from what i've heard, the practice of architecture deals not only with design, but many other subjects. you deal with people (since this creative profession is based on people), the science of architecture, finance, the process in which a building is created..etc. I think all of this is part of the process in which your ideas become product. so they say, you have to be a renassaince person to be an architect. you do many things. and i guess that answers your question no.2. Being involved in all these parts of the process in getting your idea built contributes to the realization of your ideas.

unlike other creative professions like painting or composing a song, your ideas aren't manifested as easily as it is in music or painting but the way your ideas are realized is different as well..if i'm making any sense. i think you have to be interested in seeing your ideas influence the way people live and that's one aspect in architecture that's different from say..painting a painting (though yes, painting do influence people, but more in a two dimensional way).

and no..for no. 3, i don't think it's arrogant to think that way.

but listen to the professionals. i'm just a student like you =)

Circle:

If you are in high school, look into a summer architecture program at your nearest accredited university. Most public universities have some type of Introduction to Architecture primer workshop for high school students.

Meta

old fogey:

thanks alot for your great insights, your experiences are very helpful and reassuring for us novices!

wow. this is a very awesome comment (no sarcasm here).

"However, after reading some comments on this forum about how going to school for architecture is like going to school to become a rock star I feel really worried."

Rock star? haha, you hit it on the head. its a pity though, that means the architecture is second rate billing to personality.

judging by your quick comprehension of architecture either you will be a genius architect, or you are too good and should pursue some other higher calling.

i think what he meant were the slim chances of being succesful..like being successful as a rockstar

yes. but it could also relate to the idea of the celebrity/fame in architecture.

Circle,
You sound pretty switched on and are asking some good questions.
Here's my experience:
I've just qualified, and been working in the industry for 3 years.
I have to say that I'm completely underwhelmed and disillusioned. In all that time I've been able to design just one thing - a multi-storey car park.
I've worked for 2 firms - one of the largest commercial practices in the UK and a small, "design led" practice. I've also worked in Australia, which was actually a bit better.
My job is boring, my brain is turning to porridge, and I'm paid quite a bit less than any bricklayer, plumber or plasterer. Or even window cleaner.

There are actually two professions though - starchitecture and architecture.
Ironically, at architectural school, you learn about starchitecture, which is fantastically creative and a great experience. I wouldn't have missed it for the world.
To actually work in starchitecture, though, you have to play the game - you have to be talented, hard working, pushy and lucky. And you have to do your time with the starchitects, wherever they are located - in the UK this means working in London. Long hours, for next to nothing. And you won't know whether you will "make it" or not until you are in your 40's at the very earliest.

I like to say that if my school teachers saw me now, they'd be amazed. It's true - I was a straight A student and went to some of the best universities. It's just that I refuse to play the starchitect game and so I am stuck with fighting contractors, re-drawing crappy details for clients that won't pay for anything, arguing with conservation officers and planning authorities and building inspectors on a day to day basis. I'd say that less than 1% of my job is design - and that's competition work I do in my spare time with some mates, just because we enjoy it as a hobby.

This is clearly a personal, jaundiced and cynical view, but I'm not alone in it and it's not just the UK where the architecture profession is sick. I think it's only right that students know what they are getting into, because many, many feel like me and are disillusioned when they leave for an ailing industry that they haven't trained for and don't have any real skills for.

My advice would be to go to architecture school and have the time of your life - explore things and question things and travel and turn the world on its head. Rack up a huge debt. And then go and get a proper job.

Like being a rock star.

Norman, I feel much the same way sometimes (less and less lately).
Old Fogey, I believe you have typed nearly word for word the response I intended to give before reading yours (which, by the way, is the way I see my world the remainder of the time). Well said.

I definitely don't take the same cynical view as Norman.

I think all your questions can somewhat be answered in an overarching response. A lot of it has to do with how much initiative and effort you're willing to put into your career. You have to be willing to put yourself out there and take a lot of initiative. In a small to medium firm you can very easily get many many opportunities to design things. But in my limited experience, it really is extremely dependant upon personal drive.

I think it's easy to get caught up in the logistical complexities that are inherent in architecture and lose sight of what you're really doing or what your true goals are. There's a fair amount of politics, who you know, etc. etc. but no more than any other field.

: it may be helpful to understand that in school, everyone works on design problems as an individual designer (for the most part) ... afterwards, in professional practice, architcture is much more of a team sport, where a number of people, both within and without the firm, work together (or against each other) to shape the final design. in school, you never have to get anything built, so you don't have to worry about all of the detailed information that must be asssembled and created in order for the contractor to know what to build ... in school, you also don't have to deal with contractors and sub-contractors, whose agenda's rarely coincide with your goals or those of your client ... and, you never have to negotiate with a building official (or lawyer .. or banker) while in college.

it can be a rude awakening when one leaves school -- in school, one pretty much has unrestricted design freedom -- in professional practice, we usually spend the bulk of each day consumed by a search for ways around constraints.

i believe the main source of the angst you hear so much in this forum is the starkly different natures of architectural academia and architectural practice. they are related, but only as night and day are related.

consider those differences as you think about selecting a school ... look for a school where there is a strong effort to make a connection between learning and professional practice ... explore those schools that support co-op work / study activities ... the world of post-graduate practice will not be nearly so depressing if you understand its true nature long before you earn your degree(s). most of the truly unhappy people here seem genuinely shocked by how different the professional world is from school.

good luck ... !

quizzical offers some very good points - I really like your night/day relationship analogy and the teamworking aspect is key.

I admit I have some bad days and some worse days. Yesterday was bad - today is worse! I've probably just been careless in my choice of jobs.

I am presenting the downside of our glamorous profession because it's the side that students don't get to see at all. In a way, it's misrepresentation by the schools. Of course, they have to fill their courses and make them look more cool and cutting edge than the others, because they get money by pulling in the students.

I was prepared for practice to be different from architecture school - even *very* different from architecture school - but not _quite_ so different.
As for initiative - well, nobody told me to use any!

I don't know if it's the same anywhere else, and I'm not quite sure what it's got to do with this thread, but in the UK you can be a lawyer with an architecture degree (do a 1 year conversion), but you can't be an architect with a law degree (unless you do architecture as well of course!)

So circle (and anyone else thinking of doing architecture) - I still reckon should go do architecture, start a band and become a rock star ;)
The only pop star I know who did architecture is Chris Lowe from the Pet Shop Boys - but that's another topic in itself.

If you want to 'design', go into graphic design, web design, or possibly industrial design.

Advantages:

- You will get to design the majority of the time
- work much less than architects
- get paid the same or better
- school is much less (both in intensity and length)
- there is no licensure to worry about

After 7 years of school the realities of the profession prompted me to head more in a graphic direction (3D, web). I did, however, have some great opportunities to design immediately after school, so I have no complaints there. For me, it was the reality of $$. You can say you don't care about it, but when faced with loans, cars, mortgages, etc., everyone cares about money!

I would say that if you want to 'design', then don't go into architecture. Architecture is much more than design, for better and worse.

that's a pretty big statement: if you want to design, then don't go into architecture. I've been thinking about this and industrial/product design is becoming more and more attractive...but maybe that's because I get sick of all the BS that goes on in architecture (school, anyway - i.e. someone comes up with a vague theoretical reason for something they came up with at the last second and it gets praised, even though it does not and will not ever have anything to do with reality...)

But, seriously, is this true.

And what about the PhD route - isn't that a way to engage in the design/theory/academic side of architecture?

just wondering.

-- I really like that statement.

don't want to sound too neanderthal, but most of the whining i read here and elsewhere seems to have its roots in the idea that, as architects, we can't spend all of our time designing cool stuff.

architecture's always been about getting cool stuff built -- for better or worse, that process has become a pretty detailed and managerial task. yet, in my view, way too many members of our profession cling to this dilettante's dream about spending the whole day sketching and modeling and talking about cool architectural ideas, when the reality for 99% of practicing professionals is pretty much the way quizzical described it above.

maybe if more people understood the true reality, fewer would keen to the dilettante's dream long enough to earn a degree -- then, those who remain could bring a balanced approached to what architecture really is all about and more members of the profession would achieve satisfaction in their chosen profession

pretty much. Good comments here, really.

1. Very, very little. I got to design a couple of bathrooms once. It was hell. And then there was the master plan that the clients liked more than the one my boss did.... that project's on hold. But mostly I draft, then I chat with consultants about why they can't put their ridiculously large concrete slab or mechanical duct where they want to, then I output crummy plotplans for clients with their cute logos on them so they can fundraise. I get into arguments about why my files have disappeared, and make sure the office has backed up our day's work. Then, occasionally, I tweak a roofline.

2. No. The plans are good, but the client or the clients overloud neighbors usually dictate that the design be composed of shit.

3. It would be arrogant to ASSUME that you would be there someday. I don't think it's arrogant to aspire to it.

Do not think that it will be anything like school. Architecture is nothing like it is in school. Maybe five percent of architects get that much design control- and they still have to spend half their days schmoozing clients, and then those clients make ridiculous demands that compromise the design.

is this about whether "the glass is half empty" or "the glass is half full" ?

if you go into school thinking the world on the other side is going to be just like school, then you're going to be disappointed.

however, if you go into school thinking the world on the other side will not be the same as school, but what you learn in school can help you become a successful architect, then you have a much better chance of being happy and fulfilled as an architect.

i think the main distinction is what we are willing to learn while we are in school and thereafter. if all we want to know how to do is draw and sketch and tinker with details, then life as an architect is crap.

however, if we make a genuine effort to learn how a) to deal with difficult people, b) to manage a complex process, c) master financial and business concepts that are important to our clients, d) to recognize that technical stuff really can help us realize our vision for a project, e) to share decisions and glory with others who contribute to a successful project, f) etc. -- then maybe we'd have the respect and the success and the happiness we crave

everything is design...

vado ... I agree ... but you KNOW that's not what circle means

Thanks to those who responded to my questions and also those who commented on the common misassumptions about proffesional practice.

This year I am going to be in foundation year so I will have more time to ask more questions and ultimitely come to some understanding of the reoccurent comments regarding proffesional practice that I have trouble understanding.

Somethings I have learned are that...

The design process is a collaboration among different individuals. (My reaction to the agreement among the architects here regarding this aspect of proffessional practice is absolutely a positive one.)

The architect has to make a contribution to the team regarding things
like
*communicating with clients, enginners, conservation officers, planning authoriteis, and etc..



I take all of you're comments very seriously, thank you.

circle - explore what you have a passion for, whether it's design or music or both. If you enjoy designing, none of your questions will matter to you in the end.

cont'd,

Somethings that I am certainley confused about are that...

It seems to me that some people feel that architects have a (significant) responsibility to communicate or even solve technical problems.

It is important to note that I understand how a certain amount of techincal knowledge would benefit the architect in working with people from techinical backgrounds like engineers.

What I don't understand is how the architect could spend all day talking about inches, how things are going to fit, explaining why things won't work to a client, and spend less then 1% of the day designing when for the most part they're are far less usefull in solving techincal problems as engineers.

I am essentially confused about the balance of responsibilities of the architect. While techinical, communication, and teamwork skills are essential I don't see why they should ever hold a much stronger weigtht than design. Actually I do understand why teamwork and communication skills could hold a stronger weight but I don't understand how techincal considerations ever could as enginners are always involved.

You all have been extremely inspiring and extremely patient in helping me to understand this fascinating proffession. I am going to spend the first year in foundation year trying to understand the role of the architect.

Thank you.

I suspect that an answer could be: the inches are design.

The inches are real, a diagram can look good on paper, but without the inches, a diagram is only a diagram. Plenty of good diagrams out there that are just that, not good buildings...

It's not about explaining why things won't work, its knowing how to make things work in reality? I'm a newbie myself, but I'm starting to see that a good designer is someone who knows how to put something together...

A building is a like a complex machine, the idea of the machine is one thing, but being able to assemble it, design every detail is an art in itself, one that comes with alot of experience. There's beauty to be had in well crafted details, and how do you achieve a well detailed building without taking time to consider every detail.

I think the difference between an architect and say a graphic designer is that it takes alot of people to build a building... It's alot more like being a director for a stage production than a one man show... there are actors, stage hands, acoustic consultants, set designers, musicians... a great stage production as a an end performance can be experienced as a work of art, but every detail counts, and before anyone gets a chance to experience it, there are long hours of collaboration that nobody sees... So it takes work, and patience, but the good news is, thats you job, every inch is like a set piece, a work of art in itself, and when you're finished, all those inches add up to a finely tuned performance where everything counted and it all works together...

A finely designed car isn't just great because it looks great from a distance, its great because of the way each piece fits and works independently and as a whole, the way the mechanical engineers who designed the gear shifter decided the knob should be a metalic cylinder and move in a certain way, and match the material of the other elements on the driver console and the concept of the car.

also... being able to produce it within budget constraints, real world contexts, selling it to a client.

bRink, you said that

"A good designer is someone who knows how to put something together"

OldFogey you followed up by saying that,

the inches of design are the measure of true talent.


Are you both saying that the architects role of making things work
is greater than their role to make the building beautiful, meaning-
full, and bascially how it looks and how it will effect culture etc...?

I always thought the engineers primary responsibility was to be able
to make things work. Is this not true?

And that the architects primary responsibility was to design the builiding so that it would be worth making, so it would be relevent to our time and the community, beautiful, etc... Is this not true?

I understand that both engineers and architects should be able to share responsibilities but aren't the primary responsibilities of each of them I listed differentiated as I mentioned above?

architecture goes faaaaar beyond aesthetics. the art behind architecture also includes the process in which it is built, the craft, the materials, ...so many things. this is what makes architecture so broad. a building has to function and serve its user's needs, with the environment and culture around it, etc. aesthetics is only one small factor and if it were the only thing factored in, architecture would be very shallow. you're dealing with space, and the way people live...not just how something looks. i believe a building can be beautiful if it serves its user's needs...and architects use creativity and ideas to achieve the function.

i think engineers just look over the plans and make sure that they work.

Most architecture is shallow. Most architecture simply solves a generic problem, such as 'I want 10 lofts at $95 per sq. ft', and then it is done. Most architect's can't, or have lost sight, of the big picture.

Some buildings have quality details, most are average, some stink. I don't think a good detail can make up for bad aesthetics. I do think there needs to be functionality, both in materials/details and program, but I think far too many architect's talk about 'putting the building together' as almost an excuse for not putting more emphasis on the overall design. This could be due to several factors, such as lack of talent, but good detail skills (far easier to find someone that can draw details well than one that can design well); fatigue due to years of battling clients and budgets, and eventually settling on making great details (as the client will more or less not care, as long as the building functions, but they will argue with you aesthetics).

Not sure, I just know I hear so often about how it's crucial to know how to put up a building, that 'aesthetic' design is only a small portion of the puzzle, and then I see that 99% of the buildings going up, done by an architect, are ugly and generic. I can't see the details nor do I care, I just know these buildings will be an eye sore for decades.

We all need to know how to 'put together a building' and each function well, and God knows I have so much to learn, but I think it's far too often that the big picture, the 'school' picture, is lost in the efforts to learn the details, the management, etc., and then everyone goes on to give up on the aesthetics and experience of the space.

Given that,

Engineers wouldn't ever need an architects help to make something work. (If they wanted to just build something they could do it themselves.)

Then,

What is the primary contribution of an architect in the process?
It isn't to make things work because that is the enginners primary
responsibility and they wouldn't in any way need an architect for trhat reason, right?


What trace and sashimi 46 said about aesthetics, experience of space, serving the user's functions, using creativity and ideas, the buildings effect on culture, etc... all seem like valid contributions of an architect.

But if these things are lost in proffessional practice, why is the architect even involved? Again, they aren't needed by engineers in order to put together a building.




I kind of feel like I am dragging this on too long,
my apologies and this will be my last post on this
particular topic.

and hence the decline of the profession

hear hear, of.

yes o.f. we refer to it as the architect's intent. if someone's got a better idea to get it resolved simpler cheaper whatever that's great if it stays true the architect's intent. i am finishing up c.a. on a 100k sq. ft. shell and core on a mixed use development and being the third pm on the job has been a real challenge. but, with the exception of one consultant who our firm has some additional service issues with, i have found all the other consultants not only cooperative but extremely thoughtful and generous. they have given me nothing but support to finish this puppy. they are professionals, afterall.

Circle:

Again, coming from somebody who is a beginner, ased on my obersvations...

The Architects design the building, which includes managing all of the consultants and engineers, etc. The work being done is diverse, and consultants (including the various mechanical, civil, structural engineers, etc.) bring specialized knowledge and work to the table. So the architect has to have a broad but more general knowledge than the consultants I think.

It would be hard to ask the engineer to make something happen if you don't know something about what you want the engineer to do... How would you know how to give feedback, answer questions, and know if what the consultant gives you is what you were looking for if you aren't versed in their language on some level, or at least interested enough to ask them what you don't know? In a way, my impression from what work experience I have had is that actully realizing a project as the lead designer means a director role--- being good at managing people is as important as any "individual creative" ability... And able to work with others to make it a creative dialogue not a one man show...

That being said, I think even within an architectural team (the different architects working on your team), there may be people with different strengths and who play different roles... There might be people who are more conceptual design focused, people that may have really good eyes, and people who are stronger at the details of how that could be built, and people who are good at managing all of diverse consultants and bringing their issues to the table for the design team... So its a team effort, all of these people would work closely with each other, critique the design, and make everything *fit*. So, it's not a one man show...

But generally, the architect designs the whole building, with all of the consultants... There are architects who only do conceptual stuff or competitions and then hand of the project to another firm to develop with consultants and contractors and get it built, but my question then is, who are the designers? The people who came up with the general idea, or the people who actually decided what it really looks like in built form, figured out how it works physically, thought about all of the other issues that a general idea brings as you unfold it on all of the complexities of the context, the details, etc... I think both are design, but I think ultimately the best designers need to understand what they are doing at different scales, and see things with a broad scope of vision...

The good thing is, I don't think education stops at the end of your architectural degree... An architect doesn't generally mature as a designer in most cases until they've worked in the field for many years.

The Architectural degree (Part I) is a very useful base for Industrial/Product/Graphic design at post-graduate level. Many people discover different skills while in undergraduate studies. You could end up deciding to be a model-maker, a professional CADmonkey (Architectural Technician) or 3D visualiser. Perhaps also you will discover that you are a closet (Quantity/Building) Surveyor or that you are a great critical thinker or writer. Perhaps you are a talented talker/schmoozer and thus Real Estate Broker. Perhaps you will marry into money and become a developer.

In the meantime Architecture is one of the coolest courses on campus. Your sexual appetites will be satisfied. You get to play with knives and go places. You will be more involved with your classmates than most any other course of study and you will leave having had to work harder for longer. These are good things.

Here's a specific example:

I did Construction Administration on a project that had a conference room which was designed around a painting. There was ductwork in the ceiling and a piece of millwork below on the wall the painting was supposed to go. It was the the architect who had to look at the mechanical drawings, understand them to figure out how large the specified duct was. We couldn't re-route it to any other wall, there was a floor to ceiling glass wall on the corridor, 2 hour rated CMU wall for a stair on the other side.

It was the architect that had to understand, what size studs would be used to build the soffit, whether or not we would be using 5/8" or 1/2" gypsum board on those studs in order to figure out how small the height of the duct needed to be in order to fit this painting between the top of the millwork and the bottom of the soffit.

This small client wish entailed a particular type of lighting (coordination with the electrical engineer, light manufacturer's representative, architect), the duct size (coordination with mechanical engineer who the architect had to inform how many lights would be use to light this painting in order to determine how much heat these lights would be giving off in order to maintain the proper cubic feet per minute (cfm) intake / exhaust for the room, the millwork manufacturer was asked to reduce the standard leg height on the millwork and we had to special order a 1" thick piece of millwork which gained us an extra 1/2" of space to work with.

Just an example to show how what we do is really all about inches.

Then we go out for a site visit to see how the room was progressing and SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WALL, the electrical engineer placed a strobe light. The light is required by code in all spaces in case there is someone who can't hear would be notified in the event the fire alarm goes off. No one bothered to check the emergency lighting drawing which for some odd reason was on a different sheet than the regular lighting. The electrical engineer didn't care about the painting. He wanted the strobe in the most effective place to get maximum spread of the strobe in the case of a fire alarm.

Needless to say, it was the architect's fault and the client had to foot the bill in order to move the strobe to the opposite side of the room.
This entailed paying for the removal of the strobe / wires, patching / repair / painting the drywall, relocating the strobe, paying the mechanical engineer to move the strobe on his drawing from one side of the room to the other, time it takes for engineer to send to architect, paying the architect to create an ASI, formally issue it to the contractor with a narrative stating the change, uploading the file to the project server for everyone to download, and dealing with countless remarks by the client for the next month ("well if I didn't have to pay everyone to move that strobe, then maybe I could AFFORD to do X"),

Then, we moved the strobe to the wall with the stair behind it which we couldn't penetrate, so there is a surface mounted conduit painted the same color as the wall which comes down 18" from the ceiling in order to place the required strobe in a place the engineer would be comfortable with. So now in this super conference room, on one wall there is this ugly conduit which comes from the ceiling and a bright red strobe light on the wall that doesn't match anything.

So even with all of the coordination, no one thought to look at the emergency lighting drawings. Not only is it about inches, but it's understanding what every consultant is doing on every wall to decipher how that affects ceiling heights, aesthetics, door swings, and the overall quality of space the inhabitants will experience on a day to day basis.

funny...had the same problem, though with the security equipment rather than the emergency works...same thing though...different sheets and i missed the dwgs...

luckily was there when they were installing and contractor and electrical sub were happy to redesign on the fly and was fixed before it became a problem...pure luck that i was on site though.

as for the original post...i design a lot. i deal with plumbing and electrical and furniture and doors and contractors and all the other shit too...a lot. i like my job and am paid well enough for now that i can't really complain.

my first job was not so design-y (usually the opposite actually), but after 5 years decided to do something else...worked for boutique-ish offices and now do something in between...

point is that architecture is what you make it. easy to be a monkey for the cad, harder to be a design-dude, but possible if you want to ...however it will likely require sacrifice of time, health, and/or family (at least that is the way it works here).

luck to ya.

Quote du jour:
An architect is said to be a man who knows a very little about a great deal and keeps knowing less and less about more and more until he knows practically nothing about everything; whereas on the other hand, an engineer is a man who knows a great deal about very little and who goes along knowing more and more about less and less until finally he knows practically everything about nothing.

great story, curtclay. i've lost count of the number of times i've been in situations like that.

well the project that i am doing ca's for had an updated reflected ceiling plan with new lighting and ceiling grid layout that somehow never made it to the electric engineer who did not update his drawings. of course the electrical contractor bid on the electrical drawings. this of course was not realized until a couple of weeks ago. fun.

Good story curtclay, thank you for taking time to post that. And rutger's hilarious quote ties in perfectly with it. It seems to me engineers tend to issue too many sheets with not enough information on them, so you end up with lighting conflicts because no one is looking at all 2 or 3 or 4 sheets that deal with the same product in the same location. Architects tend to shove so much information on a single sheet that the drawings become almost incomprehensible - but when you start digging and interpreting you realize that all the needed info is right there where you can't make one decision without knowing what else it will affect.

This still doesn't prevent contractors from installing wall hung toilets 1-1/2" off center in a 40" wall, sadly.

nice quote, rutger, I'll keep that one