: last time I looked, lawyers and doctors also work in services industries -- they seem to be doing pretty good economically.
to me, the issue isn't finding something else to do in order to make more money -- it's generating architectural income that actually reflects our contribution to society. let's focus on that.
if consider that construction documents are legal document then you might make a case that architect's are (at least from one perspective) practising a highly specialized form of law as the represent and counsel their clients. maybe the best way to neutralize pay would be to find a law school that trains architects.
the answer to your question is that interior designers and decorators are making a % off of product (furniture + stuff) that they sell to their clients. They are in the business of selling
in our firm, interiors represent about 45% of our volume. we sell no product - only our professional design services. year-in /year-out our interiors practice earns 25-28% profit on net revenues - and we do exceptional design work.
selling services can be quite profitable if a) you're really good at what you do; b) you don't work for inadequate fees; and c) you don't screw around producing your work.
Architects design what.... 8% of residences in North America? That's a small slice of a huge pie. Granted, there's all sorts of architecture, but architects are missing out on a lot of business right there. Developers 'develop' the other 92% (ie buy a few plans from architects and re-sell them). Everybody knows this, of course.
We (well, not me, I'm not an architect yet) need to create value in the mind of the people we sell to. There are lots of routes to get there, we just don't do a very good job at any of them.
To make money first you need to know how to make money.
Simple example: many current pop artists know that they make pretty shitty music, and that their singing career may not last forever, so they start venturing into other things, such as designing clothes, put their name on a perfume, etc.
Architects design building, but if they would also learn to build a business venture around their works, may be they would make more money.
For example: write a business plan, persuade banks to lend you some money, buy a good plot of land with potential, talk to planning authorities, advertise your plan and design, sell it to the public, if it all worked out, then you'll most likely make a bunch of money.
Obviously, unless you are multi-talented, you need to hire other professionals to handle various parts of the business.
Basically, you are the boss, you pay them wages to work for you, and in the end you get the big profit when you sell your design and finished product (actual building) to your customers or clients.
Sitting in an office, doing sketches or playing with SketchUp does not make you big money.
neon - there's a big difference from a pop artist creating a brand with their name and their recognition - this is what sells it.
Most of the famous architects do have many things (was just looking at a $4k planter that Hadid designed) and they are using their recognition to sell it.
None of them produce their own things, however, just like PDiddy (or whatever he's calling himself) does not make his Sean John clothes.
Name recognition is worth a million bucks. Without it, you are just another starving artist (talented or not).
eBay's got some nice paintings for only a few bucks! Glad I at least chose a profession that pays you at all.
the idea that an architect can blithely walk into developing is not an informed one.
banks are not into risk-taking. they are conservative and hard and will eat anyone who does not pay attention to what they are doing. doing that while also doing architecture of any quality is not easy...
developing without a bank is tough, but with one is even more so. seriously, merely having capital is not enough. making a business as developer means dropping most if not all of the loftier (or interesting) aspirations of architecture. the seagull's work is i think indicative of this, even if it is prettier than most...
i personally don't feel short-shifted in the remuneration game. i don't want to trade stocks (though there is seriously money in that biz) and while medicine does appeal, lawyer-ing frightens me all to hell. so i am quite happy to be in this world.
i think a more interesting question would be to ask why traders make more than doctors or lawyers (they make much much much MUCH more in my experience) and all they do is shift symbolic values from place to place. i mean, they aren't saving lives or anything....the sad truth is that the world does not run on logic, and there are many ways to measure value...so what? in a sane world there would be no reality tv and britney spears would not have a higher income than a world-class brain surgeon...but she does...wattayawant? another new economy?
money is what makes the world move - it is very logical, if you think about it.
how and why people get paid is pretty simple too. People pay to stay alive, to keep from going to to jail or getting sued, and they pay to make more money.
In the middle of all of this is entertainment - people pay to be entertained.
The big problem with architecture, unlike ALL of the professions pay those that are better more money. Horrible architects with no talent get paid the same as those that are amazing.
To me, that's the saddest part of the profession and that's what will continue to drive the talent to other professions.
another reason is that architects are (for the most part) emotionally connected to their work. they will make many financial sacrafices to see that their buildings get built they way that they would like
"architects are (for the most part) emotionally connected to their work. they will make many financial sacrafices to see that their buildings get built they way that they would like"
in graduate school (business) we talked a lot about the concepts of "barriers to entry" and "barriers to exit" in various industries, and the impact of those conditions on the economic potential of the industry.
a) it seems that industries with high barriers to entry (meaning it's really expensive to start a business or the business is protected by patents, etc.) and low barriers to exit (meaning it cheap or easy to walk away if the business performs poorly) tend to provide much higher economic rewards than other industries.
b) industries with low barriers to entry (meaning just about anybody can get into the industry with minimal investment) and high barriers to exit (meaning it's really costly or difficult to leave the industry and go do something else) tend to have poor economic rewards for participants.
I take the view that it's relatively easy to get into architecture (the cost of our degrees aside) -- but, this idea that mdler identifies above sets the bar really high when it come to barriers to exit.
this might explain a thing or two about this general discussion topic
Awesome post, Jump. This issue of traders who shift "symbolic values" (i.e. numbers that represent money) around as a way to make loads of money has always concerned me.
The problem with architecture is that it's a non-scalable trade. Every building is custom; every building needs to be designed by a person, built by a person. A building can't really be replicated. Same thing goes for being a carpenter or even a doctor.
But a software engineer can make one thing, patent it, then replicate it endlessly. He or she can make a profit off of every duplicate. That's how Bill Gates became a zillionaire. His product was scalable.
And it's why no architect will ever become a zillionaire.
I guess we're not the only profession that's questioning the student loan debt related to our profession and the oversupply of fresh graduates further saturating the job market:
It's an interesting read, especially if you replace "law student" with "architecture student"
I was particularly struck by the section on entry-level pay for lawyers. The article states that the vast majority of entry-level law jobs pay $45-60K, but that average pay stats are skewed upward by the rare job that pays $160K.
i don't think principal architects earn less than lawyers when they have a project.
ie;
an architect will make 100K on a million dollar project at 10% rate. many lawyers will never get that from a client in their life time. it is not that lawyers get a client everyday either. it is just their hourly rates seems higher.
In the earlier post, one guy gave the best reason why we make so less than a janitor. "I rather PLAY all day with photoshop in an old broken down ready to be demolished factory building, than being a lawyer working in a design by architects skyscreper". The irony of all of this is that we make beautiful workspace yet we feel the need to work in horrible places. Would you pay a mechanic in an old rundown garage as much as the mechanic at the BMW dealer?
So it's all about appearance and mentality. Many professionals believe that they are really important thu the reason why they get paid very well regardless of the job.
Architects need to practice what they preach. They sell designs, they need to work in a design enviorment. How believable would the BMW dealer be if he dirves an old Ford escort.
Architects need to dress accordningly and speak the language of their clients.
There have been several researches done where people are likely to pay a huge amount of money and take advice from people who wear suits and own expensive cars. The person wearing a suit doesn't even have to be an expert which explains why real estate agents and car salesman have a higher hourly fee than architects.
Architects have the ability to earn as much as lawyers if they just change their mindsets. I always said that architects are going to make money if lawyers or accountants become owners of architecture firms. Then again, they will notice within days that architects are willing to work for minimum wage. Then we will be back at the same position as we started.
I find it interesting that this thread bounces back from time to time.
@ orhan: "i don't think principal architects earn less than lawyers"
I know we find it inconvenient here when facts stand in the way of a good argument, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics offers the following average annual compensation data, from May 2009:
I have to say, I find the difference between average attorney compensation and average architect compensation to be narrower than I would have expected.
$16,940 difference is huge. That's about 6 months extra income in a year. That's a difference between driving a Toyota or a BMW, or living in a penthouse vs a 3 bedroom apartment with two other roommates.
I meant something in the lines of what quizzical is saying.
Anyway, more problematic issue we could discuss is not why we are not making as much as lawyers or doctors, but why the huge percentage of the buildings in this country getting build without the involvement of the architects.
"why the huge percentage of the buildings in this country getting build without the involvement of the architects."
Because it would be cumbersome and prohibitive to do such a thing. That's the primary reason as to why the exception list exists.
The only way to involve architects more would be to prohibit the land practices and zoning ordinances that allow those 'fringe' buildings to exist in the first place-- through a combination of eliminating parking requirements and formulating a real estate take system based on first floor development and frontage.
The difference (with Dr's too) is that the upper end, the talented, well educated bunch, make exponentially more than the lowest tier.
Architects, more or less, make the same, regardless of talent or education.
Take a look at UCLA:
Lawyers:
97.41% of 2009 UCLA Law School graduates seeking employment secured employment within 9 months of graduation. Median Starting Salary: $160,000
Architects (not listed, of course): what, maybe $40,000 in 2009? That's $120,000 difference, starting
That's a HUGE difference. Forget averages, there needs to be rewards commensurate with the talent, otherwise they'll move onto other careers that offer them something in return.
It is happening at the very top (Foster, Libeskind, etc., etc.), but it needs to trickle down.
Talent/talented firms also needs to be marketed as such, not just "architecture". More differentiation will create more value and competition, not just competition based on pricing (which is currently killing the profession). It will also give more incentive for ambitious pursuits and change.
Trace, the article I linked to suggests just that.
The University of Hawaii converted its B.Arch Degrees into M.Arch degrees and then converted the M.Arch into a Ph.d.
Aside from some physics and engineering lines of study, architecture is one of the few degree tracks where you go to school for 7-8 years and don't become a "Doctor." Add on IDP, continuing education and internships, that figure is closer to 10-11 years.
In addition, NAAB makes no distinction between B.Arch, M.Arch or D.Arch. The accreditation for each degree is the same.
Similarly, the Department of Education doesn't recognize any of the Arch degrees as Professional degrees.
Ironically, the United States Department of Education does not even classify the M.Arch as a professional degree, but rather lumps it with traditional MS or MA degrees – so even they seem to be confused by the nomenclature. Oddly, the M.Arch fits their definition for both the professional and the research doctorate.
That's essentially the push for the D.Arch. To earn a degree that makes one sufficient for practice.
Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers and even accountants are all qualified to work in their respective fields upon the day of graduation. That is, qualifications for graduation require them to obtain their respective professional certifications.
Engineers in particular do not have terminal degree just as architects do not have terminal degrees-- terminal degrees being that the terminal degree is the final exit of academia.
However, engineering schools are more rigorous in that they will not grant a B.S.E. upon completion of the F.E. (Fundamentals of Engineering) exam. This pre-qualifies engineering graduates to be competent enough to work in their field until they complete the necessary amount of work experience to sit for the Professional Engineering exam.
So, the reality is that the current system does not allow active students to excel and reap the rewards of their hard work. Nor does it have the long-term and institutional hand-holding in place to train competent graduates
.
Law students can take the BAR exam right upon graduation so they don't need to go through mandatory IDP type of experience.I think that indicates that in law schools they actually do a better job preparing students for professional practice therefore increasing the pay but of course the other reason them make more money is that they are needed in this sue happy society.More than architects.
I'd also like all of you to take a look at this article:
No, but if you look at quality schools, like my UCLA reference (where I went to grad school), it is quite clear that they pay those that attended more competitive (dare I say 'better') schools are offered a starting salary inline with that education.
Also, there is a scale of pay/talent. Almost every other profession out there is like this - medicine, business, graphic arts, etc. They all pay the best significantly more than the worse, or even average.
Architect's can't hope to just charge more for everything because they want to, that's ludicrous (imho). You have to offer something better, differentiate you/your firm from the pack and qualify what that is, then market it successfully (again, like all other businesses).
Up to now, architect's are all lumped together with this AIA desperately trying to say that "all" architect's add value. That equality is simply unreasonable. Furthermore, judging by how many ugly buildings going up every day (well, not so many these days), there is a large lack of talented designers in positions to design.
Stay focused on architecture, but understand why it has inherent problems with the way things are done, marketed and thought about.
Grass is greener, sometimes, but in all honesty, if I knew this all in high school, I'd have at least hedged my path or pursued another path altogether, then gotten an arch degree for 'fun'.
MBA's coming out of UCLA start at $117,253. More or less, I am mostly doing business things these days anyway!
Those are MASSIVE differences!! Sure, passion, love, passion, design, blah blah, but look at reality, where the profession is at now, etc. I just hope some younguns read these threads!
UG - I'll read that article (looks looong and my coffee mug is full ;-) ), but seems logical. I'd feel much better if I were a Dr, considering I can't call myself a damn architect (legally)! After 7 straight years of arch school you'd think that wouldn't be asking too much.
That certainly would add more credibility and we'd all be cool again.
"Architect's can't hope to just charge more for everything because they want to, that's ludicrous (imho). You have to offer something better."
My lawyers charges by the minute. Each phone call i make to him or he makes to me i need to pay in intervals of 6 minutes. Every email he sends me, every email he receives from me i need to pay $35. Every time I come to his office i need to pay by the hour. Every time he comes to my office i need to pay for his gas mileage and the time he spends at location. These costs are excluded from the fee he charges for the actual work.
"Being saved from (your own) bad taste is not as valuable as being saved from a stint in jail. Hope this wraps this query up."
How valuable are the works of graphic designer, a real estate agent, a psychologist, an interior stylist (not designer), a product designer, a mechanical engineer, a carpenter, a plumber, a miner, an IT specialist, a biologist, a wine critic compared to the architects work.
Trace: you have a point there. But I think there is a distinction to be made between Law and Architecture... What *value* means to each profession, to each business seems to be different....
Architecture is in part an ideas profession, in part a technical profession, and in part an art profession...
When you say "most talented" what specifically are you referring to? "Most creative"? "Best designers?" "Most technically knowledgable?" "Most experienced?" Or maybe "most innovative"? Each of these means a different thing in architecture, and I think part of the problem is that whereas in Law, you "win" and that translates directly into "financial gain", same cannot be said for design... Or at least it is not as clear... What the market values, and what design schools teach you to value, and what we as designers value may not be the same...
"Great design" means different things to different people... Odd thing about it is: you can go to the best school there is, you can be the most creative person out there, but that means you may make *less* working in a small boutique firm doing more interesting but lower profit work, getting less real stuff built, than your colleague with less design skill, who has 3 years doing summer internships working for a contractor and has construction experience and then works for a large corporate office that doesn't do good design but has a hugely profitable market strategy working to roll out big box chain stores... The most profitable and highest paying firms are *NOT* the Liebeskinds and the Fosters, I'm sure they do well now, but I'm going to speculate (not having worked at either) that they don't pay the highest salaries, don't have the best benefits, and do not have the best structures for career growth and advancement... Also, from a design credit standpoint, they are more patriarchal, so even from that standpoint, you may not get that... Experience wise I'm sure they may be great, working on the most interesting work, learning to do interesting work, etc.
But from making money standpoint, not really... I think working for a star design firm with a rock star name at the head basically means you are moving through a revolving door, you will enter and eventually need to start your own thing if you want to be rich like them... True?
In architecture, design schools teach you about design... This does not translate necessarily into profit... Or value for your client or even value for your firm. Case in point: this economy. Lets say the nature of the work in the industry is such that: clients are all tightening their belts, fewer and fewer clientelle in all markets are focused primarily on design, and it is about saving money, restructuring, being frugal, cutting costs. Now, the super design "talent" goes out the window... They either are unemployed, or their input is less valuable at the office than the super efficient, fast working, efficient guy who can roll that shit out...
Wierd thing trying to play artist and business at the same time, the objectives don't really necessarily go hand in hand... Some people are great businessmen *and* great designers, but there are plenty of great designers who simply will never get to the level of success that they did while working in a studio environment... The real world, the market aren't like school unfortunately...
In fact, I think even FINE ART as an industry allows a closer translation of *the work* (as how good that is) to *financial success*... While there are plenty of talented artists who are poor, at least what that industry is selling can be measured directly as the work of art itself... In other words, art has no other intrinsic value other than being an idea or technique of creative object to be looked at and experienced...
Architecture on the other hand is much more complicated... It's *shelter*, it consumers resources, it relates to land value, requires organizational efficiency, while at the same time it has a human, emotive, and experiential component that cannot be denied, that deeply affects people who use the space, and translates into how successful the space will be for that use... It is conditioned, it relates to human comfort, requires thinking about its systems; mechanical, electrical, lighting, wayfinding, acoustical performance, etc... So these are value measures too... It consumes energy, so there is value to being able to design to be economical over the lifetime of the building... Operational efficiency: how the space plan translates into something that works, how the details do too... At the same time, there is also the *art aspect* of the thing... The pretty space aspect... Or the monumental aspect, the thing that is spectacular about it: Guggenheim Bilbao has clear identifiable economic value... A single building can transform a local economy, it can inspire people, or even deliver a message, create an identity, be a symbol, an icon... Then there is value such as: publicity... Showing up in publications... For your office to market itself, as well as for the project and client... Winning awards and getting recognized and seen... These things have market value... Even if a project is not the biggest financial success story, there can be indirect benefits...
Architects need to clarify what value we are talking about here when we say value... Value to who? To you? To your office? To your client? To the Public? If we are talking about salary, we need to know the value we are adding, why that translates into higher pay... Not that pay is everything... I have no illusions that I am not working to make the most money I can, but I actually choose my job based on the place I work, I value the projects, and the people, the teamwork, and also the design creativity... I'm not all in it for the money or I would be working for a different kind of firm... I'm think that what architects value may not always translate into the financial returns...
Honestly, we ought to understand what we are doing, if you are doing this for design experience, that's good but that may not mean higher pay... And if money is the objective, figure out how to make money... This is market driven, about industry, requires clarity about what business we are in... We are a part of the construction industry... This is not some academic BS... It's big money and investment... AEC is the larges sector the economy, there are huge returns being made when times are good, it's just that architects are just service providers to that, not making the money there...
Re: time spent and getting paid for every phone call. The lawyer is getting paid for the minutes because he is primarily offering knowledge value. He is in consulting services primarily. Architects are sort of like that but not really: we deliver design services... There is a management and adminstration aspect to being a project architect, and also there is a real deliverable: a set of a construction drawings, a permit, a finished building that looks like what was in the documents... That is a little different: we are not paid purely for our expertise like a consultant, but for an end product... You can probably have that strictly by the time kind of pay structure if you wanted to be a consultant in a specialized technical knowledge aspect of architecture, rather than as a a designer or project architect / manager...
Think about value from your client's perspective... This is a huge investment for them. Most likely, they are financing the project, buildings are huge capital expenses that require credit.... We're talking in many cases, about financial arrangements that will take a couple decades to pay off or resolve themselves.. What does that mean in terms the value we need to be providing to be hugely successful in this industry, where the value is being generated for our clients?
as are architects...I think most would gladly take 100k in debt to be able to be debt free and moving rapidly ahead in 2 years!
My point was that value is what needs to be emphasized and marketed. Law, drs., graphic designers, etc., all market as the 'best' be paid more, not that all are good, or that all are even necessary or a good thing.
This is where architecture, imho, gets it wrong. The AIA, and elsewhere are promoting architecture, not good architecture.
If good architecture was more valuable than a generic building, then clients would pay more for quality, which, in turn, puts more value on talent and differentiates one firm from another.
There are glimpses of this happening, certainly at the stararchitect level. That's some progress, I think.
Maybe what I am suggesting is impossible. But if there is not some effort to encourage, engage and recruit new talent, then architecture will continue to die and make less money.
Unlike 15 years ago, there is the web and sites like this that hs kids can easily read. Why would some young, ambitious, kid want to pursue architecture? Because the 'love' it? I hardly think that will attract anyone!
With the information available these days, my money is on architecture continuing to decline as more and more of the brightest and best pursue careers that value their ambition and talents.
For businesses to thrive and succeed they need to continue to recruit talent, promote and encourage growth.
Yeah, well for firms, lets not talk about salaried employees...
As far as firms go, they already do that... They position themselves in the market in one of two ways: as a commodity architecture firm, or as a value added architecture firm... Depending on how you sell yourself in the market, you adjust your fees accordingly...
Same as a Walmart vs. a Saks... This already happens in architecture firms already in the market... Overall, both approaches can be profitable, but it is just two different strategies...
I think in this economy however, the vale proposition of the higher end,
cut off... these days though, like in many things, the value added proposition becomes more difficult because the market is just more open to discount architecture... Firms undercutting hurts the value added firm... Just reality in a recession... It's not isolated to Architects... But the office that has positioned itself to do a certain kind of work, and which charges higher fees is going to have a tough time repositioning and adapting to convince the market that it does low cost roll out now that the economy is looking for that... *and it would be a mistake to try to do that*... You can sell yourself as a commodity firm, or a value firm, but you cannot be both, you will get killed by competition on both fronts... You cannot market that way, you will not be successful, you need to know what you are offering and what business you are in...
I think there may be one kind of value addedness that we could market that would position what architects do a little differently...
Basically, architect as ideas professional, creative consultant that understands something about your business, about real estate, about economy, about the relationships between program and space and performance measures... Illustrate how a particular kind of design vision, visionary insight is what architects sell... Problem solving, but also opportunity creation... In other words, if architects could remake their profession to be as much about envisioning the potential of a project, defining the parameters of that project rather than just executing a project outlined and dreamt up by the client, then we could become those knowledge and creative consultants that develop the value for the client, not just be managing and executing good buildings, but creating projects from the blank slate... This means architects as people who know a great deal more than just about architecture and building, but about development and business as well...
All, and I mean literally, for Pete's sake ,ALL of the answers before this one can be summed in one word: liability.
Lawyer's are literally paid to take on liability and punch it in the throat. Architect's, as a rule, shy from it.
Liability is akin to responsibilty. Responsibility is akin to power.
Is this really so obtuse, that we can't figure this out? GC's can make alot of money because they take on a lot of risk. Likewise, developers make more money because they, in turn, take on more risk. The architect has absolved him or her self to a level of near risklessness. RISK-LESS-NESS. As such, he or she should get compensated according to his or her standing. 'Genious sketches' are and always have been and will always will be propaganda.
Ouch, cuts to the core,dia. Risk is in no way just about obtuse liability, nor is it about extravagance. Though, granted, liabilitiy is a HUGE, GIGANTIC, RIDICULOUS, concern. I assume you, of course, have something not only intelligent but also poignant to say about architectural relevance in the 21st century?
why do architects earn less than lawyers?
You should be grateful lawyers and doctors make what they do, at least THEY can afford to pay architects to design their houses!
: last time I looked, lawyers and doctors also work in services industries -- they seem to be doing pretty good economically.
to me, the issue isn't finding something else to do in order to make more money -- it's generating architectural income that actually reflects our contribution to society. let's focus on that.
because as architects we only provide a comodity that has no real value (other than an hourly waged service)
Lawyers services directly make their clients $$$
how come i ask a bunch of whiny dumass questions? oh right...bored office shlubs like me will answer...
if consider that construction documents are legal document then you might make a case that architect's are (at least from one perspective) practising a highly specialized form of law as the represent and counsel their clients. maybe the best way to neutralize pay would be to find a law school that trains architects.
why do architects earn less than interior designers?
mr. bojangles
the answer to your question is that interior designers and decorators are making a % off of product (furniture + stuff) that they sell to their clients. They are in the business of selling
: imho, you're perpetuating a myth.
in our firm, interiors represent about 45% of our volume. we sell no product - only our professional design services. year-in /year-out our interiors practice earns 25-28% profit on net revenues - and we do exceptional design work.
selling services can be quite profitable if a) you're really good at what you do; b) you don't work for inadequate fees; and c) you don't screw around producing your work.
food for thought.
Architects design what.... 8% of residences in North America? That's a small slice of a huge pie. Granted, there's all sorts of architecture, but architects are missing out on a lot of business right there. Developers 'develop' the other 92% (ie buy a few plans from architects and re-sell them). Everybody knows this, of course.
We (well, not me, I'm not an architect yet) need to create value in the mind of the people we sell to. There are lots of routes to get there, we just don't do a very good job at any of them.
To make money first you need to know how to make money.
Simple example: many current pop artists know that they make pretty shitty music, and that their singing career may not last forever, so they start venturing into other things, such as designing clothes, put their name on a perfume, etc.
Architects design building, but if they would also learn to build a business venture around their works, may be they would make more money.
For example: write a business plan, persuade banks to lend you some money, buy a good plot of land with potential, talk to planning authorities, advertise your plan and design, sell it to the public, if it all worked out, then you'll most likely make a bunch of money.
Obviously, unless you are multi-talented, you need to hire other professionals to handle various parts of the business.
Basically, you are the boss, you pay them wages to work for you, and in the end you get the big profit when you sell your design and finished product (actual building) to your customers or clients.
Sitting in an office, doing sketches or playing with SketchUp does not make you big money.
neon - there's a big difference from a pop artist creating a brand with their name and their recognition - this is what sells it.
Most of the famous architects do have many things (was just looking at a $4k planter that Hadid designed) and they are using their recognition to sell it.
None of them produce their own things, however, just like PDiddy (or whatever he's calling himself) does not make his Sean John clothes.
Name recognition is worth a million bucks. Without it, you are just another starving artist (talented or not).
eBay's got some nice paintings for only a few bucks! Glad I at least chose a profession that pays you at all.
name recognition is worth a million bucks. but being a number ain't worth much...
the idea that an architect can blithely walk into developing is not an informed one.
banks are not into risk-taking. they are conservative and hard and will eat anyone who does not pay attention to what they are doing. doing that while also doing architecture of any quality is not easy...
developing without a bank is tough, but with one is even more so. seriously, merely having capital is not enough. making a business as developer means dropping most if not all of the loftier (or interesting) aspirations of architecture. the seagull's work is i think indicative of this, even if it is prettier than most...
i personally don't feel short-shifted in the remuneration game. i don't want to trade stocks (though there is seriously money in that biz) and while medicine does appeal, lawyer-ing frightens me all to hell. so i am quite happy to be in this world.
i think a more interesting question would be to ask why traders make more than doctors or lawyers (they make much much much MUCH more in my experience) and all they do is shift symbolic values from place to place. i mean, they aren't saving lives or anything....the sad truth is that the world does not run on logic, and there are many ways to measure value...so what? in a sane world there would be no reality tv and britney spears would not have a higher income than a world-class brain surgeon...but she does...wattayawant? another new economy?
money is what makes the world move - it is very logical, if you think about it.
how and why people get paid is pretty simple too. People pay to stay alive, to keep from going to to jail or getting sued, and they pay to make more money.
In the middle of all of this is entertainment - people pay to be entertained.
The big problem with architecture, unlike ALL of the professions pay those that are better more money. Horrible architects with no talent get paid the same as those that are amazing.
To me, that's the saddest part of the profession and that's what will continue to drive the talent to other professions.
thank you guys for all your comments... i think they can offer a wider perspective about this question
another reason is that architects are (for the most part) emotionally connected to their work. they will make many financial sacrafices to see that their buildings get built they way that they would like
in graduate school (business) we talked a lot about the concepts of "barriers to entry" and "barriers to exit" in various industries, and the impact of those conditions on the economic potential of the industry.
a) it seems that industries with high barriers to entry (meaning it's really expensive to start a business or the business is protected by patents, etc.) and low barriers to exit (meaning it cheap or easy to walk away if the business performs poorly) tend to provide much higher economic rewards than other industries.
b) industries with low barriers to entry (meaning just about anybody can get into the industry with minimal investment) and high barriers to exit (meaning it's really costly or difficult to leave the industry and go do something else) tend to have poor economic rewards for participants.
I take the view that it's relatively easy to get into architecture (the cost of our degrees aside) -- but, this idea that mdler identifies above sets the bar really high when it come to barriers to exit.
this might explain a thing or two about this general discussion topic
Awesome post, Jump. This issue of traders who shift "symbolic values" (i.e. numbers that represent money) around as a way to make loads of money has always concerned me.
The problem with architecture is that it's a non-scalable trade. Every building is custom; every building needs to be designed by a person, built by a person. A building can't really be replicated. Same thing goes for being a carpenter or even a doctor.
But a software engineer can make one thing, patent it, then replicate it endlessly. He or she can make a profit off of every duplicate. That's how Bill Gates became a zillionaire. His product was scalable.
And it's why no architect will ever become a zillionaire.
I guess we're not the only profession that's questioning the student loan debt related to our profession and the oversupply of fresh graduates further saturating the job market:
Law schools are manufacturing more lawyers than America needs, and law students aren't happy about it
It's an interesting read, especially if you replace "law student" with "architecture student"
I was particularly struck by the section on entry-level pay for lawyers. The article states that the vast majority of entry-level law jobs pay $45-60K, but that average pay stats are skewed upward by the rare job that pays $160K.
The new "ghetto" rate I have come across for licensed Architects is $50/hour. That's what we are bidding ourselves down to...
It's very sad.
i don't think principal architects earn less than lawyers when they have a project.
ie;
an architect will make 100K on a million dollar project at 10% rate. many lawyers will never get that from a client in their life time. it is not that lawyers get a client everyday either. it is just their hourly rates seems higher.
i don't.
In the earlier post, one guy gave the best reason why we make so less than a janitor. "I rather PLAY all day with photoshop in an old broken down ready to be demolished factory building, than being a lawyer working in a design by architects skyscreper". The irony of all of this is that we make beautiful workspace yet we feel the need to work in horrible places. Would you pay a mechanic in an old rundown garage as much as the mechanic at the BMW dealer?
So it's all about appearance and mentality. Many professionals believe that they are really important thu the reason why they get paid very well regardless of the job.
Architects need to practice what they preach. They sell designs, they need to work in a design enviorment. How believable would the BMW dealer be if he dirves an old Ford escort.
Architects need to dress accordningly and speak the language of their clients.
There have been several researches done where people are likely to pay a huge amount of money and take advice from people who wear suits and own expensive cars. The person wearing a suit doesn't even have to be an expert which explains why real estate agents and car salesman have a higher hourly fee than architects.
Architects have the ability to earn as much as lawyers if they just change their mindsets. I always said that architects are going to make money if lawyers or accountants become owners of architecture firms. Then again, they will notice within days that architects are willing to work for minimum wage. Then we will be back at the same position as we started.
I find it interesting that this thread bounces back from time to time.
@ orhan: "i don't think principal architects earn less than lawyers"
I know we find it inconvenient here when facts stand in the way of a good argument, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics offers the following average annual compensation data, from May 2009:
Lawyers: $95,820 / year (population: 556,000)
Paralegals / Legal Assistants: $50,080 (population: 246,000)
Architects: $78,880 (population: 101,000)
Architectural Drafters: $47,710 (population: 105,000)
I have to say, I find the difference between average attorney compensation and average architect compensation to be narrower than I would have expected.
$16,940 difference is huge. That's about 6 months extra income in a year. That's a difference between driving a Toyota or a BMW, or living in a penthouse vs a 3 bedroom apartment with two other roommates.
this question is apple and oranges
@harold: I didn't mean to suggest the difference wasn't huge ... I just assumed it was more huge.
I meant something in the lines of what quizzical is saying.
Anyway, more problematic issue we could discuss is not why we are not making as much as lawyers or doctors, but why the huge percentage of the buildings in this country getting build without the involvement of the architects.
"why the huge percentage of the buildings in this country getting build without the involvement of the architects."
Because it would be cumbersome and prohibitive to do such a thing. That's the primary reason as to why the exception list exists.
The only way to involve architects more would be to prohibit the land practices and zoning ordinances that allow those 'fringe' buildings to exist in the first place-- through a combination of eliminating parking requirements and formulating a real estate take system based on first floor development and frontage.
take=tax
The difference (with Dr's too) is that the upper end, the talented, well educated bunch, make exponentially more than the lowest tier.
Architects, more or less, make the same, regardless of talent or education.
Take a look at UCLA:
Lawyers:
97.41% of 2009 UCLA Law School graduates seeking employment secured employment within 9 months of graduation.
Median Starting Salary: $160,000
Architects (not listed, of course): what, maybe $40,000 in 2009? That's $120,000 difference, starting
That's a HUGE difference. Forget averages, there needs to be rewards commensurate with the talent, otherwise they'll move onto other careers that offer them something in return.
It is happening at the very top (Foster, Libeskind, etc., etc.), but it needs to trickle down.
Talent/talented firms also needs to be marketed as such, not just "architecture". More differentiation will create more value and competition, not just competition based on pricing (which is currently killing the profession). It will also give more incentive for ambitious pursuits and change.
Trace, the article I linked to suggests just that.
Ironically, the United States Department of Education does not even classify the M.Arch as a professional degree, but rather lumps it with traditional MS or MA degrees – so even they seem to be confused by the nomenclature. Oddly, the M.Arch fits their definition for both the professional and the research doctorate.The University of Hawaii converted its B.Arch Degrees into M.Arch degrees and then converted the M.Arch into a Ph.d.
Aside from some physics and engineering lines of study, architecture is one of the few degree tracks where you go to school for 7-8 years and don't become a "Doctor." Add on IDP, continuing education and internships, that figure is closer to 10-11 years.
In addition, NAAB makes no distinction between B.Arch, M.Arch or D.Arch. The accreditation for each degree is the same.
Similarly, the Department of Education doesn't recognize any of the Arch degrees as Professional degrees.
That's essentially the push for the D.Arch. To earn a degree that makes one sufficient for practice.
Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers and even accountants are all qualified to work in their respective fields upon the day of graduation. That is, qualifications for graduation require them to obtain their respective professional certifications.
Engineers in particular do not have terminal degree just as architects do not have terminal degrees-- terminal degrees being that the terminal degree is the final exit of academia.
However, engineering schools are more rigorous in that they will not grant a B.S.E. upon completion of the F.E. (Fundamentals of Engineering) exam. This pre-qualifies engineering graduates to be competent enough to work in their field until they complete the necessary amount of work experience to sit for the Professional Engineering exam.
So, the reality is that the current system does not allow active students to excel and reap the rewards of their hard work. Nor does it have the long-term and institutional hand-holding in place to train competent graduates .
Realized my link doesn't work:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:slUJsKTPKIoJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=40000
Google Cache to Architecture Degree Structure in the 21st Century
Law students can take the BAR exam right upon graduation so they don't need to go through mandatory IDP type of experience.I think that indicates that in law schools they actually do a better job preparing students for professional practice therefore increasing the pay but of course the other reason them make more money is that they are needed in this sue happy society.More than architects.
I'd also like all of you to take a look at this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html
Guys... not all lawyers make alot of money... And some lawyers don't make money and their jobs are pretty pretty boring as hell...
Grass is always greener on the other side... we need to stay focused on our own business and industry
No, but if you look at quality schools, like my UCLA reference (where I went to grad school), it is quite clear that they pay those that attended more competitive (dare I say 'better') schools are offered a starting salary inline with that education.
Also, there is a scale of pay/talent. Almost every other profession out there is like this - medicine, business, graphic arts, etc. They all pay the best significantly more than the worse, or even average.
Architect's can't hope to just charge more for everything because they want to, that's ludicrous (imho). You have to offer something better, differentiate you/your firm from the pack and qualify what that is, then market it successfully (again, like all other businesses).
Up to now, architect's are all lumped together with this AIA desperately trying to say that "all" architect's add value. That equality is simply unreasonable. Furthermore, judging by how many ugly buildings going up every day (well, not so many these days), there is a large lack of talented designers in positions to design.
Stay focused on architecture, but understand why it has inherent problems with the way things are done, marketed and thought about.
Grass is greener, sometimes, but in all honesty, if I knew this all in high school, I'd have at least hedged my path or pursued another path altogether, then gotten an arch degree for 'fun'.
MBA's coming out of UCLA start at $117,253. More or less, I am mostly doing business things these days anyway!
Those are MASSIVE differences!! Sure, passion, love, passion, design, blah blah, but look at reality, where the profession is at now, etc. I just hope some younguns read these threads!
UG - I'll read that article (looks looong and my coffee mug is full ;-) ), but seems logical. I'd feel much better if I were a Dr, considering I can't call myself a damn architect (legally)! After 7 straight years of arch school you'd think that wouldn't be asking too much.
That certainly would add more credibility and we'd all be cool again.
Being saved from (your own) bad taste is not as valuable as being saved from a stint in jail. Hope this wraps this query up.
"Architect's can't hope to just charge more for everything because they want to, that's ludicrous (imho). You have to offer something better."
My lawyers charges by the minute. Each phone call i make to him or he makes to me i need to pay in intervals of 6 minutes. Every email he sends me, every email he receives from me i need to pay $35. Every time I come to his office i need to pay by the hour. Every time he comes to my office i need to pay for his gas mileage and the time he spends at location. These costs are excluded from the fee he charges for the actual work.
"Being saved from (your own) bad taste is not as valuable as being saved from a stint in jail. Hope this wraps this query up."
How valuable are the works of graphic designer, a real estate agent, a psychologist, an interior stylist (not designer), a product designer, a mechanical engineer, a carpenter, a plumber, a miner, an IT specialist, a biologist, a wine critic compared to the architects work.
Trace: you have a point there. But I think there is a distinction to be made between Law and Architecture... What *value* means to each profession, to each business seems to be different....
Architecture is in part an ideas profession, in part a technical profession, and in part an art profession...
When you say "most talented" what specifically are you referring to? "Most creative"? "Best designers?" "Most technically knowledgable?" "Most experienced?" Or maybe "most innovative"? Each of these means a different thing in architecture, and I think part of the problem is that whereas in Law, you "win" and that translates directly into "financial gain", same cannot be said for design... Or at least it is not as clear... What the market values, and what design schools teach you to value, and what we as designers value may not be the same...
"Great design" means different things to different people... Odd thing about it is: you can go to the best school there is, you can be the most creative person out there, but that means you may make *less* working in a small boutique firm doing more interesting but lower profit work, getting less real stuff built, than your colleague with less design skill, who has 3 years doing summer internships working for a contractor and has construction experience and then works for a large corporate office that doesn't do good design but has a hugely profitable market strategy working to roll out big box chain stores... The most profitable and highest paying firms are *NOT* the Liebeskinds and the Fosters, I'm sure they do well now, but I'm going to speculate (not having worked at either) that they don't pay the highest salaries, don't have the best benefits, and do not have the best structures for career growth and advancement... Also, from a design credit standpoint, they are more patriarchal, so even from that standpoint, you may not get that... Experience wise I'm sure they may be great, working on the most interesting work, learning to do interesting work, etc.
But from making money standpoint, not really... I think working for a star design firm with a rock star name at the head basically means you are moving through a revolving door, you will enter and eventually need to start your own thing if you want to be rich like them... True?
In architecture, design schools teach you about design... This does not translate necessarily into profit... Or value for your client or even value for your firm. Case in point: this economy. Lets say the nature of the work in the industry is such that: clients are all tightening their belts, fewer and fewer clientelle in all markets are focused primarily on design, and it is about saving money, restructuring, being frugal, cutting costs. Now, the super design "talent" goes out the window... They either are unemployed, or their input is less valuable at the office than the super efficient, fast working, efficient guy who can roll that shit out...
Wierd thing trying to play artist and business at the same time, the objectives don't really necessarily go hand in hand... Some people are great businessmen *and* great designers, but there are plenty of great designers who simply will never get to the level of success that they did while working in a studio environment... The real world, the market aren't like school unfortunately...
In fact, I think even FINE ART as an industry allows a closer translation of *the work* (as how good that is) to *financial success*... While there are plenty of talented artists who are poor, at least what that industry is selling can be measured directly as the work of art itself... In other words, art has no other intrinsic value other than being an idea or technique of creative object to be looked at and experienced...
Architecture on the other hand is much more complicated... It's *shelter*, it consumers resources, it relates to land value, requires organizational efficiency, while at the same time it has a human, emotive, and experiential component that cannot be denied, that deeply affects people who use the space, and translates into how successful the space will be for that use... It is conditioned, it relates to human comfort, requires thinking about its systems; mechanical, electrical, lighting, wayfinding, acoustical performance, etc... So these are value measures too... It consumes energy, so there is value to being able to design to be economical over the lifetime of the building... Operational efficiency: how the space plan translates into something that works, how the details do too... At the same time, there is also the *art aspect* of the thing... The pretty space aspect... Or the monumental aspect, the thing that is spectacular about it: Guggenheim Bilbao has clear identifiable economic value... A single building can transform a local economy, it can inspire people, or even deliver a message, create an identity, be a symbol, an icon... Then there is value such as: publicity... Showing up in publications... For your office to market itself, as well as for the project and client... Winning awards and getting recognized and seen... These things have market value... Even if a project is not the biggest financial success story, there can be indirect benefits...
Architects need to clarify what value we are talking about here when we say value... Value to who? To you? To your office? To your client? To the Public? If we are talking about salary, we need to know the value we are adding, why that translates into higher pay... Not that pay is everything... I have no illusions that I am not working to make the most money I can, but I actually choose my job based on the place I work, I value the projects, and the people, the teamwork, and also the design creativity... I'm not all in it for the money or I would be working for a different kind of firm... I'm think that what architects value may not always translate into the financial returns...
Honestly, we ought to understand what we are doing, if you are doing this for design experience, that's good but that may not mean higher pay... And if money is the objective, figure out how to make money... This is market driven, about industry, requires clarity about what business we are in... We are a part of the construction industry... This is not some academic BS... It's big money and investment... AEC is the larges sector the economy, there are huge returns being made when times are good, it's just that architects are just service providers to that, not making the money there...
Re: time spent and getting paid for every phone call. The lawyer is getting paid for the minutes because he is primarily offering knowledge value. He is in consulting services primarily. Architects are sort of like that but not really: we deliver design services... There is a management and adminstration aspect to being a project architect, and also there is a real deliverable: a set of a construction drawings, a permit, a finished building that looks like what was in the documents... That is a little different: we are not paid purely for our expertise like a consultant, but for an end product... You can probably have that strictly by the time kind of pay structure if you wanted to be a consultant in a specialized technical knowledge aspect of architecture, rather than as a a designer or project architect / manager...
Think about value from your client's perspective... This is a huge investment for them. Most likely, they are financing the project, buildings are huge capital expenses that require credit.... We're talking in many cases, about financial arrangements that will take a couple decades to pay off or resolve themselves.. What does that mean in terms the value we need to be providing to be hugely successful in this industry, where the value is being generated for our clients?
Re: MBAs... There are plenty of MBA's graduating with $100,000 in debt at this moment and unemployed...
as are architects...I think most would gladly take 100k in debt to be able to be debt free and moving rapidly ahead in 2 years!
My point was that value is what needs to be emphasized and marketed. Law, drs., graphic designers, etc., all market as the 'best' be paid more, not that all are good, or that all are even necessary or a good thing.
This is where architecture, imho, gets it wrong. The AIA, and elsewhere are promoting architecture, not good architecture.
If good architecture was more valuable than a generic building, then clients would pay more for quality, which, in turn, puts more value on talent and differentiates one firm from another.
There are glimpses of this happening, certainly at the stararchitect level. That's some progress, I think.
Maybe what I am suggesting is impossible. But if there is not some effort to encourage, engage and recruit new talent, then architecture will continue to die and make less money.
Unlike 15 years ago, there is the web and sites like this that hs kids can easily read. Why would some young, ambitious, kid want to pursue architecture? Because the 'love' it? I hardly think that will attract anyone!
With the information available these days, my money is on architecture continuing to decline as more and more of the brightest and best pursue careers that value their ambition and talents.
For businesses to thrive and succeed they need to continue to recruit talent, promote and encourage growth.
Yeah, well for firms, lets not talk about salaried employees...
As far as firms go, they already do that... They position themselves in the market in one of two ways: as a commodity architecture firm, or as a value added architecture firm... Depending on how you sell yourself in the market, you adjust your fees accordingly...
Same as a Walmart vs. a Saks... This already happens in architecture firms already in the market... Overall, both approaches can be profitable, but it is just two different strategies...
I think in this economy however, the vale proposition of the higher end,
cut off... these days though, like in many things, the value added proposition becomes more difficult because the market is just more open to discount architecture... Firms undercutting hurts the value added firm... Just reality in a recession... It's not isolated to Architects... But the office that has positioned itself to do a certain kind of work, and which charges higher fees is going to have a tough time repositioning and adapting to convince the market that it does low cost roll out now that the economy is looking for that... *and it would be a mistake to try to do that*... You can sell yourself as a commodity firm, or a value firm, but you cannot be both, you will get killed by competition on both fronts... You cannot market that way, you will not be successful, you need to know what you are offering and what business you are in...
I think there may be one kind of value addedness that we could market that would position what architects do a little differently...
Basically, architect as ideas professional, creative consultant that understands something about your business, about real estate, about economy, about the relationships between program and space and performance measures... Illustrate how a particular kind of design vision, visionary insight is what architects sell... Problem solving, but also opportunity creation... In other words, if architects could remake their profession to be as much about envisioning the potential of a project, defining the parameters of that project rather than just executing a project outlined and dreamt up by the client, then we could become those knowledge and creative consultants that develop the value for the client, not just be managing and executing good buildings, but creating projects from the blank slate... This means architects as people who know a great deal more than just about architecture and building, but about development and business as well...
All, and I mean literally, for Pete's sake ,ALL of the answers before this one can be summed in one word: liability.
Lawyer's are literally paid to take on liability and punch it in the throat. Architect's, as a rule, shy from it.
Liability is akin to responsibilty. Responsibility is akin to power.
Is this really so obtuse, that we can't figure this out? GC's can make alot of money because they take on a lot of risk. Likewise, developers make more money because they, in turn, take on more risk. The architect has absolved him or her self to a level of near risklessness. RISK-LESS-NESS. As such, he or she should get compensated according to his or her standing. 'Genious sketches' are and always have been and will always will be propaganda.
jplourde - I totally agree.
Construction in general, is all about managing and pricing risk. Everything else is incidental.
Ouch, cuts to the core,dia. Risk is in no way just about obtuse liability, nor is it about extravagance. Though, granted, liabilitiy is a HUGE, GIGANTIC, RIDICULOUS, concern. I assume you, of course, have something not only intelligent but also poignant to say about architectural relevance in the 21st century?
Oh were you finished?
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.