if you think that's bad, try working in (barcelona/berlin/paris) when starting out.

consider it an investment, jeez you probably spent 100K on your education - borrow a bit more and work on a low salary for a year.

wait, they pay in NYC? lucky you.

newsflash many unfamous firms pay shitty too.

I agree with vado. Since when do a lot of "unfamous" firms pay well?

Considering the fact that these practices ensure that our profession only allows access to the well to do, and therefore an extremely narrow viewpoint, well it lacks integrity, thats for sure

so, let's say i go work for next to nothing for holl or lisa anne coutre for a year or two, significantly dipping into my modest savings to do so. am i better prepared for long-term success than someone who went straight to another, not as design-exciting, not as famous firm?

Yes, you will have known to invest in some pretty sweet shades. (to protect your lovelies from all of the flashbulbs going off)

There's more to this profession than puffed-up starchitects, and there are lots of firms in NYC that do good design work and pay their employees fairly.

I work for a mid-sized NYC firm that's won a number of design awards... We may not be the starting lineup, but we're certainly in the major leagues in terms of design quality. I put in maybe a few hours of overtime per week, I have a huge amount of control over my projects, and all things considered, I think I get a pretty decent salary.

Of course I wouldn't mind a bigger salary, but who wouldn't? If you're talented and have a half-decent work ethic, there's no reason you should be starving in this city.

Nothing will compare to having a great portfolio and winning personality.

That said, having worked for one of the big names mentioned in the original post has been a big asset. Everyone (in architecture) has heard of him, and his name is synonymous with quality and interesting spaces. So people automatically assume, wrong or not, that you're some sort of stand-in for that person.

If you're interested in increasing your potential hireability a little, by all means go to work for a starchitect. But if what you care about is the quality of the work, as well as getting paid decently, smaller firms might do better.

there are famous architects that do pay well and become increasingly successful. they share fame wand wealth they've created from their designs

when i hear about these architects thought that seem to be so looked, studied, and respected in architecture schools who have supposedly produced their work by just using these poor people i think it's bad.

so much respect and talk should not be given to those architects that have gained some fame by abusing talents of others.

i just mentioned eisenman and holl before because i've heard how badly they pay. i've heard the guys at asymptote are just from rich families and what they do is basically a hobby so they can go home and say they are designers at cocktail parties. having people like that around really brings down architecture and makes the profession seem not worthwhile. so i would boycott anyone you know is like that.

let them see what work they can produce if they didn't have clueless students coming to them to work for very little. the only reason they got any projects at all is because they lowballed their clients on fees so their clients hired them because they are cheap, not because their design will be valuable to the client. (that's not something i've heard, just how i think it must work, don't want to spread more rumors)

feel free to say that what i've heard is wrong

I don't understand this notion that it's good to have some experience working at some starchitects' firm. Yeah, Joe Schmo might have worked at you-know-who, but if it was his first job fresh out of school and worked there like a year, well, that doesn't tell me anything special about Joe Schmo, other than that the dude has some connection or rich parents.
I ain't naive, but it doesn't make sense that some firms DO like people who have some previous experience at starchitects' office. I rather have someone who previously worked at so-so firm, but have some solid design sense and kick-ass portfolio (like personal competition entries and whatnot).

architecture is overrated...get a job at Whole Foods

Well Fulcrum, good point, but often the exposure to the high quality of work / innovation of ideas / understanding of design process you will gain at a famous firm is very good for you - you basically gain an understanding of the very processes of why that person/firm is significant to begin with. Don't underestimate it. It's like having a very well-known critic in studio in school (assuming they actually are a good critic too). You learn so much from understanding and being a part of their method.

Let's start a list of famous architects who pay well.


-Gehry

fulcrum, it may surprise you but alot of ppl at starchitect offices are extremely motivated and talented - that is why they are there. i smell the faint waft of sour grapes in this thread.

these motivated and talented people are letting themselves be used however. a famous architect should be able to pay their talented people well. if they cannot, they have gotten fame they do not deserve since they used these people to get their work out there.

it is not the people who have worked at these places i want to discredit. it's the firms and architects who have used them and become famous and respected. we should no longer respect such architects if we hear such stories going around

While I agree that the practice of not paying (or poorly paying) interns is despicable, I highly doubt that there is a direct correlation between a person becoming famous and their low-paid inters..they are not famous BECAUSE of the interns. they probably would have been just as successful if they paid people. Maybe they'd have a few less models to show...

mdler - One of my studio pals from college is a produce manager at Whole Foods. Her benefits kick my benefit's ass. Our salaries are comparable. She is obssesed with her job. Me, not so much.

i dont normally get involved in these pay discussions...but its been my experience, and my friends experience (for the most part) that though, yes... we are payed a pretty low salary the first year, we have not been held to that low salary.
In the majority of cases (again this is mostly just my friends) their salary's dramatically improved after their year review.

i think its a common misconception that after a year, people are going to go into their bosses office and they are going to say "you've been doing so well, heres a raise!"
in reality, you'll be lucky to get more than a inflation type raise unless you GO IN AND ASK FOR EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT!!!!!

even working for a famous boss, one can get what they want if they ask for it, and are deemed worth it by the company.

nah, you're wrong Pat. stay with what you don't know, chicago.

i am with chase.
we all heard alot about star architects who don't pay poorly.. who pays well besides gehry???

foster
herzog
meier
morphosis?

Poor pay? I never go to any meeting without my lucky bling on show

Chase & p2an: You guys are right; there are reasons why they have become starchitects. However, my point is that what can you possibly learn when someone, who is just fresh out of school, learning CAD and making some model, gets to have the chance to at least have some nice conversation with the big dudes? Yeah, if s/he is hired as a PM or project architect, has a constant communication with the big dudes, oh boy, that's awesome. I don't think there will be enough bread crumbs tickle down to those low underlings.

Time=Money.

Simply working for a fameous architect will not make you a better architect nor should it be thought of as an investment. Star architects achieved their rank because they developed and refined their own ideals and techniques. Follow in their footsteps and do the same.

We have people in our firm who have worked for starchitects and they are no better than those who worked designing strip malls and prototype roll-out project. As a trend though, the people who worked for starchitects can crank photoshop and 3d studio like nobody's business but they tend to not be good with clients or understand how to drain water on a roof.

As a profession we need to end this cycle of underpaying new grads.
I have a trust fund and really don't need to work but yet I do so because I love architecture and design. I also turned down a job at OMA and a few other well published firms because the pay was way below market. I'm rich bitches, but I won't work for free or take a 20k per year cut in pay to work for someone who's a star in our field.

In our firm, new grads start out at 45k and guess what, we end up with the best and brightest because we pay more when compared to our competition.

Like most things in life, you get what you pay for and it's no different in the corporate world.

Marlowe,

You make some amazing generalizations in your post. "The people who worked for starchitects tend not to be as good with clients" etc.

I think you'll find that there are some people who worked for starchitects who are great with clients, some who are not. And there are some who DO understand how to drain water from a roof.

But it is a reality that if one guy worked for Frank Gehry and another guy worked for Frank Whatsisname, the guy who worked for Gehry is more likely to get the interview (whether it's for a job, for a client, etc.)

Read "The Favored Circle." Who you worked for does matter in architecture. Sure there are exceptions, but many of the famous architects themselves worked for or studied under semi-famous architects.

I think working for a great architect will make you a better architect. You get exposure to great ideas and methods that you wouldn't at a boring place.

One thing that hasn't been suggested, which I don't know the validity of, is that the Starchitects put a lot more time and money into the design process and therefore they must pay inexperienced employees low salaries to remain profitable. For each project, they are probably testing a lot more design ideas through 3D models, physical models, etc. On top of this, they're probably entering more competitions, which if they don't win, they probably lose money on.

Again, I don't have direct experience with this, but I don't think a cutting edge design firm could be profitable if it has a staff of model makers getting paid $45k per year.

So, perhaps the design world is better off as a whole because of those interns who are willing to work for slave wages allow the end product to be that much better...

some starchitects suffer from not taking every project that comes
down the pike... i think there are some bosses out there that
are unkind and don't pay well for whatever vindictive reason, but
there are a lot of other firms that simply can't pay well because they
spend more time on their projects, experiments, more mockups etc.

i don't think it's unlikely that those projects that we admire also
require more design time and time in CA due to their complexity..
but firms can't get paid for that full amount of time sometimes.

if a firm is smart they'll start looking at business models like shop's
and start to take over more of the process/project so that they can
take home more of the profit.

I dont know if this is true or not, but I would expect that if I went to H&deM and commissioned a house, I would be paying them more for their services than if I went and saw Dick Busch. Having said that, it will be a long, long time before I get the money to commission Philip Nixon...

Seriously though... bigger better architects should charge more for their services... which means that they should be able to pay more or [more likely] at least be more profitable.

In other words, all architects are not equal///

i'm thinking of smaller firms that don't have the name yet to charge
anything they want diabase...they have made a name in the
profession, but maybe not with clients yet...i think it's a select few
that can charge whatever they want...h&dem, gehry, morphosis, holl
etc. i think many others try to make interesting stuff happen on
smaller budgets wtih smaller fees so that they can get the bigger
stuff later after they're a household name.

If the responses from this thread are any indication, some architects will have a conscious and pay you more and some will low ball you for whatever reason. It all depends on who/where/and what. As a recent grad, and fielding offers right now in the NYC area, the small-firm that does historic preservation offered $45k, while the major starchiect office offered $37k.

I took a few days off from school, flew to New York and had numerous interviews with all types of firms. All the PM'ers I interviewed with stated that the best thing you can do is set the price of the salary yourself. Dont wait for the interviewer to say, "...and your salary will be......", state what you expect to make. If you are impressive during the interview and at the end you say "...and I expect $40k" and your interviewer was thinking to hire someone for say $35k, you might get $40k or atleast a little more than $35k.

And thats my two cents.

farwest 1:

I did indicate that I made my observation based on a group of people I work with. My comment about former employees of starchitects not being good with clients originates from my understanding that Rem very rarely (if ever) brings interns to client meetings. The people I know who worked for him spent 80+ hours per week cranking on models and photoshop. Granted, now they are the best in our firm in terms of graphics but they have little face to face experience with clients and lack a good deal of technical experience. I'm not generalizing everyone who worked for a starchitect, just the people in our firm and those I personally know well.

I do though find it interesting that the author you mentioned has also published an article called "The Hypocrisy of Sustainable Design" and seems to make broad generalizations about our profession.

I'm sure that anyone working for someone who is renouned in their given field is going to gain a good deal from the experience. But, can you even pay rent and eat in NYC making $35k per year? I mean, i spend around $20k per year on parking tickets, booze and take-out.

My only issue is that as a profession we are loosing talented people because the starting pay is so bloody low and there is this notion that out of school your labour is near valueless when working for a fameous architect. Graned, new grads still have a great deal to learn but they should be paid a fair and reasonable wage for ther time spent working.

Consider yourself: If your work someday becomes widely celebrated and it graces the cover of A+U, Detail and the like, will you pay your interns below market wages or even at all?

Careers don't last for the year that you spend in NY working for $24,000 a year for a starchitect. Hopefully they last for 30 or 40 years longer than that.

Ten years ago I worked for a starchitect. In every subsequent job, and on my own, that has benefitted me tremendously. I've been paid better than other employees at my level—and gained entry into situations that I wouldn't have otherwise—as a result.

My point is: yes, you may have to suffer for a year or two when you're 25 in order to really succeed when you're 35 or 45.

And as far as losing people to low starting pay, I say: great! That means more clients for the rest of us.

"on my way" madea good point that famous people pay low because they design more than their fee can actually allow. shouldn't people design within their means though? if say steven holl went after a project and was able to get a $100K fee for SD and they ended up using $150K worth of people's time then

a. the person who mismanaged the time should pay, maybe holl himself
b. if the client wasn't willing to pay steven holl more or if he wasn't able to get a higher fee, the client is telling him i don't think you're design is worth that much to me.

but what is feeding into this and sustaining it is that in academia someone like holl may be so respected that people think it will be worthwhile to work under him for unreasonable pay, even though the client themselves may think the design is not worthwhile.

so the problem with famous architects is that academia values them more than clients do. if clients actually do value what a famous architect has to offer they will pay them that extra bit so that they can really spend the time to design. i.e. gehry, meier, foster.

so if you hear lots of talk in school about an architect, but at the same time you hear that they pay so badly, you can be certain that clients do not see the value in their design. (either that or the boss is skimming a lot off the top).

if these famous people aren't offering the clients something that they value aren't they just average architects?

so someone like norman foster, who commands a very high fee and is obviously extremely profitable, does he pay his employees well?

or "tricky" dick meier and his $25 million houses?

sorry, the does was supposet to be italicized.

do foster and meier pay well, i've heard conflicting reports

just because the clients don't value them that much doesn't mean nobody values them. clients aren't the only judges of an architect's merit.

the client is the one who has asked an architect to build something for them to meet their needs. i need a house that will do this for my family, i need a museum that will fulfill such and such a vision, or what sort of qualities do you think my chapel should have...

so the architect takes their own stance on how to meet those needs. if the client is convinced they pay up, if not they pay less for it or find someone else.

architects have their own issues they want to explore and their own agendas sometimes on projects so you can judge a building in different ways.

but if you're not providing what the client thinks they want or if you cannot convince the client that what they actually want is something else, then they will not pay you that extra bit for your special design.

i think at these famous yet low paying firms that is what's happening. these guys have convinced academia that they do something great, but not the people they are making buildings for. so their employees and unpaid interns have to suffer for their ineptness.

architects should be judged by their buildings and not how much they've impressed people during critiques or how pretty their watercolors are. those are all just tools to get to the building

that a dig on herr holl? (cos they ain't)

herr hölle

i think most of the posts reveal an unclear understanding of the business of architecture. interns at client meetings? why? watercolors as though they are holl's actual product? what? p2an is right. a lot of the comments ae just sour grapes. or envy. belittling watercolors does not make you any better, nor steve's work any worse. its totally redundant.

i dunno. if you don't want to work for free then don't. nobody is asking you to. if you really really want to work for OMA then do so. it will be worth it, but only if you WANT to. that is where the motivation comes in. motivated people work for starchitets so they can be starchitects too, not so they can make a salary of xx amount. money is important (trust me i GET money; my partner is a developer and we always talk about it), but if it is what drives your career as an architect then you can't work for OMA. Hell, even Rem feels underpaid. so get over it already.

whatever the problems existing in our business they are not about starchitecture. they are systemic and problematic in a larger way. it is just that starchitects are under the lamp more, and lets face it most of us are jealous cuz we don't to work on world-class design. I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I am also not going to work for Rem. Am too old for that anyway, but it was never in the cards, financially. So I will take a different path. no worries. doesn't bother me at all. no one owes me anything. least of all a starchitect.

jump - best post ever!

fees and profit are not the same thing. many of these blue foam models and fancy graphics are not even billable. much of it is charged to marketing. many comments on this thread show a lack of understanding about how firms actually operate, bill and/or make or lose money.

Good design should not need to be subsidized by paying employees poverty level wages.

"motivated people work for starchitets so they can be starchitects too"

You gays really think so?
That is a kind of naive belief.

Whom did Rem work for?
Whom did Ando work for?
Whom did Herzog work for?
Whom did a stararchitect work for???

Don't tell me "a rem", which is a mannerist, a stararchitect.

In my opinion, if someone become a stararchitect under a star, it's because he is rich enough so that he can work not for living but just for "enjoying".

No great artist can be made by someone else but by themselves.

oh come on, the connections are dynastic. rem may not have worked for corbusier or anything but he was in the system, and look at all the starchildren he has spawned.

ando is an exception but he was independently wealthy (his twin brother, or his other brother, i can never remember which, is a developer, and his family i am told was never exactly poor; hence his ability to travel through europe at a time when a visa to travel outside japan was not very easy to get)...

i believe foster grew up unpriveleged, but then again he did go to harvard. nah, the starchitect links go on and on and on, even if there are a few who don't fit the profile.

corbu, mies and gropius all worked for behrens, sejima worked for ito, who worked for...well you get the picture. as i recall the links in japan go back from sejima to kunio maekawa...who worked for? you guessed it. Le Corbusier. and even corb worked for other famous people before moving to behren's office...

but anyway, yeah the deal with working for starchitects is the same as you get when you go to an ivy or similar. you get to work with motivated and intelligent people and get connected and learn things that are not taught at other schools and other offices. not everyone takes advantage, but that is not the point. rem runs his office a certain way that if you are smart enough you can emulate or take off from. same for meier, etc. that is not about the life of an intern though, and probably won't be important until much later, unless you are prince remus or ole sheroun. but either way there are things to learn, even if the pay sucks.

the thing about motivation is that it tends to lead to success, if the energy can be maintained and controlled. no one is self made. learning how to use the hunger is part of the education you get at ivy or stararchitect office. and that is very important. cuz hunger and talent are not always enough. a few doors opening because of some time at a stararchitect office makes sense to me in that light. it isn't about status or picking up magic design skills, but learning how to harness some of the opoortunities that are skitting by. so why not.

but here it is late at night and i am too tired to think anymore. so will leave it at that.

ando was wealthy enough to be able to travel extensively throughout the world while most japanese architects were barely scraping by.

i think jacques herzog worked for michael alder, who's the grandpappy on the basel architecture tree.