if Norman Foster is number 249 in the Sunday Times 2007 Rich List, the average UK architect with six years’ experience on top of seven years’ training earns about £36,000 annually. For Richard Brindley, RIBA director pf practice, the problem and the solution lye with architects, rather than clients. If architects are to be paid more, they need to promote the “value addedness” that architects can deliver to clients.
So, why do we earn so much less than surveyors and project managers, let alone lawyers and doctors?
why do we earn more than garbage collectors? Our work is less strenuous, takes less physical strength, we have better hours, we have better working conditions, less likelyhood of disability, and the work is more interesting, rewarding, and likely to earn more respect.
So the answer is... we earn what the market will pay us, or what we command in the marketplace. I think that one of the worst things we do to ourselves is cut our fees. Honestly, I cannot believe what low fees other architects give clients. I have gone up against other architects where their fee is barely over what my structural mechanical and electrical engineer are charging. You don't see lawyers or surveyors slashing fees to get the work because it is such an exciting project.
Who remembers when Borat tried to talk down the price of his hotel room in NYC?
Cashier: That will be $117.36.
Borat: *Spits in hand* Alright. We call it $85.
Cashier: No. How 'bout we call it $117.36.
If Borat were to talk down the price of an architect. (We'll use the 117 just for example.)
Architect: That will be $117.36
Borat: *Spits in hand* Alright. We call it $85.
Architect: Did someone else offer you $85? Okay. We'll do it for $75.
Borat: Is that how you treat a friend?
Architect: Okay $50, but that's as low as I can go.
Borat: $45.
Architect: Okay. $40 it is.
How come the Cashier can put his foot down, but we can't?
that question includes a naïve generalization and is basically worhtless. many individual circumstances vary from this stereotype. yes, some lawyers earn more than some architects but there are also plenty of architects that earn more than some lawyers.
enough of these useless threads on why "we" as a whole don't make much. cry to someone else if you think you don't make enough, or just change careers.
You get paid less in architecture because part of the reward is getting to work in a quiet office with a machine that doesn't talk back to you.
Most of the higher paying jobs in any profession, including architecture, require you to deal with numerous human beings and all their irritating traits. In the end, "people" skills will always trump technical skills.
I have friends that are lawyers. I do not envy their workplace AT ALL. I don't think you could pay me enough to put up with that bullshit. I prefer my groovy modular workstation in a warehouse with exposed ductwork and lack of insulation, playing with Photoshop...
god this is such a stupid question. Do you as an architect want to be a lawyer? I think your answer is a big fat N O. They only get paid more because no one wants to do that job.
I think this malaise starts at schools. In the past as far I as I found out it was not the case (50’s 60’ etc.). Main problem are students who are usually poorly educated, lack critical skills, knowledge of humanistic sciences (history, geography, philosophy basic no nonsense education) and as such are easy targets for bullying professorial baboons who themselves are frustrated practitioners embittered by the nature of the market that practice of architecture encompasses. The pseudo-science that is preached upon audience at the architectural schools (eq. Cynthia Lavin etc) is esoterically misplaced from the essence that constitutes architecture. Also from the practice perspective architects are not professionally astute in business models or simply lack common sense in dealing with potential clients which are of the lowest denominator despite wealth or potential they may command– build me a shack in five minutes for 5 cents and preferably with the Poseidon at the front door & Zeus in the b(a)droom. In short while arts, such as motion graphic design , are ubiquitous to every modern medium from book to TV and films, architecture is a field where understanding of sophistication (design) and the value of technology (engineering) is predominantly not understood and/or poorly appreciated. If one travels to Europe one can see much better planned and innovative buildings (cities as well) simply because there is better public awareness of what architecture can bring into the collective life of its inhabitants. Second issue, and this is a global professional problem, is that buildings are very expensive and present costly undertaking. At the end of WWII jobs in construction industry in Europe were plentiful, amount of possibilities in the building practice opened new directions in architectural practice. 40 years since the boom and the rebuilding of Europe ceased, construction sites simply disappeared. The only big projects that were being undertaken were in newly united Germany. Likewise North America went through many construction boom cycles. Today markets in China, Middle East, Russia are thriving and these are places where most of mega-projects are being built. This is the nature of profession. However solidarity among architects just as in any other profession would insure minimal and maximum fees which would better position of an architect in terms of realistic relationship between rewards and risks one takes with a project. The importance of public office involvement in realization of major national projects can not be more stressed out as much as the institution of public competitions. These are all things that lack primarily in US. Private developers and contractors should be held accountable against their willful actions and errors. Therefore you need new legal resolution at national level that would more properly distribute risks among parties involved in construction industry. Organizations such as AIA, NCARB are hardly fit to represent architects’ interests in Senate or elsewhere.
Despite the obvious financial benefits of being a lawyer, being an architect is far superior because we
1) Wear colorful zany designer clothes when we feel like it
2) Wear all black when we feel like it
3) Are fawned over at dinner parties
4) Act irrationally when we feel like it...and justify it as a design / artistic licence
5) Lend an air of sophistication to everything we touch / breathe on / talk about
6) Are generally considered way cooler than lawyers
Because we don't stand to make our clients LOADS of money. Instead, we stand to spend loads of our client's money. Money is what is valued highest and the agent that gets it to you is thus highly valued. voila
It’s a case of fault tolerance... if a doctor or a lawyer makes a small mistake it could quite easily cost you your life, your freedom and/or every cent you own. If an arch makes a small mistake it's relatively easy to fix (if anyone even notices).
As long as the building is structurally sound (structural engineers) it's essentially a “success”, how it “functions” is open for conjecture and debate. If a lawyers case is structurally deficient, by Jove you will know abut it and the fallout will most lightly be devastating.
Arch’s are indoctrinated with such a high regard for their profession in school they would rather wave their magic wand over a project in the name of good design than let the project go to a “building designer” because the fee is to small.
for someone, architects are less motivated by money and are attracted to the creativity of architecture more as a passion than as a professional carrer... i'm not sure about it...
I would add that Norman Foster is not a norm for either Europe or UK He is an extremist in all bad ways. No wonder some of main partners and associates left in a droves. Literary two offices sprouted from former teams at NF Architects. It's a factory not a studio. I am sure there are comparable law firms.
Philarct, I would be cautious about using the "six figures" measure. Architects working in major cities will most likely reach the six figure income level (not right out of school, obviously), but the cost of living in those cities will still make that feel like $40-50K anywhere else. It will also still be far less income than earned by attorneys of comparable experience.
Because we don't stand to make our clients LOADS of money.
myriam
: on the contrary, if we do our work well, we can have a significant impact on how much money our clients make -- we can bring the project in quickly, saving tons of construction loan interest and getting the project's income stream started faster; if we bring the project in under budget, that savings eventually goes right to the owner's bottom line; if we design a great looking, durable, energy efficient, cost-effective building, the owner can garner higher rents or sell the property at a better cap-rate.
we have (or, can have) tremendous impact on our clients' business model. the problem is, we don't understand that value well ourselves and we definitely don't sell that value in terms the client can understand -- we're always looking at projects as a way to feather our own portfolio or to provide ourselves with creative stimulation or to sell a large quantity of our hours. fundamentally, that's not what our clients hire us to do.
defense attorneys don't make their clients any money -- they just keep them out of jail (hopefully) -- brain surgeons don't make their patients any money -- they just keep them alive (hopefully) -- either way, they still get paid a lot of money to do what they do.
we must find ways to quantify how our creativity and our expertise adds value to the clients' business or operations -- then we need to start selling that value for what it's truly worth. that's what lawyers do so well!
Quiz, I agree. I think we should be front end loading our fees at concept design stage, because there is tremendous value in our design capabilities. Our design skills set architects apart from all other building designers, and we should be charging greater value for these services, because these ideas, and the experience that we have accumulated in our profession, are very valuable. A think other professionals quaff at how little we charge for concept work.
I get very frustrated when my bosses will "give away" work to developers, justifying this and that rendering, site plan etc as a good way to snare a potential job. I prefer the "if you don't pay, go away" stance. If we undervalue our skills to developers and other unscrupulous clients, we can't complain about these same clients treating us poorly and not paying our invoices, as we've assisted in creating an environment where we're taken for granted.
If we can dress and talk the same way laywers do at clientmeetings, then we will earn as much as lawyers, bankers accountance etc. How can you expect a client to pay serious money to an architect wearing a cape and a bow tie?
right on - the very skill we exclusively have is the very one we give away. This is SO true. We have done tens of thousands of dollars of unpaid work in showing developers what something might look like in hopes of it turning into a job... waiting, waiting. Meanwhile they take these awesome images we produce for free and use it to seduce investors, the public, show it to city development staff, etc to help get their vision across. What would they do without those images? And they probably to take them to another architect to get bids on finishing the work. Architects think developers are honest, and well, dumb.
lets say you are one of three firms chosen to present a project to a major university. the budget is 2 mil bucks. you provide many things that can be met in a budget of that amount. the other submissions are lacking certain things because in their pricing they have realized that you can't do this and you can't do that. the client being savvy, realizes this and chooses your project because they know you will have to deliver even though you will lose your shirt.
worse than that, lars. it's reading varying versions of the language in the aia docs, the agc docs, and others. it's comparing these (contract law) with what common law says and what statutory law says to see if the contract is even viable.
it's parsing what the legislature means by saying that, unless there is a specific complaint, retainage must be reduced from 10% to 5% max at substantial completion. an interesting question that came up in the discussion yesterday. if retainage is limited to 5% after substantial completion "for the project", does that mean that the painting contractor whose contract isn't signed until after 50% starts the job with a maximum 5% retainage? seems like yes.
Steven my brain hurts. Im trying to wrestle your question, while calculating occupancies for a 20 story mixed use building, and red lining drawings and figuring out what I can and cant work on for another client who's only partially paid us for parts of his job. Ive realized were pulled in too many directions at once to think clearly possibly, or care about more money enough to add that to our worries.
...which is part of our problem, ep. an architect's job has so many different considerations under one umbrella but we ourselves can't effectively communicate and make people understand what it is that we really do.
do we design? sure. do we negotiate contracts? yes. do we protect our owners? yes. space planning, product research, process analysis, marriage counseling, real estate purchase consulting, construction supervision/administration, coordination of other consultants, models, presentation drawings, etc, etc.
that is a more elegant (and likable) brutalism than many of its US counterparts.
staying tropical/sub-tropical:
above are 4 projects by the same architect. the earthen structure (a duplex) and the low-slung white structure (a triplex) are the oldest (30+ years). i think the triangular wood-sided structure (the architect's home) is a bit newer than those, but still a few decades old). the corbusier-esque folded sectional structure (home to the architect's son and grandchildren) is less than 10 years old. there are 4-6 other single family homes on this block by the architect.
educated at harvard under the deanship gropius and then sert, worked at the office of paul rudolph. lives and practices in florida.
Steven, graphic designers also have to wear multiple hats as you are mentioning but they seem to get paid more with less liability and less permanance. Shit, most of what they do ends up in the trash after a month or so. I'm not sure they are any better at communicating their hats to clients either.
Why do architects earn less than lawyers and doctors?
1. Cos people will pay for a problem to be solved but not a dream to be built.
2. Cos what architects are selling (design) isn't what clients want (on-time, on-budget buildings).
3. Cos architects have no self-respect or solidarity - interns work for free and architects do huge amounts of work in competitions for free.
Architects (on average) also earn less than every other construction professional (engineers, project managers, surveyors, don't get me started on estate agents) and even less than many tradesmen (plumbers, bricklayers, plasterers) cos they're taught to consider money as vulgar and the opposite of good design and that rising above the philistines will grant them a place in archi-heaven. Or at least a picture in a journal.
Damn I knew those metaphysics and philosophy classes were a waste of time. I now have a conscience and greater holistic world view and endeavor to be a good earth citizen over material gain.
Theres also this - principles of architecture firms do pretty well on average - as far as the client and public is concerned, thats the architect. Everyone else is in the firm is labor, and the goal is to keep costs down so I look at the problem as why is the requirement to do a white collar labor job so rediculous? Maybe the pay is just right for staffers.
: "Everyone else is in the firm is labor, and the goal is to keep costs down "
as an employer, I'm not sure I can agree with that statement. I really think the aim is to keep productivity in balance with cost. I gladly will pay someone higher wages if their productivity warrants that higher wage - it's in my best interests to do so.
I'm not willing to pay someone higher wages simply because they hold such-and-such degree or because they have so much work experience. what I'm interested in is what someone can do - then I want to pay that person a wage that is fair -- both to him/her and to the firm.
a mindless obsession with "keeping wages low" is a sure path to perdition.
architects make so little because they rely on other people for their paycheck. if the profession would wise up and start investing in their own projects, ala jonathan livingston seagull, you could make huge money. developer money. but it's much easier to whine and cry about how unfair it is we don't make more, and blame people for our own incompetence in our own profession.
if you work in architecture as a 'service industry' you'll get paid service industry prices (fast food, clothing store).
why do architects earn less than lawyers?
if Norman Foster is number 249 in the Sunday Times 2007 Rich List, the average UK architect with six years’ experience on top of seven years’ training earns about £36,000 annually. For Richard Brindley, RIBA director pf practice, the problem and the solution lye with architects, rather than clients. If architects are to be paid more, they need to promote the “value addedness” that architects can deliver to clients.
So, why do we earn so much less than surveyors and project managers, let alone lawyers and doctors?
http://iaakuza.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-do-architects-earn-less-than.html
why do we earn more than garbage collectors? Our work is less strenuous, takes less physical strength, we have better hours, we have better working conditions, less likelyhood of disability, and the work is more interesting, rewarding, and likely to earn more respect.
So the answer is... we earn what the market will pay us, or what we command in the marketplace. I think that one of the worst things we do to ourselves is cut our fees. Honestly, I cannot believe what low fees other architects give clients. I have gone up against other architects where their fee is barely over what my structural mechanical and electrical engineer are charging. You don't see lawyers or surveyors slashing fees to get the work because it is such an exciting project.
Who remembers when Borat tried to talk down the price of his hotel room in NYC?
Cashier: That will be $117.36.
Borat: *Spits in hand* Alright. We call it $85.
Cashier: No. How 'bout we call it $117.36.
If Borat were to talk down the price of an architect. (We'll use the 117 just for example.)
Architect: That will be $117.36
Borat: *Spits in hand* Alright. We call it $85.
Architect: Did someone else offer you $85? Okay. We'll do it for $75.
Borat: Is that how you treat a friend?
Architect: Okay $50, but that's as low as I can go.
Borat: $45.
Architect: Okay. $40 it is.
How come the Cashier can put his foot down, but we can't?
"Why do architects earn less than lawyers?"
that question includes a naïve generalization and is basically worhtless. many individual circumstances vary from this stereotype. yes, some lawyers earn more than some architects but there are also plenty of architects that earn more than some lawyers.
enough of these useless threads on why "we" as a whole don't make much. cry to someone else if you think you don't make enough, or just change careers.
we earn less than lawyers because we haven't sold our souls yet. If you think I'm kidding look at those lawyers practicing community law
i think architects are practically sold out... if there were soul to sell, i'm sure we would have offer competitive price for $9.99.
because everyone needs a lawyer at some point, where as only a small percentage "need" and architect at one point. it's a vanity to a lot of people.
You get paid less in architecture because part of the reward is getting to work in a quiet office with a machine that doesn't talk back to you.
Most of the higher paying jobs in any profession, including architecture, require you to deal with numerous human beings and all their irritating traits. In the end, "people" skills will always trump technical skills.
i love to yell at AutoCAD
because you are not the next mies or piano!
seriously, if money is such a big deal to those who bitch about it, just become a lawyer.
I have friends that are lawyers. I do not envy their workplace AT ALL. I don't think you could pay me enough to put up with that bullshit. I prefer my groovy modular workstation in a warehouse with exposed ductwork and lack of insulation, playing with Photoshop...
i agree fully with meta
god this is such a stupid question. Do you as an architect want to be a lawyer? I think your answer is a big fat N O. They only get paid more because no one wants to do that job.
...they get paid more because human souls cost more than houses.
because freedom cannot be replaced, a house can.
there was that famous CoUrTcAsE! that involved archintects own Liberty Bell!
I think this malaise starts at schools. In the past as far I as I found out it was not the case (50’s 60’ etc.). Main problem are students who are usually poorly educated, lack critical skills, knowledge of humanistic sciences (history, geography, philosophy basic no nonsense education) and as such are easy targets for bullying professorial baboons who themselves are frustrated practitioners embittered by the nature of the market that practice of architecture encompasses. The pseudo-science that is preached upon audience at the architectural schools (eq. Cynthia Lavin etc) is esoterically misplaced from the essence that constitutes architecture. Also from the practice perspective architects are not professionally astute in business models or simply lack common sense in dealing with potential clients which are of the lowest denominator despite wealth or potential they may command– build me a shack in five minutes for 5 cents and preferably with the Poseidon at the front door & Zeus in the b(a)droom. In short while arts, such as motion graphic design , are ubiquitous to every modern medium from book to TV and films, architecture is a field where understanding of sophistication (design) and the value of technology (engineering) is predominantly not understood and/or poorly appreciated. If one travels to Europe one can see much better planned and innovative buildings (cities as well) simply because there is better public awareness of what architecture can bring into the collective life of its inhabitants. Second issue, and this is a global professional problem, is that buildings are very expensive and present costly undertaking. At the end of WWII jobs in construction industry in Europe were plentiful, amount of possibilities in the building practice opened new directions in architectural practice. 40 years since the boom and the rebuilding of Europe ceased, construction sites simply disappeared. The only big projects that were being undertaken were in newly united Germany. Likewise North America went through many construction boom cycles. Today markets in China, Middle East, Russia are thriving and these are places where most of mega-projects are being built. This is the nature of profession. However solidarity among architects just as in any other profession would insure minimal and maximum fees which would better position of an architect in terms of realistic relationship between rewards and risks one takes with a project. The importance of public office involvement in realization of major national projects can not be more stressed out as much as the institution of public competitions. These are all things that lack primarily in US. Private developers and contractors should be held accountable against their willful actions and errors. Therefore you need new legal resolution at national level that would more properly distribute risks among parties involved in construction industry. Organizations such as AIA, NCARB are hardly fit to represent architects’ interests in Senate or elsewhere.
Despite the obvious financial benefits of being a lawyer, being an architect is far superior because we
1) Wear colorful zany designer clothes when we feel like it
2) Wear all black when we feel like it
3) Are fawned over at dinner parties
4) Act irrationally when we feel like it...and justify it as a design / artistic licence
5) Lend an air of sophistication to everything we touch / breathe on / talk about
6) Are generally considered way cooler than lawyers
theres actually a way to kill at this profesion but if I told you you wouldnt listen anyways
The answer to this question is found in the "How much do I charge to stamp the drawing?" thread.
lmao ^
Because we don't stand to make our clients LOADS of money. Instead, we stand to spend loads of our client's money. Money is what is valued highest and the agent that gets it to you is thus highly valued. voila
It’s a case of fault tolerance... if a doctor or a lawyer makes a small mistake it could quite easily cost you your life, your freedom and/or every cent you own. If an arch makes a small mistake it's relatively easy to fix (if anyone even notices).
As long as the building is structurally sound (structural engineers) it's essentially a “success”, how it “functions” is open for conjecture and debate. If a lawyers case is structurally deficient, by Jove you will know abut it and the fallout will most lightly be devastating.
Arch’s are indoctrinated with such a high regard for their profession in school they would rather wave their magic wand over a project in the name of good design than let the project go to a “building designer” because the fee is to small.
for someone, architects are less motivated by money and are attracted to the creativity of architecture more as a passion than as a professional carrer... i'm not sure about it...
what is the percentage of architects that raking in six figures?
any of you bringing in that much?
I would add that Norman Foster is not a norm for either Europe or UK He is an extremist in all bad ways. No wonder some of main partners and associates left in a droves. Literary two offices sprouted from former teams at NF Architects. It's a factory not a studio. I am sure there are comparable law firms.
Philarct, I would be cautious about using the "six figures" measure. Architects working in major cities will most likely reach the six figure income level (not right out of school, obviously), but the cost of living in those cities will still make that feel like $40-50K anywhere else. It will also still be far less income than earned by attorneys of comparable experience.
myriam
: on the contrary, if we do our work well, we can have a significant impact on how much money our clients make -- we can bring the project in quickly, saving tons of construction loan interest and getting the project's income stream started faster; if we bring the project in under budget, that savings eventually goes right to the owner's bottom line; if we design a great looking, durable, energy efficient, cost-effective building, the owner can garner higher rents or sell the property at a better cap-rate.
we have (or, can have) tremendous impact on our clients' business model. the problem is, we don't understand that value well ourselves and we definitely don't sell that value in terms the client can understand -- we're always looking at projects as a way to feather our own portfolio or to provide ourselves with creative stimulation or to sell a large quantity of our hours. fundamentally, that's not what our clients hire us to do.
defense attorneys don't make their clients any money -- they just keep them out of jail (hopefully) -- brain surgeons don't make their patients any money -- they just keep them alive (hopefully) -- either way, they still get paid a lot of money to do what they do.
we must find ways to quantify how our creativity and our expertise adds value to the clients' business or operations -- then we need to start selling that value for what it's truly worth. that's what lawyers do so well!
Quiz, I agree. I think we should be front end loading our fees at concept design stage, because there is tremendous value in our design capabilities. Our design skills set architects apart from all other building designers, and we should be charging greater value for these services, because these ideas, and the experience that we have accumulated in our profession, are very valuable. A think other professionals quaff at how little we charge for concept work.
I get very frustrated when my bosses will "give away" work to developers, justifying this and that rendering, site plan etc as a good way to snare a potential job. I prefer the "if you don't pay, go away" stance. If we undervalue our skills to developers and other unscrupulous clients, we can't complain about these same clients treating us poorly and not paying our invoices, as we've assisted in creating an environment where we're taken for granted.
If we can dress and talk the same way laywers do at clientmeetings, then we will earn as much as lawyers, bankers accountance etc. How can you expect a client to pay serious money to an architect wearing a cape and a bow tie?
i saw a construction law attorney speak yesterday about new legislation passed this year in ky: the 'fairness in construction act'.
i don't know how to explain it, but i definitely understand now why HE makes more money than me. good grief.
right on - the very skill we exclusively have is the very one we give away. This is SO true. We have done tens of thousands of dollars of unpaid work in showing developers what something might look like in hopes of it turning into a job... waiting, waiting. Meanwhile they take these awesome images we produce for free and use it to seduce investors, the public, show it to city development staff, etc to help get their vision across. What would they do without those images? And they probably to take them to another architect to get bids on finishing the work. Architects think developers are honest, and well, dumb.
now do you really want to sit in an old office next to a CRT that's old as dirt ready the Missouri Digest???
*reading, not ready
sorry
here's one way to make your client money....
lets say you are one of three firms chosen to present a project to a major university. the budget is 2 mil bucks. you provide many things that can be met in a budget of that amount. the other submissions are lacking certain things because in their pricing they have realized that you can't do this and you can't do that. the client being savvy, realizes this and chooses your project because they know you will have to deliver even though you will lose your shirt.
^^ that's what michael graves says resulted in the cheap materials at the portland building, by the way.
isn't being a lawyer sort of like reading the buillding code
all day? and who wants to do that?
worse than that, lars. it's reading varying versions of the language in the aia docs, the agc docs, and others. it's comparing these (contract law) with what common law says and what statutory law says to see if the contract is even viable.
it's parsing what the legislature means by saying that, unless there is a specific complaint, retainage must be reduced from 10% to 5% max at substantial completion. an interesting question that came up in the discussion yesterday. if retainage is limited to 5% after substantial completion "for the project", does that mean that the painting contractor whose contract isn't signed until after 50% starts the job with a maximum 5% retainage? seems like yes.
Steven my brain hurts. Im trying to wrestle your question, while calculating occupancies for a 20 story mixed use building, and red lining drawings and figuring out what I can and cant work on for another client who's only partially paid us for parts of his job. Ive realized were pulled in too many directions at once to think clearly possibly, or care about more money enough to add that to our worries.
...which is part of our problem, ep. an architect's job has so many different considerations under one umbrella but we ourselves can't effectively communicate and make people understand what it is that we really do.
do we design? sure. do we negotiate contracts? yes. do we protect our owners? yes. space planning, product research, process analysis, marriage counseling, real estate purchase consulting, construction supervision/administration, coordination of other consultants, models, presentation drawings, etc, etc.
^^ we'd be worth more if this was better and more universally understood.
that is a more elegant (and likable) brutalism than many of its US counterparts.
staying tropical/sub-tropical:
above are 4 projects by the same architect. the earthen structure (a duplex) and the low-slung white structure (a triplex) are the oldest (30+ years). i think the triangular wood-sided structure (the architect's home) is a bit newer than those, but still a few decades old). the corbusier-esque folded sectional structure (home to the architect's son and grandchildren) is less than 10 years old. there are 4-6 other single family homes on this block by the architect.
educated at harvard under the deanship gropius and then sert, worked at the office of paul rudolph. lives and practices in florida.
AP, that is sooo not relevant!
Steven, graphic designers also have to wear multiple hats as you are mentioning but they seem to get paid more with less liability and less permanance. Shit, most of what they do ends up in the trash after a month or so. I'm not sure they are any better at communicating their hats to clients either.
Why do architects earn less than lawyers and doctors?
1. Cos people will pay for a problem to be solved but not a dream to be built.
2. Cos what architects are selling (design) isn't what clients want (on-time, on-budget buildings).
3. Cos architects have no self-respect or solidarity - interns work for free and architects do huge amounts of work in competitions for free.
Architects (on average) also earn less than every other construction professional (engineers, project managers, surveyors, don't get me started on estate agents) and even less than many tradesmen (plumbers, bricklayers, plasterers) cos they're taught to consider money as vulgar and the opposite of good design and that rising above the philistines will grant them a place in archi-heaven. Or at least a picture in a journal.
Next question?
Damn I knew those metaphysics and philosophy classes were a waste of time. I now have a conscience and greater holistic world view and endeavor to be a good earth citizen over material gain.
Theres also this - principles of architecture firms do pretty well on average - as far as the client and public is concerned, thats the architect. Everyone else is in the firm is labor, and the goal is to keep costs down so I look at the problem as why is the requirement to do a white collar labor job so rediculous? Maybe the pay is just right for staffers.
: "Everyone else is in the firm is labor, and the goal is to keep costs down "
as an employer, I'm not sure I can agree with that statement. I really think the aim is to keep productivity in balance with cost. I gladly will pay someone higher wages if their productivity warrants that higher wage - it's in my best interests to do so.
I'm not willing to pay someone higher wages simply because they hold such-and-such degree or because they have so much work experience. what I'm interested in is what someone can do - then I want to pay that person a wage that is fair -- both to him/her and to the firm.
a mindless obsession with "keeping wages low" is a sure path to perdition.
architects make so little because they rely on other people for their paycheck. if the profession would wise up and start investing in their own projects, ala jonathan livingston seagull, you could make huge money. developer money. but it's much easier to whine and cry about how unfair it is we don't make more, and blame people for our own incompetence in our own profession.
if you work in architecture as a 'service industry' you'll get paid service industry prices (fast food, clothing store).
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.