On Friday, March 25th, a panel discussion became a lightning rod striking attention to the questionable ethics of architectural academia and professional practice. Depending on what news and social media platforms you follow, keeping track of the events that followed SCI-Arc's Basecamp lectures can appear like organized chaos.
Everyone has an opinion. Everyone has a "take" on the highly controversial and unsettling comments. But before I dive into what's already been documented and shared across the internet, it's vital to address the larger issues. Discussions surrounding work and studio culture within the architecture community are nothing new. It would be foolish to say that those working within the industry at both the professional practice and academic levels are unaware of the highly problematic issues of labor and equitable working conditions.
Ongoing efforts to reform toxic and exploitative work environments have been pushed to the forefront thanks to organizations like The Architecture Lobby, the Future Architect's Front, Architectural Workers United, NOMA, and many others. However, what took place during SCI-Arc's latest lecture, Basecamp: How to be in an office, brought to light what the industry continues to gatekeep systemically — the allowance of unacceptable labor conditions, exploitative internships, the allure of working for industry icons, and the celebration of "architecture's high-culture elite."
SCI-Arc's Basecamp: How to be in an Office. Video via SCI-Arc Live.
It was like watching one of those "what could go wrong" fail compilation videos. That's how I would preface it to anyone who still hasn't watched the live-streamed event from last Friday. Each passing minute of this panel discussion echoed the misguided and failed system of fostering ethical work cultures for architecture. I want to preface that watching the entire panel discussion is challenging to get through, to say the least. The questions and responses given to students were short-sighted. While many might suggest this as an overreaction or inflated response, all are more than welcome to watch the live-streamed video, which is still available to view on SCI-Arc's Youtube channel, to experience it for yourself.
The 1-hour, 23-minute discussion between three SCI-Arc faculty members (Marrikka Trotter of Tom Wiscombe Architecture, Margaret Griffin of Griffin Enright Architects, and Dwayne Oyler of Oyler Wu) started by announcing this would be a topic of great interest to students. While this panel was geared towards undergraduate students, Trotter started by saying, "everyone who is at the school at all levels" will be interested in this discussion because "at some point you do graduate. Then the question is, what happens next and what is your strategy for that phase in your life." Let's be clear there were some takeaways that followed after the 00:07:40 mark that could be deemed helpful. At 00:27:00, Trotter expressed to students that "there are many ways to be a part of the architecture," which in itself is a promising message. Starting at 00:30:00 discussion of graduate school came up and the three bounced off each other with their own personal takes on the benefits and realities of taking time off after undergrad and working vs. going straight into graduate school. Eventually leading to the financial aspects of pursuing higher education, which is another can of worms that has been discussed frequently on Archinect.
Not everyone has the time to go through this video. And while many are aware of the conflicting results of this panel discussion, what exactly were the comments that ignited so much attention and sparked issues of unethical work cultures? Below is a quick take with timestamps of where you can jump into topics that opened a pandora's box of follow-up responses.
As I continued to watch, more red flags emerged. Comments being shared by these three experienced practitioners were starting to highlight problematic work culture and work expectation issues that should be aimed at reforming instead of positioning as "commonplace" and acceptable.
The intention of this panel discussion was for three seasoned practitioners and faculty members to share their insights and perspectives on "how to be in an office." And perhaps during their conversation, let's lend them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they truly did think they were being helpful. But as the saying goes, hindsight is always 20/20. Unfortunately, the damage was done. What resulted were statements fostered by misguided rhetoric of working conditions and expectations that the industry must agree to reform. To help break down the issues with this discussion even further I'd like to highlight a summary provided by Architecture Twitter's unappointed conservator of professional practice, The Hustle Architect (@VitruviusGrind). In his latest Substack, entitled "We all make our own choices," he eloquently dives into the disappointing and jarring "tips and responses" given to undergraduate students and those watching during the discussion.
Friday's lecture eventually caused a domino effect in responses and outcries. SCI-Arc students and alums quickly mobilized to address these issues at the school. Soon a petition for the removal of Tom Wiscombe and Marrika Trotter began to circulate through social networks. (Note: On March 30th, it was addressed by SCI-Arc's Student Union (STUN) that it was not started by STUN, "but rather by an independent group of students, alumni, and faculty who wish to remain anonymous for their protection.")
To start the process of atoning for the transgressions that occurred, SCI-Arc leadership set up an All School Town Hall on Monday, March 28th, to give students the floor and discuss Friday's failed panel discussion openly. While the Town Hall was not recorded or live-streamed, the outcomes from that meeting took another unfortunate turn.
As students shared their comments and personal anecdotes to present faculty, responses like one from a notable architecture leader stood out. According to sources who witnessed the Town Hall, the rather iconic architect and notable faculty member sadly made a myopic response, invalidating the students' concerns. The distinguished faculty member preached the outdated adage "it's always been this way." Further perpetuating the idea of academia and professional practice appealing to tradition. These practice models are outdated, but what will it take for established architects and veteran firm leaders to see the bigger picture and the changing environment of architectural practice?
Between Monday's Town Hall and Wednesday morning, the school dispatched responses to the community stating actions were being made to address the residue left from Friday's panel. Then a letter from SCI-Arc's Director and CEO, Hernán Díaz Alonso, stated that actions had been taken to place Marrikka Trotter and Tom Wiscombe on administrative leave while formally investigating the remarks and allegations of misconduct.
A lot can happen in a few days. The architecture community took it upon themselves to create further discourse. News quickly began to circulate from the recognizable #HowNotToBeInAnOffice Twitter thread to discussions on the Archinect forum.
As stated above, many of you reading this might have learned about the issues at SCI-Arc because of a meme or a well-crafted post meant to spread awareness while poking fun. And it's clear to see how far a meme can spread social media discourse, for better and for worse, thanks to the postings of Instagram's @dank.lloyd.wright.
While those posts can be helpful in sharing perspectives I began reading as many social media platforms as I could, looking to pinpoint and understand the "pulse" of the community at large. I listened to individuals and colleagues who were willing to share their thoughts with me. I watched how the community was itching for context and content as the days passed. After Monday's ill-fated Town Hall Meeting and responses from the school, students and alumni banded together to create their own safe space for discussion.
On the eve of Wednesday, March 30, SCI-Arc's alumni held their version of "BaseCamp." The Zoom conversation, which was also live-streamed via Twitch, was an example of what happens when students are pushed too far, and matters must be taken into their own hands to create change. With the Zoom meeting reaching nearly two hours, it was motivating and inspiring to see a group of students and alums band together, working as a collective to offer support and insight into their own work experiences.
It was mentioned that there were a little over 200 students and alums signed on and many others watching via Twitch. If there's one thing an institution like SCI-Arc knows how to do, it's giving students the tools and skills to experiment, explore, and provoke. Wednesday night's virtual gathering reminded me how much of a voice and agency students have and how easy it can be for them to forget that. Organizers and alums like Corie Yaguchi, Natou Fall, Tucker van Leuwen-Hall, Vanessa De La Hoz, Debbie Garcia, Nicholas Perseo, Phoebe Ou-Yang, and many others shared their thoughts and perspectives that night.
Students and alums spoke openly and honestly about bad work experiences with faculty and how they got out of those toxic situations. Alum, Nicholas Perseo, shared his school and work experiences, concluding he went from "thesis burnout into a stressful work environment" where it "measures up to outdated expectations of the architecture academic profession. All I have to show for it is this story." Each speaker constantly reiterated this movement was bigger than they are and that solidarity as a collective pushing for fair and ethical work practices was the goal.
Vanessa De La Hoz, alum and current Revit instructor at SCI-Arc spoke passionately about her own experiences. "There's an inconsistency between the education of architecture and the realities of it. There’s a big gap and we have to figure out how to close it [...] The people who are farther ahead of us, they're a part of that system and they’re benefiting from it.”
Corie Yaguchi, who was one of the meeting's moderators made it a point to address the success of learning new things is from students and colleagues. "All of us have our most employable skill because of an alum, a fellow community member, not one of those big-shot professors." Another alum shared, "It’s our generation's task to really rethink the relationship with practice. It’s so much bigger than what’s going on individually at SCI-Arc right now. It’s not a unique problem to SCI-Arc; this is holistic. It’s everywhere. Our generation is going to be able to change this."
More than halfway through the Zoom meeting one alum shared a poignant response to what was happening at the school. He shared that he was upset that these things were still happening but was moved by the energy and intentionality behind the meeting. "All the energy that’s been here tonight has been great. This is realistic 'Sci-Arc energy.'" He alluded that everyone present is extremely talented, "we can do all this crazy stuff, but it’s also the fact that we’re not happy with the status quo” and because of that, students have mobilized to make a change.
Lastly, a comment from alum Tucker van Leuwen-Hall continues to ring honest and true. "Students, you are the ones that have the power to make decisions and you are the ones who have the power to decide what happens in your institutions. It’s a fallacy and a misguided conception that you don’t. In the past, in the 60’s in the U.S. specifically, there were large demonstrations that were led mostly by students who were asking for changes in the status quo, and that really led to transformations that we take for granted today. I want to double down and say that you all have more voice than I think anybody tells you and you have more power than anybody tells you."
It's important to point out that the issue at hand isn't just about suspended individuals and other SCI-Arc faculty members who are complicit in these acts of exploitation. Instead, what this conversation has evoked are a set of reminders:
Here at Archinect, our editorial team takes issues surrounding employment, academia, and professional practice very seriously. As a media publication, we feel an obligation to be responsive, informative, and transparent with what we cover and why we cover it. Shaming individuals and institutions for their failures can only take us so far. Instead, let this reporting and the editorial discussions that follow allow the industry to take a more proactive role in discussing these issues openly so actual change can be made.
It's easy to pinpoint transgressors and paint villains. The events that have happened this past week are not okay and disappointing to witness. While it's hopeful to see the action taking place by the school, how many situations like this occur elsewhere? This appears to be just the beginning for SCI-Arc as they continue addressing larger institutional and systemic issues.
Architecture's "alarm" has been ringing for years. But, sadly, a portion of the architecture industry continues to hit snooze. What has happened this past week is yet another wake-up call. I hope this time around, the industry wakes up.
Stay tuned for Archinect's continued coverage of issues regarding professional practice and academia. Have something you'd like to share? Comment below or send us a message at connect@archinect.com.
77 Comments
Thanks for writing this Katherine. It’s a good summary of the situation and raises quality questions about the difference between people being individually abusive and people operating within an abusive system.
Thanks for putting this together. A great summary/explainer.
This reminds me of the time Zaha Hadid became the poster-child for intern-sploitation a few years back - resulting in changes in practice (kind of) in the UK.
There are undeniable systemic problems in our industry, and the whole business is so complicated it is no wonder it only takes a bit of careful gaslighting to maintain the status quo. Hopefully this leads to some real change in the profession. Would be even more interesting if it changed how teaching happens too.
One thing that is different this time around is that students have access to tools and to a voice that was not present before.
I must say, as a fellow architect I'm uplifted and encouraged by the incredibly mature and level-headed response by the students and alumni to all this. They did exactly what their professors failed to do; creating a supportive community where information is shared in a productive manner.
every primodanna architect or a person that acts like an architect without a license that “employees” young professionals are running and changing their title now from intern to associate.
Dear students and young professionals why don’t you just put them all on blast.
Tell us all who’s scre*ed you over as an employer.
Start a thread with names, name of office, work environment, work hours, pay and benefits.
The sad thing is these “architects” themselves don’t work as hard as the people they scre* over and “employ”
What do you think is going to happen when you don’t teach students how the professional side of the practice works.
Rather then having a studio in college education that designs museum or a romantic opera house.
Why don’t you teach people the actual business aspect of how to become a professional and run an office of their own.
Studio project + professional office model.
Why is that? The more intelligent an individual is the less that individual can be exploited.
Architecture schools are teaching students not to be designers and business owners, rather they are teaching them how to sit in-front of a screen voiceless and obedient.
This has been a longtime coming.
I brought up/ voiced out in casual hallway conversation between a couple students and a professor, that we (students) should be studying code as part of our prepping for "life as an architectural intern" after school. The professor quickly responded with scoffing and dismissed my idea. ok, great.
Ramirodiazgarcia You should do as you please. Design at its core is problem solving. If your mind is pondering upon coding as a language to solve a problem in Design, Architecture or whatever it may be, then do so.
You’re creativity is formulated through your explorative needs and thoughts. His/ Her scoffing and dismissing you only comes from insecurities.
I just commented in support of what you wrote. I totally agree with the idea that schools are not teaching very well how to be an independent practitioner of architectural design. When. I said code" I meant "building codes", and I should explain: The spirit of what I felt is basically
I also understand that only a very very small percentage of people that attend arch school ever make it to registered architect, and after a grueling process. Maybe there needs to be two types of academic programs, the registered architect path and the architectural designer path? XD Can the same be said about med school?, I don't know if doctors or interns feel voiceless against anything.
should explain: The spirit of what I felt is basically that the schools are not even approximating what reality would require for a building (that carries your design) to be researched, studied, designed (the part where schools help you think you can draw a building) criticized, drawn (the actual construction documents), described (also cd.) , compliant, corrected, submitted, sold, renovated, converted, etc. There's just too much being left out. That's my experience of attending two B.archs in two different countries and also having worked in both of these countries. Building codes are, and were barely mentioned. Professional Practice, A and B to make it sound more complete!, seems to have been just added to programs as a way to comply with NAAB, and I greatly enjoyed and appreciate the effort, which felt more like a gesture that came in the form of oh and by the way there's all this other world, the real world, that you just don't know and we didn't want you to know. The amount of reality that gets seen by a student remains minimal.
My apologies that I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Reason for my conclusion was that one would imaging that building codes would actually be apart of the educational aspect of learning Architecture. When you said code, I automatically assumed since this thread being overall a SciARC conversation (which it shouldn’t be) you were referring to design through a non conventional method of computer programing, which in todays world has a relevance. I remember when I was studying at SciARC, I had a semester of a seminar in structure at the time, so I wanted to bring that conversation into my studio project. My professor at the time allowed for me to designing through (what I thought at the time) "DDs & CD” with the subtraction of renderings. Simply to talk to the panel about how we can communicate design through construction document as a language of design. It didn’t go well to say the least, when at the time it was a fad to print ceiling to floor renderings of your project. I as a student wanted to know more about the lets say the non sexy aspect of building a building and well I was at the time overlooked from my reviewers for my questing the premise of what designing is without renderings. In the practice of Architecture, why do we render? For our own understanding of a three demential space, that we as designers and conceptual thinker can already see or to sell to the client our idea so they themselves can understand the space. I just wish this moment that we are facing, what comes out of it is overhaul of what the licensing, education, profession has had as a model. This is a hard thing to do because it is set politically to benefit the institutions that run our field. With that said the student have the power, without them the field is dead and none of the higher ups get paid. This shouldn’t be a feel good moment. Both the Basecamp clip and the twitch live stream truly was hard for me to watch. Both For different reasons. Basecamp, the disconnect of the panel and Twitch what the students are still going through because I myself went through the same. What makes me proud is the love I have for SciARC and the students actually taking their voice and using it to empower themselves. Wouldn’t it be a beautiful thing that the institute that actually pushes the envelope of design and architecture be the same institute that revolutionizes our professional practice. This comes from the faculty and the push from students and the conversation they have. I only have this to say to the students. Don’t believe words until you see the change. Don’t give up the fight until you see change. Change is coming and change is up to you because you are connected to this moment. Don’t believe in the corporate answer to what your fighting for. The answer that the conversation started on twitch of faculty members Hearing you. A recycled phrase that corporate America took on all their website during BLM. In realty, the realty that we live in everyday if you were to hear us you would of heard us a long time ago. You hear us because you’re in a state of defense. I'll leave this thread with this writing from Lebbeus Woods On War and Architecture https://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/war-and-architecture-three-principles/ "Architecture and war are not incompatible. Architecture is war. War is architecture. I am at war with my time, with history, with all authority that resides in fixed and frightened forms. I am one of millions who do not fit in, who have no home, no family, no doctrine, no firm place to call my own, no known beginning or end, no "sacred and primordial site." I declare war on all icons and finalities, on all histories that would chain me with my own falseness, my own pitiful fears. I know only moments, and lifetimes that are as moments, and forms that appear with infinite strength, then "melt into air." I am an architect, a constructor of worlds, a sensualist who worships the flesh, the melody, a silhouette against the darkening sky. I cannot know your name. Nor you can know mine. Tomorrow, we begin together the construction of a city.”
Sorry for the long paragraph. The website comment box wasn't large enough for me to write my reply. So I wrote it in my email and copy and pasted it and it formatted it as one long paragraph.
Gotta love Lebbeus! I have the book that compiled his blog!
I also would like to say this isn’t a SciArc thing or a Marrikka Trotter and Tom Wiscombe thing putting them on administrative leave means nothing. It’s actually lighting the blow by saying they are the problem.
If you want to start putting people on administrative leave you’re looking at big percentage of Architecture professors being put on leave, professionals being attacked for their “Architecture malpractice” and schools not teaching students to be professionals.
This is bigger than these individuals and institutions. We have a problem in Architecture at its core and the way institutions teach and professionals hire and treat our students and professionals. At it’s whole.
Do not belittle this problem by throwing a few names around. Hope everyone has an amazing Friday and a enjoyable and successful weekend! :)
I was in Venice in the nineties. I was 24, a cal poly Pomona graduate, I worked first for a woman architect who taught at sci arc and the work was interesting and the projects were “socially conscious”, I worked for her and others as a “consultant” for some I was an actual employee for Several years til I decided to have a baby and didn’t want to put her in daycare (which cost the equivalent of what I was getting paid) and I started my own practice in 1994, still did consulting work for other architects but not in their office (remember when we all couldn’t work from home because of the importance of collaborating”) People told me it would never work because I was not committed to the profession. I can remember leaving the studio I shared with another architect and he said, are you going home? It was 6 and I said “I have a baby at home that I’m paying a babysitter to watch and I am not going to design the shit out of a project when people don’t want to pay me to do that, I have more important things to do.” (And the kids dad did work 60 hrs plus a week til he had a stroke.)
i still do put my loved ones before architecture and I’m not going to do things for free, my time and my life and the lives of my loved ones are more important. And the profession has to stop doing shit for free, we are valuable assets to the world and we deserve more. So let’s make the profession a better place to be,
In a more extended and supportive tone, I’ll say it again,
A student-organized 'base camp' talked about some positive experiences of recent graduates who are working in good places after graduation. Noticeably is that students were supportive of their classmates and other recent graduates and current students. The language reflected current generational thinking and it had a survivalist tone. The times are different than throwing rocks and barricading the gates, these guys are talking clearly about the nonpaying and/or abusive jobs and employment/internship exploitations surfaced on 'base camp' panels and saying those jobs are not the only ones. Very useful messages and very calmly stated.
I am an ancient graduate and this whole event wouldn't bode very well with my classmates. Barricades and banners would be set up. These students and recent graduates, however, soft-spoken, are, smarter. We were combatants. It worked decades ago but perhaps the tactics have changed.
It is like an SCI-Arc tradition. Now and then students rise against the situation that bothers them. It is in the school's DNA. Sort of checks and balances. The school itself got its start with an uprising of voiceful faculty and forceful students.
Knowing some of the panelists in the base camps, they are not necessarily evil people nor are they there to exploit students. If they were, why would they openly talk this way in public? Naïve, cocooned, or arrogant? Maybe. Some of them believe they are helping the students. I know TW has personally worked to get full scholarships to some low-income students I know of. I don’t think anybody needs to be demonized. Most likely they pay minimum wage if not upwardly more. I don’t know the amount and I hope it’s more than what Amazon pays in the warehouses or the maximum they can afford. No need to hold a carrot if any.
Though, I am certain of this; the architectural workforce is a different culture now with better life quality expectations and recognition of their creative labor. This is a good wake-up call from the bottom up. The so-called boutique office fringes that some of the panelists operate aren't at the center of today's architectural practice where thousands of new graduates find employment.
I don't think their situation is unique in any way. This is everywhere. Everyone is paying attention because it is happening at SCI-Arc. As said by many commenters, this is a cancerous problem of the profession at large.
I value my education at SCI-Arc. Many of us do. It was during the school’s formative years and it was like no other school with free-flowing ideas and freedom. Animated as such, “Hey Ray, can I work on a space colony instead of a building project on earth?” Ray would say, “yes, but it better be good.” There are a lot of exceptionally good people at the school now and we had great people teaching then. There is work to do and it is good that students zeroed in on what’s bothering them. They have a voice rarely seen in today’s higher education institutions let alone in private schools. Not everyone studying at SCI-Arc is coming from wealth. It must be painful but this is what needed to happen. I trust handled well and justly the future of school will be healthier and more sustainable. SCI-Arc is a feisty place but a family of forward thinkers nevertheless. My wish is that Ray Kappe and his comrades’ legacy and what came after them will survive better than ever. Walk and talk together.
Stronger and courageous.
nicely said Orhan. Totally agree that this should not be about punishing individuals. That would probably be a mistake even. How we work is changing, as are expectations. The more it can be systemic the better we will all be, especially if it leaves room for people to take risks at the edges without being so exploitative. Working out how to do that is the hard part. Hopefully not impossible.
Thanks for you comments Orhan. Have you spoken directly to any students that have worked for TW? I recommend that you do. Plenty of big corps that commit wrongs also support worthy charitable causes. I’m glad that the students and Alum are standing up. All of this is said with respect to you and all of the commentors
No, I haven't. Today I listened to this. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1pYo-EpODCsQYdnvWcJLywo3qRB75gQjl
It would be so awful to be fired and the next day you have to show up for the class thaught by the same people who fired you. Or, the other way around.
I suggest instructors should only hire after the student
graduate.
Otherwise you are going to have crossovers, disappointments, and even greater problems
. On both sides.
I'll do you one better Orhan. Professors, should not be allowed to hire former students, for a period of time; 3 years. Arbitrary, I know.
Sci-arc is one of the most expensive architecture schools in the world (by far). The problem is that these students are going to have major student debt problems (unless they come from money). That leads to easy exploitation from certain school professors and employers.
The industry needs to charge more for our services so that we can all pay better/be paid more. And unfortunately, some people may need to find alternative (design) jobs.
The bigger problem is the industry's financial management. Real world architects (not academic exploiters), have to fend an unsurmountable array of issues for running a firm, as well as all forms of regulatory mandates that makes running a firm as a "business" extremely complex, while institutions like the AIA are just a froth in ether offering no viable solution or support.
My wife and I are real world architects. We started our firm 10 years ago and it's been a struggle to survive every day. In 10 years we have never hired anyone. Not 1 person. Why? Not because we don't want to, but because we simply can't afford it. We don't get paid enough. We will not "hire" an intern to work for "free." If you come to work for us, we should pay you fairly for your labor and for your service. Maybe one day we'll be financially able to do that, but until that time comes, we'll just keep up the struggle.
Is this a form of cancel culture? Faculty members sharing their formative experiences from a different context and time should not be put in a punitive position of administrative leave. Instead offer different voices, and bring those who can offer a different path into their starting line.
Where's the critical thinking here?
The premise of the article assumes that the architectural 'bosses' are living a lavish lifestyle by abusing or exploiting their interns. But the fact is architects are getting paid with peanuts to start with, with an ancient and inflexible remuneration scheme, even for the most famous of the famed. Where's the extra $ to go around? Instead of protest, bring value. What is that expertise which makes an architect indispensable?
The paradox is, that the head of SciArc titled his position as a "CEO" but is acting more like a typical academic administrator by throwing his faculties under the bus when shit hits the fan.
#StillWaitingForTheDayArchitectsCanProtestTheirWayToHigherDesignFees
Yeah, instead of being upset by the fact that you're exploited, use it to light a fire under your ass and BRING VALUE so the boss can finally LIVE that lavish lifestyle. You'll have to trust that the gains will trickle down at that point, because there's nothing here except hopeful bloviating.
How does that boot taste?
Medical interns make $80,000 a year and are referred to as 'Doctor". They are awarded their MD upon graduation from medical school and before starting their internship or residency.
The issue is much deeper than those firm owners not paying their employees fairly, or work-life (im)balance. Their business model is deeply flawed.
I am specifically referring to the household names of Architecture, idolized by students. These Architects benefit from their access to cheap or free labor from academia, to take on speculative project/competitions that in turn strengthen their brand and enables them to get the fancy projects. This is however is an artificially sustained business model that relies on an abusive power dynamic, and that leaves behind a big trail of wastefulness: wasted energy on renderings/drawings only used as branding apparatus, and drained overworked humans.
In my opinion, the discussions should not focus on the symptoms (overworked and poorly paid employees) but on bigger systemic problems.
For example, one area of potential improvement is access to public projects (schools, libraries...Etc). In Europe, it happens through public and open competitions. This enables the young and still unknown architecture firms to get access to bigger commissions. which then levels the playing field and does not leave such an unfair advantage in the hands of a few selected firms, who use this exclusive access to lure eager and impressionable students into an exploitative agreement.
This, is not a solution to systemic problems. Solutions to systemic problems typically involve upending "systems". For instance, NAAB, which is responsible for architecture school accreditation, should be revamped, or include criteria that measures tangible outcomes, and predatory practices that exist inside architecture programs, and require as part of their accreditation to not exist. Second, NCARB; should be abolished. Third, the AIA SHALL make it a policy for member firms to not allow unpaid labor to exist, divest itself from the prison industrial complex, and purge firms that do not adhere to these principles. Systemic change, requires hard choices.
As a practicing firm owner that started graduated in the late 90's I cannot agree more with Sami_Elk's comments. After my graduation, it was common practice to work in a "celebrity" architect's office for free, just to have their name on your resume. This was not limited to the Architecture practice, but at the time an article came out about interns "paying" Sony Pictures to actually intern at their office.
As you hinted at, this is an issue endemic to cultural industries - from VFX to fashion to film and sports. These are all star-making businesses, which has skewed power structures in themselves (They are top-heavy in terms of influence, in that the top dog has an outsized impact on the work and pay structure relative to those below) and in their relationships with their sources of work (Cue VFX houses going bankrupt after working on major projects - or architects working with developers)
A couple things:
It pains me that this discussion has to be centered on SCI-Arc.
Katherine, thank you for the summary and explanations. It is helping to understand this controversy that is going on. While I am not going to directly attack the 'accused', I will directly condemn the idea of unethical exploitations of students (such as but not limited to those exploitations associated with the controversy at SCI-Arc) in any educational institutions regardless of profession but definitely that condemnation applies to unethical exploitations in any architecture school.
The bigger problem is the industry's financial management. Real world architects (not academic exploiters), have to fend an unsurmountable array of issues for running a firm, as well as all forms of regulatory mandates that makes running a firm as a "business" extremely complex, while institutions like the AIA are just a froth in ether offering no viable solution or support.
As an example, a real estate agent receives a 3% (sometimes 6%) commission on a property transaction. That is 3% of the selling price (of a house for example). While architects, if they are lucky charge 5% of the "construction cost", which when translated will be roughly equal to 2.5% of the selling price of the house. In comparison an agent spends X amount of hours selling the house, while an architect spends about 8X those hours.
Furthermore, to complicate this matter architects try to low bid each other to try to get projects, with fees seen in the 1%-2% range. This comes from the lack of any type of oversight, unionization and strong association in the profession. What comes out of AIA and CAB are either punitive measures or fluff.
This is a valid point, however financial management and fees regulations are only part of the problem. The other part is the value of our service. A real estate agent, for example, offers a quantifiable service measured in market performance.
What do we offer? If it is "good design", then most often it is a highly subjective quality, especially for the average client with budget as the highest priority. If this attribute isn't appreciated enough by the client, the architect ends up working on "design quality" for his own gratification first, and at his own expense. Which obviously means, at the expense of his paid or unpaid employees.
Right now the service an architect offers is a blur between an intangible side: Design/problem solving and a tangible side: permitting and construction management. The tangible side is easy to value, the problem is that it can be taken over by contractors, engineers, and other non-lisenced designers...which is why there have to be some regulatory barriers.
The intangible side is harder to price. Similar to any creative service, it involves branding, selling exclusively and uniqueness, bragging rights....etc. I think the solution here would be creative licensing.
These two sides would have to be valued separately if we want to reinvent a viable business model. Maybe we can imagine a world with design architects selling creativity (smart contracts?) And executive architects selling performance and quantifiable services.
I think your point here is quite interesting andrewwood and Sami EK, although there are many studies that... just like a good staging of a house for sale, a "good" design can translate both into construction cost efficiency and ROI. One thing to look at is that at one point in time architects actually had a flat percentage fee, which actually "balanced the scale" a bit when it came down to the concept of quality. Part of the issues faced by the industry today is that owners/developer need to seek out and understand value and quality and go through a fairly extensive exercise to determine where value lies. This is part of why you see established firms with a roster of repeat clients wherein the architecture/design firm and developer have found a symbiotic value proposition. Part of the issues facing many small offices is a competition to survive until they find a valued partnership and determine their unique value proposition.
Us putting "good" between brackets is exactly the issue. and I don't think it's neither fair nor realistic to expect clients to abide by our insider definition of architectural quality.
Especially when we're talking about aesthetics, where what we have been educated to appreciate as architects, is wildly different from what the average person sees as an ideal living environment. If we're talking about cost efficiency and performance, then these are areas where we will be more and more challenged by other specialized experts, unless there are regulatory barriers. Furthermore, our methods of post-occupancy need to be improved for our claims to have any legitimacy, then the building performance can be tied contractually to a financial incentive.
So can good design be quantified? can we analyze the performance of a building in terms of well being of its occupants, the way it enhances the urban environment, and the way it uses/saves energy? Because then only, will we be able to have a tangible value proposition to clients.
Until that happens, we as architects can only be brands operating in the intangible business of status signaling, or disposable service providers.
Well, what you are suggesting Sami EK is that the root of the problem is the disconnect between ownership (operation), design, and construction and that the only solution is to increase data fidelity over the course of a project as well as increase the levels of integration across disciplines. That's a pretty bold enterprise...not that it isn't occurring or being investigated...but from experience, it does mean re-writing the entire industry's approach which is not a small undertaking...To that end, my point is that most people that know (contractors and developers) what they value can appreciate and look for the value that architect's bring, not all, but at least some. What we have is a gap between this knowledge and the vast sea of other clients (with no experience of what it takes to build or finance building) and architects without a clear sense of value that they are bringing to the table. So part of this can also be an opportunity about the importance of educating about the built environment (to the general public) and on positive business and management practices (within the architectural profession) that underline their value propositions.
I’m so happy to see students taking action. I graduated from SCI-Arc in 2015, and was happy to work at Gensler straight out of the graduate program. I knew it provided a steady pay check with solid benefits; things I couldn’t find after graduating from my indergraduate program in the middle of the recession.
Unlike some SCI-Arc students who had their parents paying tuition and acting as a safety net for unpaid work, I was unable to work for the faculty who ran their practices on long hours of unpaid students. It was clear those students were favored, and being taken advantage of.
Gensler was not only a stable job, but a perfect firm for networking, getting licensed, and starting to save for retirement. It gave me the skills I needed (and lacked from SCI-Arc) to get the position I have today, which is ultimately where I wanted to be.
I understand interns can’t always be paid well, but skilled labor is hard to find. Students need to be taught to value themselves, regardless if they need the money.
I was thinking of how Amazon got into trouble -- it seems they didn't treat their warehouse workers with respect and humanity. Architects should obviously treat their workers well. Offer profit sharing, comp time, path to ownership, and decency in supervision and mentoring. That's a competitive advantage in any labor market.
As an alum, I’m proud to support the students who are speaking up and impacting change.
Though I don’t know the source of these recordings, I feel compelled to share the audio from the town hall because more transparency is desperately needed.
https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/1pYo-EpODCsQYdnvWcJLywo3qRB75gQjl
You are free to form your own opinions, but I must commend these students for their courage and ability to drive the conversation.
If these people are the future thought leaders for this profession, then the future is bright.
Wow, was that Thom Mayne that got his ass handed to him around 19 mins in the conversation? Kudos SCIARC students, f em all!
Just to clarify - by "f em all" I mean "f the establishment"
Most of Architecture as a profession should be closed down asap! 200 thousand dollars on an overrated poorly taught degree that doesn't even result in a professional license upon graduation, instead demands that you work without pay or for the minimum Wage for many years before a "real" job cones along!
This monster of a career should be illegal and shut down completely. Let the builders, social scientists artists and engineers take over!
Those exploitative schools and professional architects who expect free labor should be sued and charged for crimes against the people! Leaders who benefit from such a system, one devoid of savings and of health insurance should be forced to pay restitution to their workers or do prison time. A profession that offers only inequality should be closed down, reformed and re constituted with new guidlines! What arrogance!
Odd, how a four-year civil engineering graduate majoring in structures can make a very handsome starting salary while architecture graduates start with very low incomes.
I was expecting an avalanche of Deans' statements and/or pledges from schools across the country about where they stand on this issue within their own ranks. I have yet to see one . . . I have yet to even have a statement land in my inbox from my own institution!
Thanks to Archinect for continuing to bear down into these issues in a rigorous and meaningful way.......recommend digging through the archives for previous articles. To that end, Sean Joyner's excellent piece "Debunking Architecture's Mythological Work Culture", published yesterday, deftly extends this conversation.........
https://archinect.com/features...
The fallacy that equates sacrifice (Trotter's "commitment") to excellence, and promotes the toxic "master and servant" relationships, as presented in the Basecamp discussion and the culture of academia and the profession, has permeated and debased our profession for too long. Similarly, the promotion of a religious work-life synthesis (as promoted by the panel and translated again to commitment/sacrifice) devalues the holistically developed individual and how those external experiences/expertise contribute to the betterment of the whole of an office, and work.
Sean states this much more clearly:
"It is time to value people over projects, individuals over industry, compassion over concept."
Also thanks to the open semi-democratic internet.....(even though we are all, liberal, conservative, moderate or "intersex"..... are all under NSA surveillance) They, meaning those in power have chosen to keep public channels of expression wide open for everyone to see and debate! Thanks! Nothing in architecture will improve if it cannot be openly debated and discussed in a civil manner without authoritarian "bully" censorship.
A fine article that covers many aspects of this issue quite well. However you should make one correction to a factual error. Katherine Guimapang mentioned the infamous "you'll spend an hour working on bathrooms" comment. This was not the quote, which was, actually “maybe you’ll be drawing bathrooms for a year.” Margaret’s comment followed a statement from Duane Oyler about young architects having very few options. So much to unpack, here.
First, Duane is very incorrect. This is an incredibly hot market for architects with skills. There are many options and most pay quite well. What you are seeing displayed from the three panelists is a genuine fear that students will figure this out quickly and see that the offices they run are a very poor choice, relatively. That’s why they work hard to instill the fear of a poor “pedigree.”
Secondly, I doubt very much that Margaret knows anything about life working in a “corporate” office, much less Gensler. The “bathroom” comment is incredibly out of touch.
1. I guarantee you that no employee at Gensler has ever spent a year drawing bathrooms.
2. Does Margaret actually believe that corporate firms draw a much higher percentage of bathrooms than her own office does? Who draws Margaret’s bathrooms?
3. Most importantly, why disparage bathrooms? Drawing a well-designed bathroom is a highly valuable and necessary skill which, I am guessing, SCI-Arc spent very little time (maybe an hour?) discussing. To me, this speaks to the many value-judgments made about what is the “right” way to “be” in an office that has very little to do with the Profession that an institute purports to be training for.
The message here is that: Unless you leave SCI-Arc and become a Conceptual Designer and run your own office (full of unpaid SCI-Arc students), we will consider you a failure. And don’t worry, if you need to come back and teach this mind-set to the next generation in order to make ends meets, we’ll be here for you.
On bathrooms, I remember at my first job (paid, fulfilling, and all while a full-time student) hanging out with some recent GSD graduates at lunch. They ranted and raved about a professor who taught a theory seminar on bathrooms- I believe he may have even published a book. His name escapes me. Bathrooms are rich design fodder.
On Gensler, that office seems to have the most fulfilled workforce imaginable. I teach at CCA. Art Gensler was a key figure in bringing an architecture program to the school. Gensler a thinking office. When they hire our students, they're not looking for cadbots or renderbots, they're looking for critical thinkers.
Yes I did work a few weeks on bathroom layouts straight out of undergrad. The work was grueling (drawing tiles on ACAD 12), but learnt quite a bit about reducing tile residue etc stuff...good times...
1. alexandar kira was a cornell professor in the 60's who wrote a book entirely on bathroom design. interestingly he was one of art gensler's professors, and there is some interview where gensler talks about how kira was an important figure in his education, on teaching him to appreciate the value of thoughtful design in things architects typically ignored.
2. totally agree - there is a misleading notion among academic practitioners that professional practice in big firms forces people into doing dreadful work. a dislike of this pretentious attitude specifically is what motivates many people to go into corporate practice, and some of us find out we enjoy it. just because work is fairly paid doesn't mean it's not valuable...
Alexander Kira! I had Alex Krieger stuck in my head, but that couldn't be more wrong. Thanks for that! That particular office I worked for hired heavily from the GSD (being in Boston) but did indeed have a big Cornell contingent . . . it's all becoming clear . . . The office I worked for was Perry Dean Rogers and Partners. They were (are?) a hardcore real office, but in terms of design demeanor and office culture, it was relatively progressive. It was a great introduction to my future.
Tom still owes me money.
Don't get me started on everything else I've seen.. lol
Big firms (without referring to names) are not the answer to the structural problems of an economically flawed professional system. Large firms prefer staffers to be very young, under 35 years old and often layoff older staffers with older technology skills, (instead of providing re-training opportunities) thus, the larger firms openly practice age discrimination as a result of these harsh late-capitalist-era Darwinian employment practices! So yes, the entire architecture profession has structural problems with a terrible business model!
Maybe reform is just not possible in Architecture? If so there needs to be a national restitution/ retribution fund that older architects can tap into with class action lawsuits or effective State and Federal mandates that force all former Architecture employers above a certain revenue size who benefitted from the at-will non-union hire and fire benefits system they perpetuated to pay out livable pensions to all those hundreds of thousands of architects that they let go and laid off without cause who are now unable to ever retire! This is the ultimate consequence of your venerated unpaid intern winner-takes-all professional system of very low lifetime salaries for most architects. 40 to 50 years later most architects are still almost "stone-broke"! (lacking in capital)....a broken system of broken dreams for most people who studied Architecture when they were young!
I don’t think the comment accurately singles out large firms as preferring younger staff. I would say that behavior is more prevalent in smaller firms, in my experience. And your comments about proper pensions is a systematic issue with the entire country, and not architecture, specifically. Certainly a problem, to be sure. Some firms are much better than others in preparing staff for retirement.
You may be accurate. Everyone has perceptions regarding their own personal experiences that may or may not be statistically-based, but these long range projections of systemic economic problems for architects and many others are so rarely discussed in a calm rational forum like this one, that somebody needs to post it as relevat to the on-going discussion, even if the specifics are indeed half-baked".
I'm coming a little late to this, so my point might have already been discussed. I thank you, Katherine, for your timeline breakdown, I have just started watching and didn't quite skip forward enough to the 20 minute mark, started watching at about 10 minutes in.
Without having watched further, I would add to your timeline of alarming comments:
00:10:30 - ? Margaret's comments re: culture people not being "entitled" to be in an office, followed by framing their office as an atelier, a place for "creative work" differentiated from a corporate office where you work 9-5, as if a "buying-in to a vision" (Margaret's words) is mutually exclusive from working sustainable hours.
This mindset undermines the whole profession. It sets up a position where graduates (or or employees) should just be grateful they have employment at all, let alone get paid their worth, for their time or for the value they bring to a project.
I would encourage students to lose their passion for architecture, and instead be interested in working in architecture. Having a passion for something means you will do it for free, because you enjoy it. Enjoy getting paid instead, doing work that interests you.
Your clients (at the very least) are making a shit-tonne of money off your skills and efforts, even if your "poor-at-business-because-I-run-an-atelier" employers aren't. You can still do great art and get paid while working 9-5. Work hard, just keep it to reasonable hours to allow for recreation.
I know the whole world is sitting back, eating their popcorn, and watching the dumpster fire...
But the real story here is that finally, the inspiring and founding SCI-Arc spirit was brought back by the current students.
Congratulations to them. They won everybody's respect and support.
Now they are forever part of the school's soul.
Much work needs to be done, starting from the board of directors... Nothing should be or can be shoved under the table. This is a nationwide dissent.
I guess so, Orhan. But it also seems that the whole issue has quietened down, and things will go back to their old ways again. Then again, everything is so slow in this profession - the fact that an instructor well known to be extremely unprofessional, egotistic and frankly just bad gets ousted after nearly 20 years of this behavior goes onto prove how asinine the whole system is. The top brass at SciArc is obviously shaken as this is probably the only full time gig they will ever get, but it also seems like the "uprising" has to be of a much larger scale, in many more colleges, to have a big difference.
My sense, uninformed as it is, is that there will be a slap on the wrist, possibly a demotion or 2, but not the wholesale change that is needed. If that comes to pass it will be extremely unfortunate and demoralizing for the students who remain, and will tarnish the reputation of SCIArc as change agents within the profession, which I think the school has disconnected from for quite some time.
I'm confident that SCI-Arc will overcome this. Luckily, most (or all, if it's still the case) instructors are not tenured.
SCI-Arc has reinvented and rebuilt itself many times over. Though a bit chaotic, it adapts well. There's plenty of folks who'd be down to come in and be a part of that process. :)
Yeah, almost all of the Design faculty
A petition:
https://www.sciarcalumnipetiti...
As the great COOPHIMMELB(L)AU once said... "Architecture must blaze..." (1980)
Coming from COOP, that summarizes the hypocrisy perfectly
#Sciarcentology
I’ve sadly lost most of my connection to SCIArc. I put much of this on the self-serving reign and-propaganda of EOMoss - although it likely happened more broadly with the shifted focus and financial straits of the school as it moved downtown - along with the rise of suited professors, and full-on computer love around that time. The place went from ‘break-away’ beach-side coalition (undoubtedly with its own nostalgic, mythological baggage, and - I expect - always having its share of clan-mentality) to a metropolitan machine-mafia, in just 50 years. That’s a pretty sharp trajectory - and it’s now got all the nepotistic/matrimonial hirings paired with bloated, top-heavy salaries to go along with it.
While I’m admittedly a bit out of touch with the on-the-ground situation there - I’m inclined to believe the litany of accounts of faculty-perps in the practice of ‘experience-first’ incentivization. As-noted in the recent Times article there is a long-standing apprentice-mentality in the profession. If conducted morally, I’m not positive this construct should be wholly swept away; like most things, it really depends on the context, and the question of how a person estimates value. I certainly don’t blame the students for rebelling, since my sense is that they’ve largely been sold a product that now estimates itself on-par with a Berkley or Columbia - where one goes-in expecting a host of regimented internships, ‘merit-based’ awards/scholarships, and top-down programs as part of the package. While SCIArc may have long had their own twist on these features, these always seemed tertiary. While there’s undoubtedly always been disappointments with the amenities, course-breadth, and consistency of instruction [particularly compared to the sexy promo copy they’ve always been skilled at putting-out], I can’t help but feel that recent incoming students’ expectations must be a bit different than they once were (with the price-tag certainly suggesting so).
My enrollment there came with a vivid cognizance that we’d be involved in a kind of shop-lab, not fully expectant of the kind of padded outcomes that other schools may champion. A space to try and to make, alongside peers. As a result, one main goal & asset of attending was to be put in-touch with others that may share some kinship [a school service which, in digital age, has theoretically diminished in value]. This co-op mentality surely still exists there in many ways, but basd on visits, the framework feels different.... From the security questions at the gate, to the trendy shops surrounding it, to the need to submit a letter of intent simply to use the fabrication shop (which always felt to be the pillar holding-up the head of the school).
This leads me to be of mixed-minds about this latest hoopla. Mentors who abuse their position/standing should be held accountable (particularly professors - but professionals too, albeit though a different lens), and importantly: suffer the negative reputations that come from their actions. My observations are that - in general - with exposure and growth inevitably come a less focused, less hands-on, less communal outcome. I used to feel that the SCI-Arc spirit revolved around a break from secure paths, in the effort to build new inroads within the practice. This is hardly to belittle those that went-on to pursue more corporate directions - but merely to say that SCI-Arc always felt - at its best - more of an ‘anything-goes’ experience. With this uncertainty comes a reliance on the mutual respect of its operatives for a sustained existence. There was indeed a value to the experience gained there, as well as the potential for collaboration and critique both with and from peers & teachers.
There was also an intuitive compromise involved in working against the grain (and/or the supply/need quotient), when compared to more straightforward education-to-career paths. My instinct is that in the effort to legislate greater student protections may also risk some of the small-school character that has defined the school. Moving ahead, students and fellow faculty should indeed have more of a say in selecting & maintaining their body; the level of real improvement will lie in the details of how any upcoming maneuverings are resolved and managed.
As institutions expand [and attract a more international body, perhaps more prone to exploitation] it makes sense that programs like internships must become more regimented and monitored. And yes: people shouldn’t work for free, out of principal if not necessity. This said, there’s some irony to the idea that many of the same ideologues that may suggest the Dollar not be the end-all crux in one’s life also insinuating that salary/benefits be the prime compensatory metric for one’s efforts. This, particularly for someone coming-out of a school now charging $50K(?) / year for an education which - however potentially well-rounded - most often positions an outgoing student about a craft that operates in a relatively luxurious (and so, limited and competitive) realm.
While there are now more discreet niches for ‘creatives’ to forge their own solvent path than ever before - these fresh avenues are only so broad, and ventures of faith still benefit from funding reserves and personal ties. Commenters comparing compensations of licensed architects to [say] medical doctors - or even engineers - seem a bit myopic: the comparisons of professionalism, mental acuity, and work ethic are certainly not out of place - but their on-the-ground existence within our society are. In short: it’s much easier to opt-out from your architect’s services. The realities are that on-the-whole, creatives will always need to weigh their passions with their incomes, mainly because - particularly (and increasingly) at smaller scales - their work’s end-clients often understand [and sometimes exploit] this fact. I don’t see making this point as perpetuating subordinate conditions as much as to observe that creativity is in vast abundance in our society. A lesson in expressing your value well is thus a critical one - however you outwardly espouse or mock the importance of “getting shit done”. Those pursuing their own workspace know this.
I’m not sure see a route out of this leverage imbalance, outside the realm of subsidized projects (which do have their value - and perhaps should be expanded like some have suggested - but are also rife with their own inherent sludge), or the continued coalescing into larger and larger companies. ‘Professional’ studio environments are a curious situation, since many of them start-out as collaborative efforts built on unified drive and vested interests. These are tough attributes to scale-upwards - and are also easy to see bleeding backwards into school and student/mentor projects/relationships, where things can get sticky. Guidelines which need-be explicitly required at a more corporate level, may be counterproductive at a small studio environment, work cooperative, or school laboratory, where core values of trust and respect are more tangible, and proximate (this is certainly not to say that a much larger office team can/should/do operate this way, but to observe that these characteristics are not as much at the crux of the organization’s survival. There will always be ample room for reshuffling personnel - or for personnel to shuffle themselves, without much brake in the gears.
If you aim to work as part of an outfit which positions itself as a kind of think-tank or a competition-centric operation, then [as some have already pointed-out] this mental capital will always be more difficult to quantify than the ‘full service load’ of larger operations, able to - for instance subsume the manufacture of their designs, or hone the logistical expertise required for them to materialize, or secure windfall projects able to cover the losses of more thoughtful ones. I would expect a college-level student to grasp this reality, and make decisions around what degree of this spectrum they wish to engage; it’s certainly not a black/white kind of reality - but there are real goals and subsequent constraints which guide these workplace characteristics... I believe this is what these professors wished to convey.
And if it happens to simply be top-down ego that’s guiding the dubious office environment (as is often the case), then there's said old-school mechanism of rep that keeps people from heading towards those positions; Students said, "This is crap; I'm not doing it" - which makes sense. Certainly there’s a grip of platforms now which aim to quantify and qualify this ‘office character’, that didn’t always exist. So: as seductive as the cited meme is, I do feel that there is a certain amount of lifestyle choice involved in your employment decisions; a more secure paycheck may come from working at the gas station, probably come from working at a larger company, and will almost certainly come from being a nurse administrator. One type of “labor” (as dank puts it) is just not equal to another... Until there was a demand created for people to watch other people play video games, one did not get compensated to do-so - and I’m not sure even a well-oiled AIA can (or should) strong-arm this into being, for your small-office architect.
I understand it feels good (and often worthwhile) to shout ‘reform’, and am skeptically curious to see if this latest iteration manages to manifest any changes at a universal level, without a chunky layer of clinical bureaucracy filtering through it all. My best memories of that school felt mainly untethered from this kind of weight. To me, this issue more a question and/or indictment of the role of institutions in developing people’s professional standing - and how one lumps/disentangles pure education from the monetary repercussions of partaking in this established ‘guild’. I don’t think there are easy answers.
On a related note, I can’t say I understand NCARB’s interest (as I understand it) in reducing experience requirements from licensure, except to see this as one further attempt by institutions to weight their importance in the credentialing process (or candidates without work experience clamoring for leniency). If anything, it seems like experience should be more heavily weighted -- instead maybe relaxing some of the education requirements - at least relative to ethical practice and life/safety. There are many talented and skilled workers in the field, who may have chosen a path outside of grad school - and for my 2-cents, there should be more. Another area I’ve always been disappointed with is the amount of true interdisciplinary collaboration there is at the university level - to enable increased translation into professional services (many of whom currently love to banter this facet, but rarely seem able to successfully put it into practice). This may offer potential towards integrating varied skill-sets throughout the related fields - and perhaps allow some ‘trickle-up creativity’ to become more pervasive. It may very-well be that “architects” as we know them will continue to disseminate themselves amongst offices of builders, engineers, planners, set-designers, gamers, etc. Of course, this scenario suggests to me that schools (and yes: all the mediocre academic & professional bodies) need to be significantly reconstituted; I’m not sure I hold-up much hope of this happening in the near-term.
legends unto themselves...
in any event it only takes a child to say that the emperor or empress has no clothes.
Being in an office entails knowing how to work in teams, which in turn entails knowing yourself, and this is part of a holistic education that very rarely is gifted to students. If you are not a naturally sociable person, for example, you should be comfortable with this fact about yourself before joining a firm or else you will become a walking knot of anxiety-induced symptoms. I went into the professional world without this elemental foundation and the highly regrettable cost of irredeemably burning bridges at an office that I venerate to this day. The truly minuscule size of the professional world and the concept of reputation were completely unknown to me until after I made this grave mistake. Had I accepted myself and had I been at peace with myself, I would have always worked with small firms, where the social pressure is much less and you are closer to being an important element of a team. Something I am currently learning is knowing your true worth. This entails further examination of yourself, how much value you can bring to a team, listing your weaknesses honestly and your strengths transparently. Mental health should be offered to workers as well, everyone deals with factors and we end up seeing coworkers more than we see our dear ones.
It is perplexing to hear the words "side hustle" from a respected institution like SciArc. I left my country, my friends and family precisely because I didn't want to have to scrape income for a living. I came to the US hoping not to have to do that, but now in 2022 I see myself looking for work on Saturday, as my and my architect partner's income is not enough to cover the brutal hike in the cost of living. Denying the fact that architectural professional should not be made to side hustle and that principals collectively should demand higher rates for all involved in an architectural contracts instead of competing with the lowest rates is ignoring reality
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.