The evidence sits in my refrigerator: chevroned tall boys of Saison ale and a meticulous shortbread fruit tart, both crafted by former co-workers and classmates who initially pursued architecture only to search for fulfillment elsewhere. Photographers, typographers, bakers, bikers, and brewers are all disguised on LinkedIn and Facebook as design interns. There’s a renaissance happening among young architects — and it’s not in architecture. — crosscut.com
87 Comments
hah. I clicked on the link and searched for word Portland. I was off by two hours. Seattle it is. That typographer, biker, brewer is better know as 'homeless dude' on the east coast.
The concerns the author highlights are real, but IMO, not traceable directly back to the economy, rather to the failure of many offices to respond to the opportunities laid out by the current crisis. Models of office hierarchy, project delivery, marketing, and client relations need to change. Technology and demographics are destabilizing all of these things, right when the larger economy is reeling, and also right when there exists a renaissance in architectural education, producing a crop of current students and recent grads that are more diverse and qualified than they've ever been in this country's history (again, that's in my opinion as an educator in four different schools). These students know there's a better way to do things, and in many cases, their bosses are failing them, leaving the best to go to other fields.
I was lucky enough to have experience with one office that recognized this, and is in the process of adapting, but there aren't enough places like that to accept everyone. Those that do will will benefit.
@ Fred Scharmen
I completely agree (as does my office) with your statement above. We believe there is a better way to things and we are atively trying to change the way our industry thinks and works by starting from within our own walls. It is great to hear that this is a growing trend in the industry and I hope the positive change is contagious.
It seems that a lot of Caela's concern lies in the structure of architecture offices and the inability of management at many larger firms to accomodate the skills and attitudes coming out of the educational institutions. I think it's great that she's doing this research. But there is also a much broader critical debate to be had here related to architecture's definition as a creative discipline and how our profession is perceived by society in general. Much has been theorized about architecture which has the ability to be critical of the forces of capital: Adorno, Tafuri, Eisenman, Kipnis, etc. It seemed that a lot of that discussion died out, but there is a resurgence of it with people like Pier Vittorio Aurelli and Reinhold Martin. Unless we maintain and pursue the ability to preserve architecture as a creative act, then we really are fighting a losing battle.
Sounds like some Jerry Maguire crap. This is nothing new. Architecture has always been like this. Who was Vitruvius's assistant? I was kicked around and abused as a draftsman for 5 years and I snapped. I threw a computer, smashed my cubicle, and then was lead out of the building by security. I am now my own boss and happier than ever.
"I don't want to be a product of my environment. I want my environment to be a product of me. Years ago we had the church. That was only a way of saying - we had each other. The Knights of Columbus were real head-breakers; true guineas. They took over their piece of the city. Twenty years after an Irishman couldn't get a fucking job, we had the presidency. May he rest in peace. That's what the niggers don't realize. If I got one thing against the black chappies, it's this - no one gives it to you. You have to take it."-Frank Costello
Where's the patience? These kids today act like they are the first generation to have ever faced adversity and all they do is whine about how they want it fixed, like right now. They think they're so damn smart but they completely lack the wisdom to realize that they've chosen a profession that evolves at a near glacial pace.
To paraphrase the sage Kenny Powers: Listen closely you beautiful bitch because I'm about to fuck your head up with some truth. You don't change architecture, architecture changes you.
Yo!
We teach young architects to do a thousand things at schools, yet the employers, the architecture firms who are one of the main culprits of this problem, look for only one thing, drafting. The irony is, to get those jobs you need one thing that young architects don't have, experience. Even more sad is the fact those job never requires one thing every architect should have, the ability to think critically and solve problems conceptually.
I'll bet anyone $100 this girl voted for Obama!
Maybe we should just start giving architectural licenses out like healthcare. We can have the government force firms to be nicer to the lower people on the totem pole, and listen to their design ideas. This way those who spend 40 years building a decent firm will be on the same level as those just graduating. We will have one big fucking peachy architectural society where everyone is even. Vote Obama in 2013!
@ hartacus
What good is an architectural license?
A license shows you have some general understanding of several fields that create an architect. Architecture is much more than design and concepts. It consist of dedication, responsibility, thorough knowledge of multiple topics, consideration for the future and for environments (this includes codes), structures, bla,bla,bla. Before I got into architecture I was a carpenter for 7 years. I think this should be mandatory opposed to a NAAB school. NAAB shows you all the sexy stuff that never really is used. They do this to keep enrollment up. I never once met someone who just graduated and had an idea of the actual systems they were drawing, even basic residential connections. These were all people from 5 year schools, it's pretty damn scary. I bet this girl has no idea what a bulb tee is and she wants firms to listen to her design ideas. Without a license this idiot would run around calling herself an architect. She might even get her license and still not know what a bulb tee is. LOL
hartacus, what you describe kind of sounds like a free market to me. I thought you republicans are all for that kind of thing. less regulation, more competition? sounds like you want mandates so that you can maintain your monopoly and get cheap labor?
I am not a rebulican. When you have the ability to kill many people in one shot it better well be a somewhat regulated industry.
Please, you know how many duds have come before you and said all that? Back to your cabinetry now dear, the grown ups are talking.
idp is an unfair process. Dumb fucking system. You would think that after this profession contracted by 40% there would be some reform. In some places like amsterdam what you describe above is how it is. Everyone is fine, good architects get projects shitty ones don't. Anyway, have you been outside lately? This country is a fucking architectural mess despite all the hoops.
Maybe archinect should block anonymous comments - I highly doubt any of you would have this sort of discourse with each other in person.
hartacus, your construction background is showing. Clean up your language and resist your impulse to politicize everything and perhaps your critical thinking skills will return.
My take on this is that those who want to and have the skills to design innovative projects will do so whether or not they have a license.
When you compare an AIA license with American Society of Civil Engineers or NSPE (National Society for Professional Engineers) it becomes clear that the AIA and architecture in general, is more focused on maintaining an elite, exclusive club than educating and licensing professionals in a responsible, efficient, and effective manner.
I bet this girl has no idea what a bulb tee is and she wants firms to listen to her design ideas.
I won't listen to anyone's ideas unless they know when it's appropriate to do heat-soak testing. not even the client. if they don't know that shit, they are worthless. WORTHLESS!
i regularly sit in a hot bath, does that count?
the thing about experience is that it takes time to accumulate. you can't get it as a student really no matter how technical the curriculum is because its just a lot of stuff and who cares what a bulbous tee is? we do timber frame construction here mostly. My carpentry skills are a hindrance (seriously, they make me look stupid so i have learned to forget it). and the experience never helped when i was in charge of buildings made from steel and concrete (about 80% of my work after nearly 20 years doing this archi-thing). so yeah whatever.
i am curious what the new nimble firm everyone talks about looks like. we are experts with real estate market in tokyo and that is not so normal amongst our compatriots, but the market is down and that is the real story. money isn't moving and there is no way around that. from what i can see in the usa it is even harder. innovation is cool, but it may be that we need to count the architects working as barristas as the innovators if we are going to be honest about how to deal with the economy as a profession.
Maybe architects need to figure out how to automate drafting.
Indeed, archinect should not allow anonymous users from commenting. Maybe I should create an anonymous account so I can say whatever idiotic and senseless comments on a thoughtful discourse like 'hartacus'.
IDP does not require you to do a good design. Let me say it again, IDP does not have a criteria for good design.
Nicholas Cecchi I agree about the AIA, however; if you were an entrepreneur you would realize politics are involved in every aspect of business especially architecture. Politics is what dictates design.
As for the IDP, how could it require good design? What is good design? What is beauty? Someone might say breaking simple architectural principals *cough Frank Ghery* is beautiful but I find it grotesque and laugh when windows start caving in from snow loads.
I like to compare architecture to driving. No matter how many courses you take, only time and experience will help you become better and more aware.
School is a good introduction to a field that you will always practice in. Maybe my construction history is showing but we always had a saying that people don't learn in school. "Shit rolls down hill".
in carpentry for seven whole years, why, that's barely enough time for me to even consider you capable of building me a desk. get over yourself. while i certainly wont argue against anyone entering the profession from having some experience on a job site, it has less to do with how to build things correctly, or learn some terminology, and more to do with how to deal with shitty contractors, and self-aggrandizing asshats claiming some superiority over another professional.
I have to say of all the complaints I have against the profession, the ones she makes aren't really the ones I care about. She is mad that the completely idealistic and sometimes esoteric architecture education does not match the profession? The balance between pragmatic and academic/theory is an issue for architecture education and not the profession. I for one was totally put off by the esoteric projects in school and happy to move to a world where the rules were real and decisions actually mattered (and to be clear, I love 'progressive' architecture, but the difference between a crazy built project and the average thesis nowadays is still stunning).
The work hours and pay are completely firm dependent. I know many friends who get paid upper middle class salaries* and go home at 6. Id much rather fix the growing trend towards the field being divided between rich young people doing high design for rich old people and everyone else doing work for huge corporations in large firms than any of the problems that she lists, which to me read as general mid 20s ennui that I myself am also guilty of...
*architecture will never be law or investment banking. If you wanted to make 100k a year at graduation, architecture was not the right field. And anyways do architects want the moral ambiguity that comes with those high salaries?
I'd have to agree that architectural education is the main culprit for many a young architects' dissolusion when they enter the profession. For 2,000 years of beautiful history, architecture was taught as a craft. The builder was the architect and vice versa. I wouln't propose to going back to that, unless that's the way one choses, but the distance between what you are taught and what you end up practicing is to wide to be ignored. Imagine having a concept before actually looking at a problem in full? That's what schools teach, that you have to force a solution into your pre-conceived conceptual box. That's just not how the greatest buildings where created. In the real world, addressing the problems a project presents usually gives rise to the best solution, if you have the patience and humility to see where the solutions lead. I feel sorry for the students that bought the crap most schools are selling. As for working like a slave, that's part of the deal, but while you're drafting away, be thinking critically as to how you could improve what you're working on. Not based on some esoteric theories that neither the client or your boss will care about, but on the three foundations of great architecture, firmness, commodity, and delight. People tend to love delightfull things.
Ha ha, as if there is anything "morally ambiguous" about bankers fucking poor communities. But yeah, what architect would even want that job, right?
The thing about architectural education is that people just need to open their eyes and realize that it's basically kindergarten for adults...except you don't even half to color between the lines. For 3-4 years you are allowed to do whatever you want as long as you can argue that there is a reason for it (and, of course, tuition is getting paid). Hell, just the other day someone had the audacity to post that he wasn't sure he should take a job because it didn't look like a fun place with fun people and that it might actually be an office that does work (the horror!)
All of these kids, excuse me, young architects and students need to start realizing that school is for suckers. They've been fuckin' had. Some of them are hip to this of course, but the vast majority are completely clueless.
Yo!
HandsumCa$hMoneyYo - Thank you, at least this bulletin isn't all liberal cry babies.
*b3tadine[sutures] - After 4 years in Local 7 you become a journeyman. I was one with 3 years experience. Architecture has everything to deal with knowing how to build things. If you don't know how to build something how can you tell someone else how to build it? Architecture is the expression of expressing a thought and how to build it. If you're dealing with shitty contractors that's your fault. If a client doesn't listen to my recommendations I wash my hands and let them deal with it. I then charge a fee later on when I have to go back to the site for maintaining existing conditions when it wasn't built according to the plans.
I suggest you watch the video below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E55OcGB0L8o
the article does seem to point more to the gap between reality as low-level architect and the importance of conceptual rigour taught at school, which can be pretty big jump if you don't go to an ivy or similar. not so much about the economy, which to me seemed the more obvious worry. its an interesting perspective i didn't expect.
firmness commodity and delight has never made any sense to me. sounds like the introduction to poetry that robin williams has the kids tear out of their textbook in the dead poets society cuz it kills brain cells.
Will, I'll explain what firmness, commodity and delight means to me, maybe it'll make sense.
Firmness - Build it well. If you're going to invest the recourses and enegry to build, do it well.
Commodity - Make sure you solve the program. Make sure it's commodious, functions well.
Delight - Strive for the Sublime and Beautiful.
If you succeed in these endevors you will have no problem finding work. There's an example of what you call "conceptual rigour" in another blog here entitled "Death Studio" The photographs are beautiful, but they are art, not architecture. If you where to show this work in your portfolio to any number of archtiectural offices I've worked for, I can just imaging the reaction. Let's just say it would be polite. Not to say you won't find a very few conceptual architects that would be interested, it's just that most offices have only one or two poets, so even if you found a sympathetic architect, you'd be hired to do their work.
The images you're referring to are part of a conceptual exploration, not finished "sublime and beautiful" construction drawings, and actually they are sublime. Know what your knockng before you make a move on the Columbia mafia, which has a pretty juiced up employment network.
What is a bulb tee? I did not come across that term in Advanced Kindergarten (btw, Handsome$Yo, we actually used to jokingly call it that when there were long hours of cuttting and pasting and coloring to be had in school!
Indeed, archinect should not allow anonymous users from commenting.
completely disagree - requiring people to use their real name is a form of oppression - being able to comment anonymously allows people like me to speak their mind without fear of repercussion in real-life - you're just trying to shut out voices you disagree with - which is part of the same complaint in the article. Hartacus offers an alternative, albeit quite ridiculous, perspective of the same situation - which - unfortunately - is the attitude of many people in this profession - and is part of the dickish attitude that this article takes issue with.
Editorial,
That's the point. A conceptual exploration is all fine and good, but when you don't even know how a building stands up, don't you think it's putting the cart ahead of the horse? Also, do you really think you could ever produce construction drawings that would closely rememble those images? Not even Frank Gehry's NASA computers could pull that off. Again, enjoy all the conceptual explorations you'd like, just don't be surprised that employers will politely nod when you explain your concept while they stare absentmindedly at your portfolio.
If you don't know how to build something how can you tell someone else how to build it?
we don't tell someone exactly "how" to build something - we just tell them how it's supposed to look and perform. means and methods. you were a f-ing carpenter - would you have liked some asshat architect telling you exactly what order you assemble the millwork? no - you'd tell them to fuck off.
I see the same shit in offices - you get some micromanaging dickhead manager telling their staff exactly what order to do things in and how long each specific task is supposed to take instead of giving them reasonable deadlines and having a basic expectation of how something is supposed to look. there's less and less throwing people into the fire and then providing support when needed - and way more stifling hand-holding along with overly prescribed and discrete (often meaningless) tasks. it's as if people automatically assume that recent grads are incapable of working autonomously. we don't even know how independent contracting is supposed to work.
A conceptual exploration is all fine and good, but when you don't even know how a building stands up, don't you think it's putting the cart ahead of the horse?
I know where you're going with this Thayer, there is not much to be said that hasn't been said before...But come on, do you start every project with a waterproofing detail? There is very little difference between using construction techniques or conceptual exploration as a point of departure for making architecture. As long as the objective is architecture, I don't think it really matters.
On the GSAPP "death" project: it's from a third year student, their project could be relevant if they interviewed with an office that did science facilities, given the content. My other guess is they've dealt with construction techniques. But that is not what architecture school is about, and that's a good thing. Who else is going to invest in adequate research & development, a client? A cladding company? No, the institution does it, because they are the gatekeepers of culture. It's naïve to expect the construction industry to topple it.
It's no surprise that when architects glorify studs and bulb tees the work gets pretty mediocre. Sometimes you don't need an architect for such things, or even architecture school. You only need someone from ITT tech.
Instead of clinging to the sluggish construction industry, architects should topple IT, engulf it, get those those product reps to bend their products to your will, design the whole dam complex down to the doorknobs, make the design process a learning experience for you and the client, and don't be afraid to implement new technologies.
It's no surprise to see a few busy worker bees here quickly blaming education as a trouble-maker. The big problem is how freaking slow this profession is, with everything, in addition to our bad business skills. I think those points are the articles strongest. While I sympathize with the author, I think some young people like her can be better off skipping architecture's dumb apprenticeship process, and instead jump right in to selling their thinking and ideas.
Architects are the last generalists and the economy is strange, unless those things change drastically there will still be 100 different opinions when it comes to this subject.
*different opinions to synthesize.
A good school will help students learn to be flexible problem solvers, thinkers, and makers. This doesn't have to devolve into a debate about whether schools should have students reading french theory or making cabinets all day, that's a false choice.
The problem is that these flexible, creative students come out of school into an environment that is, all too often, afraid, conservative, and highly resistant to change. If they choose to go start food trucks or whatever instead of becoming licensed architects, then good for them.
In this economy, the objective is survival and whether you start with conceptual program or construction detailing will greatly impact your bottom line. I wouldn't start every project with a water proofing detail, but you have to have an understanding of the type of structure you are building and the constraints of the design. If you don't know how to build I see that as an impossible task. Arch school should have mandatory summer work programs where the students are building. Swinging a hammer helps for maybe a year or two, but two years need to be in a GC type role. Paper architecture is crap if you don't understand what the hell the lines on the paper mean.
On anonymity
anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.
...responsibly used.
the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
- mcintyre v. ohio elections commission 514 u.s. 334 (1995) justice stevens writing for the majority
though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.
"This gap between what we yearned for architecture to be and what it really was, I believed, was the seed of our disenchantment with the profession, and our impetus for leaving it."
This is the nut of the issue that should be dealt with straightforwardly. Take another quote from the author..."Our self-chosen senior thesis topics, the culmination of our architectural educations, were small windows into our souls. Those projects may not have been designed with real-world constraints, but they symbolized an emotional connection to something — music, travel, cultural heritage, sustainability, humanitarianism — that we felt should be inherent in any project but was missing from the ones we now found ourselves working on into the bleak hours of the morning. "
Why aren't students told that clients won't pay for your personal journey? Haven't they been taught how many a great historical buildings have been rooted in practical issues, yet the really great architects where able to impart some other personal agenda along side the practical requirements to be fullfulled? Saying interns "can be better off skipping architecture's dumb apprenticeship process, and instead jump right in to selling their thinking and ideas" is the same kind of mal-practice most architectural schools engage in. It reminds me of Mitt Romney suggesting that young people should just borrow money from their parents and start a business. It don't work like that, and the shame of it is if schools where a bit more realistic about what students should expect, we wouldn't loose so many architects to cynicism.
That's like saying a someone studying writing shouldn't ever choose their own topic, because you're just going to get assigned work by an editor, anyway, if you're even lucky enough to get a job.
We owe our students more than that. Again, there's no false choice between theory or practice or self directed work vs. constraints. A good school will provide support for all of these things. Thankfully, students are spoiled for choice, and we have other regulatory bodies checking on curriculum periodically.
I see a lot of people here that seem unhappy with their own educational experience, and taking it out on on some straw-man "esoteric" curriculum as a proxy.
Oddly, despite what I've said in the past, the nature of architecture school doesn't really bother me. It does have value in its right. What I do find baffling is that the young students of today (despite having ample resources such as archinect that allow them to much greater access to the realities of architecture than any previous generation) still feign shock when they are finally exposed to the realities of the working world.
They have been warned, yo!
Because another world is possible, yo!
No. Not really.
Yo!
Well said Editorial.
I think there is a funny kind of animosity toward the educational system. Architects like that remind me of former hippies who turned into investment bankers. just because life forced them into conformity, they blame the ignorance of youth rather than their own inability to transition their ideals into adulthood. The architecture profession is burdened by a lack of business adventourism which is due to the fact that architects likely have aquired many financial burdens of adulthood by the time they achieve licensure. Younger people are less burdened, and more capable and willing to take on risk. Surpressing the young and forcing them through this meat grinder (aka idp) is destroying the overall entrapenuerial spirit necessary to adapt to a changing society.
I know several successful attorney's who started their own firms with minimal experiance. I know one who started right after passing the bar and she is the most successful of all (and started with less than 5000$). She actually has the top firm in the state for her area of law. Experiance is important, but every individual is different and some are capable of self learing. If everyone had a fair autonomous path toward licensure (as in law), unabated by the market and the employment trends, then no one would be able to write an article like this. The very existance of this kind of complaint is evidence of an unfair barrier to entry. The autonomy over our own career has been striped from us, and when that happens we blame the ones that we feel are contributing to that barrier. Remove these barriers, and we will only be able to blame our self for our failures in the profession. The state should not be able to create a mandate on one party that relies on another party/private business to fullfil. It is unfair to everyone.
Yes. Really. You think things have always been the way they are? Look around. Someone made it. All of it. If you want to make it new or different, get to work. If you want to just deal with living in someone else's world, and just collect a check or whatever, that's fine, too, but you're not gonna have much luck trying to convince everybody else that's all there is.
Ok. Let's do a thought experiment then. Young architect gets out of school and says to themselves, rather than waiting around to get hired, I'll start on my own. Very admirable and to be encouraged. Along comes Mrs. Smith who has a colonial that needs an addition. You begin to go in to your innermost feelings about the role of architecture in society, and she says, 'that's nice and all, but I only have 100k". Ok, you say, then we can so a parametric design or any other trendy idea that suits your fancy, to which she says, "I want it to harmonize with the original and not over power it". Now you're starting to get a bit steamed, becasue this lady dosen't realize what century we live in and how the i-phone has revolutionized how we conceptualize space. She says all she wants is a nice family room for her family to gather in, but you start giving her something else. She fires you, even though you two seemed to be compatible as architect/clients go, it's just that she's scared to explore the possibilities, she's too conservative. You're about to call her our as a Tea Partier, but that dosen't jibe since she works for a nonprofit that encourages little girls in Afganistan to get an education. After talking to many of your non-architect friends about where they live and why they like or don't like their abode, it begins to dwon on you that you've been babmoozled, and all that debt you've accrued was for naught, even though at the time you felt on top of the world.
You can dismiss this senario, but it happens all too often. This isn't a flase choice "between theory or practice or self directed work vs. constraints", this is reality. You need to be able to dream and also understand that the point of schooling is to make those dreams a reality. I had a great time in school with my dreams of beauty, and though I never got an A in design studio, mainly becasue of the Bullshit peddled by so many professors, I was able to find a few non-ideological professors who encouraged me. To behave as if there's no disconect between the profession and practice is to have you're head in the sand.
Why aren't students told that clients won't pay for your personal journey? Haven't they been taught how many a great historical buildings have been rooted in practical issues, yet the really great architects where able to impart some other personal agenda along side the practical requirements to be fullfulled? Saying interns "can be better off skipping architecture's dumb apprenticeship process, and instead jump right in to selling their thinking and ideas" is the same kind of mal-practice most architectural schools engage in. It reminds me of Mitt Romney suggesting that young people should just borrow money from their parents and start a business. It don't work like that, and the shame of it is if schools where a bit more realistic about what students should expect, we wouldn't loose so many architects to cynicism.
Bolognia! and you story above makes no sense. You lump all interns into the same group, as if they are all equally incapable. In turn, you lump all architects into the same group as if they are all capable. license=good This is pure dumb simplistic thought. There are some grads that are better than 99% of architects, and architects that are total frauds. All people are different. Some despite experiance are capable of amazing things. Some are mensa level smart, some are idiots. Same goes for licensed architects. We need to create a level playing field so that they can all compete and weed out the jerk-offs.
Also, that protect the public shit is nonsense. What are we protecting them from? catastrophic structural failure, engineers do that. Fires, inspectors do that. ada requirements, codes do that. What then? If you look at the fucking shit environment that we created over the last 50 years, the strip mall hell holes, the economically destructive shopping centers, the soul sucking office complexes, the resource sucking oil dependant starchitecture, the 15 million dollar custom homes that are now worth half of that,.....we have put the public in great danger. Long term danger. Short term dangers like structure, etc. are all taken care of anyway. It is just an excuse to keep this system of cheap labor and title monopoly so that the old shitty architects can keep competition down. Pure selfishness.
I didn't see this article posted yet (sorry if I've overlooked). It's in The Atlantic and addresses decreased revenue in the industry and how architects are adapting:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/09/architecture-revenue-down-40-2008/3351/
Thayer, no one's suggesting anything like the scenario you're outlining.
Oops, I forgot. We can move rocks.
Yo!
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.