Real Architect

Discussion (7)

  1. Random Architect

    It’s simply that technology has changed so vastly over the past three decades that many senior architects in almost any firm have fallen hopelessly behind the times. There’s nothing wrong with that, in fact it presents a great opportunity for young architects to produce beyond their superiors’ capabilities without much difficulty. That’s how I’ve found success, because I can do work by myself that 20 years ago would have taken a team of 5 people to do.

  2. pilote

    What is architecture? (after all)

  3. Bobo

    I’ve know and worked with several in 30 years, few are architects – most are bullshit artists.

  4. E Architect

    To Random Architect -
    The only thing wrong with it is that the recent changes in technology (last 20 years or so) have created two groups within the office.
    1) Those senior architects that have experience but due to their developing under slower more plodding drafting techniques have become set in their ways and under-appreciate what technology can do, do not leverage it to their expertise and do not know how to communicate that knowledge to the younger groups in ways that are applicable to the new methods of production.
    2) Those typically younger designers, interns and some architects who are technically savvy but lack some of the critical architectural “standards” or construction knowledge to fully utilize newer tools like REVIT or have not developed their communication skills to allow them to get the design off the screen an into reality.

    In other words one group knows what to do but not how to do it and the other knows how to do it but not what to do.

    I have seen interns put together a REVIT model in no time at all, like you said, easily worth 5 or 6 times the work-hours but it does not work and fails in some fundamental ways. As if the schools are teaching how to use the software but not the reasoning behind it. Meanwhile the older set has no idea how to even turn the thing on.

    From what I have experienced there is a narrow group of people currently in their mid-30′s to mid-40′s who experienced both worlds in school and can actually do both – too bad they are not paid for being able to do 5 to 6 times the workload.

    If you graduated from college between 1990 and 2000 – you know what I am talking about.

  5. MichaelB

    E Architect, I know what you are talking about. Graduated 2000.

  6. Tim

    E architect I would add at least one other type those who know ‘older’ versions of CAD but have not used it in 15 years.

  7. lshaia

    Speaking as a group 1 architect as identified by E architect I have to agree with you, although I would add that miserable as our pay still is at this level we are still too highly paid to spend time learning a computer program. I fully appreciate what technology can do, but I would rather try to keep two or three group 2 interns busy (and give them a chance to learn something) than spend an hour trying to remember how to draw a wall in Revit, seeing as how drawing production is only a part of what I do. It’s certainly not ideal, and may not be as efficient as it could be, but even we prehistoric types were drafters at one point, and since architecture is all about doing what worked yesterday it’s just the Circle of Life. Unfortunately, group 1 architects feel the heat of this and so manage through NCARB to make it increasingly more difficult to graduate to group 1 from group 2; architecture eats its young like no other profession I have encountered.