Recently, “Anonymouse” created an excellent post called “Architecture and Home Ownership” that has been very popular. It is very depressing to see how many of us cannot afford a house or apartment. I am in the same boat, so I have no answers, but I felt that the issue needed to be elaborated upon.
An architect being unable to afford a house of his or her own is just one symptom of a much larger problem that we all need to address. We have allowed our profession to become marginalized. We have allowed developers to replace our role in society to the point where most of us are either making pretty things for rich individuals, or budget boxes for corporations, institutions and the government with only rare exceptions. But what are we doing to make life and community better for the average middle class American -- especially those living in suburbia? Besides whoring ourselves to developers to provide plenty of big box retail that encourage more mass consumption and consumer debt, there isn't much.
Most of us wish to live in the big (expensive) cities where the best projects are, while we dismiss the suburbs as hopeless architectural abominations. But we must realize that as the suburbs grow in size every year (they are now more populated than our cities and rural areas combined), developers continue to maximize their profits while architects and planners become less relevant. The less relevant we are, the less our services are worth to society. And as our cities get more expensive, we are slowly dooming our profession and getting priced out. We can't all flock to Seattle and Portland as architectural refugees and still expect to get jobs.
We must aim to change the cause and take responsibility to ensure the future of our profession. We must address how the political environment affects our profession. We often admire European design and buildings, but we seem to forget that they are built in a much different political and social environment and much different than the one that currently exists in this country. The political, social and economic rift between Europe and America has never been so apparent and startling. Meanwhile, America is more divided than it has been in any of our lifetimes, yet our profession largely refuses to acknowledge or respond to this environment. Call the division what you will: red/blue, suburban/urban, conservative/progressive, the fact is that architects are typically living, working, and building for only one side of that divide. We need to be relevant to all Americans if we ever expect to be respected and compensated appropriately.
As a profession that is based in progressive values, we should learn from the failings of the Democratic Party in the last decade. We should also learn from the new direction the Democrats are taking post-election to become relevant again. Like us, they were relegated to the urban archipelago. However, unlike us, they have learned their lesson and they are now making the necessary efforts to become relevant to all American people. They are reorganizing, getting in touch with their core values, starting a grassroots movement and articulating their vision for the future of their party and the country.
In my opinion, it would be wise for our profession to unite and align with progressives and do the same. Architects from lowly interns to the bigwigs at the top of the AIA must become more active politically and socially in order to affect change, keep our profession relevant and ensure a promising future for architects. Design alone is not nearly enough. We should make sure that architects and responsible design are an integral part of the progressive agenda.
This is the progressive message to America: "We believe in prosperity and opportunity, strong communities, great schools, investing in our future, and leading the world by example." I think most of us would agree with those values and architects could, and should, take the lead in creating that vision of America. That is what we do after all – create and build visions.
Is this what you want the AIA to incorporate into its mission?
"We believe in prosperity and opportunity (but not in competition), strong communities (fathers sold separately), great schools (with a high paid specialist to explain away all aspects of bad behavior), investing in our future (government knows best how to spend your money), and leading the world by example (in lieu of religion of course)
i think architects suffer from the same problems as the average american. we spend all out time trying to survive, which leaves no time for politcal activism.
the people who are active in politics and therefore well organized are the ones with free time and extra income, not the marginalized illegal alien sweating 18 hrs a day washing dishes in the back of some chain restaurant, or the cadd monkey putting in unpaid allnighters so his boss can pass the savings on to the developer who spends the money on an duck hunting trip, or plane ticket to the republican national convention.
Sorry for the rant. Been bottling that up for a while. I agree anomymouse. I guess my point before I got sidetracked was that we should try to imagine a day in the future when architects all across our country are held in high esteem and design is viewed as necessary and important, just as it is in europe. Imagine the day when we will appropriately compensated so we will be able to afford our houses, employees will have more leverage and maybe the cad monkey will not have to work unpaid allnighters.
Then we should try to think about what we can do to get to that point and then work towards it. If we architects have a common vision for our future and the future of the profession, then we can work together to acheive that better day. My ideas for getting to that point may be way off base, but I am open to other ideas :) Either way, bringing architects together and sharing ideas in this virtual community here at Archinect is a great start.
One of the highest paid professions is CAD drafting - - - for non high school graduates.
As far as 'progressive' is concerned, you've inadvertently mirrored your elevations.
Europe is only progressive to make the corruption seem less rancorous. Good luck sending little hooligans to architect school.
That America is progressive in its education system is the reason someone is always there to take your place at the unpaid all-nighter alter - not some republican developer.
Its a problem that is not just in the US. All over the world architects are integral parts of the community but broke like hell. I don't think it is the fault of the developer or anyone else, except those believed we are wealthy and should "removed" from the process of architecture. Not always the developer - usually the client. I would like to own property one day, and i realise to do that I will have to put on my developer hat, and incur the perils of debt etc. But what choice do we all have but to take out a mortgage
Completely agreed jam-arch. I don't fault developers one bit for their success or for our position, even if I don't agree with their outlook. It is the attitude towards our profession, as you pointed out, that is the problem: " those believed we are wealthy and should 'removed' from the process of architecture".
I am suggesting that we take responsibility for how we are percieved. I believe that we can work together to change that perception, especially since it is false and we have much more to offer. The AIA has been trying to do just that, but with only limited success. I even heard an ad on the radio the other day from the AIA. But, they can only do so much in a top-down environment in Washington DC. We have the makings of a wide reaching greassroots community that can make a difference, right here in these forums on Archinect.
If we can succeed at changing the perception of architects and planners, the results would yield a better life for architects, a stonger profession and a better society. The choice we have is to be pro-active and aim for change, or to stick with the status quo and deal.
Sounds good. How do we do it?
someone come out with a "to do" list or something.
make it as easy as possible to participate.
look into existing e-activism sites.
is anyone else involved with local oganizations, like historic preservation societies, go to city council meetings, push for more green building standards, on public art councils?
that is what i thought this thread was going to be about.
i dont know if it will help architects get paid more, but it sure has felt good for me to be involved with these sorts of organizations. you meet lots of people in the community who care about art and architecture, which is somewhat rewarding in itself...i've also found this to be a great opportunity for networking (and marketing!)
I have vast opinions about this topic - and no, I don't find it a right/left political issue at all. When given more time I'll find a proper response.
My first thought now is to the recent posts about what kind of cars we are driving and what kind of clothing we are wearing. Yes, it might not all be paid for but it seems we are dressing quite swanky and driving nice cars. I didn't see many cavileers and KIA's on that car post. I might be renting but I drive a nicer car than 90% of America.
architecture and social reform just aren't compatable. that was the big lesson of modern architecture. of course we need to practice responsibly, but if your interested in initiating change your in the wrong business.
most architects i know who have been in the profession awhile make good money (even those who haven't 'sold out'). almost all principals or partners i know make really good money. what's the problem? should we be making as much as doctors? i don't think so.
architecture and suburbia just aren't compatable. flw learned that after his usonian period.
a stamp isn't necessary for a single family dwelling. that building type is a niche for architects and has always been that way. the palladian villas we studied were anomalies. even then most people lived in some house designed and buillt by a carpenter.
Oh well, what can I say? I guess idealism is dead after all. Its funny that you mention doctors. Check out Wikipedia's definition for "architect". Here's an excerpt:
"Architects and landscape architects are considered professionals on par with doctors and lawyers, because they are often required to obtain specialized education and professional licensure, similar to the requirements for other professionals, with requirements for practice varying greatly from place to place."
While you at it, check out the "urban dictionary" definition. Its a good laugh at least:
"An overworked and underpaid employee - of a pretentious registered practitioner of the arts (a prat). Many years in tertiary education have left the 'architect' bitter and in debt - and unable to relate to the remainder of society."
I'm an optimist, and I believe capitalism evolves so that the best products and ideas rise to the top.
Despite the negativity here, I think Americans are actually waking up to the importance of urban design and the beauty of good architecture. People are realizing that sprawl has hit the wall, and that more space is not better space. Far from being marginalized, our urban centers are thriving once again. And many suburban areas look more like real cities every day, with smart growth advocates leading the change.
What has really diminished is the role of the civic body in shaping the form of the city, and architects must adapt to this. We must show people how we add value to their homes and businesses. Those of us who are less risk-averse may profit directly from the value we add by becoming developers ourselves. And we shouldn't be above doing work in suburbia; a good architect can do any project well.
Our obligations as professionals are not at odds with the market. In fact, good design ads value, and value is money.
did american architects ever walked to the capitol for any reason? for example; for housing shortages, gentrification, opposing the urban policy, lack of design opportunities on public projects. energy policy, the answer would tell a lot about where it's at. would aia ever ask its members to gather at the steps to protest anything? in many countries these are done by architects all the time. here we are a service providing profession and only understand lobbying to protect the profession.. in a nut shell..
These two threads have reminded me of how depressing it can be to be an architect...
Time and time again my professor warned me of the woes of becoming an architect…. lower middle class income, a convoluted public image, detested by most contractors, overworked and under appreciated, and so on… He said the best way to have a chance for overcoming the lack of financial insecurity was to start your own firm or partnership (apart from becoming the next starchitect). He also said you must absolutely love architecture to be a satisfied architect.
The rift between the principal and the associate pay is enormous. I personally know only two architects that are living in multi-million dollar homes. One is the founding partner of a very large firm and the other is the president/ founder of the small firm I’m employed with. Both have worked tirelessly to achieve their success, but I would say the primary trait they share is their natural born ability to sell you on anything. I’ve seen our savvy principal convince contractors, clients & officials to have complete 180’s in their decisions with no idea of what just went down. Basically, as with most business professions, it seems to become the best you must also become a master bullshitter.
The lack of compensation for the production employee I believe is due to the principal rift, as well as the general public perception that architecture is simply a “broker†style artistic service that is required as a matter of formality. Developers, contractors, and even many engineers provide tangible services that are free from this artist stigma, and thus command a higher fee. The public for the most part views middle man professions as an unnecessary waste of money. I believe in order for the production employee to see a trickled down increase in compensation, the architect must reinvent its pubic image away from the current middle man position. And maybe, just maybe, we would receive the public following and respect required for our activism to become a reality.
As for me, I will continue to love architecture and strive to do my best, although the whole bullshitting thing is not my style.
You bring up a very important topic, mjotter. I have been lurking here for a while and finally decided to sign up and post on this topic. Reforming the public image of architects should be a high priority of ours. Bula's last post sums up the problem well. I am all in for joining together and sharing ideas to change this. The online, grassroots community is great idea and it is worth pursuing.
We already have the "school blog project" which lets archinect users get a peek inside architecture schools all over the nation. Why not expand the vision to have a blog whose intent is to actively bring together every school, firm, student, professor, employee, principle, etc in one place to share ideas on this topic? There needs to be a medium that bridges the rift between all of these groups and a collaborative blog may be just the tool we to do it. There is great strength in collaboration and unity and there is great potential in that idea.
Unfortunately, it looks like your more controversial points of view in your original rant may have doomed much of this thread. Perhaps you should try starting a new thread (without the politics) that is more focused on reforming the perception of architects and how that relates to the activism (or lack of) that abracadabra refers to? I think you will find a broader range of support and more focused discussion in a thread of that sort. I'll be the first to respond, unless someone beats me to it. Thanks
This came from "Lessons in Professional Liability" - - - if you have the time:
"Over the last few decades, there has been a growing mistrust in institutions, government and authority figures in general. Without a doubt, this suspicion extends to some of the professions. While almost everyone has a doctor and many have an accountant, the average citizen may never use the services of a design professional and, therefore, has little knowledge of the discipline. Because of this, many people base their opinions about design professionals on what they read in newspapers or see on television -and that publicity has not always been favorable. Headlines about the rare but spectacular building failure are what people remember.
Many people have no idea what it is design professionals do for a living. There may be a vague understanding that architects build buildings, whatever that means. As for engineers, well, nobody really knows what engineers do, besides drive trains.
But does it really matter that John and Jane Q. Public don't appreciate the subtleties of your profession? The answer is a resounding "Yes!" This lack of understanding makes you and every other design professional more vulnerable to claims from clients as well as the public. If people don't know what you do, then they also don't know what you don't do. They may believe, for instance, that you are responsible
for the accident at the jobsite or that you personally tested the roofing system for the new school.
It falls to each architect and engineer to enhance public understanding of his or her profession. People base their ideas of your profession on their perception of your actions. Hence, the technical and aesthetic competence you show, coupled with an environmental sensibility, a fairness of judgement and a good sense of public purpose and duty, will help them define the profession as well as your place in the profession.
You can go a step further by working to educate the public. Take an active role in your community. There are so few architects and engineers in public office that it is little wonder that the needs of those professions are often not met. Run for the school board or the city council; offer to serve on your town's planning commission. As a professional, you can provide valuable expertise to your community -and teach others about your job.
The better you tell your story, the better you serve your profession. If you explain the merits of project partnering, qualifications-based selection or limitation of liability at a Rotary or Chamber of Commerce luncheon, someone important (perhaps a future client or a lawyer for the city) might hear you. If you tell a career day assembly full of high school students about what a geotechnical engineer does, some of those kids might take an interest in science and math. In a few years, one of them may work for a client or may even become an employee in your firm. If you write or, better yet, visit your congressperson or state assembly members to urge action on legislation that will help your profession, you just might be heard. If 50 of your colleagues from the same district do the same, someone in government is going to sit up and take notice.
As you work to educate the public about the value and role of your discipline, you may be pleasantly surprised to find that such an effort is an effective marketing tool. Even more important, you will be helping to reduce professional liability claims against design professionals and taking steps to shore up the erosion of public confidence in the professions."
Thanks abracadabra, bula, ericharch and dazed and confused. This is the discussion that I intended to start. The excerpt from "Lessons in Professional Liability" is right on and has excellent suggestions. The idea of a collaborative architecture blog that works to unite all aspects of our profession is exactly what I had in mind too. It seems that creating a widereaching grassroots community like that would be the first step.
Once that is established, we can coordinate our message to the public and coordinate our efforts. Our efforts may actually be successful if there are thousands of architects across the nation working together for that goal, rather than a handful working individually.
Should we start a new thread to discuss this and let this thread die, as ericharch suggests? He has a good point -- my rant wasn't very focused.
As for a specific direction in advancing the image of the architect, I for one would love to take on the additional role of a small developer in the redevelopment of blighted site/ buildings. Obviously there are many hurdles to overcome when considering development services (i.e. obtaining capital, managing risk, finding the time when we are already stretched so thin, etc), but I really feel that if more architects took on the role of a self initiated site/ building rehabilitator (in addition to a building designer), we would begin to secure a larger portion of the publics respect in construction. Larger firms would obviously be able to take on this role with relative ease, but even smaller firms have the option to form ventures and collectively purchase, design & redevelop.
This profession must evolve and expand its services to stay relevant.
Great post Bula. Evolving the profession to take a pro-active stance on development and the changing world is a necessary move and should be a part of our reform initiative. Creating a central resource for architects to get advice, expertise and share ideas on how to overcome the hurdles you mention to achieve this goal would be an effective start.
Rethinking the business model of architecture is the way to change the profession. There is far more money to be made in the production of residential and commercial spaces, than in selling designs. Why not have firms that design, build and sell buildings?
Actually these firms do exist. KB Homes, Toll Brothers and other big development companies have a staff of architects, engineers, finance and marketing people. They build tens of thousands of homes every year. They have a huge impact on the way this country looks.
Architects who are interested in good design (as opposed to big boxes and McMansions) should start doing the same thing. We need to get over the snobbery towards suburbia. We need to come to terms with the fact that capitalism is here to stay and the government isn't going to solve our problems. We need to embrace markets, and the opportunities they provide for understanding and satisfying public demand.
Judging from all the complaints I hear about how ugly American suburbia is I'm pretty sure there's a market for better design out there. These complaints aren't just from architecture nerds. I read an article in Esquire recently crying out for someone to do something about how ugly the American landscape is becoming.
The only way that architects can change society is through good design. Right now the way the building industry is set up it's hard to get good architecture into the marketplace. If architects, or really architecture firms, became designer developers, total building producers from financing through to construction and sales, we would be able to advance good design and make it available to many more people.
Perhaps architects would command more respect if they were wealthier and seen as more powerful. But I don't think there's much of a negative stigma attached to being an architect (except among people in the building industry). Think about the reputation lawyers have.
It seems like the bigger issue is money, and the way to make more money is to rethink the business model architecture firms use.
I think we are all in agreement about that, it makes complete sense. The question that needs discussing is how do we do it? Bula pointed out a number of issues holding architects back from evolving: "(i.e. obtaining capital, managing risk, finding the time when we are already stretched so thin, etc)". Does anyone know of any resources on the matter or precedents by architects? Any ideas?
please see architecture and business thread about discounted cash flow methodology. until this financing strategy is revised, subverted or undermined by alternative financing methodologies aint too much going to change in regard to development. good design, unfortunately, has very little to do with it and when faced with the realities of making payroll most architects take the jobs that come their way. sad but true.
Check out the entire article vado posted a section of in the business and architecture thread here.
Christopher Leinberger, a guy with a lot of experience financing non-standard real estate projects, does a good job of outlining the challenges progressive developers face and offers some solutions too.
His article focuses on pedestrian-oriented development projects in line with smart growth principles that don't fit the standard product types real estate investors usually pick from. The pedestrian focus is part of the reason why these projects can take longer to see strong cash flows and consequently are less appealing to investors using dcf analysis.
Do you think it's possible for an architect to infuse a building that does fit into the standard real estate types with good design? Could you make a big box or a strip mall a good building? Or do the social implications of rapidly sprawling growth make it inevitably bad? Basically, can architects work within the expectations of the real estate finance market and still have a positive impact through design?
Is pedestrian focus necessarily the way to reshape American cities? How do you all feel about smart growth? Is it the answer?
As far as resources for people thinking about making the switch goes, I'd say check out the Nov 04 Metropolis article and the late 2003 Architectural Design issue on progressive development to get an introduction. For more technical stuff on real estate development MIT has a lot of information online as part of its OpenCourseWare program that comes from their Center for Real Estate. Also, check out the other articles the Brookings Institution has online along with Leinberger's. For general information on finance and investing check out smartmoney.com and investopedia.com. That's what first comes to mind, but I'll try to think of more later. In the mean time, start buttering up to that rich uncle of yours.
Speaking of architects and public office, Anu Natarajan, 42, an Indian American architect was just elected to the City Council in Fremont, CA. She is also the first Indian ever elected to this post. IANS
In Santa Monica, our Mayor Pro-tempore is Architect Herb Katz. Great guy, and one of the folks behind the first public dog beach in Los Angeles County.
in seattle, peter steinbrueck is president of the city council. his father designed the space needle. he is mostly a good advocate for the architecture, design, and the arts.
Architecture and Activism
Recently, “Anonymouse” created an excellent post called “Architecture and Home Ownership” that has been very popular. It is very depressing to see how many of us cannot afford a house or apartment. I am in the same boat, so I have no answers, but I felt that the issue needed to be elaborated upon.
An architect being unable to afford a house of his or her own is just one symptom of a much larger problem that we all need to address. We have allowed our profession to become marginalized. We have allowed developers to replace our role in society to the point where most of us are either making pretty things for rich individuals, or budget boxes for corporations, institutions and the government with only rare exceptions. But what are we doing to make life and community better for the average middle class American -- especially those living in suburbia? Besides whoring ourselves to developers to provide plenty of big box retail that encourage more mass consumption and consumer debt, there isn't much.
Most of us wish to live in the big (expensive) cities where the best projects are, while we dismiss the suburbs as hopeless architectural abominations. But we must realize that as the suburbs grow in size every year (they are now more populated than our cities and rural areas combined), developers continue to maximize their profits while architects and planners become less relevant. The less relevant we are, the less our services are worth to society. And as our cities get more expensive, we are slowly dooming our profession and getting priced out. We can't all flock to Seattle and Portland as architectural refugees and still expect to get jobs.
We must aim to change the cause and take responsibility to ensure the future of our profession. We must address how the political environment affects our profession. We often admire European design and buildings, but we seem to forget that they are built in a much different political and social environment and much different than the one that currently exists in this country. The political, social and economic rift between Europe and America has never been so apparent and startling. Meanwhile, America is more divided than it has been in any of our lifetimes, yet our profession largely refuses to acknowledge or respond to this environment. Call the division what you will: red/blue, suburban/urban, conservative/progressive, the fact is that architects are typically living, working, and building for only one side of that divide. We need to be relevant to all Americans if we ever expect to be respected and compensated appropriately.
As a profession that is based in progressive values, we should learn from the failings of the Democratic Party in the last decade. We should also learn from the new direction the Democrats are taking post-election to become relevant again. Like us, they were relegated to the urban archipelago. However, unlike us, they have learned their lesson and they are now making the necessary efforts to become relevant to all American people. They are reorganizing, getting in touch with their core values, starting a grassroots movement and articulating their vision for the future of their party and the country.
In my opinion, it would be wise for our profession to unite and align with progressives and do the same. Architects from lowly interns to the bigwigs at the top of the AIA must become more active politically and socially in order to affect change, keep our profession relevant and ensure a promising future for architects. Design alone is not nearly enough. We should make sure that architects and responsible design are an integral part of the progressive agenda.
This is the progressive message to America: "We believe in prosperity and opportunity, strong communities, great schools, investing in our future, and leading the world by example." I think most of us would agree with those values and architects could, and should, take the lead in creating that vision of America. That is what we do after all – create and build visions.
Sorry it's so long. What do you all think?
I have two words for you Mr. bcorbs: BE - HAVE!
Is this what you want the AIA to incorporate into its mission?
"We believe in prosperity and opportunity (but not in competition), strong communities (fathers sold separately), great schools (with a high paid specialist to explain away all aspects of bad behavior), investing in our future (government knows best how to spend your money), and leading the world by example (in lieu of religion of course)
i think architects suffer from the same problems as the average american. we spend all out time trying to survive, which leaves no time for politcal activism.
the people who are active in politics and therefore well organized are the ones with free time and extra income, not the marginalized illegal alien sweating 18 hrs a day washing dishes in the back of some chain restaurant, or the cadd monkey putting in unpaid allnighters so his boss can pass the savings on to the developer who spends the money on an duck hunting trip, or plane ticket to the republican national convention.
since when are the "big-wigs" at the top of the AIA
Sorry for the rant. Been bottling that up for a while. I agree anomymouse. I guess my point before I got sidetracked was that we should try to imagine a day in the future when architects all across our country are held in high esteem and design is viewed as necessary and important, just as it is in europe. Imagine the day when we will appropriately compensated so we will be able to afford our houses, employees will have more leverage and maybe the cad monkey will not have to work unpaid allnighters.
Then we should try to think about what we can do to get to that point and then work towards it. If we architects have a common vision for our future and the future of the profession, then we can work together to acheive that better day. My ideas for getting to that point may be way off base, but I am open to other ideas :) Either way, bringing architects together and sharing ideas in this virtual community here at Archinect is a great start.
One of the highest paid professions is CAD drafting - - - for non high school graduates.
As far as 'progressive' is concerned, you've inadvertently mirrored your elevations.
Europe is only progressive to make the corruption seem less rancorous. Good luck sending little hooligans to architect school.
That America is progressive in its education system is the reason someone is always there to take your place at the unpaid all-nighter alter - not some republican developer.
Be happy. Be thankful. Life is good.
Its a problem that is not just in the US. All over the world architects are integral parts of the community but broke like hell. I don't think it is the fault of the developer or anyone else, except those believed we are wealthy and should "removed" from the process of architecture. Not always the developer - usually the client. I would like to own property one day, and i realise to do that I will have to put on my developer hat, and incur the perils of debt etc. But what choice do we all have but to take out a mortgage
Completely agreed jam-arch. I don't fault developers one bit for their success or for our position, even if I don't agree with their outlook. It is the attitude towards our profession, as you pointed out, that is the problem: " those believed we are wealthy and should 'removed' from the process of architecture".
I am suggesting that we take responsibility for how we are percieved. I believe that we can work together to change that perception, especially since it is false and we have much more to offer. The AIA has been trying to do just that, but with only limited success. I even heard an ad on the radio the other day from the AIA. But, they can only do so much in a top-down environment in Washington DC. We have the makings of a wide reaching greassroots community that can make a difference, right here in these forums on Archinect.
If we can succeed at changing the perception of architects and planners, the results would yield a better life for architects, a stonger profession and a better society. The choice we have is to be pro-active and aim for change, or to stick with the status quo and deal.
Sounds good. How do we do it?
someone come out with a "to do" list or something.
make it as easy as possible to participate.
look into existing e-activism sites.
is anyone else involved with local oganizations, like historic preservation societies, go to city council meetings, push for more green building standards, on public art councils?
that is what i thought this thread was going to be about.
i dont know if it will help architects get paid more, but it sure has felt good for me to be involved with these sorts of organizations. you meet lots of people in the community who care about art and architecture, which is somewhat rewarding in itself...i've also found this to be a great opportunity for networking (and marketing!)
I have vast opinions about this topic - and no, I don't find it a right/left political issue at all. When given more time I'll find a proper response.
My first thought now is to the recent posts about what kind of cars we are driving and what kind of clothing we are wearing. Yes, it might not all be paid for but it seems we are dressing quite swanky and driving nice cars. I didn't see many cavileers and KIA's on that car post. I might be renting but I drive a nicer car than 90% of America.
a couple of counterpoints:
architecture and social reform just aren't compatable. that was the big lesson of modern architecture. of course we need to practice responsibly, but if your interested in initiating change your in the wrong business.
most architects i know who have been in the profession awhile make good money (even those who haven't 'sold out'). almost all principals or partners i know make really good money. what's the problem? should we be making as much as doctors? i don't think so.
architecture and suburbia just aren't compatable. flw learned that after his usonian period.
a stamp isn't necessary for a single family dwelling. that building type is a niche for architects and has always been that way. the palladian villas we studied were anomalies. even then most people lived in some house designed and buillt by a carpenter.
Oh well, what can I say? I guess idealism is dead after all. Its funny that you mention doctors. Check out Wikipedia's definition for "architect". Here's an excerpt:
"Architects and landscape architects are considered professionals on par with doctors and lawyers, because they are often required to obtain specialized education and professional licensure, similar to the requirements for other professionals, with requirements for practice varying greatly from place to place."
While you at it, check out the "urban dictionary" definition. Its a good laugh at least:
"An overworked and underpaid employee - of a pretentious registered practitioner of the arts (a prat). Many years in tertiary education have left the 'architect' bitter and in debt - and unable to relate to the remainder of society."
I'm an optimist, and I believe capitalism evolves so that the best products and ideas rise to the top.
Despite the negativity here, I think Americans are actually waking up to the importance of urban design and the beauty of good architecture. People are realizing that sprawl has hit the wall, and that more space is not better space. Far from being marginalized, our urban centers are thriving once again. And many suburban areas look more like real cities every day, with smart growth advocates leading the change.
What has really diminished is the role of the civic body in shaping the form of the city, and architects must adapt to this. We must show people how we add value to their homes and businesses. Those of us who are less risk-averse may profit directly from the value we add by becoming developers ourselves. And we shouldn't be above doing work in suburbia; a good architect can do any project well.
Our obligations as professionals are not at odds with the market. In fact, good design ads value, and value is money.
I am an 'architect' - the rest of you are unimaginative scum.
great line.
did american architects ever walked to the capitol for any reason? for example; for housing shortages, gentrification, opposing the urban policy, lack of design opportunities on public projects. energy policy, the answer would tell a lot about where it's at. would aia ever ask its members to gather at the steps to protest anything? in many countries these are done by architects all the time. here we are a service providing profession and only understand lobbying to protect the profession.. in a nut shell..
These two threads have reminded me of how depressing it can be to be an architect...
Time and time again my professor warned me of the woes of becoming an architect…. lower middle class income, a convoluted public image, detested by most contractors, overworked and under appreciated, and so on… He said the best way to have a chance for overcoming the lack of financial insecurity was to start your own firm or partnership (apart from becoming the next starchitect). He also said you must absolutely love architecture to be a satisfied architect.
The rift between the principal and the associate pay is enormous. I personally know only two architects that are living in multi-million dollar homes. One is the founding partner of a very large firm and the other is the president/ founder of the small firm I’m employed with. Both have worked tirelessly to achieve their success, but I would say the primary trait they share is their natural born ability to sell you on anything. I’ve seen our savvy principal convince contractors, clients & officials to have complete 180’s in their decisions with no idea of what just went down. Basically, as with most business professions, it seems to become the best you must also become a master bullshitter.
The lack of compensation for the production employee I believe is due to the principal rift, as well as the general public perception that architecture is simply a “broker†style artistic service that is required as a matter of formality. Developers, contractors, and even many engineers provide tangible services that are free from this artist stigma, and thus command a higher fee. The public for the most part views middle man professions as an unnecessary waste of money. I believe in order for the production employee to see a trickled down increase in compensation, the architect must reinvent its pubic image away from the current middle man position. And maybe, just maybe, we would receive the public following and respect required for our activism to become a reality.
As for me, I will continue to love architecture and strive to do my best, although the whole bullshitting thing is not my style.
You bring up a very important topic, mjotter. I have been lurking here for a while and finally decided to sign up and post on this topic. Reforming the public image of architects should be a high priority of ours. Bula's last post sums up the problem well. I am all in for joining together and sharing ideas to change this. The online, grassroots community is great idea and it is worth pursuing.
We already have the "school blog project" which lets archinect users get a peek inside architecture schools all over the nation. Why not expand the vision to have a blog whose intent is to actively bring together every school, firm, student, professor, employee, principle, etc in one place to share ideas on this topic? There needs to be a medium that bridges the rift between all of these groups and a collaborative blog may be just the tool we to do it. There is great strength in collaboration and unity and there is great potential in that idea.
Unfortunately, it looks like your more controversial points of view in your original rant may have doomed much of this thread. Perhaps you should try starting a new thread (without the politics) that is more focused on reforming the perception of architects and how that relates to the activism (or lack of) that abracadabra refers to? I think you will find a broader range of support and more focused discussion in a thread of that sort. I'll be the first to respond, unless someone beats me to it. Thanks
This came from "Lessons in Professional Liability" - - - if you have the time:
"Over the last few decades, there has been a growing mistrust in institutions, government and authority figures in general. Without a doubt, this suspicion extends to some of the professions. While almost everyone has a doctor and many have an accountant, the average citizen may never use the services of a design professional and, therefore, has little knowledge of the discipline. Because of this, many people base their opinions about design professionals on what they read in newspapers or see on television -and that publicity has not always been favorable. Headlines about the rare but spectacular building failure are what people remember.
Many people have no idea what it is design professionals do for a living. There may be a vague understanding that architects build buildings, whatever that means. As for engineers, well, nobody really knows what engineers do, besides drive trains.
But does it really matter that John and Jane Q. Public don't appreciate the subtleties of your profession? The answer is a resounding "Yes!" This lack of understanding makes you and every other design professional more vulnerable to claims from clients as well as the public. If people don't know what you do, then they also don't know what you don't do. They may believe, for instance, that you are responsible
for the accident at the jobsite or that you personally tested the roofing system for the new school.
It falls to each architect and engineer to enhance public understanding of his or her profession. People base their ideas of your profession on their perception of your actions. Hence, the technical and aesthetic competence you show, coupled with an environmental sensibility, a fairness of judgement and a good sense of public purpose and duty, will help them define the profession as well as your place in the profession.
You can go a step further by working to educate the public. Take an active role in your community. There are so few architects and engineers in public office that it is little wonder that the needs of those professions are often not met. Run for the school board or the city council; offer to serve on your town's planning commission. As a professional, you can provide valuable expertise to your community -and teach others about your job.
The better you tell your story, the better you serve your profession. If you explain the merits of project partnering, qualifications-based selection or limitation of liability at a Rotary or Chamber of Commerce luncheon, someone important (perhaps a future client or a lawyer for the city) might hear you. If you tell a career day assembly full of high school students about what a geotechnical engineer does, some of those kids might take an interest in science and math. In a few years, one of them may work for a client or may even become an employee in your firm. If you write or, better yet, visit your congressperson or state assembly members to urge action on legislation that will help your profession, you just might be heard. If 50 of your colleagues from the same district do the same, someone in government is going to sit up and take notice.
As you work to educate the public about the value and role of your discipline, you may be pleasantly surprised to find that such an effort is an effective marketing tool. Even more important, you will be helping to reduce professional liability claims against design professionals and taking steps to shore up the erosion of public confidence in the professions."
Thanks abracadabra, bula, ericharch and dazed and confused. This is the discussion that I intended to start. The excerpt from "Lessons in Professional Liability" is right on and has excellent suggestions. The idea of a collaborative architecture blog that works to unite all aspects of our profession is exactly what I had in mind too. It seems that creating a widereaching grassroots community like that would be the first step.
Once that is established, we can coordinate our message to the public and coordinate our efforts. Our efforts may actually be successful if there are thousands of architects across the nation working together for that goal, rather than a handful working individually.
Should we start a new thread to discuss this and let this thread die, as ericharch suggests? He has a good point -- my rant wasn't very focused.
Great article D&C.
As for a specific direction in advancing the image of the architect, I for one would love to take on the additional role of a small developer in the redevelopment of blighted site/ buildings. Obviously there are many hurdles to overcome when considering development services (i.e. obtaining capital, managing risk, finding the time when we are already stretched so thin, etc), but I really feel that if more architects took on the role of a self initiated site/ building rehabilitator (in addition to a building designer), we would begin to secure a larger portion of the publics respect in construction. Larger firms would obviously be able to take on this role with relative ease, but even smaller firms have the option to form ventures and collectively purchase, design & redevelop.
This profession must evolve and expand its services to stay relevant.
Great post Bula. Evolving the profession to take a pro-active stance on development and the changing world is a necessary move and should be a part of our reform initiative. Creating a central resource for architects to get advice, expertise and share ideas on how to overcome the hurdles you mention to achieve this goal would be an effective start.
Rethinking the business model of architecture is the way to change the profession. There is far more money to be made in the production of residential and commercial spaces, than in selling designs. Why not have firms that design, build and sell buildings?
Actually these firms do exist. KB Homes, Toll Brothers and other big development companies have a staff of architects, engineers, finance and marketing people. They build tens of thousands of homes every year. They have a huge impact on the way this country looks.
Architects who are interested in good design (as opposed to big boxes and McMansions) should start doing the same thing. We need to get over the snobbery towards suburbia. We need to come to terms with the fact that capitalism is here to stay and the government isn't going to solve our problems. We need to embrace markets, and the opportunities they provide for understanding and satisfying public demand.
Judging from all the complaints I hear about how ugly American suburbia is I'm pretty sure there's a market for better design out there. These complaints aren't just from architecture nerds. I read an article in Esquire recently crying out for someone to do something about how ugly the American landscape is becoming.
The only way that architects can change society is through good design. Right now the way the building industry is set up it's hard to get good architecture into the marketplace. If architects, or really architecture firms, became designer developers, total building producers from financing through to construction and sales, we would be able to advance good design and make it available to many more people.
Perhaps architects would command more respect if they were wealthier and seen as more powerful. But I don't think there's much of a negative stigma attached to being an architect (except among people in the building industry). Think about the reputation lawyers have.
It seems like the bigger issue is money, and the way to make more money is to rethink the business model architecture firms use.
Amen.
I think we are all in agreement about that, it makes complete sense. The question that needs discussing is how do we do it? Bula pointed out a number of issues holding architects back from evolving: "(i.e. obtaining capital, managing risk, finding the time when we are already stretched so thin, etc)". Does anyone know of any resources on the matter or precedents by architects? Any ideas?
please see architecture and business thread about discounted cash flow methodology. until this financing strategy is revised, subverted or undermined by alternative financing methodologies aint too much going to change in regard to development. good design, unfortunately, has very little to do with it and when faced with the realities of making payroll most architects take the jobs that come their way. sad but true.
Check out the entire article vado posted a section of in the business and architecture thread here.
Christopher Leinberger, a guy with a lot of experience financing non-standard real estate projects, does a good job of outlining the challenges progressive developers face and offers some solutions too.
His article focuses on pedestrian-oriented development projects in line with smart growth principles that don't fit the standard product types real estate investors usually pick from. The pedestrian focus is part of the reason why these projects can take longer to see strong cash flows and consequently are less appealing to investors using dcf analysis.
Do you think it's possible for an architect to infuse a building that does fit into the standard real estate types with good design? Could you make a big box or a strip mall a good building? Or do the social implications of rapidly sprawling growth make it inevitably bad? Basically, can architects work within the expectations of the real estate finance market and still have a positive impact through design?
Is pedestrian focus necessarily the way to reshape American cities? How do you all feel about smart growth? Is it the answer?
As far as resources for people thinking about making the switch goes, I'd say check out the Nov 04 Metropolis article and the late 2003 Architectural Design issue on progressive development to get an introduction. For more technical stuff on real estate development MIT has a lot of information online as part of its OpenCourseWare program that comes from their Center for Real Estate. Also, check out the other articles the Brookings Institution has online along with Leinberger's. For general information on finance and investing check out smartmoney.com and investopedia.com. That's what first comes to mind, but I'll try to think of more later. In the mean time, start buttering up to that rich uncle of yours.
Speaking of architects and public office, Anu Natarajan, 42, an Indian American architect was just elected to the City Council in Fremont, CA. She is also the first Indian ever elected to this post. IANS
We are so so so completely fucked!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In Santa Monica, our Mayor Pro-tempore is Architect Herb Katz. Great guy, and one of the folks behind the first public dog beach in Los Angeles County.
in seattle, peter steinbrueck is president of the city council. his father designed the space needle. he is mostly a good advocate for the architecture, design, and the arts.
Check out Design Citizen - it's in development - and the site just launched last week
http://www.designcitizen.org/
n o wonder IT salaries have declined; ITs insisted on calling themselves 'information architects'
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.