hello everyone - this is my first post on here, it's nice to have discovered this amazing website earlier this year.
I'm looking for input on various 3-year architecture masters programs I should be taking a closer look at. Or help/input in general.
I already have a masters in Electrical Engineering from Columbia, and have worked in sales/business mgt roles in the utility construction, energy efficiency building and software industry since 2008. However, since becoming obsessed with pottery this year (I basically live at the studio) and starting to practice figure drawing, as well as looking at all the photographs of buildings and landscapes I've taken over the years, and airbnb's I've stayed in that have inspired me, I've realized what I want to do is design and build functional spaces and homes. I also think I want to go to some form of art school. Kind of like making interesting and beautiful pots people are able to get pleasure and function out of utilizing intimately on a daily basis, but making houses and spaces that do the same while connecting people and their environment.
Having decided I want to build my first house, I've acquired a large swath of forest in the mountainous region of the Adirondacks with the zoning ability to develop a community of 5 homes, and my family has land where I could develop 25 more.
Although I'm not opposed to collaborating with an architect, I'm not interested in "hiring" an architect as a client, as I'd rather be the designer and do the master planning. And the option of being the landlord.
If I became an architect, I'm not quite sure I'd be interested in having clients in the standard way, as I'd rather design what I want to build, and then build what I design. Therefore, the architect-developer model is of most interest to me, especially with my business background. I don't necessarily think I'm interested in going to school for business though - as I've learned in real world business that the best way to learn is by doing, and cultivated a smug attitude toward business schools.
I'm thinking I'd like to go to a 3 year masters program, most likely one that is accredited, or at least doesn't make accreditation in the US or Canada, or EU extraordinarily difficult. But most importantly, I am interested in going into a program that I am truly fully engaged and enjoy, has the resources for me to thrive by cultivating my skillset and "voice" for learning the art and enough of the science of creating real buildings from both practical and provocative ideas.
As I look into programs, and architecture theses, thesis discussions, faculty research, etc, as expected from academia the function is for them to push the boundaries of architectural thinking. I also know that my "taste" and sense for interpreting and engaging with the dialogues these architecture students are provoking is very much evolving, and new.
While I want to be able to push the envelope on thinking, I wouldn't want to spend 3 years in a program with people that are solely focused on pushing the envelope on thinking and don't ever build anything in the real world -- nor one that is solely focused on churning out folks who build things that look the same and don't push boundaries.
I noticed U of Washington isn't listed here in Archinect, but I like that Tom Kundig went there, and that their program has so many resources for building such as metal-fabrication, woodworking, 3-d printing, etc. I also like that the people there in their videos seem friendly. I admire viewing photographs of his work, it feels decadent so it also feels like looking at porn. I'm not quite sure how I'll feel about his work in 3 years. and I also am very interested in how people actually feel about living in a structure 10-20-70 years after it was built.
Other people that interest me:
https://ced.berkeley.edu/ced/f... - Mark Anderson at Berkeley. His work includes a wide variety of exploring materials, and you can see how he and his brothers's firm (also a CA General Contractor) creative process appear to drive their projects.
Cary Tamarkin - GSD graduate who is clearly an artist, set out to become a prolific developer in NYC. http://tamarkinco.com/portfoli...
Although I'm working on a portfolio that will include pottery and drawings, I'm not sure I'll have time to assemble a high quality enough of portfolio AND have identified a program that's truly right for me before Jan 1 2022.. Maybe though?
Schools I'm interested in so far:
U of Washington
SCI-Arc
Harvard GSD
Berkeley
Thanks for any help -
newbie.Phronesis
Oct 8, 21 8:51 pm
From what you posted,
Don't go to SCI-Arc, it is the definition of pushing the envelope (but not for real world applications, mostly)
Sounds like a Master's other than architecture will do you better. As far as I'm aware, most Canadian and US provinces/states don't require an architectural stamp to design homes (under certain sizes). Planning or mixed architectural/business grad programs might be suitable and probably more enjoyable from your apparent interests. Just pick something that'll teach you how buildings actually get built.
Cheers, and good luck!
natematt
Oct 8, 21 8:56 pm
An interesting perspective.
You may find that architecture is far less compatible with your interests in practice. 90% of the process of architecture is logistics and technical issues. These are all ideally in support of the 10% that is the artistry and capital D design, but ultimately what you do is not going to be as satisfying as pottery in that sense.
More critically, you’d find pretty quickly that you need quite a bit of experience to 1) become an architect 2) be able to execute architecture at any scale that alone a larger developer scale. Going to school won’t prepare you that well to build your house, you’d really want to work at a residential firm for at least a couple years in my mind. Since it’s your own house if you wanted to do it right out of school you could try… it’s yours… as long as it’s small enough that you can legally do it while not being licensed. You’d probably learn a lot and be better for it.
To do a development… that’s a different story. I think you’d be remis not to have professional experience and a license, and then ideally some developer experience.
I’m assuming you have some quality resources/connection given your statements, so if I were you, I’d probably seek out becoming a developer over becoming an architect. You may not do the nitty gritty of design that way, or necessarily claim the designer title, but ultimately, you’ll have more control over the design as a whole than any architect. Yes, you could become an architect and do both, but the much easier path to what you seem to want would be to become a developer.
I
That said, University of Michigan has a pretty enjoyable 3 year program if you like living up in the snow.
midlander
Oct 9, 21 12:04 am
I really think you are getting very excited and planning out to unreasonable detail based on only a vague notion of what it's like to be an architect, and how development works. Indeed what you literally describe is an interest in making pottery, which is very dissimilar from working as an architect, and totally unlike working as a developer.
You are also conflating the urge to make a large mid-life career change with the aspiration to build your own home, and then a vague notion of becoming a housing developer. These are 3 different things, and really should be considered separately. I have no idea what is your priority here, nor advice what should be. Talk to some people who know you well. And why are you so determined to leave behind the career path of electrical engineering?
If you really do want to become architect just to build your own house and some others: Is it possible for you to get some real-world work experience with a homebuilder or residential developer before making any long-term commitments to this? if all you know you want to do at this point is build a home for yourself, you really don't need to go through the 6+ year process of becoming an architect... you don't need to be an architect to get a house built to your own design!
Architecture involves a lot of boring work (80% of the time, at least!) and you absolutely will need to work with someone who has the experience and attitude to do this properly. you would find many architects are perfectly willing to work with a client who has a strong design vision. indeed, this is the stereotypical norm in residential. So don't discount that normal client-architect relationship if it would work for you. There are plenty 'no-name' architects who happily work with with clients to make a house exactly how they want it.
//
Regarding the less definite idea of doing a multi-property residential development, you are at this point very far from having the base of knowledge to do this successfully, unless your money is totally unlimited. But that's easily 10+ years away, so take this one life-change at a time.
nicklashinsky
Oct 9, 21 4:46 am
Sorry I wasn’t more clear:
At this point it appears I will be going to architecture school and plan to become a licensed architect, so that I can design and build houses on land I own, and will own.
The likely plan is to work for an architect-developer-builder out of school as well to gain experience running the type of firm I’m interested in running. We won’t take on clients, just tenants. There aren’t many, but they’re out there.
I understand it’s not the same path most architects take.
My intention in this post was soliciting advice on schools to consider. Let me know if you have any good input! and please do spare me and everyone reading any discouragement - it’s a bad look!
Non Sequitur
Oct 9, 21 6:04 am
Whoooosh. Take the cheapest school you can find. You’ll need all the money available if you’re this naive.
midlander
Oct 9, 21 6:05 am
i think the catch is you're asking what school to go to based on the predetermined goal of building your own home. that's not how architecture school works, and you will be very frustrated if you approach it that way. that said, you seem to have a clear affinity for programs with a focus on the material and craft of architecture. maybe risd or cranbrook should be on your list. GSD and Sciarc less so, much more theory oriented.
midlander
Oct 9, 21 6:12 am
on second thought, phillip johnson built a home for himself as his thesis at gsd, and then built an even better one a few years later, and then a few other things, and won the pritzker prize. maybe you could look into something like that.
reallynotmyname
Oct 12, 21 10:56 am
Most mopey USA architecture teachers will hate you for being interested in a) single family houses b) being a developer and c) owning land. Many architecture professors have failed to thrive as practicing architects in the real world and have sought refuge in academia. Their hostility to persons seeking a practical education can get very thick. Be prepared.
Volunteer
Oct 9, 21 10:55 am
Go the Tadao Ando route.
atelier nobody
Oct 10, 21 7:40 pm
This is viable - I'm a licensed architect with no architecture degree myself. Based on my own experience, however, I'd recommend an MArch to anyone with the financial resources to do it as being the path of much less resistance.
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 4:22 pm
congrats! how'd you do it?
nicklashinsky
Oct 10, 21 2:06 am
yikes. the mopey "don't do it, it can't be done" responses on this thread make me quite sad.
a) my development has already started. we've logged, I've sighted locations, roads and utilities are being put in. so I don't need to hear about how I need 10+ years of experience. good luck with that mindset my friends!
b) if you feel so disempowered in your profession that discouraging folks from getting training in it is satisfying -- all I can say is you must be very unhappy.
I'm feeling particularly grateful I started my career in Silicon Valley, have worked with many successful CEOs, and grew up in an entrepreneurial family. Life is too precious to walk around moping and discouraging everyone because you think it's too hard to do things.
We can do hard things.
if it turns out there are any kind positive minded folks reading this and have ideas on what programs I should be looking at, feel free to contact me directly. Thanks!
Ah, yes tech bro money and I’ll do whatever I want mindset. So fresh and unique. Yawn. You missed the whole point of the real comments above. You don’t need more school and it’s asinine to think that that will be a worthwhile investment. What’s really dumb is you think you’ll be able to rent these out (aka landlord) as opposed to outright sell but that’s another issue.
tduds
Oct 10, 21 2:12 pm
Why'd you ask for advice if you didn't want it?
joseffischer
Oct 12, 21 11:31 am
Non, he'll airbnb, much more profitable
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 4:24 pm
"what's real dumb is you think you'll be able to rent these out" care to share your real name so I can credit the right person when I print this one out?
Non Sequitur
Oct 12, 21 4:58 pm
yawn, another typical "tough" guy response. Carry on ignoring the obvious in all of our comments.
justavisual
Oct 10, 21 4:57 am
I think you should go to school and do your thesis on your development - it could be cool. Find some tutors who have actually built things and ask to intern for them when they have extra work. I think your program choices are decent - I'd add Cornell, Princeton and U of Oregon to the list of places to apply and drop Sci-Arc. You're right there are a lot of mopers, but hey if you've got the money, guts, energy and time go for it.
newbie.Phronesis
Oct 10, 21 4:02 pm
That could be a decent route - two birds one stone... Also agree with your university choices.
nicklashinsky
Oct 10, 21 6:24 pm
Thank you for your kind and helpful suggestions.
zonker
Oct 10, 21 6:25 pm
and don't let anyone discourage you either. 14 years ago, I made a mid life career change to architecture. I ignored the discouragement from " well meaning people" and plowed through anyway and prevailed
atelier nobody
Oct 10, 21 7:35 pm
I didn't wait quite until mid-life, but did get a late-ish start in architecture, and by a "non-standard" route, so I completely agree. A friend of mine used to have a bumper sticker that said, "It's Never Too Late to Have a Happy Childhood!"
zonker
Oct 10, 21 10:16 pm
UC Berkeley, most of my co-workers are from there and they are crazy smart - U of Mich., one of my firm presidents and other co-workers came from there - U of Cinncinati DAAP is another possibility -
atelier nobody
Oct 10, 21 7:33 pm
Of the schools you listed, UW or Berkeley would likely be better choices for you than GSD or SCIArch, but excellent architects (and terrible ones) have come out of all of them, so ultimately go with whichever one gives you the "warm & fuzzies".
My only "outside the box" suggestion would be to consider a 2-year technical college program in Architectural Technology - this would likely be in addition to ultimately getting your MArch, since you'll really want that for licensing. The advantage of an Architectural Technology program is that it would give you a much more solid grounding in how buildings and sets of construction documents go together than you will get in most MArch programs, which tend to be more narrowly focused on the creative aspects of architecture.
There are also a few other paths you could consider, since you seem to be in an enviable financial position, but if you already think you want an MArch, that's probably the best route to pursue.
atelier nobody
Oct 10, 21 7:43 pm
Also, several of the schools others have suggested upthread wouldn't be bad choices. McGill and U of MN are also not bad schools.
atelier nobody
Oct 10, 21 7:46 pm
Another thing to consider, since you are interested in larger developments, would be a program in Planning - some schools offer a joint MArch/Planning program, although I don't remember which specific schools off the top of my head.
nicklashinsky
Oct 10, 21 8:54 pm
Thanks for this! I looked at McGill and actually would be one of
nicklashinsky
Oct 10, 21 8:58 pm
my top choices since it’s in Montreal and I know some excellent folks who went there but it appears their masters is only for folks with architecture backgrounds.
nicklashinsky
Oct 10, 21 9:15 pm
I think I do want to go w MArch but I’m curious what ideas you had.
Non Sequitur
Oct 10, 21 11:56 pm
You’re looking at a McGill March?
proto
Oct 10, 21 11:07 pm
Go back to Columbia & combo the development program & graduate w/ both the MArch & the MS Real Estate Development. You will make connections in NYC that are specific to your interests. Also, you would be better served getting a design education first THEN learning the logistics of residential construction. [& upon hearing you own land to be developed, greedy profs will be happy to hire you on to build models in their offices — you’re gonna need supervised experience anyway to get thru NCARB to take the ARE]
nicklashinsky
Oct 11, 21 5:43 pm
this is definitely an interesting idea! thank you. however, given my experience in the Engineering school, my fear would be the program is too theoretical for me, and that the business focus of their RE folks is oriented toward NYC / big-metro development. I will do some further investigation though!
reallynotmyname
Oct 12, 21 11:06 am
Maybe look at other schools outside of NYC that offer an MArch/Real Estate combo.
proto
Oct 12, 21 11:58 am
Yes, it's theoretical. But TBH, from what you have posted here, I suspect you could use a little balancing from the entrepreneurial/pragmatic side of things. Good design bridges between "can do" & "what if".
That said, if you are never going to embrace the design side of development, I suppose that that is a good thing to understand about yourself & just move forward in the most efficient way. [No judgements from me, just being frank] My guess is that would be: don't worry about becoming an architect at that point. Just design & develop houses, as is your right under the exemptions in the professional services codes of NY state.
Just depends on your design aspirations.
midlander
Oct 11, 21 11:13 pm
look into jonathan segal, david hovey, and peter gluck - all architect developers who do nice residential work. i am not sure there is any one school best for this, better to focus on programs with key faculty you want to connect to. my personal view is that architecture school architecture school inculcates us with the "mopiness" you observe!
proto
Oct 12, 21 12:08 pm
Marmol/Radziner is also an interesting firm to look at that does design/build.
joseffischer
Oct 12, 21 11:37 am
throw me in with the mopy crowd I guess. I didn't read any naysayers about following OPs dream. You got money? spend it. I just felt we're all questioning why go back to school when it seems like you're already doing it? Some sort of "i'm not totally confident in my design/builder experience but I don't want to hire anyone to show me the ropes, so I'd like to go to school to hone my design craft... but make sure it's not fake please"... seems like a weird set of requests to me. Maybe interior design would be even better for you. Also, watch bobuilt on his work he's doing with tiny homes and glamping on airbnb. I think though, you should expect to learn fast that every hour you're spending on door schedules or drafting floorplans is an hour spent away from your goal and SHOULD be farmed out by hiring an architect/drafter/etc.
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 2:35 pm
one thing you said is very true: while I'm not confident in my aptitude for designing or for building homes as I'd like to be, I do have a sense I can cultivate it to be good enough at it that even I might enjoy staying in them. it's a big ask. I seem to enjoy the ambition of creating useful, potentially beautiful, financially-sensical (if not profitable) and hopefully impactful things in the physical world much more than the internet world. I think it's possible most M. Arch's would be frustratingly "extra" and too "academia" given the ambitions I currently have. But perhaps, given the right program, it's actually exactly what I need to do? As an update, I'm noticing the folks at Michigan seem to have their act together. Just sat in on an info call with Oregon - it was interesting but not sure how practical focused? Looking forward to learn more though. thanks for the continued input all -
proto
Oct 12, 21 2:41 pm
"I do have a sense I can cultivate it to be good enough at it that even I might enjoy staying in them" -- that's called hubris. Everyone thinks they can. Our built environment emphatically states most are not capable. [notice i didn't exclude architects] There are a vast number of reasons for this that aren't necessarily talent.
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 3:19 pm
Everyone thinks they can?
Non Sequitur
Oct 12, 21 3:24 pm
Everyone (layman) I've ever met who finds out that I am an architect immediately expresses that they to could/want to design houses. It's annoying really because it's really easy to do a mediocre job (look around you), but it's exponentially harder to do it well enough to make a living at it. Too many think it's a fun hobby.
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 4:34 pm
@non -
that sounds frustrating. is it that you don't think people grasp the value of the unique contribution of the work you do?
Non Sequitur
Oct 12, 21 4:43 pm
^Yes... and no. I don't expect the average wanker to care about the value I can bring because the average wanker can't afford an architect's time. The issue is mostly HGTV related which is a big reason I do so very little residential work. The frustrating part is having to constantly argue basic construction concepts with typically intelligent people simply because their "experience" watching design and construction shows on TV has convinced them that they know something.
proto
Oct 12, 21 8:35 pm
People generally have a lot of preconceived notions on what "designing a house" involves because they have a lot of experience living in houses and seeing them around. Few get the entirety of what makes a house design successful. Even those who understand when a house design is successful may not necessarily be able to create those conditions on command. It takes experience and education to get there, despite the exemptions for house designers in state law. So, yeah, anyone can do it, but doing it well isn't well understood by most people, even in the construction industry.
joseffischer
Oct 12, 21 11:39 am
I'll follow my last post up with a question to the peanut gallery. Of all the schools listed thus far and any others, I didn't think any studio program got past schematic design. Do others know differently?
how far away from being able to create build-ready construction docs would one be after graduating from these programs? it's sounding like in general schools emphasize design at the expense of practical skills -- but that perhaps some schools inculcate you with both?
proto
Oct 12, 21 2:45 pm
@joseffischer, that's largely true
atelier nobody
Oct 12, 21 2:56 pm
"how far away from being able to create build-ready construction docs would one be after graduating from these programs?"
VERY. The normal expectation is that recent graduates really only know how to do some modeling in Rhino - everything having to do with producing a set of CDs has to be taught "on the job". This is part of the reason that licensure requires work experience after graduation.
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 4:03 pm
so.. someone spends 6 years getting both a bachelors followed by a masters in architecture and is still how many years away from being able to produce CD's that are buildable?
Non Sequitur
Oct 12, 21 4:37 pm
It depends on the school and the student. Some are many many years away. I know and worked with some with 15y experience (and licenses) who could not assemble CDs to save their lives. Others can pop them out shortly after graduation but that's because content of schools vary greatly. Purely theoretical programs don't push hard building science while some will intergrate COOP and tech courses into their design studios.
Also worth noting that the vast majority of the education required for good CD comes from the work place... hence why there is so many complaints here about low entry wages. Everyone wants to do the "easy" and fun designy stuff. Few care enough to learn how to put shit together in a way that communicates the design. So the best way to learn is through practice... which will take several years.
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 6:13 pm
this is insightful. how does one typically figure out where programs lie on the theoretical / practical spectrum ? I imagine having both an engineering and construction background helps, like I do. I do not, however, have any design education.
Non Sequitur
Oct 12, 21 9:11 pm
It's easy to figure out if you can get your hands on the curricula and course breakdowns and most schools have these published. It's then a mater of looking at alumni projects, graduate thesis, and faculty work. The real catch is that a good school will teach you how to think and solve problems in creative ways. A mediocre school will show you what to do and expect you to replicate the solution. Having a background in practical stuff is very good since you likely already know about physical limitations of materials, for example, but it can easily hamper creativity if a practical solution becomes the de facto answer. Trial and error, and experimentation (and defending the final product) is the basis of design education.
vivisection
Oct 19, 21 10:29 pm
It wasn’t listed bc Auburn doesn’t have an M Arch 1 program, but doing a thesis at Rural Studio definitely forces you through all the nitty gritty of specifying and detailing as well as fun stuff like dealing with local AHJs and actual construction. You can buy into a thesis at RS if you are an outsider by being an Outreach Fellow, which sounds like it would be up OP’s ally. The design build master’s program at Auburn might actually be a better fit for OP because it has a lot more CM and technical stuff, but mostly stays away from design theory education in the regular B Arch program.
vivisection
Oct 19, 21 10:29 pm
It wasn’t listed bc Auburn doesn’t have an M Arch 1 program, but doing a thesis at Rural Studio definitely forces you through all the nitty gritty of specifying and detailing as well as fun stuff like dealing with local AHJs and actual construction. You can buy into a thesis at RS if you are an outsider by being an Outreach Fellow, which sounds like it would be up OP’s ally. They also have a design build
Almosthip
Oct 12, 21 11:48 am
You don't need to be an architect to design and build houses. It would be a huge waste of time to get a master degree just to deign and build a house. Simple and easy.
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 2:18 pm
in your opinion what is a better way to learn?
proto
Oct 12, 21 2:45 pm
do it (design & build)
a lot
rinse/repeat
you will learn a shitton - tho without guidance, your learning vector may not necessarily be architectural
Non Sequitur
Oct 12, 21 3:11 pm
Ahip, we already told the OP this up on top. It's really funny to think that you need a Master's degree to spit out suburban sprawl.
Almosthip
Oct 12, 21 3:37 pm
Non....
thought if I said it in simple sentences he might understand
Almosthip
Oct 12, 21 3:41 pm
nick.... read some books on design principals and wood construction methods. Become friends with a general contractor.
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 3:54 pm
exactly. so how does one efficiently and effectively gain an architectural learning vector without going to architecture school? building requires capital, which requires a promised return on investment, which requires confidence in the prolonged usability and sell-ability of the project. with that said, do you still advocate this approach?
Almosthip
Oct 12, 21 4:40 pm
95% of architects design commercial, institutional, industrial, health care facilities and multi family housing. Complex forms and structures that require enhanced safety requirements for the occupants. Not single family homes. You do not need a fancy architect degree to accomplish what you want to do.
Non Sequitur
Oct 12, 21 4:45 pm
^This. Nick, you need a 2y college-level diploma in wood-frame, small building construction. You can probably knock one out remotely and on weeknights. Besides that, all you really need is start-up capital and some free time.
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 4:48 pm
Gussy up the courage to post your real name and I'll take your discouragement seriously. I also trust you'll be far less sarcastic and better behaved.
Non Sequitur
Oct 12, 21 4:55 pm
Half the regulars here know who I am and I'm no one special. I say the same thing to plenty of people, especially highschool students who ask me about arch school so there is literally no sarcasm in my post above.
You're asking about a few houses, not a sports stadium. I spent my morning evaluating fire-separations in an office building. My words and observations is directly related to a few hundred people's life-safety. This is the kind of high-level archy stuff you go to school for and why we have licenses. Single-fam house design is not even the same sport.
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 5:01 pm
I can't imagine
posting anonymously on a website dedicated to "community" in my own profession.
Non Sequitur
Oct 12, 21 5:05 pm
lack of imagination? I'm not surprised.
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 6:00 pm
I wish you better days, human-hiding-behind-screenname "Non-Sequitur"
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 6:42 pm
Hello Mr. David Amdie https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidamdie/ Graduated RISD 2019! This is extraordinarily helpful context. Does your manager at SOM know you anonymously troll folks on architecture forums during the workday? Not a good look for a young up and coming architect.
Non Sequitur
Oct 12, 21 6:51 pm
Who you trying to doxx there nick?
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 6:59 pm
no doxxing, it just puts the comments into helpful context for me. a recent RISD grad starting out at a large firm in NYC is going to have a very very different perspective than someone mid-career who runs their own design-driven development firm.
Non Sequitur
Oct 12, 21 7:28 pm
How is showing us the profile of a random intern lead to that observation?
nicklashinsky
Oct 12, 21 7:39 pm
Some things are just not fair. Thanks for all the advice folks - even the bad advice. I’ve learned a lot.
I’ve squeezed all the juice from this thread.
Non Sequitur
Oct 12, 21 7:44 pm
You got entirely all excellent advice despite the snark. Still no idea what that SOM chap link was for tho.
proto
Oct 12, 21 8:43 pm
"I’ve squeezed all the juice from this thread." there's that hubris again...
Good luck, dude; you've exhibited some patience with us, but you've also ignored some of the nuggets. I hope you will take away that you still have a far more shallow understanding of what design can be & strive to learn more. Admittedly, it won't be learned on this website. But many of us have been profs & interns & project architects & sole proprietors. There are even a couple of design/builders here. What you seem to be searching for seems to miss the target of what good design might be, and I hope you keep that thought in your head as you approach whatever your next steps may be. You don't know yet what you don't know yet.
midlander
Oct 12, 21 10:29 pm
I always suspected Non isn't really a Canadian - this just proves it. Canadians spell about 'aboot'...
Non Sequitur
Oct 13, 21 12:11 am
Hey now... sometimes I try to dumb it down for you freedom lovn' muricans.
midlander
Oct 13, 21 1:00 am
oh i figured it out. The realperson "outed" above has an archinect profile featuring a project titled "non sequitur".. nice projects, and a worldview about 180 degrees away from the real NS
Non Sequitur
Oct 13, 21 6:34 am
^nice catch but are those imperial or metric degrees?
Miles Jaffe
Oct 12, 21 11:48 pm
Masters degrees are for pussies. Stop fooling around and get a Phd.
hello everyone - this is my first post on here, it's nice to have discovered this amazing website earlier this year.
I'm looking for input on various 3-year architecture masters programs I should be taking a closer look at. Or help/input in general.
I already have a masters in Electrical Engineering from Columbia, and have worked in sales/business mgt roles in the utility construction, energy efficiency building and software industry since 2008. However, since becoming obsessed with pottery this year (I basically live at the studio) and starting to practice figure drawing, as well as looking at all the photographs of buildings and landscapes I've taken over the years, and airbnb's I've stayed in that have inspired me, I've realized what I want to do is design and build functional spaces and homes. I also think I want to go to some form of art school. Kind of like making interesting and beautiful pots people are able to get pleasure and function out of utilizing intimately on a daily basis, but making houses and spaces that do the same while connecting people and their environment.
Having decided I want to build my first house, I've acquired a large swath of forest in the mountainous region of the Adirondacks with the zoning ability to develop a community of 5 homes, and my family has land where I could develop 25 more.
Although I'm not opposed to collaborating with an architect, I'm not interested in "hiring" an architect as a client, as I'd rather be the designer and do the master planning. And the option of being the landlord.
If I became an architect, I'm not quite sure I'd be interested in having clients in the standard way, as I'd rather design what I want to build, and then build what I design. Therefore, the architect-developer model is of most interest to me, especially with my business background. I don't necessarily think I'm interested in going to school for business though - as I've learned in real world business that the best way to learn is by doing, and cultivated a smug attitude toward business schools.
I'm thinking I'd like to go to a 3 year masters program, most likely one that is accredited, or at least doesn't make accreditation in the US or Canada, or EU extraordinarily difficult. But most importantly, I am interested in going into a program that I am truly fully engaged and enjoy, has the resources for me to thrive by cultivating my skillset and "voice" for learning the art and enough of the science of creating real buildings from both practical and provocative ideas.
As I look into programs, and architecture theses, thesis discussions, faculty research, etc, as expected from academia the function is for them to push the boundaries of architectural thinking. I also know that my "taste" and sense for interpreting and engaging with the dialogues these architecture students are provoking is very much evolving, and new.
While I want to be able to push the envelope on thinking, I wouldn't want to spend 3 years in a program with people that are solely focused on pushing the envelope on thinking and don't ever build anything in the real world -- nor one that is solely focused on churning out folks who build things that look the same and don't push boundaries.
I noticed U of Washington isn't listed here in Archinect, but I like that Tom Kundig went there, and that their program has so many resources for building such as metal-fabrication, woodworking, 3-d printing, etc. I also like that the people there in their videos seem friendly. I admire viewing photographs of his work, it feels decadent so it also feels like looking at porn. I'm not quite sure how I'll feel about his work in 3 years. and I also am very interested in how people actually feel about living in a structure 10-20-70 years after it was built.
Other people that interest me:
https://ced.berkeley.edu/ced/f... - Mark Anderson at Berkeley. His work includes a wide variety of exploring materials, and you can see how he and his brothers's firm (also a CA General Contractor) creative process appear to drive their projects.
Cary Tamarkin - GSD graduate who is clearly an artist, set out to become a prolific developer in NYC. http://tamarkinco.com/portfoli...
Although I'm working on a portfolio that will include pottery and drawings, I'm not sure I'll have time to assemble a high quality enough of portfolio AND have identified a program that's truly right for me before Jan 1 2022.. Maybe though?
Schools I'm interested in so far:
U of Washington
SCI-Arc
Harvard GSD
Berkeley
Thanks for any help -
From what you posted,
Cheers, and good luck!
An interesting perspective.
You may find that architecture is far less compatible with your interests in practice. 90% of the process of architecture is logistics and technical issues. These are all ideally in support of the 10% that is the artistry and capital D design, but ultimately what you do is not going to be as satisfying as pottery in that sense.
More critically, you’d find pretty quickly that you need quite a bit of experience to 1) become an architect 2) be able to execute architecture at any scale that alone a larger developer scale. Going to school won’t prepare you that well to build your house, you’d really want to work at a residential firm for at least a couple years in my mind. Since it’s your own house if you wanted to do it right out of school you could try… it’s yours… as long as it’s small enough that you can legally do it while not being licensed. You’d probably learn a lot and be better for it.
To do a development… that’s a different story. I think you’d be remis not to have professional experience and a license, and then ideally some developer experience.
I’m assuming you have some quality resources/connection given your statements, so if I were you, I’d probably seek out becoming a developer over becoming an architect. You may not do the nitty gritty of design that way, or necessarily claim the designer title, but ultimately, you’ll have more control over the design as a whole than any architect. Yes, you could become an architect and do both, but the much easier path to what you seem to want would be to become a developer.
I That said, University of Michigan has a pretty enjoyable 3 year program if you like living up in the snow.
I really think you are getting very excited and planning out to unreasonable detail based on only a vague notion of what it's like to be an architect, and how development works. Indeed what you literally describe is an interest in making pottery, which is very dissimilar from working as an architect, and totally unlike working as a developer.
You are also conflating the urge to make a large mid-life career change with the aspiration to build your own home, and then a vague notion of becoming a housing developer. These are 3 different things, and really should be considered separately. I have no idea what is your priority here, nor advice what should be. Talk to some people who know you well. And why are you so determined to leave behind the career path of electrical engineering?
If you really do want to become architect just to build your own house and some others: Is it possible for you to get some real-world work experience with a homebuilder or residential developer before making any long-term commitments to this? if all you know you want to do at this point is build a home for yourself, you really don't need to go through the 6+ year process of becoming an architect... you don't need to be an architect to get a house built to your own design!
Architecture involves a lot of boring work (80% of the time, at least!) and you absolutely will need to work with someone who has the experience and attitude to do this properly. you would find many architects are perfectly willing to work with a client who has a strong design vision. indeed, this is the stereotypical norm in residential. So don't discount that normal client-architect relationship if it would work for you. There are plenty 'no-name' architects who happily work with with clients to make a house exactly how they want it.
//
Regarding the less definite idea of doing a multi-property residential development, you are at this point very far from having the base of knowledge to do this successfully, unless your money is totally unlimited. But that's easily 10+ years away, so take this one life-change at a time.
Sorry I wasn’t more clear:
At this point it appears I will be going to architecture school and plan to become a licensed architect, so that I can design and build houses on land I own, and will own.
The likely plan is to work for an architect-developer-builder out of school as well to gain experience running the type of firm I’m interested in running. We won’t take on clients, just tenants. There aren’t many, but they’re out there.
I understand it’s not the same path most architects take.
My intention in this post was soliciting advice on schools to consider. Let me know if you have any good input! and please do spare me and everyone reading any discouragement - it’s a bad look!
Whoooosh. Take the cheapest school you can find. You’ll need all the money available if you’re this naive.
i think the catch is you're asking what school to go to based on the predetermined goal of building your own home. that's not how architecture school works, and you will be very frustrated if you approach it that way. that said, you seem to have a clear affinity for programs with a focus on the material and craft of architecture. maybe risd or cranbrook should be on your list. GSD and Sciarc less so, much more theory oriented.
on second thought, phillip johnson built a home for himself as his thesis at gsd, and then built an even better one a few years later, and then a few other things, and won the pritzker prize. maybe you could look into something like that.
Most mopey USA architecture teachers will hate you for being interested in a) single family houses b) being a developer and c) owning land. Many architecture professors have failed to thrive as practicing architects in the real world and have sought refuge in academia. Their hostility to persons seeking a practical education can get very thick. Be prepared.
Go the Tadao Ando route.
This is viable - I'm a licensed architect with no architecture degree myself. Based on my own experience, however, I'd recommend an MArch to anyone with the financial resources to do it as being the path of much less resistance.
congrats! how'd you do it?
yikes. the mopey "don't do it, it can't be done" responses on this thread make me quite sad.
a) my development has already started. we've logged, I've sighted locations, roads and utilities are being put in. so I don't need to hear about how I need 10+ years of experience. good luck with that mindset my friends!
b) if you feel so disempowered in your profession that discouraging folks from getting training in it is satisfying -- all I can say is you must be very unhappy.
I'm feeling particularly grateful I started my career in Silicon Valley, have worked with many successful CEOs, and grew up in an entrepreneurial family. Life is too precious to walk around moping and discouraging everyone because you think it's too hard to do things.
We can do hard things.
if it turns out there are any kind positive minded folks reading this and have ideas on what programs I should be looking at, feel free to contact me directly. Thanks!
Nick Lashinsky
Berkeley, CA
[email protected]
Ah, yes tech bro money and I’ll do whatever I want mindset. So fresh and unique. Yawn. You missed the whole point of the real comments above. You don’t need more school and it’s asinine to think that that will be a worthwhile investment. What’s really dumb is you think you’ll be able to rent these out (aka landlord) as opposed to outright sell but that’s another issue.
Why'd you ask for advice if you didn't want it?
Non, he'll airbnb, much more profitable
"what's real dumb is you think you'll be able to rent these out" care to share your real name so I can credit the right person when I print this one out?
yawn, another typical "tough" guy response. Carry on ignoring the obvious in all of our comments.
I think you should go to school and do your thesis on your development - it could be cool. Find some tutors who have actually built things and ask to intern for them when they have extra work. I think your program choices are decent - I'd add Cornell, Princeton and U of Oregon to the list of places to apply and drop Sci-Arc. You're right there are a lot of mopers, but hey if you've got the money, guts, energy and time go for it.
That could be a decent route - two birds one stone... Also agree with your university choices.
Thank you for your kind and helpful suggestions.
and don't let anyone discourage you either. 14 years ago, I made a mid life career change to architecture. I ignored the discouragement from " well meaning people" and plowed through anyway and prevailed
I didn't wait quite until mid-life, but did get a late-ish start in architecture, and by a "non-standard" route, so I completely agree. A friend of mine used to have a bumper sticker that said, "It's Never Too Late to Have a Happy Childhood!"
UC Berkeley, most of my co-workers are from there and they are crazy smart - U of Mich., one of my firm presidents and other co-workers came from there - U of Cinncinati DAAP is another possibility -
Of the schools you listed, UW or Berkeley would likely be better choices for you than GSD or SCIArch, but excellent architects (and terrible ones) have come out of all of them, so ultimately go with whichever one gives you the "warm & fuzzies".
My only "outside the box" suggestion would be to consider a 2-year technical college program in Architectural Technology - this would likely be in addition to ultimately getting your MArch, since you'll really want that for licensing. The advantage of an Architectural Technology program is that it would give you a much more solid grounding in how buildings and sets of construction documents go together than you will get in most MArch programs, which tend to be more narrowly focused on the creative aspects of architecture.
There are also a few other paths you could consider, since you seem to be in an enviable financial position, but if you already think you want an MArch, that's probably the best route to pursue.
Also, several of the schools others have suggested upthread wouldn't be bad choices. McGill and U of MN are also not bad schools.
Another thing to consider, since you are interested in larger developments, would be a program in Planning - some schools offer a joint MArch/Planning program, although I don't remember which specific schools off the top of my head.
Thanks for this! I looked at McGill and actually would be one of
my top choices since it’s in Montreal and I know some excellent folks who went there but it appears their masters is only for folks with architecture backgrounds.
I think I do want to go w MArch but I’m curious what ideas you had.
You’re looking at a McGill March?
Go back to Columbia & combo the development program & graduate w/ both the MArch & the MS Real Estate Development. You will make connections in NYC that are specific to your interests. Also, you would be better served getting a design education first THEN learning the logistics of residential construction. [& upon hearing you own land to be developed, greedy profs will be happy to hire you on to build models in their offices — you’re gonna need supervised experience anyway to get thru NCARB to take the ARE]
this is definitely an interesting idea! thank you. however, given my experience in the Engineering school, my fear would be the program is too theoretical for me, and that the business focus of their RE folks is oriented toward NYC / big-metro development. I will do some further investigation though!
Maybe look at other schools outside of NYC that offer an MArch/Real Estate combo.
Yes, it's theoretical. But TBH, from what you have posted here, I suspect you could use a little balancing from the entrepreneurial/pragmatic side of things. Good design bridges between "can do" & "what if".
That said, if you are never going to embrace the design side of development, I suppose that that is a good thing to understand about yourself & just move forward in the most efficient way. [No judgements from me, just being frank] My guess is that would be: don't worry about becoming an architect at that point. Just design & develop houses, as is your right under the exemptions in the professional services codes of NY state.
Just depends on your design aspirations.
look into jonathan segal, david hovey, and peter gluck - all architect developers who do nice residential work. i am not sure there is any one school best for this, better to focus on programs with key faculty you want to connect to. my personal view is that architecture school architecture school inculcates us with the "mopiness" you observe!
Marmol/Radziner is also an interesting firm to look at that does design/build.
throw me in with the mopy crowd I guess. I didn't read any naysayers about following OPs dream. You got money? spend it. I just felt we're all questioning why go back to school when it seems like you're already doing it? Some sort of "i'm not totally confident in my design/builder experience but I don't want to hire anyone to show me the ropes, so I'd like to go to school to hone my design craft... but make sure it's not fake please"... seems like a weird set of requests to me. Maybe interior design would be even better for you. Also, watch bobuilt on his work he's doing with tiny homes and glamping on airbnb. I think though, you should expect to learn fast that every hour you're spending on door schedules or drafting floorplans is an hour spent away from your goal and SHOULD be farmed out by hiring an architect/drafter/etc.
one thing you said is very true: while I'm not confident in my aptitude for designing or for building homes as I'd like to be, I do have a sense I can cultivate it to be good enough at it that even I might enjoy staying in them. it's a big ask. I seem to enjoy the ambition of creating useful, potentially beautiful, financially-sensical (if not profitable) and hopefully impactful things in the physical world much more than the internet world. I think it's possible most M. Arch's would be frustratingly "extra" and too "academia" given the ambitions I currently have. But perhaps, given the right program, it's actually exactly what I need to do? As an update, I'm noticing the folks at Michigan seem to have their act together. Just sat in on an info call with Oregon - it was interesting but not sure how practical focused? Looking forward to learn more though. thanks for the continued input all -
"I do have a sense I can cultivate it to be good enough at it that even I might enjoy staying in them" -- that's called hubris. Everyone thinks they can. Our built environment emphatically states most are not capable. [notice i didn't exclude architects] There are a vast number of reasons for this that aren't necessarily talent.
Everyone thinks they can?
Everyone (layman) I've ever met who finds out that I am an architect immediately expresses that they to could/want to design houses. It's annoying really because it's really easy to do a mediocre job (look around you), but it's exponentially harder to do it well enough to make a living at it. Too many think it's a fun hobby.
@non - that sounds frustrating. is it that you don't think people grasp the value of the unique contribution of the work you do?
^Yes... and no. I don't expect the average wanker to care about the value I can bring because the average wanker can't afford an architect's time. The issue is mostly HGTV related which is a big reason I do so very little residential work. The frustrating part is having to constantly argue basic construction concepts with typically intelligent people simply because their "experience" watching design and construction shows on TV has convinced them that they know something.
People generally have a lot of preconceived notions on what "designing a house" involves because they have a lot of experience living in houses and seeing them around. Few get the entirety of what makes a house design successful. Even those who understand when a house design is successful may not necessarily be able to create those conditions on command. It takes experience and education to get there, despite the exemptions for house designers in state law. So, yeah, anyone can do it, but doing it well isn't well understood by most people, even in the construction industry.
I'll follow my last post up with a question to the peanut gallery. Of all the schools listed thus far and any others, I didn't think any studio program got past schematic design. Do others know differently?
Well, it's only two semesters in a much bigger program, but UrbanBuild at Tulane comes to mind for me: https://urbanbuild.tulane.edu/03-structure/curriculum/
how far away from being able to create build-ready construction docs would one be after graduating from these programs? it's sounding like in general schools emphasize design at the expense of practical skills -- but that perhaps some schools inculcate you with both?
@joseffischer, that's largely true
"how far away from being able to create build-ready construction docs would one be after graduating from these programs?"
VERY. The normal expectation is that recent graduates really only know how to do some modeling in Rhino - everything having to do with producing a set of CDs has to be taught "on the job". This is part of the reason that licensure requires work experience after graduation.
so.. someone spends 6 years getting both a bachelors followed by a masters in architecture and is still how many years away from being able to produce CD's that are buildable?
It depends on the school and the student. Some are many many years away. I know and worked with some with 15y experience (and licenses) who could not assemble CDs to save their lives. Others can pop them out shortly after graduation but that's because content of schools vary greatly. Purely theoretical programs don't push hard building science while some will intergrate COOP and tech courses into their design studios.
Also worth noting that the vast majority of the education required for good CD comes from the work place... hence why there is so many complaints here about low entry wages. Everyone wants to do the "easy" and fun designy stuff. Few care enough to learn how to put shit together in a way that communicates the design. So the best way to learn is through practice... which will take several years.
this is insightful. how does one typically figure out where programs lie on the theoretical / practical spectrum ? I imagine having both an engineering and construction background helps, like I do. I do not, however, have any design education.
It's easy to figure out if you can get your hands on the curricula and course breakdowns and most schools have these published. It's then a mater of looking at alumni projects, graduate thesis, and faculty work. The real catch is that a good school will teach you how to think and solve problems in creative ways. A mediocre school will show you what to do and expect you to replicate the solution. Having a background in practical stuff is very good since you likely already know about physical limitations of materials, for example, but it can easily hamper creativity if a practical solution becomes the de facto answer. Trial and error, and experimentation (and defending the final product) is the basis of design education.
It wasn’t listed bc Auburn doesn’t have an M Arch 1 program, but doing a thesis at Rural Studio definitely forces you through all the nitty gritty of specifying and detailing as well as fun stuff like dealing with local AHJs and actual construction. You can buy into a thesis at RS if you are an outsider by being an Outreach Fellow, which sounds like it would be up OP’s ally. The design build master’s program at Auburn might actually be a better fit for OP because it has a lot more CM and technical stuff, but mostly stays away from design theory education in the regular B Arch program.
It wasn’t listed bc Auburn doesn’t have an M Arch 1 program, but doing a thesis at Rural Studio definitely forces you through all the nitty gritty of specifying and detailing as well as fun stuff like dealing with local AHJs and actual construction. You can buy into a thesis at RS if you are an outsider by being an Outreach Fellow, which sounds like it would be up OP’s ally. They also have a design build
You don't need to be an architect to design and build houses. It would be a huge waste of time to get a master degree just to deign and build a house. Simple and easy.
in your opinion what is a better way to learn?
do it (design & build)
a lot
rinse/repeat
you will learn a shitton - tho without guidance, your learning vector may not necessarily be architectural
Ahip, we already told the OP this up on top. It's really funny to think that you need a Master's degree to spit out suburban sprawl.
Non.... thought if I said it in simple sentences he might understand
nick.... read some books on design principals and wood construction methods. Become friends with a general contractor.
exactly. so how does one efficiently and effectively gain an architectural learning vector without going to architecture school? building requires capital, which requires a promised return on investment, which requires confidence in the prolonged usability and sell-ability of the project. with that said, do you still advocate this approach?
95% of architects design commercial, institutional, industrial, health care facilities and multi family housing. Complex forms and structures that require enhanced safety requirements for the occupants. Not single family homes. You do not need a fancy architect degree to accomplish what you want to do.
^This. Nick, you need a 2y college-level diploma in wood-frame, small building construction. You can probably knock one out remotely and on weeknights. Besides that, all you really need is start-up capital and some free time.
Gussy up the courage to post your real name and I'll take your discouragement seriously. I also trust you'll be far less sarcastic and better behaved.
Half the regulars here know who I am and I'm no one special. I say the same thing to plenty of people, especially highschool students who ask me about arch school so there is literally no sarcasm in my post above.
You're asking about a few houses, not a sports stadium. I spent my morning evaluating fire-separations in an office building. My words and observations is directly related to a few hundred people's life-safety. This is the kind of high-level archy stuff you go to school for and why we have licenses. Single-fam house design is not even the same sport.
I can't imagine posting anonymously on a website dedicated to "community" in my own profession.
lack of imagination? I'm not surprised.
I wish you better days, human-hiding-behind-screenname "Non-Sequitur"
Hello Mr. David Amdie https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidamdie/ Graduated RISD 2019! This is extraordinarily helpful context. Does your manager at SOM know you anonymously troll folks on architecture forums during the workday? Not a good look for a young up and coming architect.
Who you trying to doxx there nick?
no doxxing, it just puts the comments into helpful context for me. a recent RISD grad starting out at a large firm in NYC is going to have a very very different perspective than someone mid-career who runs their own design-driven development firm.
How is showing us the profile of a random intern lead to that observation?
Some things are just not fair. Thanks for all the advice folks - even the bad advice. I’ve learned a lot.
I’ve squeezed all the juice from this thread.
You got entirely all excellent advice despite the snark. Still no idea what that SOM chap link was for tho.
"I’ve squeezed all the juice from this thread." there's that hubris again...
Good luck, dude; you've exhibited some patience with us, but you've also ignored some of the nuggets. I hope you will take away that you still have a far more shallow understanding of what design can be & strive to learn more. Admittedly, it won't be learned on this website. But many of us have been profs & interns & project architects & sole proprietors. There are even a couple of design/builders here. What you seem to be searching for seems to miss the target of what good design might be, and I hope you keep that thought in your head as you approach whatever your next steps may be. You don't know yet what you don't know yet.
I always suspected Non isn't really a Canadian - this just proves it. Canadians spell about 'aboot'...
Hey now... sometimes I try to dumb it down for you freedom lovn' muricans.
oh i figured it out. The realperson "outed" above has an archinect profile featuring a project titled "non sequitur".. nice projects, and a worldview about 180 degrees away from the real NS
^nice catch but are those imperial or metric degrees?
Masters degrees are for pussies. Stop fooling around and get a Phd.