Tuesday, April 24, 2007

An answer to the $34,000 question

Did anyone see the latest issue of Architect? They had a great (sarcasm) article about interns and pay within the arch. profession. It is called, "The $34,000 question".

Apparently, the answer to the $34,000 question, "Do interns earn enough?" is a meek, "No, but that's OK because they are dedicated idealists who love the work." What an utterly disappointing and embarrassing glimpse at our profession. Why is the low pay inevitable and why isn't Architect magazine writing about what's being done, if anything, to change the situation? This article says nothing new and answers nothing about a problem all architects have seemingly resolved to accept.

A profession like ours should not be relying on idealism to attract and keep talent. Architecture is artistic and potentially altruistic but not nearly enough of either that idealism alone will keep talent. Who are we kidding? I don't know if other architects like the "starving and angst-ridden artist" image, but it is stupid and inaccurate. If architects say, "I'm not in it for the money, I love the work". Who are they saying this for? Is it to convince themselves they didn't screw up on career choices or to convince others that they have somehow attained a higher calling? When did architecture become monastic? This assumption about our profession degrades it.
The warm optimism and anecdotes in this article about the few firms that offer alternative benefits to good salaries felt like veiled chastisement to those with second thoughts. This insultingly implies that people who are tired of bad pay just don't care enough and should get out or stop complaining. Or maybe the author's intent was to be that of a cheerleader pushing us on through the tough fight that is our careers. Well, I agree it's time to stop complaining. The reality is that most buildings that are designed and built in America are not works of art but works of economy and devoid of transcendental meaning.

Many architects are leaving the profession without leaving, by taking corporate architect positions. These companies pay well above the average at every level of experience. Corporations are out for profit. An interesting take for this article, instead of the fatalistic idealism, would be to study how those companies justify paying higher salaries to their architects and what can be learned for the profession as a whole.
The quote from the architect principle regarding interns, "We can't pay them $100,000 / year because they are not worth it." is especially poignant. Interns are not worth it, architects are not worth it. Why is that? Why after 5-6 years of high priced higher education are interns coming into the profession unprepared and therefore of little value? The undervaluing of one member of our profession undervalues the entire profession. Why is one of the main questions on the AIA website for perspective clients, "Why hire an architect?" Shouldn't our value be obvious? The other members of the construction and real estate industry, with few exceptions, are in it solely for the money. Architects are not on some higher plane. Architects play an important role in building but with increasing control and responsibility ceded to other professions: engineers, contractors, developers, architects are expendable.
Maybe architects need to go out of business. If we can not show our value and gain the respect through proper payment, we shouldn't just complain about it, or take it meekly as artistic martyrs. We should act to take more of the industry profit share, train to deserve better compensation or eliminate the profession altogether.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

What color was the apple?

For those that think we are loser self-absorbed architects, we are not always consumed with things architectural. This morning, we were having a lively discussion about Adam Eve. It went something like this:

Pete: Marcus and I were just discussing the apple of knowledge from the bible Adam and eve story. Does the color of the apple matter to the story? was it even mentioned? Would the world be a different place if it had been a green apple? Eve might not have eaten it, no one likes green apples nearly as much as red ones....except probably Chris because he's got strange tastes in fruit.

Chris: I do think the color matters - size too. It wasn't some small crab apple -it was definitely big and round but they never really mention that, do they?There is a shit-load of reading between the lines in the bible.

John: I don't think they even say it was an apple in the bible. I thought that was more a school/social thing that everyone says apple because its a concrete item that kids can understand. The bible just says it was a fruit. Maybe I am wrong about that and I don't have a bible handy so I can not check, but that's what I remember. Do they even grow a lot of apples in the Iran/Turkey area that this was written in?

Pete: serious reading between the lines...how do they even know it was an apple? it seems like a banana makes more literary sense, it's phallic. (Chris likes cold black bananas, coincidence?) after eating it she's all about the dick, so a banana makes more sense.

After looking at the bible on this cool website, we realize that there is no apple mentioned: http://www.biblegateway.com/

John: I am going with it being a lemon. Lemons were probably the sweetest fruit in the universe and then god, in his standard old school spiteful rage, turned it into a sour fruit that most people do not like to just bite into and eat. However, the pear argument seems logical also.

Chris: I still like the idea of a sardine tree - the magical sardine that brings knowledge to all!!!

Pete: How does a sardine tree make any sense? Most people hate sardines. Plus they are fish and don't grow on trees. But if we are suspending disbelief and the garden of Eden really did have everything growing from trees, well a sardine tree would be great for a Finnish Adam and Eve or Sven and Svetlana.

Marcus: A sardine tree is possible.

This whole examination of ambiguity brings up another interesting question: Were there dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden?

We're told that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh and that Adam and Eve kicked it around Eden for a bit, living in trees I guess. But we also know that no one, especially Presidents, should take the Bible literally and that its all metaphors and the six days could actually be six billion years or however long it took for bacteria to become hairless apes. And that there wasn't a specific "Adam" and "Eve" (and most certainly not an "Adam" and "Steve" as said President would like to remind us).

But it's also fun to imagine Adam racing around Eden on the back of his pet raptor "Buttercup" while Eve roamed the fields on her unicorn "Princess." And if they DID live with dinosaurs, did the dinosaurs get along with their human companions or did the T-Rex keep eating the Adam to the point God got so pissed off he killed all the dinosaurs off so that man could live, only to have Man (or, rather, Woman) go and fuck things up for everybody?

Chris: I got in trouble in grade school (I think I was in 3rd grade) for drawing dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden. If the Polish nuns at Sacred Heart say there were no dinosaurs in the garden of Eden, I would tend to believe them. What was great is they told me I need to choose what I believe in: I either believed in dinosaurs or the bible (there was no gray area with those ladies).

Maybe it does need to be a fruit or vegetable though. I like the image of Adam or Eve just being able to bite into the fruit - the experience needs to be direct. If you have to take the time to peel it, you might have second thoughts about actually eating it. In this case, a lemon or orange, lime, or tangerine wouldn't work. It needs to be an apple, grape, pear, tomato or something you don't peel.

John: obviously the stupid t-rex ate from the magic sardine tree and thus our lord and savior the Big Guy did strike down the dinosaurs. he told adam, eve and steve about this as a warning not to eat the sardines or black bananas, but god, being a woman, kept going on and on about the tree and of course the guys did not listen because they were distracted by eve's sexy, naked body. except for steve who was distracted by adam (but we will not discuss that). Eve knew all about the warning but became jealous of god as adam started staring at her instead of eve. So out of spite (damn women) she ate the sardine and convinced adam to do the same (who can resist a naked, hot eve?). The unicorn/zebra was destroyed and adam and eve were given the boot.

Marcus: Tina Fey had a great joke on SNL about dinosaurs and Jesus during the 2004 Presidential Campaign:

"A Supreme Court in Georgia ruled that high school biology teachers were permitted to continue using the term 'evolution' when teaching their classes. However as a compromise, they must now refer to dinosaurs as 'jesus horses'."

Pete: I like the concept of Jesus Horses.

What do Polish nuns have against evolution? The Catholic Church pretty much supported evolution, I thought. Pretty sly move on their part.

Where they completely naked in the garden? Does it really say that? I think they would wear something on their feet, sandals or socks. It's still a garden and no one likes stepping on crap.

John: your point about pealing is well taken and I like the tomato as a good option. it could explain why it was ostracized from the fruit world and treated like a lowly vegetable. Or taken the opposite way, it is the most magnificent of the fruits and vegetables because it functions as both.

So that's how it was. We accomplished at least one thing today. We figured out what the fruit on the tree in the Garden of Eden was - all before lunch.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

What's in a website?

What makes a good architect’s website? This seems to be the big question on everyone’s mind around the office these days. We are on the verge of introducing the new website so everyone is on pins and needles.

For lack of any originality, we’ve started a top 5 list of things that make a good architecture firm website. In order to illustrate the point, we’ll pick on a few architecture sites from Chicago’s top designers. Since architect's have no sense of humor, I am sure this won't go over well with most of these folks. Anyway, hope you enjoy it.

1. Since this is one vehicle that introduces firms to potential employees, clients, and collaborators, it needs to communicate what your firm is all about.

These guys are not subtle at all but at least you get the point:
http://www.architectureisfun.com/

Conversely, would you trust these guys with your building design?
http://www.prosidesign.com/

2. Since people mentioned in number 1. typically come to websites to find info, it should be easy to navigate. A lot of architects screw this one up big time.

I dare you to find (or catch) anything on this site:
http://www.jrarch.com/

Conversely, this is a little boring (see #4) but at least you can't get lost:
http://www.wkarch.com/project_home.htm

3. It needs to have accurate info. Since people are looking for info, after they find it, it has to be correct and up to date. Nothing is more annoying than going onto a site that has employees listed that were fired years ago or building’s built in the last century. How tough can it be to update???

C'mon guys, it's 2007, there has to be some new news:
http://www.hedev.com/

You can't tell me the most current things these guys did was in 2005:
http://www.murphyjahn.com/english/frameset_intro.htm

4. It needs to get your attention – it has to be cool. No one wants to surf on a boring site so how you actually find things, how images and stuff scroll or fade is important. Be careful, there is a fine line between cool and annoying. Hint 1.: lots of Flash does not =cool. Hint 2.: If you have to add a "skip intro" button to your site, most likely people that visit the site will hit that button immediately - who wants to wade through your self-indulgent bull shit?

Pretty cool but almost pushing it a bit too far:
http://www.garofaloarchitects.com/home.html

Same idea as the above site (whose came first???) taken to the limit. Can this be more annoying?:
http://www.perkinswill.com/

Christ, can they jam more moving shit onto this thing:
http://www.wbarch.com/index2.html

Ouch, check out the scrolling. It looks like Hitler Architect took over Times Square:
http://www.buildordie.com/index2.htm

Make sure you have your seat belt on for this one:
http://www.nadelarc.com/

5. It has to be beautiful. This is different than being cool. Yeah, it sounds kind of corny and subjective but the site needs to be visually attractive. Let’s get serious, you are trying to impress people here – and most people that check out architect’s websites are other architects. That is setting the bar pretty high/ If you can’t create an attractive website, then what kind of shit are you actually making in terms of architecture?

I guess this is beautiful... ...if you like bumble bees:
http://www.oculusarchitecture.com/

Not bad - they truly need to update though a fellow SGWer is listed as an employee:
http://www.rossarchitecture.com/

Simplicity is sometimes best - I hope these guys finish this site some day:
http://jj-arch.com/