I was actually out enjoying the sunshine in the world's 4th best city to live in.
I have plenty to say about architecture and relevance, which can be summarised as thus:
Architecture and Architects can be as relevant as they want: provided that it is understood that managing risk is the key obstacle to overcome in construction. In no way does risk preclude architectural invention to any degree, and the more risk one takes on, the more reward and control you will have.
meh... looked at another way, it is the clients that are risk averse... they try to cover their bases and reduce risk, which means lawyers, also means contractors at risk, etc.
but where an architect can be in that risk management role is simply being an informed expert on the building industry... basically be the consultant that the client looks to to represent them and advise them because the architect simply knows what they are doing... in other words, the architect could be more like the owners rep + designer + ideas consultant... maybe...
I read all these responses and was waiting for someone to get it right. jplourde finally did. Read your AIA doc's. Architects have made it a point to rid themselves of virtually all liability, comparatively. I read it and sit there and think, "What a joke". Let's face it. If you're not the one with ultimate responsibility, you're not the one pulling in the dough. That goes for any and every field, not just architecture. I think some of the fault should go to architecture schools. I think in 7 years of education (in which a student comes out knowing relatively jack squat about how to function in an arch. office), they could just as easily "cut the crap" and "trim the fat" off the bloated design theory curriculum and replace it with something constituting an engineering degree or similar... ALONG with your B.Arch. For those unable to handle a math-intensive education, there's always interior design, computer illustration, etc. Not to mention this would help weed out the over-supply of professionals out there and reverse-engineer more demand for architect's services in general. Gained liability + increased demand = SKYROCKETING salaries on par with what a professional of this comprehensive knowledge would ultimately be worth. If the schools and profession continue to ignore and under-evaluate what it is that society is known to value and then incorporate these aspects into the profession, you all will be arguing this point frivolously until eternity. Until then, society has deemed architects as unnecessary and you're never going to educate the majority of the quantitative-minded public any better. Specialization has architecture on its death bed. Without the will to take control, don't ever expect things to change for the general pop. of architects.
While I think "risk" is a part of the equation, IMO it is not as significant a factor as the preceding posts try to suggest.
Having worked for many years as a developer and having hired many contractors, I believe both of those participants in the building team largely are masters at shedding risk to others - we do not need to be apologetic about trying to do the same.
Owners and contractors are paid better than we are because they generally deliver a product or service that is better attuned to the needs and wants of the markets they serve. In particular, both are driven by cost and schedule and don't get all wrapped around the flagpole wallowing in esoteric design aspirations. We hate that condition, but it is the reality of the world in which we operate. What we want to sell, and deliver, isn't what our markets seek to buy from us.
When we can make a case that good design produces a higher economic return - and actually sell that case to our clients - then we'll be compensated better for delivering good design. Until then, we'll remain stuck in the commodity business.
From my perspective now at the front-end of construction projects, pushing risk around a contract is an art form.
But it remains a fact that the owner and contractor are the only ones in a position to manage and negotiate the kinds of risk that are integral to the success of the project.
The owner is always in a privileged position. It is up to them to ultimately allocate risk to whoever in whatever manner they can achieve. They can always move on to another contractor. The contractor can rarely move on to another client.
Certainly there is an attitude that there is a degree of interchangability in terms of consultants and architects. I have the same view of contractors - building the building is usually relatively straightforward. If you have a guy who has worked on a similar project before, you can market that to your client. If you dont, you procure him.
My point of view is largely positive for the future of architecture. But it calls for architects to become more proactive in terms of things like invention, developing systems and IP that can be marketed, and engage in D&B projects.
Hopefully in the next short while I can elaborate on what I/we are doing along these lines.
The reason is simple... lawyers have a near monopoly on the law and the essential to making money out of the law. Architects have a slim margin of the building industry and are mostly non-essential to making money out of buildings.
At best, I find this to be distorted thinking, especially in comparison to Architects. There is no legal requirement that one use a lawyer for anything ... you always can go it alone, although in most cases one would be a fool to do so. For the most part, the same is true for the other professions, such as accounting and medicine. Architects, on the other hand, have solid legal standing when it comes to our involvement in buildings of any size -- due largely to the HSW concerns of the state.
While we are, in many cases, a required participant in all but the most minor of buildings, our influence is rather insignificant, IMHO, because of how we operate. We do not, as a general rule, put our clients' interests and success ahead of our own aspirations.
For too many of us, clients are a necessary evil and little more than the source of a fee. That self-centeredness comes through loud and clear to the people who pay our invoices ... and, that is the fundamental reason we do not have the influence we might like.
ok. let's go through the drill one more time: first off, most lawyers do not - i repeat DO NOT start at 6 figure salaries. those that do are working for larger, much more 'established' firms that specialize in corporate law.
more importantly though: law firms, for the most part, consist of a conglomeration of incredibly focused specialists in a certain area of the law. need someone who knows every single thing about sub-chapter corporation tax law? yeah, we've got one of those. and you'll pay through the nose for that specialization. need someone who can do a basic no-contest divorce? yeah, they advertise for $250 on a highway billboard.
the reality is that the architecture profession broadly speaking resists this kind of specialization. however, those firms that allow themselves the luxury? they do just fine. ask david rockwell or michael gabellini or e.verner johnson.
we tend to worship the idea of the 'generalist' architect - we can do anything, anywhere, at any scale. (which is crap, but that's another post). the problem, though, is that generalists are largely interchangable, even at the highest levels. compounding the problem is that the architectural media tends to fete those 'generalists' who have made to the absolute top - the .01% of practitioners in the world who all go by one name only. we teach our young to aspire to be them - the generalist who can have it all. so many will come up so short that by the time they figure it out, they're already being supplanted by the next generation.
so, if you want to know why we don't get paid more, ask yourselves what we offer besides some vague notion of being great 'designers'. those that specialize are doing just fine....
Yup, specialization is something architecture needs to move towards. There needs to be a tangible value in a particular firm - great design, budget conscious, etc.
(just to clarify, lawyers from the better schools do make that much more - see my quotes above. Unlike architecture, where the kid from UCLA/Harvard/Columbia, etc., makes no more than the kid from no-name. This is simply because there is not a true market for the skills they have, or their talent, that can command more $$. This needs to change).
but trace, i'd argue that 'great design' alone isn't enough of a differentiator for all but the most successful of firms. as much as no one will want to hear it, people pay more for functional or programmatic expertise (true expertise) that's wed to an ability to excel in that area.
i'll agree that the top students from top schools get paid more, but most of them are still going to the firms i'm describing. even top students deciding to be an assistant da in vine city, ga aren't going to pull that kind of money. yes, there's not the same correlation in architecture, but that has to do with the firms we're talking about going to. top flight law firms charge obscene amounts of money. top flight 'design' firms don't; however, top flight specialist firms do pay quite a bit more. of course, they're not hiring the same folks that are lining up at peter zumthor's (or eisenman's for that matter) door.
also, one other key point: law firms are structured such that associates (ie, those youngsters just hired) have to be highly billable. meaning, they are supposed to bill between 2-3000 hours a year. yes, that's 12 hour days on the high end. billable. not doing all the work behind the scenes just learning the ropes. by the second or third year, those employees should be billing roughly 500k+ a year for their time (2500hrs*200/hr or whatever proportion), whereas the typical second year architecture intern is only billing 120k/yr on average (according to aia). even the best architecture firms bill roughly 200k/yr on the higher end. that has to absorb a lot of partner and administrative staff time that's not billable. so, even by those rates, we're not going to come close to matching the best law firms.
sir norman, who the original post starts out quoting, is making 1.8M pounds per year and he's one of the top, blue chip corporate firms. by contrast, the top law firm in ny pays its partners roughly 10m+ per year.
we're just not going to be there, on average. not the end of the world, but this whole line of logic/wishful thinking has just got to stop....
The difficulty with specialisation is if everyone does it, it ceases to exist. Specialisation works in every profession, but by definition it can't work for everyone in a profession.
The other danger with specialisation is the limitation of your potential market. There is no safety in specilisation, but there is more certainty - until your clients take a tumble.
dia - correct. however, the specialization is one step towards differentiation. companies that ultimately excel will move towards other factors (perhaps project delivery, perhaps towards the amount of attention) that will distinguish them. even within a degree of specialization, there are a lot of ways to slice the pie.
and yes, being a firm that has one specialization will kill you if the market turns. an employee of ours' wife saw her entire law firm go out of existence about 2 months after lehman brothers fell, given that their only specialty was commercial real estate. many other lawyers in this area, even within larger firms, have been laid off. but really, nothing is going to save every job in every situation. the only way to overcome that kind of situation is to be the apple of your industry (a whole lot easier said than done)...
One has to remember that specicialisation need not be to a certain typology [perhaps my time in construction has narrowed my mind], but a certain skill set.
In reading Taleb and others, there is this issue of architecture [and other professions] being fundamentally a service industry that is not scalable - one needs to be doing architecture to recieve an income.
I think it is intereting to think of ways where you can translate the provision or doingness of architecture into something that is scalable.
Your employee's wife was subject to a Black Swan - up until the collapse of Lehman Brothers, there was no question that the businesses future was assured.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. But I didn't speak up. Then they came for the doctors. But I didn't speak up. Then they came for the architects . But there was noone left to speak up because they all saved 15% by switching to Geico"
I think I got that quote wrong.
I've enjoyed reading this thread. Lots of great observations, although I would much rather see a discussion thread comparing architecture to the oldest profession in the world. Either way you're fucked.
dia - i'm so with you on the scalability issue, which really is a whole other thread. my own take is that scale is achievable in the margins of the profession or through accessory pursuits, not in the core service component (which is ultimately a one to one type of transaction each time and if you build).
and i'll agree with the skillsets vs. typology response - i was just trying to point out that a typological based specialization (as only one response) is better than none.
why do architects earn less than lawyers?
Pretty much gave you 30 secs, of which you were literally and completely and also utterly, useless.
Do you want to know what the actual 30 secs is?
It's the difference between something and nothing. And I' didnt invent that quote.
I was actually out enjoying the sunshine in the world's 4th best city to live in.
I have plenty to say about architecture and relevance, which can be summarised as thus:
Architecture and Architects can be as relevant as they want: provided that it is understood that managing risk is the key obstacle to overcome in construction. In no way does risk preclude architectural invention to any degree, and the more risk one takes on, the more reward and control you will have.
meh... looked at another way, it is the clients that are risk averse... they try to cover their bases and reduce risk, which means lawyers, also means contractors at risk, etc.
but where an architect can be in that risk management role is simply being an informed expert on the building industry... basically be the consultant that the client looks to to represent them and advise them because the architect simply knows what they are doing... in other words, the architect could be more like the owners rep + designer + ideas consultant... maybe...
I read all these responses and was waiting for someone to get it right. jplourde finally did. Read your AIA doc's. Architects have made it a point to rid themselves of virtually all liability, comparatively. I read it and sit there and think, "What a joke". Let's face it. If you're not the one with ultimate responsibility, you're not the one pulling in the dough. That goes for any and every field, not just architecture. I think some of the fault should go to architecture schools. I think in 7 years of education (in which a student comes out knowing relatively jack squat about how to function in an arch. office), they could just as easily "cut the crap" and "trim the fat" off the bloated design theory curriculum and replace it with something constituting an engineering degree or similar... ALONG with your B.Arch. For those unable to handle a math-intensive education, there's always interior design, computer illustration, etc. Not to mention this would help weed out the over-supply of professionals out there and reverse-engineer more demand for architect's services in general. Gained liability + increased demand = SKYROCKETING salaries on par with what a professional of this comprehensive knowledge would ultimately be worth. If the schools and profession continue to ignore and under-evaluate what it is that society is known to value and then incorporate these aspects into the profession, you all will be arguing this point frivolously until eternity. Until then, society has deemed architects as unnecessary and you're never going to educate the majority of the quantitative-minded public any better. Specialization has architecture on its death bed. Without the will to take control, don't ever expect things to change for the general pop. of architects.
While I think "risk" is a part of the equation, IMO it is not as significant a factor as the preceding posts try to suggest.
Having worked for many years as a developer and having hired many contractors, I believe both of those participants in the building team largely are masters at shedding risk to others - we do not need to be apologetic about trying to do the same.
Owners and contractors are paid better than we are because they generally deliver a product or service that is better attuned to the needs and wants of the markets they serve. In particular, both are driven by cost and schedule and don't get all wrapped around the flagpole wallowing in esoteric design aspirations. We hate that condition, but it is the reality of the world in which we operate. What we want to sell, and deliver, isn't what our markets seek to buy from us.
When we can make a case that good design produces a higher economic return - and actually sell that case to our clients - then we'll be compensated better for delivering good design. Until then, we'll remain stuck in the commodity business.
Oh yeah,
From my perspective now at the front-end of construction projects, pushing risk around a contract is an art form.
But it remains a fact that the owner and contractor are the only ones in a position to manage and negotiate the kinds of risk that are integral to the success of the project.
The owner is always in a privileged position. It is up to them to ultimately allocate risk to whoever in whatever manner they can achieve. They can always move on to another contractor. The contractor can rarely move on to another client.
Certainly there is an attitude that there is a degree of interchangability in terms of consultants and architects. I have the same view of contractors - building the building is usually relatively straightforward. If you have a guy who has worked on a similar project before, you can market that to your client. If you dont, you procure him.
My point of view is largely positive for the future of architecture. But it calls for architects to become more proactive in terms of things like invention, developing systems and IP that can be marketed, and engage in D&B projects.
Hopefully in the next short while I can elaborate on what I/we are doing along these lines.
The reason is simple... lawyers have a near monopoly on the law and the essential to making money out of the law. Architects have a slim margin of the building industry and are mostly non-essential to making money out of buildings.
At best, I find this to be distorted thinking, especially in comparison to Architects. There is no legal requirement that one use a lawyer for anything ... you always can go it alone, although in most cases one would be a fool to do so. For the most part, the same is true for the other professions, such as accounting and medicine. Architects, on the other hand, have solid legal standing when it comes to our involvement in buildings of any size -- due largely to the HSW concerns of the state.
While we are, in many cases, a required participant in all but the most minor of buildings, our influence is rather insignificant, IMHO, because of how we operate. We do not, as a general rule, put our clients' interests and success ahead of our own aspirations.
For too many of us, clients are a necessary evil and little more than the source of a fee. That self-centeredness comes through loud and clear to the people who pay our invoices ... and, that is the fundamental reason we do not have the influence we might like.
cripes. are we on this topic again? seriously?
ok. let's go through the drill one more time: first off, most lawyers do not - i repeat DO NOT start at 6 figure salaries. those that do are working for larger, much more 'established' firms that specialize in corporate law.
more importantly though: law firms, for the most part, consist of a conglomeration of incredibly focused specialists in a certain area of the law. need someone who knows every single thing about sub-chapter corporation tax law? yeah, we've got one of those. and you'll pay through the nose for that specialization. need someone who can do a basic no-contest divorce? yeah, they advertise for $250 on a highway billboard.
the reality is that the architecture profession broadly speaking resists this kind of specialization. however, those firms that allow themselves the luxury? they do just fine. ask david rockwell or michael gabellini or e.verner johnson.
we tend to worship the idea of the 'generalist' architect - we can do anything, anywhere, at any scale. (which is crap, but that's another post). the problem, though, is that generalists are largely interchangable, even at the highest levels. compounding the problem is that the architectural media tends to fete those 'generalists' who have made to the absolute top - the .01% of practitioners in the world who all go by one name only. we teach our young to aspire to be them - the generalist who can have it all. so many will come up so short that by the time they figure it out, they're already being supplanted by the next generation.
so, if you want to know why we don't get paid more, ask yourselves what we offer besides some vague notion of being great 'designers'. those that specialize are doing just fine....
Yup, specialization is something architecture needs to move towards. There needs to be a tangible value in a particular firm - great design, budget conscious, etc.
(just to clarify, lawyers from the better schools do make that much more - see my quotes above. Unlike architecture, where the kid from UCLA/Harvard/Columbia, etc., makes no more than the kid from no-name. This is simply because there is not a true market for the skills they have, or their talent, that can command more $$. This needs to change).
but trace, i'd argue that 'great design' alone isn't enough of a differentiator for all but the most successful of firms. as much as no one will want to hear it, people pay more for functional or programmatic expertise (true expertise) that's wed to an ability to excel in that area.
i'll agree that the top students from top schools get paid more, but most of them are still going to the firms i'm describing. even top students deciding to be an assistant da in vine city, ga aren't going to pull that kind of money. yes, there's not the same correlation in architecture, but that has to do with the firms we're talking about going to. top flight law firms charge obscene amounts of money. top flight 'design' firms don't; however, top flight specialist firms do pay quite a bit more. of course, they're not hiring the same folks that are lining up at peter zumthor's (or eisenman's for that matter) door.
also, one other key point: law firms are structured such that associates (ie, those youngsters just hired) have to be highly billable. meaning, they are supposed to bill between 2-3000 hours a year. yes, that's 12 hour days on the high end. billable. not doing all the work behind the scenes just learning the ropes. by the second or third year, those employees should be billing roughly 500k+ a year for their time (2500hrs*200/hr or whatever proportion), whereas the typical second year architecture intern is only billing 120k/yr on average (according to aia). even the best architecture firms bill roughly 200k/yr on the higher end. that has to absorb a lot of partner and administrative staff time that's not billable. so, even by those rates, we're not going to come close to matching the best law firms.
sir norman, who the original post starts out quoting, is making 1.8M pounds per year and he's one of the top, blue chip corporate firms. by contrast, the top law firm in ny pays its partners roughly 10m+ per year.
we're just not going to be there, on average. not the end of the world, but this whole line of logic/wishful thinking has just got to stop....
The difficulty with specialisation is if everyone does it, it ceases to exist. Specialisation works in every profession, but by definition it can't work for everyone in a profession.
The other danger with specialisation is the limitation of your potential market. There is no safety in specilisation, but there is more certainty - until your clients take a tumble.
dia - correct. however, the specialization is one step towards differentiation. companies that ultimately excel will move towards other factors (perhaps project delivery, perhaps towards the amount of attention) that will distinguish them. even within a degree of specialization, there are a lot of ways to slice the pie.
and yes, being a firm that has one specialization will kill you if the market turns. an employee of ours' wife saw her entire law firm go out of existence about 2 months after lehman brothers fell, given that their only specialty was commercial real estate. many other lawyers in this area, even within larger firms, have been laid off. but really, nothing is going to save every job in every situation. the only way to overcome that kind of situation is to be the apple of your industry (a whole lot easier said than done)...
True,
One has to remember that specicialisation need not be to a certain typology [perhaps my time in construction has narrowed my mind], but a certain skill set.
In reading Taleb and others, there is this issue of architecture [and other professions] being fundamentally a service industry that is not scalable - one needs to be doing architecture to recieve an income.
I think it is intereting to think of ways where you can translate the provision or doingness of architecture into something that is scalable.
Your employee's wife was subject to a Black Swan - up until the collapse of Lehman Brothers, there was no question that the businesses future was assured.
Obviously, I am liking Taleb at the moment.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. But I didn't speak up. Then they came for the doctors. But I didn't speak up. Then they came for the architects . But there was noone left to speak up because they all saved 15% by switching to Geico"
I think I got that quote wrong.
I've enjoyed reading this thread. Lots of great observations, although I would much rather see a discussion thread comparing architecture to the oldest profession in the world. Either way you're fucked.
dia - i'm so with you on the scalability issue, which really is a whole other thread. my own take is that scale is achievable in the margins of the profession or through accessory pursuits, not in the core service component (which is ultimately a one to one type of transaction each time and if you build).
and i'll agree with the skillsets vs. typology response - i was just trying to point out that a typological based specialization (as only one response) is better than none.
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.