I don’t want our daughters to go into Architecture, or any design related field. I have been researching some freelance gigs from CL recently. It’s a very depressing exercise. Seemingly, no one values architecture or design, or values it very little. They think it’s superfluous and want it done for close to nothing. It’s even insulting to hear what people think your time/services are worth.
I’m glad that I’m not in a design position now, and I don’t think I want to go back into design. I want to work for myself only, and have a variety of income sources including a salaried position, real estate and others.
One ad wanted a STAMPED drawing/design for $300 for some non-profit offices. For stamped drawings, I’d probably have to get professional insurance, and that alone would cost over $300. Another guy wanted me to give him a quote over the phone to provide him with stamped permit drawings for his house. He said he had hired someone for $600, but he wasn’t happy with the product (shocking). I told him I can’t give him a quote without seeing the house first, and that was the end of that conversation. But again, people simply don’t think architects are necessary or worthwhile. And that’s not how I want my daughters to feel for their entire professional lives.
I think being an MD or a JD is preferable because no one disputes how critical their services are. No matter how crazy or uninformed you are, you will still probably understand you can’t start treating your own physical ailments, popping medicine or cutting yourself open to perform some DIY surgery. You understand that it’s an expensive but non-negotiable expense. Likewise, law is nothing to mess around with or try to skimp on costs. You could end up in jail or lose a case and ruin your life.
On the other hand, the general public sees architecture or design as superfluous and unnecessary. If it weren’t for the law that requires permits, people would go and build whatever they want in any method they want. Of course, we’d probably have a lot more people dying in fires, building collapses, people falling off stairs and building edges, rooms with insufficient light/ventilation, or any matter of less than desirable building environments. But this all sounds terribly self-serving, like an ad claiming that their product is superior and that your lives simply wouldn’t be complete without it. Not exactly an unbiased opinion, I know.
I loved the experience of architecture school. The unbridled freedom to pursue your own creative agenda, the intellectual challenge of learning why humans build architecture rather than simply seeking some shelter from the elements, the incredible studio environment where you are challenged and stimulated by the work of your colleagues, all of this made for a very enjoyable period of my life. But I wonder if it’s been all downhill from there since I graduated. Professionally, architects are so powerless. We are pushed around by owners, engineers, or even contractors. We are seen as easily replaceable and our time and value added is constantly questioned on the project team. Sometimes, I wonder if our education sets us up for a lifetime of constant disappointment because it opens our eyes to things that we will pursue and desire for the rest of our lives, but will rarely attain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Oh DH, still lamenting the role of the noble architect in this cruel, cruel world. Really, it is the architect's own doing that has put them in such a position and it is most likely your own experience within the architecture education that has led you to lament. Exploring nuanced architectural ideas is interesting but what is more interesting is solving real world issues like investment criteria, financing parameters, circumnavigationg city zoning ordinances, marketing/end user as well as the architectural product, instead of the mental masturbation of digging deeper into some esoteric questions that only people like Peter Eisenman and his cult like followers care about, which have little to no practical affect on anybody's lives in general. Until architects and the architectural educators can move away from the esoteric and start to sell themselves as real life problem-solvers, i feel they will continue to be further pushed into the margins.
ReplyDeleteJoe, I certainly I have no illusions about the place of the "noble" architect and his/her place within the design/construction profession. I fully acknowledge that architects have brought about their own irrelevance by being unable/unwilling to engage in issues important to the owners, or just non-architects in general.
ReplyDeleteI would submit to you, however that the allure of "real life problems" over the more so-called esoteric is strictly a judgment call. Both are important and interesting in their own way.
I strive to market and present myself as someone who is willing to engage and solve the issues that are relevant to the entire project team and if I have any personal aesthetic agenda, I do my best to not share it with anyone!
Sure its a judgement call. Who am I to tell you that something is not worth spending time on. But I would argue that real life problems will always get precedence in real life situations.
ReplyDeleteMy problem is not how architects present themselves like how you describe but with the education. Think back: the students who became verse in cultural theory always got more attention and appreciation from the profs while the ones who just wanted to build functioning bldgs never did. Why is that? Architectural theory > technical/utility? This is what we are taught. No wonder why architects in general are disillusioned.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteI agree that real life problems do indeed take precedence in most situations. No one will want to talk about much else when a roof is leaking, a building is structurally unstable, or any number of other such scenarios. I guess I would assume a certain level of technical proficiency on the part of architects about their ability to solve or mitigate such problems. Until that is the case, there is no room to talk about anything else.
Regarding your comment about the role of “cultural theories“, my personal feeling is architecture at is most successful strives to be culture. The technical and the utilitarian goals of architecture are absolutely important and must be achieved, but at the same time, some small measure of culture is what distinguishes us from apes. We aspire to more than an environment that is perfectly sealed from the elements, humidity/temperature controlled, with perfect lighting, and is very safe for fire/egress, etc. For the same reason that humans create culture, I believe we want our buildings to be places that serve a variety of other “cultural” functions.
Perhaps your equation of architectural theory > technical utility should really describe an evolution of the goals of the project rather than a prioritization of competing values; after the technical utility has been satisfactorily accomplished, the theory, or cultural aspect of architecture can be discussed. Of course, we both know that theory is not an “appliqué”, something superficially imposed to a building post construction, but instead these goals are simultaneously investigated. There are a number of successful architects that approach buildings from this angle, that in fact a place like Michigan does value this approach and training as much as someone well versed in cultural theory but can’t detail a building to save his life.