictive... and you have to actually be good at something.
there also seem to be at least three systemic structural changes that factor in right now, as well:
1 - globally (my opinion), we are running up against the limits of growth- or export-based economies -- even if it takes another 50 or 100 years to finally settle into a new economic order, at this point, you can't just move west/south/east, or shift production, etc
it seems it still happens, but the margins are shrinking and it is close to or at the point where long-term growth can no longer be based on exploiting untapped land-based nature resources or under-utilized/devalued labor pools
rather, to maintain such an economic model for a long time to come, you would have to open up space or the ocean for exploitation or accelerate the rate as which entire new industries on the scale of the emergence of a web-based economy are launched and continue to launch such new industries on this scale in a consistent fashion in order to create the same effect of excessive demand feeding growth
2 - most everyone (i know) is trying to make opportunity here -- for generations people came to the U.S. b/c there was opportunity here, not in their native land --- it seems there is still opportunity, even in high-growth-based economies, but it is no longer here, at least not right now or the foreseeable future --- perhaps over the next several years the number of architects heading overseas, not just for a tour, but for good, will increase significantly
3 - "knowledge worker" is not the mark of differentiation it had been, the economy is flooded with "educated" workers, not just our field, and the demand is not there except in emerging fields
just as the nation now produces all of the food required to eat with less than 2% of the population (not true 100 years ago), and just as it produces all of the goods required (despite our shrinking manufacturing sector, ours is still just about the biggest in the world) with somewhere around 10% of the populace, it seems there era of knowledge worker type jobs providing bounty and stability to us masses has crested, at least here in the U.S. for the foreseeable future
Thanks quizz, I enjoy your insights as usual. In hindsight, had I focused on a niche, I would have been better off and I understand now that is once place I went wrong. If the firm I worked for had developed a niche too, they might still be around. But that nuance escaped us all. Our motto was all buildings are the same anyways, we'll do whatever you want.
cherith, I initially wanted to stay away from this thread, because I was mentioned right off the bat as having a successful exodus, which is true... BUT before anyone gets all excited about me making this transition and think it is just that easy, readers should know that I am lucky, that I got where I am now mostly because I was at the right place at the right time, I had Connections. Being flexible, determined, and capable didn't hurt, but I don't deserve this awesome position I landed in the career lottery any more than I deserved to lose my last job as neither had much to do with me, just something that happened. But I'll take it, I'll rock it, and I'll count my blessings. BTW, I still reserve the right to return to architecture when I grow up.
If people don't do business with one another... then no one really is in business. Right now, this is a problem is that the companies who are still in business aren't spending any more because they're unsure of the economy. Without movements of funds, banks don't get to siphon any more off and credit gets clamped down.
Having a lot of stagnant cash is as worse, if not more so, than being in debt.
UG: you misunderstand what I mean by "hoarding cash".
In a cyclical business, where one can do so, it's important to build up cash reserves to help tide the firm over (including preserving as much employment as possible) during down periods. It's tough as hell to do, given the existing tax laws. But, if one understands that one is operating in a cyclical business and if one believes that the only sustainable competitive advantage a service firm possesses is the skill and knowledge of its key personnel, then it makes sense to tuck away as much "rainy day" money as possible - both at the company level and at the individual level - as a hedge against economic disruption and the loss of key skills.
I presume your comments were directed at the recent news reports indicating that Fortune 500 corporations are sitting on tons of cash and not doing anything with that cash. My comments are totally unrelated to that sort of circumstance.
do you think the need to smooth out the cycle with a large cash reserve is just the way it is, and always has been in our profession?
or is the condition a result of the times or of systemic change?
in my career so far, it seems from the early 90's to 2008, there was significant pressure to operate based on cash flow, because of tax law - in good years i remember the firms being in a 'spend it or lose a lot of it' predicament - and even if you took the hit by paying the tax to sock away some of it and build a reserve, much competition would have been spending it on training, bonuses and tools as fast as it came in, and so not doing so yourself could put you at competitive disadvantage
yes, looking, a lot, but you #1 have to be able to carry the loan and #2 have to be able to get the loan in the first place (banks don't really care to lend for vacant land, means nothing to them if you go belly up)
so most people are just sitting and waiting. not to mention that there are so many people that bought when things are high and are trying to hold on until things get back to 0
I should note that there are distressed assets out there to be had for those with connections and a ton of liquidity, both of which are pretty rare today
In practice, most firms will promote those they feel are the most able and allow those they deem less able to drift away over time.
quizz - I see what you are saying, but in the current economy the natural process of promotion and staff churn is at a standstill.
Right now we've all been treading water for about two years, and it looks to stay this way for at least another year or two and minimum. Senior staff sure aren't retiring as quickly as they would in a robust market with 401k plans hitting new highs. That natural avenue for advancement is also blocked for now. Essentially nobody on the bottom is getting their peice of the pie until firms start to grow again.
What are firms doing to keep their best and brightest young talent? Not much from what I've seen. I have seen firms trying to add talent at the top to market different segments and bring in new work, but so far as internal promotion or promises of advancement, nil.
I don't think I'm alone in reading the attitude of many Architect's in their 30's that we are getting anxious for that next step. Once the economy does improve I think firm bouncing is going to heat up fast, that is if any of us are still around. I think we have another early 90's "lost" generation of Architects on our hands right now.
From what I can tell there are no people in the 40s, barely any in their 30s and everyone in their 20s has been laid off. We are seeing now those lucky enough to even be employed just leaving for anything else that pays better, and can you blame them? I hate to sound all doom and gloom but the "Architect" as we knew it is gone. The remaining boomers are going to resort back to their earlier roles as production people while still wearing their captains' hats simply because they can, and they will have the time in the slower economy to do both and essentially it will be a long, slow, low paying grind until we all die off for the younger folks. While admire the fighting spirit of the new generation the fact is your so far behind the starting line you will never catch us.
aqua: well ... of course, I also wrote "In this current economy, promotions (and wage increases) have, for all practical purposes, ceased.'
Most firms about which I have any real knowledge literally are fighting to survive -- there's no money whatsoever to allocate toward special programs to "keep their best and brightest young talent" -- it's not for want of desire; it's for want of resources.
In my view - and this is especially true at our firm - about the best we can hope for is to provide the people still here interesting and developmental work. We've seen some extraordinary growth in some of our people as - out of necessity - they've been asked to stretch into areas outside their comfort zone. While their pay is lower than we would like it to be, their professional growth has accelerated and, quite frankly, their level of job satisfaction remains fairly high. They can see for themselves that they're making a contribution and they hear it from us as well.
What happens when things pick-up is a great unknown to me. What I fear the most is an expansion of job opportunities that occurs well before the economic equation returns to normal (whatever that may be) for our firm ... I am greatly concerned that other, bigger, firms will start trying to hire away our good people before we're really in a financial position to make our people whole and be able to compete economically. This is one - of several - areas of practice that cause me to lose sleep at night.
and this is what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket.....
i really hope folks look into other avenues to make a living and not wait on 'the architecture scene to rise like a phoenix' or 'surviving off their unemployment'......
quizz - I work at a "bigger firm" that actively has been hiring away talent from others, even in the face of the downturn. The reason being is to expand our marketable skills and these people are supposed to bring with them new clients, etc. That said, all these people are principle or sr. associate level with 20+ years of experience.
Even prior to the downturn it seemed that internal promotions weren't common. The hill to get over from staff Architect level to management level seems very steep, and has only gotten higher in this economy. I'd appreciate working for an employer that at least would nuture my professional growth and promise that next step when times improve, even if the current pay is lower than it should be. In the big firm world the paycheck might be more stable, but the advancement opportunity is lacking.
i would imagine at some point this has to result in a reduction in the size and/or number of architecture schools
or, as i saw someone say, i think it was jeffrey kipnis, a degree in architecture may become like a degree in art or music, most people getting such a degree will do it for reasons of personal fulfillment and assume very high unemployment
so most will plan to make a living doing something else
Re: Architecture as a profession being easy to enter...
I think its really all about perspective. I can see how principles, hr and project managers who probably get hundreds of unsolicited resumes a week could have that opinion, but I think when you are one of those unsolicited resumes it certainly doesnt seems so easy.
I'll grant that when I started arch school I was occasionally shocked by the level of experience/education of some of my classmates going in. There were kids in my class who were the valedictorians of their private or rural school class of 75 but had never taken a calculus class, or a basic drawing class, or a basis AutoCad class, or any kind of art history or humanities class. They didnt really know anything about architecture beyond the fact that architects design buildings-but they had straight As all through high school. I knew kids who graduated somewhere in the middle of my suburban public high school class of 700 who didnt get into arch school who could run mental circles around some of the kids who did get in but had no idea who designed the pyramid at the Louvre.
But, really past that initial school admissions applications, it seems like its as much about luck as it is about talent or brains and a lot of it really is out of the wannabe-architects control. More talented people get passed up for jobs that go to somebody's nephew or some professors favorite. Sometimes you just get lucky and happen to cold call/email the right guy at the firm on the day they happen to be thinking about maybe interviewing a few people for a position that they may be looking to fill sometime in the next few months. I dont think most people who have graduated in the last few years and never found a job, or found a job to work for around a year and then get laid-off have any illusions about a degree equaling a job, or a job equaling any kind of stability.
So I guess relative to other 'professions' architecture is probably not that much harder to get into, and getting into arch school, or graduating or landing a gig doesnt necessarily make you better or smarter or more devoted to architecture then anyone who didnt, But it sure feels hard when you are stressing about getting a project done, or worried about your grades, or desperately trying to get your foot in the door with a firm, or getting laid off from your first real professional job and wondering if you are going to be able to ever pay off your school loans.
I also think the laundry list of tangentially related to architecture, but not actually architecture jobs kinda skew the numbers. Most people going into arch school think that they are going to be Architects one day, but there are a lot of jobs that architects do--drafting, interior design/decorating, construction management, industrial/furniture design, real estate development--that you dont have to be an architect to do, and in some cases dont even have to have a design degree to do. It seems like there are a lot of people in architecture, even sometimes designing buildings, that arent Architects, and there are a lot of Architects out there who dont really do architecture, even though they might work for design firms.
"What I fear the most is an expansion of job opportunities that occurs well before the economic equation returns to normal (whatever that may be) for our firm ... I am greatly concerned that other, bigger, firms will start trying to hire away our good people before we're really in a financial position to make our people whole and be able to compete economically. This is one - of several - areas of practice that cause me to lose sleep at night."
-jay, I think you're over generalizing the rural vs. urban/suburban education differences. My undergrad was at a land grant univ. where there were plenty of "farm kids" that were quite competent.
I do have issues with form Architecture education, but I'm not sure I'd say the barriers are too easy. If anything it's very competitive at the collegiate level. For some reason everyone wants to be an Architect and universities are all too willing to take more tuition money and increase the size of the Architecture programs. Still, all in all it's competitive.
The bigger problem I see is in the professional world. Firms have been very willing to empower people with little to no formal Architecture training. When someone with no more than a CAD drafting certificate is promoted to management positions it dillutes the profession the same way universities do when the graduate massive #'s.
I find the low barriers to entry in the profession the fault of the employers. Many firms do not demand that their staff Architects hold accredited BArch and MArch degrees. Firms have not made it a priority to encourage all their Architectural staff to become registered Architects. Firms have not forced techincal staff to get formal education/degrees for advancement. Every firm controls their own barriers to entry and it can be set wherever they wish it to be.
A lot of this comes down to specialization and the marketing of an architect. Until there is some differentiation we'll continue to see the CAD certified 'architect' commanding more of the market share.
School's and the profession need to differentiate between design talent, business savvy and production. You can't expect the most educated, most talented to be content working for nothing and then excel later on, after doing the same work that someone with only a certificate but is super cad productive, there just isn't enough room, and likewise, you can't expect someone that is a cad expert to also be an award winning designer.
But until there is some effort spent differentiating between skills/talent, those that are immediately productive to a firm will continue to dilute the profession, as aqua points out.
I can't see how things are going to change anytime soon, though, as no school, no organization and few clients see value in this.
I do hope that many considering this career are reading some of these posts and rethinking their dreams. I don't regret my choices, but certainly would have reconsidered had I had access to a site like this.
"Many firms do not demand that their staff Architects hold accredited BArch and MArch degrees"
I have found that the BARCH and older 4 year BARCH degree holders are far more serious about the profession. Making someone sit in fantasy camp for a few extra years instead of learning the real business we Architects do is not helping matters. In fact, it may be the root cause of the problem, frankly graduating too many inexperienced yet "mastered" professional degrees up to their eyeballs in debt and then throwing them into a low wage, low skill position befit for maybe a 20 year old. We have completely failed to train and teach an entire generation of Architects.
"School's and the profession need to differentiate between design talent, business savvy and production. You can't expect the most educated, most talented to be content working for nothing and then excel later on"
You assume incorrectly that "talent" at the college level translates into talent in the profession. The most successful architects are usually pretty darn good at all three attributes listed: design talent, business savvy and production. They almost inevitably go together as a package. One could say design talent and marketing savvy are intertwined just as making business decisions must inform your designs to service the client in the best manner possible.
2Step- speak for yourself. The M.Arch's I knew were FAR more serious BECAUSE they had invested in a lot more education. Presumably before deciding to go back to school, one must really commit to this profession. That is the reason I got my post-prof M.Arch. The fact that an M.Arch means only 2k more in compensation per year is a difficult stat to find (buried in the Department of Labor statistics). Now, of course there are plenty of M.Archs who should not have gone into the profession too. But we cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. Frankly, there are just too many schools. We have 92,000 registered architects, but 50,000 students in school?!?!?! (according to NCARB, about 6,000 with professional degrees graduate a year, which means the population of architects could be replaced every 15 years, yet the average career of an architect MUST be more than 15 years. Our population is not growing THAT fast.)
This is why I whole-heartedly agree with aqua and trace - the unskilled "architects" really do complicate things. Do we call an orderly a doctor when he or she has worked in a hospital after a certain number of years? No. Then why should a draftsman ever get to be an "architect" without formal training? (I have noticed a lot of "architects" who have not even passed the ARE's even IF they were eligible under the old apprentice rules). I do not want to say drafstmen do not have a place in the profession, but there must be a way to pare the numbers down more. And because school is tougher than simply being employed a certain number of years, then I have to fall on the side of more selectivity. I also think the bottom HALF of schools could probably be disolved too!
But my case and point can be illustrated by one of my fellow "architects" in this office. He has a technical degree, no license (nor would he ever be eligible for one in my state without a professional degree) and yet he is listed as a "project architect." He runs projects, but cannot stamp drawings, cannot design to save his life, and cannot even put a wall section together! He is simply good with numbers and scheduling, so he is in charge of many architects. Now, I could teach some of these architects how to schedule and take care of a budget, but I could not teach the "project architect" building science, how to give a good presentation to a client, or how to be a good designer without a LOT more time input. Nevertheless, this "project architect" makes double the money of most of the true architects in the office, gets more perks, and frankly has less responsibility and stress. Being employed 10 years does NOT make you an architect.
This is the crux of my long post I suppose. Perhaps our profession would not have these financial ups and downs if we were more stringent with the title of "architect." It is a LEGAL term like doctor, CPA, lawyer, or professional engineer. If we had more barriers in place to the advancement of non-architects (this would include those that went to school but are not actively pursuing their licesnes) then the profession might grow more sustainably. I have a license, I have professional degrees from two of the top 3 schools, and I have experience. School was fun, but it was by FAR the most difficult work too. Experience is invaluable of course, but I really only hear the argument AGAINST school from those who do not hold degrees. Either way, NCARB and the AIA need to get their act together a bit and look at the economics of flooding the marker with so many "architects."
The fact is CMNDCTRL masters or not, cad cert or not, those who can will get the commissions and have a healthy career and those that cant will not. All the degrees and titles in the world will not give anyone special architectural powers, and the clients will ultimately seek out the best fitting architect for their needs, even if that means an interior designer or builder. They honestly dont care about your amorphic nano-skin thesis that responds to the life force energy of the buildings inhabitants.
2step- hahaha, I agree! There are FAR too many pretentious, (frankly uselss) intentions in academia. But school just seems like the best mechanism for some accountability. ID cannot stamp, neither can designers. And when they have an architect stamp for them, it is illegal!
The titles and degrees assure a client that I am indeed capable, and QUALIFIED. There has been so much misrepresentation (that is again, illegal!) that clients are confused - and frankly, I do not blame them. What is the difference between a graduate architect, an architectural designer and a designer? Do people even know any more? Those are LEGAL distinctions. One cannot call oneself a graduate architect without a professional degree.
THAT is my point. AIA/NCARB has to step up and protect the profession more. Architects should not HAVE to compete with (interior) designers. Architects ARE more qualified and able, PERIOD. Just like a doctor does not compete with a nurse, we CANNOT compete on price (which is usually what the winning factor is) BECAUSE we have to worry about things like licensure fees, insurance, continuing education etc. If "designers" want to compete solely on talent/aptitude for client's needs - then they can get licenses and we can compete on even ground. I am confident architects would still succeed. Then a lot of people would be inherently removed from the profession too. Clients would be happier, safer, and the built environment would probably be more on par with Europe's (ours sucks, and is basically disposable.)
I agree with you that the best should stick around. But in an economic climate like this, it is basically all luck. Therefore, I have to fall on the side of health safety and welfare, which "designers" tend not to worry about. Architects should be kept for future work, because we are licesned professionals. And although it is harsh, the "support" people in the profession should NOT stick around because they have less future value. If all the architects were gone would things still be built? Sure! But would people be as safe? Would people be as happy? Would buildings be as efficient? Would they leak? Would they be drafty?
If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, I guess nurses should just go hang a shingle and start practicing medicine. They could do the same things as docotrs and make a lot more money, right? Then docors would all be out of business. Would be better or worse off?
"Architects should not HAVE to compete with (interior) designers. Architects ARE more qualified and able, PERIOD"
Sadly the interior design profession is much better trained for the bulk of the work available - mainly interior build outs. They know how to read a life safety and code book too. Its only a matter of time before they will certify exiting, em lighting and other code requirements most architects dont even care to bother learn. Design wise they are as good if not better than most architects because they actualy spend their time designing.
"If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, I guess nurses should just go hang a shingle and start practicing medicine."
I will never understand this profession's obsession with doctors. We have nothing in common with them.
Really 2step? Every interior design person I have worked with was utterly incompetent and did little more than select paint colors and carpet tiles. Anyone with taste and color coordination could do that job.
I second that Cherith, (and by the way, I also love Arrested Development)...and I would also add that many of them have poor taste. Most "modern" commercial interiors tend to look like playhouses. EVERY surface seems to "need" a pattern or bright color. Every "designed" interior is like paint by numbers. They simply pick finishes from catalogues. They all look the same....really? Better designers? Where are these good interior designers you speak of? Aren't they just arch school dropouts?
And actually, doctors go to PROFESSIONAL school too then have to pass a series of tests to practice medicine - just like accountants and lawyers. So um, we have A LOT in common with them. Are you even an architect?
so assuming this situation cannot perpetuate indefinitely, and at the moment it seems the market is not going to spare the industry from structural change, where do you think it is going?
Personally, I think the profession is in trouble. I am considering a career change, hence my original reading of the thread. I am not sure the scraps that are left (and that WILL be left for quite some time) are worth fighting over. There is too much red tape in the way of being an architect, which is sadly the point of my last several posts.\
The structural issues with America (namely the MASSIVE deleveraging we are going through, which is comparable to the rate right before the Great Depression), indicate that it could be quite some time until we need building to be done. And when it comes back, it will come back fiercely (to make up for the missed years), but there might be too few architects left. Is it worth just getting by in the mean time? Is it worth losing a decade of your own and your family's life? The longer this goes on the more I think the answers to thoses questions are both "no."
On a lighter note, isn't the Arrested Development movie going to come out soon?
I think the profession is in a state of change, accelerated by the economy. What that change is, I'm not so sure, although I'd venture a guess is that there will be significant industry consolidation of firms and more A/E/C conglomorates in our future. We'll all be working for AECOM someday.
The Architect as the generalist seems to be dying. That's why I'm considering an exit ~ wages/job stability/advancement oppotunity not withstanding. I want to switch gears from project to project to project. Variety is one of the reasons I became an Architect, and now all we do is specialize. If I want to do something different I have to firm bounce, quite literally. For that I might as well be in sales and at least earn a good living.
aquapura, perhaps an unavoidable and necessary evolution --- in which perhaps most architects end up more closely aligned with facilities planning and management --- design of a very practical variety --- and in part as a result of IPD, the dichotomy between concept development and production increases unless one strives to maintain activity in both, which may be impractical
Oh aquapura, I didnt mean to imply that I thought all urban high school kids were better prepared or smarter then rural school kids.
My point was that when admissions people are looking at candidates straight out of high school they are looking at students relative to other students they went to high school with, which isnt necessarily a good indicator of how well you will do relative to other architecture students, especially if they come from an educational background where they didnt have a lot of opportunities to learn about architecture. Unlike in grad school or when you are looking for a job when you are going to be compared to other people with the same degree, similar educational and internship experiences. Just because someone is smart and a stand-out student in high school doesnt mean they will stand out in arch school, especially when schools are looking mostly at acedemic records and SAT scores and many dont even require a portfolio.
So I guess it is relatively easy to get into school in the sense that you dont necessarily have to be someone who knows a lot about architecture or has a lot of design talent-but once your in its a whole different ball game-one that seems at least as dependent on luck and good timing as it about dedication and hard work. And, its hardly a level playing field, its easier for some and harder for others.
Has anyone just said 'f%$& it' and left the profession...for good?
btw, I'm not pissed off or anything, just wanting to engage in dialogue and learn. I think it's BS that it takes 10-20 years to become an architect. Take a look around, if you do anything else for a few years you are considered an expert in it. I can look up some scientific evidence on this. Problem is as a young architect, if becoming an Architect was truly the goal, it would look much different than the school/IDP/ARE thing that most of us do, but that's not the goal, as I am attemping to illustrate by the notion that only 1 out of 3 realistically will achieve that goal, but meanwhile who is going to do all these drawings???
Strawbeary: Sad to say, I have no magic wand here -- only certain insights into the problem.
Every industry has its own economic laws. Our greatest problem as an industry is the relative ease with which people can enter the profession (low barriers to entry) and the relative difficulty architects have going on to something else (high barriers to exit) -- this combination leads to a mismatch between supply and demand (i.e. an overabundance of practitioners relative to available work) driving down fees and wages for everybody. In such a overpopulated and fragmented industry, few of the participants have any real bargaining power when it comes to economic matters.
While it's fundamentally impossible to change the basic economics of an industry overnight, standard economic theory suggests several strategies when competing in such industries -- including: a) focus on a niche, and b) drive down the cost of operations, and c) hoard cash. This trio of suggestions allows the firm to compete as an "expert" in one or two building types, allows the firm to compete on price when necessary, and allows the firm to ride out the inevitable economic cycles when they occur.
Warren Buffett is supposed to have said that "'When a manager with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact." I'm pretty sure Warren's warning applies to the practice of architecture.
Cash hoarding is a dangerous game. Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the practice... simply stating it is dangerous.
As far as the first part of your post, I want to disagree so bad. But I think there's a lot of merit of what you have to say, too.
In some cases, I think you are absolutely 100% on the money. In other cases, I think the exact opposite is true too.
There is both high and low barriers to entering and exiting the profession. I'd even extend that to most of the AEC industry too-- planning, development, economics, policy and even interior decorating suffer many of the same problems.
My biggest gripe with the planning profession is that lack of ... well, any sort of performance metric. Now, I understand elsewhere in the world this is not the case.
But, from my experience, various urban planning programs are essentially one of the easiest programs to get into. Like basically anyone can get into them. And that's not to say the students who graduate from them are bad, a lot of them aren't very many good.
(Do I have to bring up the story about the Master's students giving powerpoint presentations about butterflies and butterfly gardens in a Graduate level class? A graduate level class about infrastructural systems.)
There is where I respect architecture proper a little bit more because they're a lot more restrictive... and you have to actually be good at something.
I'm two posting this.
there also seem to be at least three systemic structural changes that factor in right now, as well:
1 - globally (my opinion), we are running up against the limits of growth- or export-based economies -- even if it takes another 50 or 100 years to finally settle into a new economic order, at this point, you can't just move west/south/east, or shift production, etc
it seems it still happens, but the margins are shrinking and it is close to or at the point where long-term growth can no longer be based on exploiting untapped land-based nature resources or under-utilized/devalued labor pools
rather, to maintain such an economic model for a long time to come, you would have to open up space or the ocean for exploitation or accelerate the rate as which entire new industries on the scale of the emergence of a web-based economy are launched and continue to launch such new industries on this scale in a consistent fashion in order to create the same effect of excessive demand feeding growth
2 - most everyone (i know) is trying to make opportunity here -- for generations people came to the U.S. b/c there was opportunity here, not in their native land --- it seems there is still opportunity, even in high-growth-based economies, but it is no longer here, at least not right now or the foreseeable future --- perhaps over the next several years the number of architects heading overseas, not just for a tour, but for good, will increase significantly
3 - "knowledge worker" is not the mark of differentiation it had been, the economy is flooded with "educated" workers, not just our field, and the demand is not there except in emerging fields
just as the nation now produces all of the food required to eat with less than 2% of the population (not true 100 years ago), and just as it produces all of the goods required (despite our shrinking manufacturing sector, ours is still just about the biggest in the world) with somewhere around 10% of the populace, it seems there era of knowledge worker type jobs providing bounty and stability to us masses has crested, at least here in the U.S. for the foreseeable future
Thanks quizz, I enjoy your insights as usual. In hindsight, had I focused on a niche, I would have been better off and I understand now that is once place I went wrong. If the firm I worked for had developed a niche too, they might still be around. But that nuance escaped us all. Our motto was all buildings are the same anyways, we'll do whatever you want.
cherith, I initially wanted to stay away from this thread, because I was mentioned right off the bat as having a successful exodus, which is true... BUT before anyone gets all excited about me making this transition and think it is just that easy, readers should know that I am lucky, that I got where I am now mostly because I was at the right place at the right time, I had Connections. Being flexible, determined, and capable didn't hurt, but I don't deserve this awesome position I landed in the career lottery any more than I deserved to lose my last job as neither had much to do with me, just something that happened. But I'll take it, I'll rock it, and I'll count my blessings. BTW, I still reserve the right to return to architecture when I grow up.
^my apologies
unicorn, please just please explain your dangerous cash hoarding comment. PLEASE! IM BEGGING YOU MAN!
Hoarding cash decreases market liquidity.
If people don't do business with one another... then no one really is in business. Right now, this is a problem is that the companies who are still in business aren't spending any more because they're unsure of the economy. Without movements of funds, banks don't get to siphon any more off and credit gets clamped down.
Having a lot of stagnant cash is as worse, if not more so, than being in debt.
UG: you misunderstand what I mean by "hoarding cash".
In a cyclical business, where one can do so, it's important to build up cash reserves to help tide the firm over (including preserving as much employment as possible) during down periods. It's tough as hell to do, given the existing tax laws. But, if one understands that one is operating in a cyclical business and if one believes that the only sustainable competitive advantage a service firm possesses is the skill and knowledge of its key personnel, then it makes sense to tuck away as much "rainy day" money as possible - both at the company level and at the individual level - as a hedge against economic disruption and the loss of key skills.
I presume your comments were directed at the recent news reports indicating that Fortune 500 corporations are sitting on tons of cash and not doing anything with that cash. My comments are totally unrelated to that sort of circumstance.
do you think the need to smooth out the cycle with a large cash reserve is just the way it is, and always has been in our profession?
or is the condition a result of the times or of systemic change?
in my career so far, it seems from the early 90's to 2008, there was significant pressure to operate based on cash flow, because of tax law - in good years i remember the firms being in a 'spend it or lose a lot of it' predicament - and even if you took the hit by paying the tax to sock away some of it and build a reserve, much competition would have been spending it on training, bonuses and tools as fast as it came in, and so not doing so yourself could put you at competitive disadvantage
is this accurate?
Anyone begin to look for some land in good neighborhood to think of building for next 5 years?
Good neighborhood means good school district, good companies around etc.
yes, looking, a lot, but you #1 have to be able to carry the loan and #2 have to be able to get the loan in the first place (banks don't really care to lend for vacant land, means nothing to them if you go belly up)
so most people are just sitting and waiting. not to mention that there are so many people that bought when things are high and are trying to hold on until things get back to 0
I should note that there are distressed assets out there to be had for those with connections and a ton of liquidity, both of which are pretty rare today
quizz - I see what you are saying, but in the current economy the natural process of promotion and staff churn is at a standstill.
Right now we've all been treading water for about two years, and it looks to stay this way for at least another year or two and minimum. Senior staff sure aren't retiring as quickly as they would in a robust market with 401k plans hitting new highs. That natural avenue for advancement is also blocked for now. Essentially nobody on the bottom is getting their peice of the pie until firms start to grow again.
What are firms doing to keep their best and brightest young talent? Not much from what I've seen. I have seen firms trying to add talent at the top to market different segments and bring in new work, but so far as internal promotion or promises of advancement, nil.
I don't think I'm alone in reading the attitude of many Architect's in their 30's that we are getting anxious for that next step. Once the economy does improve I think firm bouncing is going to heat up fast, that is if any of us are still around. I think we have another early 90's "lost" generation of Architects on our hands right now.
From what I can tell there are no people in the 40s, barely any in their 30s and everyone in their 20s has been laid off. We are seeing now those lucky enough to even be employed just leaving for anything else that pays better, and can you blame them? I hate to sound all doom and gloom but the "Architect" as we knew it is gone. The remaining boomers are going to resort back to their earlier roles as production people while still wearing their captains' hats simply because they can, and they will have the time in the slower economy to do both and essentially it will be a long, slow, low paying grind until we all die off for the younger folks. While admire the fighting spirit of the new generation the fact is your so far behind the starting line you will never catch us.
aqua: well ... of course, I also wrote "In this current economy, promotions (and wage increases) have, for all practical purposes, ceased.'
Most firms about which I have any real knowledge literally are fighting to survive -- there's no money whatsoever to allocate toward special programs to "keep their best and brightest young talent" -- it's not for want of desire; it's for want of resources.
In my view - and this is especially true at our firm - about the best we can hope for is to provide the people still here interesting and developmental work. We've seen some extraordinary growth in some of our people as - out of necessity - they've been asked to stretch into areas outside their comfort zone. While their pay is lower than we would like it to be, their professional growth has accelerated and, quite frankly, their level of job satisfaction remains fairly high. They can see for themselves that they're making a contribution and they hear it from us as well.
What happens when things pick-up is a great unknown to me. What I fear the most is an expansion of job opportunities that occurs well before the economic equation returns to normal (whatever that may be) for our firm ... I am greatly concerned that other, bigger, firms will start trying to hire away our good people before we're really in a financial position to make our people whole and be able to compete economically. This is one - of several - areas of practice that cause me to lose sleep at night.
and this is what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket.....
i really hope folks look into other avenues to make a living and not wait on 'the architecture scene to rise like a phoenix' or 'surviving off their unemployment'......
quizz - I work at a "bigger firm" that actively has been hiring away talent from others, even in the face of the downturn. The reason being is to expand our marketable skills and these people are supposed to bring with them new clients, etc. That said, all these people are principle or sr. associate level with 20+ years of experience.
Even prior to the downturn it seemed that internal promotions weren't common. The hill to get over from staff Architect level to management level seems very steep, and has only gotten higher in this economy. I'd appreciate working for an employer that at least would nuture my professional growth and promise that next step when times improve, even if the current pay is lower than it should be. In the big firm world the paycheck might be more stable, but the advancement opportunity is lacking.
i would imagine at some point this has to result in a reduction in the size and/or number of architecture schools
or, as i saw someone say, i think it was jeffrey kipnis, a degree in architecture may become like a degree in art or music, most people getting such a degree will do it for reasons of personal fulfillment and assume very high unemployment
so most will plan to make a living doing something else
Re: Architecture as a profession being easy to enter...
I think its really all about perspective. I can see how principles, hr and project managers who probably get hundreds of unsolicited resumes a week could have that opinion, but I think when you are one of those unsolicited resumes it certainly doesnt seems so easy.
I'll grant that when I started arch school I was occasionally shocked by the level of experience/education of some of my classmates going in. There were kids in my class who were the valedictorians of their private or rural school class of 75 but had never taken a calculus class, or a basic drawing class, or a basis AutoCad class, or any kind of art history or humanities class. They didnt really know anything about architecture beyond the fact that architects design buildings-but they had straight As all through high school. I knew kids who graduated somewhere in the middle of my suburban public high school class of 700 who didnt get into arch school who could run mental circles around some of the kids who did get in but had no idea who designed the pyramid at the Louvre.
But, really past that initial school admissions applications, it seems like its as much about luck as it is about talent or brains and a lot of it really is out of the wannabe-architects control. More talented people get passed up for jobs that go to somebody's nephew or some professors favorite. Sometimes you just get lucky and happen to cold call/email the right guy at the firm on the day they happen to be thinking about maybe interviewing a few people for a position that they may be looking to fill sometime in the next few months. I dont think most people who have graduated in the last few years and never found a job, or found a job to work for around a year and then get laid-off have any illusions about a degree equaling a job, or a job equaling any kind of stability.
So I guess relative to other 'professions' architecture is probably not that much harder to get into, and getting into arch school, or graduating or landing a gig doesnt necessarily make you better or smarter or more devoted to architecture then anyone who didnt, But it sure feels hard when you are stressing about getting a project done, or worried about your grades, or desperately trying to get your foot in the door with a firm, or getting laid off from your first real professional job and wondering if you are going to be able to ever pay off your school loans.
I also think the laundry list of tangentially related to architecture, but not actually architecture jobs kinda skew the numbers. Most people going into arch school think that they are going to be Architects one day, but there are a lot of jobs that architects do--drafting, interior design/decorating, construction management, industrial/furniture design, real estate development--that you dont have to be an architect to do, and in some cases dont even have to have a design degree to do. It seems like there are a lot of people in architecture, even sometimes designing buildings, that arent Architects, and there are a lot of Architects out there who dont really do architecture, even though they might work for design firms.
"What I fear the most is an expansion of job opportunities that occurs well before the economic equation returns to normal (whatever that may be) for our firm ... I am greatly concerned that other, bigger, firms will start trying to hire away our good people before we're really in a financial position to make our people whole and be able to compete economically. This is one - of several - areas of practice that cause me to lose sleep at night."
amen to that....
-jay, I think you're over generalizing the rural vs. urban/suburban education differences. My undergrad was at a land grant univ. where there were plenty of "farm kids" that were quite competent.
I do have issues with form Architecture education, but I'm not sure I'd say the barriers are too easy. If anything it's very competitive at the collegiate level. For some reason everyone wants to be an Architect and universities are all too willing to take more tuition money and increase the size of the Architecture programs. Still, all in all it's competitive.
The bigger problem I see is in the professional world. Firms have been very willing to empower people with little to no formal Architecture training. When someone with no more than a CAD drafting certificate is promoted to management positions it dillutes the profession the same way universities do when the graduate massive #'s.
I find the low barriers to entry in the profession the fault of the employers. Many firms do not demand that their staff Architects hold accredited BArch and MArch degrees. Firms have not made it a priority to encourage all their Architectural staff to become registered Architects. Firms have not forced techincal staff to get formal education/degrees for advancement. Every firm controls their own barriers to entry and it can be set wherever they wish it to be.
A lot of this comes down to specialization and the marketing of an architect. Until there is some differentiation we'll continue to see the CAD certified 'architect' commanding more of the market share.
School's and the profession need to differentiate between design talent, business savvy and production. You can't expect the most educated, most talented to be content working for nothing and then excel later on, after doing the same work that someone with only a certificate but is super cad productive, there just isn't enough room, and likewise, you can't expect someone that is a cad expert to also be an award winning designer.
But until there is some effort spent differentiating between skills/talent, those that are immediately productive to a firm will continue to dilute the profession, as aqua points out.
I can't see how things are going to change anytime soon, though, as no school, no organization and few clients see value in this.
I do hope that many considering this career are reading some of these posts and rethinking their dreams. I don't regret my choices, but certainly would have reconsidered had I had access to a site like this.
"Many firms do not demand that their staff Architects hold accredited BArch and MArch degrees"
I have found that the BARCH and older 4 year BARCH degree holders are far more serious about the profession. Making someone sit in fantasy camp for a few extra years instead of learning the real business we Architects do is not helping matters. In fact, it may be the root cause of the problem, frankly graduating too many inexperienced yet "mastered" professional degrees up to their eyeballs in debt and then throwing them into a low wage, low skill position befit for maybe a 20 year old. We have completely failed to train and teach an entire generation of Architects.
"School's and the profession need to differentiate between design talent, business savvy and production. You can't expect the most educated, most talented to be content working for nothing and then excel later on"
You assume incorrectly that "talent" at the college level translates into talent in the profession. The most successful architects are usually pretty darn good at all three attributes listed: design talent, business savvy and production. They almost inevitably go together as a package. One could say design talent and marketing savvy are intertwined just as making business decisions must inform your designs to service the client in the best manner possible.
2Step- speak for yourself. The M.Arch's I knew were FAR more serious BECAUSE they had invested in a lot more education. Presumably before deciding to go back to school, one must really commit to this profession. That is the reason I got my post-prof M.Arch. The fact that an M.Arch means only 2k more in compensation per year is a difficult stat to find (buried in the Department of Labor statistics). Now, of course there are plenty of M.Archs who should not have gone into the profession too. But we cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. Frankly, there are just too many schools. We have 92,000 registered architects, but 50,000 students in school?!?!?! (according to NCARB, about 6,000 with professional degrees graduate a year, which means the population of architects could be replaced every 15 years, yet the average career of an architect MUST be more than 15 years. Our population is not growing THAT fast.)
This is why I whole-heartedly agree with aqua and trace - the unskilled "architects" really do complicate things. Do we call an orderly a doctor when he or she has worked in a hospital after a certain number of years? No. Then why should a draftsman ever get to be an "architect" without formal training? (I have noticed a lot of "architects" who have not even passed the ARE's even IF they were eligible under the old apprentice rules). I do not want to say drafstmen do not have a place in the profession, but there must be a way to pare the numbers down more. And because school is tougher than simply being employed a certain number of years, then I have to fall on the side of more selectivity. I also think the bottom HALF of schools could probably be disolved too!
But my case and point can be illustrated by one of my fellow "architects" in this office. He has a technical degree, no license (nor would he ever be eligible for one in my state without a professional degree) and yet he is listed as a "project architect." He runs projects, but cannot stamp drawings, cannot design to save his life, and cannot even put a wall section together! He is simply good with numbers and scheduling, so he is in charge of many architects. Now, I could teach some of these architects how to schedule and take care of a budget, but I could not teach the "project architect" building science, how to give a good presentation to a client, or how to be a good designer without a LOT more time input. Nevertheless, this "project architect" makes double the money of most of the true architects in the office, gets more perks, and frankly has less responsibility and stress. Being employed 10 years does NOT make you an architect.
This is the crux of my long post I suppose. Perhaps our profession would not have these financial ups and downs if we were more stringent with the title of "architect." It is a LEGAL term like doctor, CPA, lawyer, or professional engineer. If we had more barriers in place to the advancement of non-architects (this would include those that went to school but are not actively pursuing their licesnes) then the profession might grow more sustainably. I have a license, I have professional degrees from two of the top 3 schools, and I have experience. School was fun, but it was by FAR the most difficult work too. Experience is invaluable of course, but I really only hear the argument AGAINST school from those who do not hold degrees. Either way, NCARB and the AIA need to get their act together a bit and look at the economics of flooding the marker with so many "architects."
The fact is CMNDCTRL masters or not, cad cert or not, those who can will get the commissions and have a healthy career and those that cant will not. All the degrees and titles in the world will not give anyone special architectural powers, and the clients will ultimately seek out the best fitting architect for their needs, even if that means an interior designer or builder. They honestly dont care about your amorphic nano-skin thesis that responds to the life force energy of the buildings inhabitants.
2step- hahaha, I agree! There are FAR too many pretentious, (frankly uselss) intentions in academia. But school just seems like the best mechanism for some accountability. ID cannot stamp, neither can designers. And when they have an architect stamp for them, it is illegal!
The titles and degrees assure a client that I am indeed capable, and QUALIFIED. There has been so much misrepresentation (that is again, illegal!) that clients are confused - and frankly, I do not blame them. What is the difference between a graduate architect, an architectural designer and a designer? Do people even know any more? Those are LEGAL distinctions. One cannot call oneself a graduate architect without a professional degree.
THAT is my point. AIA/NCARB has to step up and protect the profession more. Architects should not HAVE to compete with (interior) designers. Architects ARE more qualified and able, PERIOD. Just like a doctor does not compete with a nurse, we CANNOT compete on price (which is usually what the winning factor is) BECAUSE we have to worry about things like licensure fees, insurance, continuing education etc. If "designers" want to compete solely on talent/aptitude for client's needs - then they can get licenses and we can compete on even ground. I am confident architects would still succeed. Then a lot of people would be inherently removed from the profession too. Clients would be happier, safer, and the built environment would probably be more on par with Europe's (ours sucks, and is basically disposable.)
I agree with you that the best should stick around. But in an economic climate like this, it is basically all luck. Therefore, I have to fall on the side of health safety and welfare, which "designers" tend not to worry about. Architects should be kept for future work, because we are licesned professionals. And although it is harsh, the "support" people in the profession should NOT stick around because they have less future value. If all the architects were gone would things still be built? Sure! But would people be as safe? Would people be as happy? Would buildings be as efficient? Would they leak? Would they be drafty?
If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, I guess nurses should just go hang a shingle and start practicing medicine. They could do the same things as docotrs and make a lot more money, right? Then docors would all be out of business. Would be better or worse off?
"Architects should not HAVE to compete with (interior) designers. Architects ARE more qualified and able, PERIOD"
Sadly the interior design profession is much better trained for the bulk of the work available - mainly interior build outs. They know how to read a life safety and code book too. Its only a matter of time before they will certify exiting, em lighting and other code requirements most architects dont even care to bother learn. Design wise they are as good if not better than most architects because they actualy spend their time designing.
"If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, I guess nurses should just go hang a shingle and start practicing medicine."
I will never understand this profession's obsession with doctors. We have nothing in common with them.
Really 2step? Every interior design person I have worked with was utterly incompetent and did little more than select paint colors and carpet tiles. Anyone with taste and color coordination could do that job.
I second that Cherith, (and by the way, I also love Arrested Development)...and I would also add that many of them have poor taste. Most "modern" commercial interiors tend to look like playhouses. EVERY surface seems to "need" a pattern or bright color. Every "designed" interior is like paint by numbers. They simply pick finishes from catalogues. They all look the same....really? Better designers? Where are these good interior designers you speak of? Aren't they just arch school dropouts?
And actually, doctors go to PROFESSIONAL school too then have to pass a series of tests to practice medicine - just like accountants and lawyers. So um, we have A LOT in common with them. Are you even an architect?
so assuming this situation cannot perpetuate indefinitely, and at the moment it seems the market is not going to spare the industry from structural change, where do you think it is going?
Personally, I think the profession is in trouble. I am considering a career change, hence my original reading of the thread. I am not sure the scraps that are left (and that WILL be left for quite some time) are worth fighting over. There is too much red tape in the way of being an architect, which is sadly the point of my last several posts.\
The structural issues with America (namely the MASSIVE deleveraging we are going through, which is comparable to the rate right before the Great Depression), indicate that it could be quite some time until we need building to be done. And when it comes back, it will come back fiercely (to make up for the missed years), but there might be too few architects left. Is it worth just getting by in the mean time? Is it worth losing a decade of your own and your family's life? The longer this goes on the more I think the answers to thoses questions are both "no."
On a lighter note, isn't the Arrested Development movie going to come out soon?
think about it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyqp2f6VPos&feature=related
I think the profession is in a state of change, accelerated by the economy. What that change is, I'm not so sure, although I'd venture a guess is that there will be significant industry consolidation of firms and more A/E/C conglomorates in our future. We'll all be working for AECOM someday.
The Architect as the generalist seems to be dying. That's why I'm considering an exit ~ wages/job stability/advancement oppotunity not withstanding. I want to switch gears from project to project to project. Variety is one of the reasons I became an Architect, and now all we do is specialize. If I want to do something different I have to firm bounce, quite literally. For that I might as well be in sales and at least earn a good living.
aquapura, perhaps an unavoidable and necessary evolution --- in which perhaps most architects end up more closely aligned with facilities planning and management --- design of a very practical variety --- and in part as a result of IPD, the dichotomy between concept development and production increases unless one strives to maintain activity in both, which may be impractical
Oh aquapura, I didnt mean to imply that I thought all urban high school kids were better prepared or smarter then rural school kids.
My point was that when admissions people are looking at candidates straight out of high school they are looking at students relative to other students they went to high school with, which isnt necessarily a good indicator of how well you will do relative to other architecture students, especially if they come from an educational background where they didnt have a lot of opportunities to learn about architecture. Unlike in grad school or when you are looking for a job when you are going to be compared to other people with the same degree, similar educational and internship experiences. Just because someone is smart and a stand-out student in high school doesnt mean they will stand out in arch school, especially when schools are looking mostly at acedemic records and SAT scores and many dont even require a portfolio.
So I guess it is relatively easy to get into school in the sense that you dont necessarily have to be someone who knows a lot about architecture or has a lot of design talent-but once your in its a whole different ball game-one that seems at least as dependent on luck and good timing as it about dedication and hard work. And, its hardly a level playing field, its easier for some and harder for others.
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.