That was the conservative quesstimate. I'd bet on it being much higher in reality. Having said that though, it was identified as those job losses for 2009, which probably did not reflect the last month or two, nor 2008's losses.
those numbers are probably low, both for the reasons above and the fact that it doesn't count small firms (one person or less) who don't really have the choice to be 'out of work' but who don't have any work to fully support themselves.
"I am sorry I was part of the reason why this recession happened. While it was exciting detailing $1500 sq/ft property, I fully admit I never asked whether or not anyone could actually afford it. I not only let down my profession-- I let down the generations past and generations future.
I also am sorry for the irreversible changes in people's lives I have caused. I am sorry that I did not listen to other people. Since this isn't the first time in the last 30 years that this has happened, I apologize in advance that my fault advice and disingenuous education will let the same things happen again.
I apologize on behalf of my alma mater. I apologize on behalf of my company. I apologize on behalf of local government and I apologize for local government. I apologize that personal decisions I have made have deteriorated the ability of local governments to provide basic services.
Given that the financial collapse was headed by the real estate bust....and that what, like 0.2% of homes are actually designed by architects, licensed professionals, I wouldn't put ANY blame us or our profession. The glutenous vomit of mis allocated shelter and the living beyond our means results, lies with the home builders, residential developers, the government policies encouraging this since World War II, can't leave out the wall street yahoos (who among their CPA's are probably the only licensed professionals who are to blame), and of course the rest of us in the general american population for thinking that living day to day with so much debt is ok...
here's the sad fallout for me: we're going to see a pretty decent exodus of people leave the profession for good - talent all across the strata, but primarily in the 'youngest' 1/3. what happens a few years from now is that things are humming again (maybe not at the previous levels, maybe not so much speculatively in the u.s., but there's a decent amount of work). the few people left who are really experienced is going to hit another pinch point, circa 1998. the work will suffer, i promise.
sigh. is it too late to get out and work for a wall street bank?
Technically though, most of the homes people "cannot afford" are generally rubberstamped model homes.
If an architect designs a single home and sells the plans-- did they design just one home or the thousands of duplicates of that single home?
The fact is that almost all properties in the United States are design by architects directly or indirectly. Architects advance a field of knowledge that is used by many other industries. Is there really that big of a difference between an architect and a structural engineer-- other than the glaringly obvious fact that structural engineers can design bridges while architects can't?
A single architect might not be doing anything noticeable. However, the field of architecture does. How many architecture schools "stick to the basics" in the US?
And whether architects claim to or not, idol worship of a few key architects still encourages and enforces certain ideals that translate to some pretty awful stuff (Usonian / BroadAcre, Corb's superblocks).
If someone really wants to eliminate a finance-based society, get back to saving and eliminate excessive "waste," you could probably try to remove both Corbusier and Wright from the teaching curriculum.
To the extent that architects are lackeys for greedy developers and are willing to design mediocre shopping centers, office parks, and builder's homes for them, we are to blame.
To the extent that architects do nothing to help modify crappy and damaging zoning laws and don't participate in zoning boards and planning commissions, we are to blame.
But are architects to blame for institutions that gave mortgages to people that obviously could not afford them; institutions that then formed derivatives and credit default swaps and other toxic investments from these mortages; parties that made a shitload of money and then ducked or flat out lied when the shit started to hit the fan?.......FUCK NO, so get the fuck away from me with that bs.
(and enough with the Corbu/Usonian/Broadacre damage blame game: that was incorporated into wrongheaded attitudes half a century ago and architects have long since repudiated what was bad about those theories: if the rest of society has not followed suit it's because they are stuck in a rut and refuse to listen to any new ideas).
Maybe... architects are not to blame for the mortgage lending practices of banks, but the problem is that architects are ideas people and have no power really... we talk alot and do lilttle in the way of the decision making that drives the economy... we are not business minded entrepreneurs really, our imagination is limited to the architectural community... in siloing ourselves off into our own little elite high design communities (including our academic institutions) and not connecting with the real world- real estate developers, financial people, business leaders, urban developers, government and politicans, etc. we are basically followers not doers, the lackeys as somebody said... so... yeah we can't be blamed, but that is only because we are more or less a lame duck group as a profession... OUCH!
Maybe not... that's a bit harsh... Not entirely true...
Design professions in general and architects in particular have a much higher than average percentage of self employed though they have been out of work for the last year, the self employed are not eligible for unemployment thus they are not included in the official numbers.
I don't know about the rest of the US but here in Portland I guarantee the number of unemployed is MUCH higher than 17.8 percent. I would wager it's more like 50%, I can only think of a handful of architects I know who actually have jobs and most of them are on reduced hours.
To the extent that Architects encouraged/aspired to the "Starchitect" fetish, we do bear some responsibility. As much as I admire the work of Frank, Zaha, et al, there were very few arguments made to suggest that the new formmaking is in aid of more "practical" problem solving.
When times tighten, the culture will slough off the "Luxuries" much as individuals have to do. While the recognition in wider society of Star Architects in the past decade or two has been positive for the profession to a degree, I fear that we are associated now only with creating the shiny and glassy and expensive, with no real use in solving more down to earth and pedestrian issues.
The extent to which Architects are responsible for this is the question.
I'm staying in the profession until there is absolutely no hope left. Trust me I've thought about leaving for good many many times to pursue something else. It's been a long internal conflict....
I know that things are bad now, but from what I can surmise (being optimistic here) we will be back and hopefully this time with a nasty vengeance -- i.e. higher fees, higher pay, more control, etc.
The population will grow, education will be in higher demand, far too many schools need serious renovations, so many new schools are needed, the green building trend will only become increasingly in demand, adaptive re-use and retrofitting will be a huge business, as healthcare expands more hospitals will be needed, transit-oriented development still is at a primative level in the US and needs massive development, I mean despite the recession look arend you -- we NEED development everywhere.
The problem I have with that metropolis article (I don't think the article is accurate) is that they failed to make the distinction between two separate professions.
1. There is an industry involving architects (i also include people not yet licensed who work for/under a licensed architect).
2. There is a separate industry where architects play no role, but instead are made up of people called Building Designers. This is a profession you can pursue with an associates degree and a standardized test. see: NCBDC
Those are just a few examples of the vast pool of of companies that are the overwhelmingly vast majority of the people who design plans for Builders to be mass produced. They sell a drawing set that consists of the basic essentials: a floor plan, an electrical plan, a framing plan with notes all over it that the builder should consult a structural engineer and that they have no experience or authority to design a structural system), elevations, a roof plan, a foundation plan (stamped by a structural engineer), and a standardized sheet of finish details that are common to every drawing package they sell (with notes that the final finishes and details are ultimately up to the builder). These drawing packages are sold for a certain amount of cents per square foot.
If you took the numbers of homes generated by building designers, and those by architects like Dick Bush (architect impersonating a building designer in my mind). You would get a number much closer to that 2% mark, not 28%....
I meant to say the number of homes generated by building designers vs. architects......you would get a number much closer to the 2% for architect designed homes.
Oh boy! I was listening to John Tesh radio show...I loove his show and today he talked about the two most useless degrees one can obtain in these times,one was journalism and the other was architecture.OUCH!
journalism and architecture have both been decimated by the current economic recession... architecture however is maybe a little bit more related to the cyclical nature of our industry
journalism i think is an industry which is being significantly impacted by the changing nature of communications, the emergence of user generated content on the internet, the blogisphere, free flow of information, mobile communications etc. that may have a permanent impact on advertising revenues... its the internet media powerhouses that are invested in the future of media revenues... i think within a short time, television is going to evolve into a more interactive medium similar to the web
both fields however probably need to change with the times.
even in architecture, i think once the economic cycle moves towards growth, there will have been some changes accelerated by the economic forces that are happening in the way business is done... the move towards a more integrated delivery process, BIM, etc. and the architects role in implementing sustainable building as the new standards... i think architecture practices need to evolve to be more connected with contractors and other industry professionals in order to stay relevant... increased efficiency and resource and energy consciousness of clients mean a new merket climate
we need to stay relevant as ideas people but that also means being more technically proficient as generalists *including broad knowledge of sustainability and building technologies
Sure the only seem to get out of this mess seems to be practicing sustainable business/design.Now the question is where is my role in this,as a new rookie of a grad to improve the situation?
Oh for fuckssake. Go ahead and blame Rem if you honestly think icon buildings have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with Wall Street bankers gambling on one another's backs. If you want to be so delusional and clueless, be my freaking guest.
But don't go around saying "architects" are to blame for any of this mess when all along people like me have been repeatedly saying on this site: "Starchitect-generated icons are just one component of our field." Thousands of architects in the world ARE and have been dealing with practical, local, inexpensive, creative solutions to the problems of real people, we just don't get a lot of press for it.
I'd guess that most architects, including myself, aren't sustainably business-minded enough, and that may be a contributing factor in why some firms have been really decimated by layoffs.
But suggesting shiny icons caused the financial crisis? .....please.
architects enjoyed the ride for a couple of years, but the ecstatic building that was going on wasn't MOSTLY architectural building. we made up a small percentage.
as we've all heard over and over, the building most tied up with the financial crisis was HOUSEbuilding - a glut of overly-large, overly-mortgaged houses, many of them poorly built and the product of poor planning and design decisions. these houses are of far lesser actual long-term value than their market value at the time. and these are, for the most part, not houses in which architects participated.
architects share some culpability, and there are certainly some ridiculously overwrought icons of mid/late-00s architectural hubris, but they're a symptom, not a cause.
it's more notable that the architectural profession has begun to have some authority in the realm of sustainable building and that the construction industry has gotten behind it. greenwashing aside, there are some real changes that have occurred in the way we think about building and these promise to be lasting changes - more important than any trophy buildings. the silver lining of bespoke design is, as always, that new techniques for documenting, communicating, and making have been developed through the realization of these projects. techniques that will help the industry overall and ultimately support sustainability initiatives.
We live in an architect-designed modularly built duplex. The place is Energy-star qualified and 1100 sq. ft. that feels like a lot more because the space is so usable.
From our experience, got to think architecture has solutions, at least if there are people willing commission it.
yeah, its hard to blame architects for what goes on in wall street, we are not in the mortgage business
want to apologize for the "lame duck" comment about the irrelevance of our profession in our economy... i was venting... regretted the comment after i wrote it... 100% agree there are alot of architects doing great real practical and creative work that matters to people, and this has a positive impact on our industry, it does play an important role in shaping our industry and our markets: housing, commercial buildings, corporate workplaces, schools, libraries, restaurants, retail, etc... design matters...
i think its a misunderstanding about what really matters in our profession that is damaging to the relevance of profession to the state of what happens in our industry... in some magazines and schools, and in the press, and generally how our profession sells itself... the false idol worshipping of starchitects vs. the demonizing of the "non-architecture / large box suburban housing developer" is actually a problem... the starchitect icon is actually less relevant than tthat suburban housing developer truth be told...
the question is, how do we as a profession overcome the situation, *own* the housing market, an not be a victim, instead be leaders in the market, be more relevant to the average consumer? cause the average joe doesn't really undersand wtf the starchitect building matters other than being a bit of interesting spectacle... what really matters to the average person is the buildings they actually use, their spaces, homes, etc... we would actually be more relevant if we all took over those mass housing developers, beat them at the game and invented creative and smart alternatives
architecture is a profession of reaction rather than action. until the zoning and codes are changed to disallow inefficient building practices and sprawl nothing will change.
but vado, how many of us (let's say as a percentage) are really active in promoting those changes to the codes? how many will really get involved in the messy work (the decidedly unglamorous late night meetings with city officials hashing out what 'is' is?).
that's part of the disconnect brink alludes to is it not?
exactly! that's the province of others. ie lawyers, politicians, lobbyists for developers. we need to start the equivalent of a design moral majority and get people elected who will make the changes.
Although the postings are a case of "preaching to the choir," I discuss this in an article in the latest isssue of the Journal of Architectural & Planning Research (JAPR) titled "The Architecture Profession: Can it be strenghthened?"
This is the link to the title page (http://japr.homestead.com/TOC263_h.pdf)
This is the abstract:
The problems of the architectural profession in America are well known. The troubles range from the practical matter of low compensation and little job security, to the dilemma of deciding whether it wants to be a social science or an applied occupation. Although it would appear that the troubles are recent developments, a review of the literature shows that they were present from the outset. As a result, the profession has been mired with the same predicaments for well over 100 years. Even though there is ample literature depicting the deficiencies, few offer practical solutions as to how to resolve them. To determine if there is a discernible sociological construct that may be at the root of the problems, this paper inspects the history of the architectural profession. I propose that the work of sociologist Andrew Abbot1 (1988) is an invaluable tool, since its premise states that the critical element for an occupational group is the link between a profession and its work. Identified as jurisdictional domain, the idea is that the health and vitality of a particular profession depends on how well that relationship is managed. From this perspective, the architecture projession exhibits the characteristics of having a weak jurisdiction. Strengthening the architectural jurisdiction, therefore, should be an overriding objective. Once this considered, practical solutions that will strengthen the profession can be developed.
You will have to visit your local library and read the article.
The problem with architecture is architects. Simply put, the wrong personality types are being picked by the schools to enter the profession. The types that used to enter it, the nerdy slide ruler people with their pocket protectors, dont make the cut anymore. Those who were best able to defend the jurisdiction are exactly the ones excluded, the natural born mechanics. Our schools have replaced the focus on engineering the products for mankind's benefit to engineering mankind for the architect's benefit.
Thanks for the link, Tomasito. Looks and sounds like an interesting (painful) read, especially like this bit ...to the dilemma of deciding whether it wants to be a social science or an applied occupation.
Also, I'll point out that the article that generated this thread says the construction industry has been hit equally as hard as architects.
"Capital is money, capital is commodities.... By virtue of it being value, it has acquired the occult ability to add value to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays golden eggs."
"But suggesting shiny icons caused the financial crisis? .....please."
I am positive that you weren't refering to my comments, because that wasn't at all what I was suggesting. Or course architects aren't to blame for the financial meltdown, and it's a silly idea.
"Starchitect-generated icons are just one component of our field."
Agreed. But like it or not, it's the Frank Gehrys and not the Sam Mockbees that are know as "Architects" now. And when a client tells me he can't afford "Architecture" any more, or "don't give me any design", whose problem is that?
And please, go back through the archives of discussion topics in this very blog and tell me how much attention is paid to the "Thousands of architects in the world (who) ARE and have been dealing with practical, local, inexpensive, creative solutions to the problems of real people".
There are thousands and it's OUR fault that they're not the Architects that have been gettting all the attention. We haven't been paying much attention to them ourselves.
Oh please, who the hell cares who is getting all the attention? Do you only listen to Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga because they are getting all the attention?(blech). Whether are not all those thousands of architects are getting a lot of press is besides the point: every one of their built works is a fact on the ground, experienced and appreciated by the people who use the architecture, you know, real people.
I'm so sick of this adulation, and not adulation of starchitects, rather adulation of the media coverage given to the starchitects and the over-importance assigned to it.
I don't know who Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga(!?) are.
Let's unpack this:
"Who cares who is getting all the attention but we're sick of all the attention...?"
If you want to see where the adulation starts, go back through the archives of Archinect discussions.
And you should care who is getting all the attention! It amounts to how the profession is perceived in the larger culture. How many more valuable, appreciated "facts on the ground" would there be if we paid more attention to mundane work-a-day problems, and communicated our ideas and abilities to the folks who need our expertise? There is no reason that Architects and Architecture should be perceived as an extravegance while Doctors and Lawyers are considereed indispensable.
Or maybe you're saying that we've done as much as we can and there's nowhere else to contribute?
aldorossi, I agree that we pay a lot of attention to the stars - but I think it's fine that we do that as long as we acknowledge that they are but one aspect of the built world. You're exactly right that the problem with them is that they make the rest of the world think that shiny icon making is what we ALL do, which is not true - and is acknowledged among us architects.
I understood the last line of your post way above - The extent to which Architects are responsible for this is the question. - to mean that you honestly thought it was an open question whether the financial crisis can be blamed on architects or not. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Your post directly above is exactly on target: how much more work would there be for all of us if the larger culture knew what we have to contribute to making simple, everyday life more enjoyable? Lots.
"How many more valuable, appreciated "facts on the ground" would there be if we paid more attention to mundane work-a-day problems, and communicated our ideas and abilities to the folks who need our expertise?"
Don't disagree with that, but this harping on the fame of the famous is just a bugaboo, and frankly boring. The fact is, in any profession or vocation, maybe 1% of the people practicing it become what might be called famous (and that includes actors, musicians and sports figures). To me the fame thing says nothing about the state of a profession: it's just something to fill blogs, newspapers, and tv shows and provide subjects for trivial conversations.
There was a book out a few years ago, "The Phaidon Atlas of Contemporary World Architecture", a 824-page tome with its own plastic carrying case. I didn't buy it but did look through much of it in bookstores. The sheer amount and variety of world architecture staggered and pleased me. What the book told me is that a lot of architects all over the world are doing good work and getting it built, and hardly any of them are famous....so what? Would even more good world architecture be better? Sure, but if all this architecture is getting done, then those architects must be communicating their ideas and abilities to somebody.
Actually, I don't think it is an open question at all: I don't think Architects had anything at all to do with the bubble and resulting Banking issues. Maybe I took the discussion off on a bit of a tangent.
I am only suggesting that there has been a bit too much attention (IMHO) paid the the Stars and the Glassy and the Shiny, to the extent that that is what Architects and Architecture are largely perceived to be about. And, when times are tight, one can see how Architects can be seen to be unnecessary or an extravagance.
Ultimately we communicate our values by that which we ourselves hold as paradigms and exemplars, and I am not sure we (as a profession) have done enough to show the depth and breadth of what Architecture is and can do.
I can you tell you, after 25 years in the profession, that the public will not come to us to learn these things. I'm not "harping on the fame of the famous": I don't think that a 17% to 28% (depending on whose stats you're considering) unemployment rate for one the most highly educated and skilled professions reflects an acceptable situation, if we're considering the "state of the profession".
I own the Atlas myself, and I agree up to the point where, especially in the US section, there are an awful lot of the usual cast of characters, custom homes and expensive condo projects. All great work, no question, but I guess you're saying that 99% of what we do isn't worthy of attention, promotion, etc.?
Given all this, and assuming our share of the responsibility for how we are perceived, I am suggesting that we bear some blame, not for the financial mess, but for being considered somewhat dispensable when times are tight. I would argue that that is a big reason why one in four architects are unemployed, and I think that is a reasonable point of discussion
"I guess you're saying that 99% of what we do isn't worthy of attention, promotion, etc.?"
I would say I'm more casting as eye on the mechanism of promotion itself: there is a self-generating fame machine that lifts certain boats up and doesn't even see the other boats, and which in the end really says nothing about the quality of the work being done by the ones that are lifted up. It may have started (in the art world, anyway) in the 50s when Clement Greenberg gave Jackson Pollock the mantle of the greatest painter of his generation: was he in fact the greatest painter of his generation? Who knows, but Greenberg's clout made the statement true and set it down as such in art history. It's pretty clear that many media/internet entities now need a continuous supply of "stars" to perpetuate themselves.
I'm not arguing here that architecture has not been hit hard by the recession: it undoubtedly has. But when you lay more than a limited amount of the blame for that on the propagation of starchitects, who then give a wrong perception of the field, I mostly disagree. And when you wrote earlier when a client tells me he can't afford "Architecture" any more, or "don't give me any design", whose problem is that?, I would respond that the statement says more about the quality of that client than anything about the perception of architecture.
This thing about "well, people don't want to use architects now because they've been given bad impressions of them through the "stars" of the profession just doesn't fly for me. The fact is that people aren't using architects right now because there's little getting built or in the planning stage. People will use more architects again when they need them again, in the same way that, if moviegoing and renting all of a sudden took a major dip, a lot more actors would be out of work because less movies would be made, and the ranks would not replenish until the public went to see and rented more movies again. But I'll agree to disagree with you.
Architecture the Hardest Hit Profession by the Recession
I'm surprised that percentage isn't higher.
That was the conservative quesstimate. I'd bet on it being much higher in reality. Having said that though, it was identified as those job losses for 2009, which probably did not reflect the last month or two, nor 2008's losses.
just about to post the same report....
those numbers are probably low, both for the reasons above and the fact that it doesn't count small firms (one person or less) who don't really have the choice to be 'out of work' but who don't have any work to fully support themselves.
Repeat after me,
"I am sorry I was part of the reason why this recession happened. While it was exciting detailing $1500 sq/ft property, I fully admit I never asked whether or not anyone could actually afford it. I not only let down my profession-- I let down the generations past and generations future.
I also am sorry for the irreversible changes in people's lives I have caused. I am sorry that I did not listen to other people. Since this isn't the first time in the last 30 years that this has happened, I apologize in advance that my fault advice and disingenuous education will let the same things happen again.
I apologize on behalf of my alma mater. I apologize on behalf of my company. I apologize on behalf of local government and I apologize for local government. I apologize that personal decisions I have made have deteriorated the ability of local governments to provide basic services.
I am sorry.
Love always,
Architecture"
we're number 1! we're number 1! oh wait... :(
Whoo-hoo, I can't wait for 2018!
Yeah it will be awesome to finally get a job and move out of my parents house when I am almost 40!
I wonder what the percentage of employed vs. self-employed is in our profession?
Given that the financial collapse was headed by the real estate bust....and that what, like 0.2% of homes are actually designed by architects, licensed professionals, I wouldn't put ANY blame us or our profession. The glutenous vomit of mis allocated shelter and the living beyond our means results, lies with the home builders, residential developers, the government policies encouraging this since World War II, can't leave out the wall street yahoos (who among their CPA's are probably the only licensed professionals who are to blame), and of course the rest of us in the general american population for thinking that living day to day with so much debt is ok...
here's the sad fallout for me: we're going to see a pretty decent exodus of people leave the profession for good - talent all across the strata, but primarily in the 'youngest' 1/3. what happens a few years from now is that things are humming again (maybe not at the previous levels, maybe not so much speculatively in the u.s., but there's a decent amount of work). the few people left who are really experienced is going to hit another pinch point, circa 1998. the work will suffer, i promise.
sigh. is it too late to get out and work for a wall street bank?
The real number is about 28%.
Technically though, most of the homes people "cannot afford" are generally rubberstamped model homes.
If an architect designs a single home and sells the plans-- did they design just one home or the thousands of duplicates of that single home?
The fact is that almost all properties in the United States are design by architects directly or indirectly. Architects advance a field of knowledge that is used by many other industries. Is there really that big of a difference between an architect and a structural engineer-- other than the glaringly obvious fact that structural engineers can design bridges while architects can't?
A single architect might not be doing anything noticeable. However, the field of architecture does. How many architecture schools "stick to the basics" in the US?
And whether architects claim to or not, idol worship of a few key architects still encourages and enforces certain ideals that translate to some pretty awful stuff (Usonian / BroadAcre, Corb's superblocks).
If someone really wants to eliminate a finance-based society, get back to saving and eliminate excessive "waste," you could probably try to remove both Corbusier and Wright from the teaching curriculum.
But I have yet to hear any architect actually admit that something they did was wrong, bad and or ill-conceived.
Or to accept any responsibility that perhaps their rosewood and travertine ego jack off had an iota of something to do with the housing bubble.
To the extent that architects are lackeys for greedy developers and are willing to design mediocre shopping centers, office parks, and builder's homes for them, we are to blame.
To the extent that architects do nothing to help modify crappy and damaging zoning laws and don't participate in zoning boards and planning commissions, we are to blame.
But are architects to blame for institutions that gave mortgages to people that obviously could not afford them; institutions that then formed derivatives and credit default swaps and other toxic investments from these mortages; parties that made a shitload of money and then ducked or flat out lied when the shit started to hit the fan?.......FUCK NO, so get the fuck away from me with that bs.
(and enough with the Corbu/Usonian/Broadacre damage blame game: that was incorporated into wrongheaded attitudes half a century ago and architects have long since repudiated what was bad about those theories: if the rest of society has not followed suit it's because they are stuck in a rut and refuse to listen to any new ideas).
Maybe... architects are not to blame for the mortgage lending practices of banks, but the problem is that architects are ideas people and have no power really... we talk alot and do lilttle in the way of the decision making that drives the economy... we are not business minded entrepreneurs really, our imagination is limited to the architectural community... in siloing ourselves off into our own little elite high design communities (including our academic institutions) and not connecting with the real world- real estate developers, financial people, business leaders, urban developers, government and politicans, etc. we are basically followers not doers, the lackeys as somebody said... so... yeah we can't be blamed, but that is only because we are more or less a lame duck group as a profession... OUCH!
Maybe not... that's a bit harsh... Not entirely true...
Design professions in general and architects in particular have a much higher than average percentage of self employed though they have been out of work for the last year, the self employed are not eligible for unemployment thus they are not included in the official numbers.
I don't know about the rest of the US but here in Portland I guarantee the number of unemployed is MUCH higher than 17.8 percent. I would wager it's more like 50%, I can only think of a handful of architects I know who actually have jobs and most of them are on reduced hours.
it's a grim outlook when only half the jobs lost over the past year will return over the next 8 years.
To the extent that Architects encouraged/aspired to the "Starchitect" fetish, we do bear some responsibility. As much as I admire the work of Frank, Zaha, et al, there were very few arguments made to suggest that the new formmaking is in aid of more "practical" problem solving.
When times tighten, the culture will slough off the "Luxuries" much as individuals have to do. While the recognition in wider society of Star Architects in the past decade or two has been positive for the profession to a degree, I fear that we are associated now only with creating the shiny and glassy and expensive, with no real use in solving more down to earth and pedestrian issues.
The extent to which Architects are responsible for this is the question.
I'm staying in the profession until there is absolutely no hope left. Trust me I've thought about leaving for good many many times to pursue something else. It's been a long internal conflict....
I know that things are bad now, but from what I can surmise (being optimistic here) we will be back and hopefully this time with a nasty vengeance -- i.e. higher fees, higher pay, more control, etc.
The population will grow, education will be in higher demand, far too many schools need serious renovations, so many new schools are needed, the green building trend will only become increasingly in demand, adaptive re-use and retrofitting will be a huge business, as healthcare expands more hospitals will be needed, transit-oriented development still is at a primative level in the US and needs massive development, I mean despite the recession look arend you -- we NEED development everywhere.
Orochi,
The problem I have with that metropolis article (I don't think the article is accurate) is that they failed to make the distinction between two separate professions.
1. There is an industry involving architects (i also include people not yet licensed who work for/under a licensed architect).
2. There is a separate industry where architects play no role, but instead are made up of people called Building Designers. This is a profession you can pursue with an associates degree and a standardized test. see: NCBDC
examples:
MGD
GLD
LDG
Those are just a few examples of the vast pool of of companies that are the overwhelmingly vast majority of the people who design plans for Builders to be mass produced. They sell a drawing set that consists of the basic essentials: a floor plan, an electrical plan, a framing plan with notes all over it that the builder should consult a structural engineer and that they have no experience or authority to design a structural system), elevations, a roof plan, a foundation plan (stamped by a structural engineer), and a standardized sheet of finish details that are common to every drawing package they sell (with notes that the final finishes and details are ultimately up to the builder). These drawing packages are sold for a certain amount of cents per square foot.
If you took the numbers of homes generated by building designers, and those by architects like Dick Bush (architect impersonating a building designer in my mind). You would get a number much closer to that 2% mark, not 28%....
I meant to say the number of homes generated by building designers vs. architects......you would get a number much closer to the 2% for architect designed homes.
Oh boy! I was listening to John Tesh radio show...I loove his show and today he talked about the two most useless degrees one can obtain in these times,one was journalism and the other was architecture.OUCH!
journalism and architecture have both been decimated by the current economic recession... architecture however is maybe a little bit more related to the cyclical nature of our industry
journalism i think is an industry which is being significantly impacted by the changing nature of communications, the emergence of user generated content on the internet, the blogisphere, free flow of information, mobile communications etc. that may have a permanent impact on advertising revenues... its the internet media powerhouses that are invested in the future of media revenues... i think within a short time, television is going to evolve into a more interactive medium similar to the web
both fields however probably need to change with the times.
even in architecture, i think once the economic cycle moves towards growth, there will have been some changes accelerated by the economic forces that are happening in the way business is done... the move towards a more integrated delivery process, BIM, etc. and the architects role in implementing sustainable building as the new standards... i think architecture practices need to evolve to be more connected with contractors and other industry professionals in order to stay relevant... increased efficiency and resource and energy consciousness of clients mean a new merket climate
we need to stay relevant as ideas people but that also means being more technically proficient as generalists *including broad knowledge of sustainability and building technologies
Sure the only seem to get out of this mess seems to be practicing sustainable business/design.Now the question is where is my role in this,as a new rookie of a grad to improve the situation?
Oh for fuckssake. Go ahead and blame Rem if you honestly think icon buildings have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with Wall Street bankers gambling on one another's backs. If you want to be so delusional and clueless, be my freaking guest.
But don't go around saying "architects" are to blame for any of this mess when all along people like me have been repeatedly saying on this site: "Starchitect-generated icons are just one component of our field." Thousands of architects in the world ARE and have been dealing with practical, local, inexpensive, creative solutions to the problems of real people, we just don't get a lot of press for it.
I'd guess that most architects, including myself, aren't sustainably business-minded enough, and that may be a contributing factor in why some firms have been really decimated by layoffs.
But suggesting shiny icons caused the financial crisis? .....please.
tell'em, bell.
architects enjoyed the ride for a couple of years, but the ecstatic building that was going on wasn't MOSTLY architectural building. we made up a small percentage.
as we've all heard over and over, the building most tied up with the financial crisis was HOUSEbuilding - a glut of overly-large, overly-mortgaged houses, many of them poorly built and the product of poor planning and design decisions. these houses are of far lesser actual long-term value than their market value at the time. and these are, for the most part, not houses in which architects participated.
architects share some culpability, and there are certainly some ridiculously overwrought icons of mid/late-00s architectural hubris, but they're a symptom, not a cause.
it's more notable that the architectural profession has begun to have some authority in the realm of sustainable building and that the construction industry has gotten behind it. greenwashing aside, there are some real changes that have occurred in the way we think about building and these promise to be lasting changes - more important than any trophy buildings. the silver lining of bespoke design is, as always, that new techniques for documenting, communicating, and making have been developed through the realization of these projects. techniques that will help the industry overall and ultimately support sustainability initiatives.
We live in an architect-designed modularly built duplex. The place is Energy-star qualified and 1100 sq. ft. that feels like a lot more because the space is so usable.
From our experience, got to think architecture has solutions, at least if there are people willing commission it.
yeah, its hard to blame architects for what goes on in wall street, we are not in the mortgage business
want to apologize for the "lame duck" comment about the irrelevance of our profession in our economy... i was venting... regretted the comment after i wrote it... 100% agree there are alot of architects doing great real practical and creative work that matters to people, and this has a positive impact on our industry, it does play an important role in shaping our industry and our markets: housing, commercial buildings, corporate workplaces, schools, libraries, restaurants, retail, etc... design matters...
i think its a misunderstanding about what really matters in our profession that is damaging to the relevance of profession to the state of what happens in our industry... in some magazines and schools, and in the press, and generally how our profession sells itself... the false idol worshipping of starchitects vs. the demonizing of the "non-architecture / large box suburban housing developer" is actually a problem... the starchitect icon is actually less relevant than tthat suburban housing developer truth be told...
the question is, how do we as a profession overcome the situation, *own* the housing market, an not be a victim, instead be leaders in the market, be more relevant to the average consumer? cause the average joe doesn't really undersand wtf the starchitect building matters other than being a bit of interesting spectacle... what really matters to the average person is the buildings they actually use, their spaces, homes, etc... we would actually be more relevant if we all took over those mass housing developers, beat them at the game and invented creative and smart alternatives
Excellent post, bRink.
architecture is a profession of reaction rather than action. until the zoning and codes are changed to disallow inefficient building practices and sprawl nothing will change.
but vado, how many of us (let's say as a percentage) are really active in promoting those changes to the codes? how many will really get involved in the messy work (the decidedly unglamorous late night meetings with city officials hashing out what 'is' is?).
that's part of the disconnect brink alludes to is it not?
exactly! that's the province of others. ie lawyers, politicians, lobbyists for developers. we need to start the equivalent of a design moral majority and get people elected who will make the changes.
But they only want design if it's cheap, ala Target
since i've never made a profit, i'm thinking of starting a nonprofit.
Although the postings are a case of "preaching to the choir," I discuss this in an article in the latest isssue of the Journal of Architectural & Planning Research (JAPR) titled "The Architecture Profession: Can it be strenghthened?"
This is the link to the title page (http://japr.homestead.com/TOC263_h.pdf)
This is the abstract:
The problems of the architectural profession in America are well known. The troubles range from the practical matter of low compensation and little job security, to the dilemma of deciding whether it wants to be a social science or an applied occupation. Although it would appear that the troubles are recent developments, a review of the literature shows that they were present from the outset. As a result, the profession has been mired with the same predicaments for well over 100 years. Even though there is ample literature depicting the deficiencies, few offer practical solutions as to how to resolve them. To determine if there is a discernible sociological construct that may be at the root of the problems, this paper inspects the history of the architectural profession. I propose that the work of sociologist Andrew Abbot1 (1988) is an invaluable tool, since its premise states that the critical element for an occupational group is the link between a profession and its work. Identified as jurisdictional domain, the idea is that the health and vitality of a particular profession depends on how well that relationship is managed. From this perspective, the architecture projession exhibits the characteristics of having a weak jurisdiction. Strengthening the architectural jurisdiction, therefore, should be an overriding objective. Once this considered, practical solutions that will strengthen the profession can be developed.
You will have to visit your local library and read the article.
The problem with architecture is architects. Simply put, the wrong personality types are being picked by the schools to enter the profession. The types that used to enter it, the nerdy slide ruler people with their pocket protectors, dont make the cut anymore. Those who were best able to defend the jurisdiction are exactly the ones excluded, the natural born mechanics. Our schools have replaced the focus on engineering the products for mankind's benefit to engineering mankind for the architect's benefit.
so we should have a bunch of cad monkeys promoting architecture??
it is bad enough out there as it is.
not if you're in the automobile business....
Thanks for the link, Tomasito. Looks and sounds like an interesting (painful) read, especially like this bit ...to the dilemma of deciding whether it wants to be a social science or an applied occupation.
Also, I'll point out that the article that generated this thread says the construction industry has been hit equally as hard as architects.
"Capital is money, capital is commodities.... By virtue of it being value, it has acquired the occult ability to add value to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays golden eggs."
KARL MARX, Capital
"LOL"
seedless
"But suggesting shiny icons caused the financial crisis? .....please."
I am positive that you weren't refering to my comments, because that wasn't at all what I was suggesting. Or course architects aren't to blame for the financial meltdown, and it's a silly idea.
"Starchitect-generated icons are just one component of our field."
Agreed. But like it or not, it's the Frank Gehrys and not the Sam Mockbees that are know as "Architects" now. And when a client tells me he can't afford "Architecture" any more, or "don't give me any design", whose problem is that?
And please, go back through the archives of discussion topics in this very blog and tell me how much attention is paid to the "Thousands of architects in the world (who) ARE and have been dealing with practical, local, inexpensive, creative solutions to the problems of real people".
There are thousands and it's OUR fault that they're not the Architects that have been gettting all the attention. We haven't been paying much attention to them ourselves.
I blame the schools.
*snicker*
Oh please, who the hell cares who is getting all the attention? Do you only listen to Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga because they are getting all the attention?(blech). Whether are not all those thousands of architects are getting a lot of press is besides the point: every one of their built works is a fact on the ground, experienced and appreciated by the people who use the architecture, you know, real people.
I'm so sick of this adulation, and not adulation of starchitects, rather adulation of the media coverage given to the starchitects and the over-importance assigned to it.
I don't know who Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga(!?) are.
Let's unpack this:
"Who cares who is getting all the attention but we're sick of all the attention...?"
If you want to see where the adulation starts, go back through the archives of Archinect discussions.
And you should care who is getting all the attention! It amounts to how the profession is perceived in the larger culture. How many more valuable, appreciated "facts on the ground" would there be if we paid more attention to mundane work-a-day problems, and communicated our ideas and abilities to the folks who need our expertise? There is no reason that Architects and Architecture should be perceived as an extravegance while Doctors and Lawyers are considereed indispensable.
Or maybe you're saying that we've done as much as we can and there's nowhere else to contribute?
aldorossi, I agree that we pay a lot of attention to the stars - but I think it's fine that we do that as long as we acknowledge that they are but one aspect of the built world. You're exactly right that the problem with them is that they make the rest of the world think that shiny icon making is what we ALL do, which is not true - and is acknowledged among us architects.
I understood the last line of your post way above - The extent to which Architects are responsible for this is the question. - to mean that you honestly thought it was an open question whether the financial crisis can be blamed on architects or not. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Your post directly above is exactly on target: how much more work would there be for all of us if the larger culture knew what we have to contribute to making simple, everyday life more enjoyable? Lots.
"How many more valuable, appreciated "facts on the ground" would there be if we paid more attention to mundane work-a-day problems, and communicated our ideas and abilities to the folks who need our expertise?"
Don't disagree with that, but this harping on the fame of the famous is just a bugaboo, and frankly boring. The fact is, in any profession or vocation, maybe 1% of the people practicing it become what might be called famous (and that includes actors, musicians and sports figures). To me the fame thing says nothing about the state of a profession: it's just something to fill blogs, newspapers, and tv shows and provide subjects for trivial conversations.
There was a book out a few years ago, "The Phaidon Atlas of Contemporary World Architecture", a 824-page tome with its own plastic carrying case. I didn't buy it but did look through much of it in bookstores. The sheer amount and variety of world architecture staggered and pleased me. What the book told me is that a lot of architects all over the world are doing good work and getting it built, and hardly any of them are famous....so what? Would even more good world architecture be better? Sure, but if all this architecture is getting done, then those architects must be communicating their ideas and abilities to somebody.
pretty
Actually, I don't think it is an open question at all: I don't think Architects had anything at all to do with the bubble and resulting Banking issues. Maybe I took the discussion off on a bit of a tangent.
I am only suggesting that there has been a bit too much attention (IMHO) paid the the Stars and the Glassy and the Shiny, to the extent that that is what Architects and Architecture are largely perceived to be about. And, when times are tight, one can see how Architects can be seen to be unnecessary or an extravagance.
Ultimately we communicate our values by that which we ourselves hold as paradigms and exemplars, and I am not sure we (as a profession) have done enough to show the depth and breadth of what Architecture is and can do.
I can you tell you, after 25 years in the profession, that the public will not come to us to learn these things. I'm not "harping on the fame of the famous": I don't think that a 17% to 28% (depending on whose stats you're considering) unemployment rate for one the most highly educated and skilled professions reflects an acceptable situation, if we're considering the "state of the profession".
I own the Atlas myself, and I agree up to the point where, especially in the US section, there are an awful lot of the usual cast of characters, custom homes and expensive condo projects. All great work, no question, but I guess you're saying that 99% of what we do isn't worthy of attention, promotion, etc.?
Given all this, and assuming our share of the responsibility for how we are perceived, I am suggesting that we bear some blame, not for the financial mess, but for being considered somewhat dispensable when times are tight. I would argue that that is a big reason why one in four architects are unemployed, and I think that is a reasonable point of discussion
"I guess you're saying that 99% of what we do isn't worthy of attention, promotion, etc.?"
I would say I'm more casting as eye on the mechanism of promotion itself: there is a self-generating fame machine that lifts certain boats up and doesn't even see the other boats, and which in the end really says nothing about the quality of the work being done by the ones that are lifted up. It may have started (in the art world, anyway) in the 50s when Clement Greenberg gave Jackson Pollock the mantle of the greatest painter of his generation: was he in fact the greatest painter of his generation? Who knows, but Greenberg's clout made the statement true and set it down as such in art history. It's pretty clear that many media/internet entities now need a continuous supply of "stars" to perpetuate themselves.
I'm not arguing here that architecture has not been hit hard by the recession: it undoubtedly has. But when you lay more than a limited amount of the blame for that on the propagation of starchitects, who then give a wrong perception of the field, I mostly disagree. And when you wrote earlier when a client tells me he can't afford "Architecture" any more, or "don't give me any design", whose problem is that?, I would respond that the statement says more about the quality of that client than anything about the perception of architecture.
This thing about "well, people don't want to use architects now because they've been given bad impressions of them through the "stars" of the profession just doesn't fly for me. The fact is that people aren't using architects right now because there's little getting built or in the planning stage. People will use more architects again when they need them again, in the same way that, if moviegoing and renting all of a sudden took a major dip, a lot more actors would be out of work because less movies would be made, and the ranks would not replenish until the public went to see and rented more movies again. But I'll agree to disagree with you.
Hell yes I agree with this.
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.