Injuries abound for second half of season

Economically, the outlook overall is grim for this architectural season but many architectural teams are still working hard to salvage their firms. To make matters worse, at the half-way mark, architectural injuries are up about 35% from last year. The greatest seen since 1985 when the Windows platform was adopted by many offices and CAD drawing left many stricken with carpal tunnel. This is wreaking havoc on the Fantasy Architecture Pools out there.

Some say that most of the latest injuries are due to the stress of recent economic conditions. Others believe that maybe we’ve just pushed the physical gymnastics taken to achieve architectural inspiration one step too far. This argument is buoyed by the reports last week that Frank Ghery, in the act of crumbling taped together pieces of newspaper in the design for the new Anchorage Daily News Building, developed Mallet Finger. “It was the size of the paper”, Ghery noted. “I’ve done this millions of times with notebook sheets, 11x17, and even newspaper but to achieve the right look for such a prestigious paper, I needed something bigger. I went too far”. Three fingers were rendered helpless by the act.

The diagnosis is still undetermined in another crippling injury; one that could not have come at a worse time. While arguing his point about how the State Hermitage Museum absolutely must hire him for the project because they deserved one of his great buildings, Daniel Leibeskind suffered a series of tongue spasms. ”At the moment he was explaining how a free irrotational vortex geometry creates a series of asymmetric, yet computable and predictable arcs, and mimic the classical corinthian detailing and thus relate to the existing building yet point towards a less predictable and more sophisticated future, he was rendered speechless“ his assistant Hans Hanneman explained. Leibeskind’s staff was in tears as they each relayed their account of the harrowing experience.

Finally, no injury is more shocking than the intense photosensitivity that has plagued not only head architect, Richard Meier but most of his staff. ”I will not relent, they must be white so if I have to work only at night, so be it. If I have to resort to a pinhole projector to view my creations, I will“, said Meier wearing a fashionable pair of custom-made Hilfiger sunglasses. The affliction took place while Meier and his staff were enjoying a cocktail party Meier held at newly completed private residence at an undisclosed location in Florida. ”I brought them there to congratulate everyone for a job well done“, exclaimed a visibly upset Meier. ”It was just too sunny that day.“ Two catering workers were also injured.

The complete list of this years injuries are as follows:

Out
Frank Ghery, mallet finger
Daniel Leibeskind, tongue spasms

Doubtful
Rem Koolhas, constant state of jet lag
Renzio Piano, acute art-phobia

Questionable
Richard Meier, photosensitivity
Santiago Calatrava, vertigo

Studio Gang Bang

As you are all aware, we here at LWoA take architecture and architectural criticism very seriously. Not as seriously as the goings on in the life of Jessica Biel, but seriously none the less. It is in this role that we must talk about the one thing that everyone, except us apparently, in Chicago is talking about. Of course we speak of the great and powerful AQUA! If you have not seen this piece of architectural genius please take a moment and check it out.

http://www.lakeshoreeast.com/aqua/

Welcome back. If you are like us you surely enjoyed the fun water effects as your mouse moved across the rendering. Graphic designers have it made, don’t they? Back to the issue at hand, the state of architectural critique today. If you have been keeping up with the writings and pontifications of Blair Kamin, Lee Bey, Stanley Tigerman, and countless others, then you know that they have a soft spot for Ms. Gang. In fact, the most recent article by Kamin is a borderline obscene overture and seems to go well beyond a passing admiration for her work. As people continue to spew the virtues of Aqua and its creator we must ask, does everyone want to take part in a Jeanne Gangbang? Don’t get me wrong, Aqua is a fine residential tower and will probably look pretty good on the skyline, but really is it the piece of earth shattering brilliance it is made out to be by Blair? Or is he so infatuated by Jeannie that he forgot to put his glasses on and look at the building? Hey if you want to steal a kiss from her and hope she calls you in the morning that’s great, but be honest about it, don’t hide behind “honest architectural review”?
Let’s take a moment to look at Aqua and see if maybe Blair and Stan the Man are correct and it is the pearl in the sea of crap that is residential development in Chicago. We have seen the models, looked at the website, checked out the unit plans, and done the things we assume any good architecture critic would do and come to one easy conclusion: the balconies are cool. They are balconies, right? It's hard to tell because they have yet to be depicted as such, with mandatory guardrails and the corresponding grills and crap that people pile on them. Anyway, the shape of the "balcony" is interesting and makes for a very nice looking façade. No one is arguing against that. Then again, as one noted observer points out: if it were not for the building’s name and all of those flashy effects on the website one might think that this building has nothing to do with water and instead that, like an old tree, a family of fungus is growing from it. Perhaps this dual imagery is its strength, a sign of genius? But we digress.
The rest of the building is the problem. What’s that? You did not realize there was a building behind those balconies? Of course not, because not a word has been written about the actual space inside the building or the earth shattering new concept in residential living you will be purchasing when you buy your aqua unit. Why is this? Well, if you wanted to sleep with the hot girl you would focus on complimenting and ignore the criticism also. Is a building wonderful just because you convinced the builder to bend a little steel to make the concrete formwork curved instead of straight? We bet this works for most people. Even we know absolutely nothing about what Jessica Biel is thinking. We just know she makes us stop breathing with her captivating beauty. It’s a start, but perhaps there could be more. There must be something about modern condos that would be better if we rethought them a little.

It is also unclear what happens where this building meets the ground. Obviously Kamin’s fetish ends at about the knees. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a beautiful set of feet (God what we’d give for a nice close-up of Jessica’s feet) but we haven’t seen much detail of what Aqua holds in store. Most published images seem to focus on the upper three-quarters of the building. I guess it doesn’t really matter because anything might be considered “fine” in the cavernous mess that passes for a streetscape at Lakeshore East. It looks like a massive curved canteliever over a non-descript storefront wall. This may be an overture to contextualism in relation to the rest of the area but maybe we should reserve judgement for when we can actually see the real thing.

There is another confusing aspect to how this building has been depicted. Most images show this thing sitting majestically at the edge of Grant Park. We went for a visit and though you can see it from the park, it doesn’t seem to have the dramatic site that the renderings promise. In fact, it seems to suffer a bit because it is tucked within the development as opposed to being on a prominent edge. This seems fine for the fungus-laden tree trunk imagery but not for “Aqua”. Why was a site somewhere else in the development not chosen? If the edge of Grant Park is impossible, then perhaps something closer to the river?

Regardless of how this might seem, all of this is not a knock at Aqua or The Gang, but points to a problem with the state of architectural critique in the city. Let’s celebrate the cool building mass we will get from aqua when it’s finished, but aren’t critics being paid to look at the whole thing, not just the model? There is not much innovative about the floor plan, that’s for sure. Looks exactly like the stuff inside all the boring towers going up. It should take a little more than a curved balcony to make something as special as it seems this building is.

Let’s also look at how this thing is situated within the entire Lakeshore East development. So why didn’t it get located on the river-side of the development or in a more conspicuous spot altogether. You would think it would deserve a decent site since it is also supposedly architect-developer Lowenberg’s swan song. It is definitely nicer than his typical productions but frankly, we deserve something decent from him as this guy has been leaving loads of crap along the streets of Chicago for years.

Unfortunately, the issues we raise seem to escape criticism. Step up and look at the big picture Blair, its OK, she will probably still like you. This gushing over architects seems to be a prevalent theme within Chicago architectural criticism circles. What seems to be particularly odd is that all of the most recent gushing is going on over an architect that has very few built structures and over a building that is barely half-constructed. Kamin himself should know the pitfalls of this as he took a particularly strong stance against this phenomenon in a 1997 Tribune article; written when everyone was jumping on the Bilbao bandwagon. Isn't he falling into the same trap by participating in the Studio Gangbang? So that may be our problem: we at LWoA expect a little more form our critics. Aqua is nice, but it is nothing special beyond the façade. Maybe that is our problem, sadly way back when we learned to be architects someone told us that buildings are not just objects to be looked at from across the street, but spaces to be inhabited and experienced. Maybe we are wrong and we should just enjoy the cool form we will get to see, especially since no one at the LWoA staff can afford to live there and have their own wavy balcony. But no, we expect more, just as we will not sit back and simply enjoy Jessica Biel in all her hotness, but rather debate her ability as an actress. We want it all and can not simply over look the flaws in buildings or hot women (although it is a lot easier with the women).

Wait a minute! We have just reviewed the floor plans one more time and we were wrong, the building truly is a brilliant design. Look closely, see it…..the islands in the kitchen have an angled side, they are not standard rectangles, now that is innovative. That clinches it, We were wrong, the critics are correct, sign us up for the studio gangbang!!!

"What would you say you do here?"

Recently we were given a puzzled look when we presented a proposal to a prospective client of our apparently obscure services. The proposal included numbers for mechanical electrical and plumbing engineering design consultants, structural engineering consultants, civil engineering consultants, sustainability consultants, acoustic design consultants, interior design consultants, surveyors, landscape design consultants, and, then, at the very end, our number for architectural services.

What's included in your architectural services? These were, of course, nobly defined in the proposal but with all these other team members it boiled down to coordination and permitting. Those of you who are architects and architects in Chicago, know that these are essential and painful tasks. But they are soft, tangible only when things go wrong. Do they need an architect to do this project? What are we stamping? Where does our responsibility lie? Is our stamp necessary only because the City requires it?

Good questions. Engineers stamp the MEP design, the structural design, and the civil engineering design. The architect is basically there to make sure the interior design is up to code and available to all those handicapped.

We daydream back to the heady days of architecture school. Chip board and plexi glass models abound, lofty vocabulary describing our studio projects floated high with our dreams of a professional career of half art half science. Back in front of AutoCAD, we haven't seen chip board in years, there is no art just building code, no science just coordination.

They could hire project management consultants to do the coordination and construction administration, then where would we at LWoA be?

Making a little better than $34k a year, ready to be fired at any time.

A new year and we still have our jobs

Well, most of us do... ...so far. I guess with all of the doom and gloom of the economy, we should be happy. Things are looking up though. At least this is what you might think if you consider what a client of ours said the other day: "At least now they are talking about an overall recession and are no longer fixating on how the housing market is in the gutter."

And what do we need to pull us out of our economic-induced coma? A cool horror flick that depicts havoc in the largest American city. One uplifting thought comes to mind while watching the head of the statue of Liberty crashing into a building, chunks of the city flying here and there, and major portions of the city infrastructure getting ravaged. That thought: they're gonna need some architects when this is all through."Earthquake in New York" is on tonight. I don't know about you guys but this architect is making a shit-load of popcorn and parking himself in front of the tube!

Architect must be boycotted

The magazine, Architect, must be boycotted. Do architects actually read this shit? This stuff might be great for Annie Choi’s friends but who else picks it up? You know you are in trouble when a guy with Le Corbusier glasses is on the front cover and his last name isn’t Johnson. This, in our minds, is going too far.

We though that the magazine was flawed from the start but were willing to give it a chance. We also thought that really had it coming. They are the ones responsible for that horrible salary article a while back. This is great for people like us that like to criticize this shit but what other good does it do?

Has anyone seen the latest issue? The first couple issues had a few annoying pics of architects. I can take my occasional self-promotional horse shit but the latest issue is the worst. Every article, commentary, ad, you name it, is accompanied by a full-page photo of an architect or architects. It has become the GQ of architecture magazines. The poses are terrible too. It is like the word “ASSHOLE” should be scrawled beneath each picture.
The flaw of the magazine is that it is all about focusing on the architects not the architecture. Who the fuck cares about what architects wear or how they look or whether they are a nerd or not? Your buildings and designs should be your connection to people, not your picture in GQ. We are all for celebrating the newest, cool design to be done by someone but lets allow the architecture ego to be enlarged through that and not through you looking cool in a black suit. Besides, there are no hot chicks doing cool architecture so who would want to look at the photos. Could you imagine the next issue: Zaha Hahaha naked in a hot tub except for a couple of artistically placed bubbles? That’s the crescendo that magazine seems to be building towards and it’s just wrong.
Maybe this is the point of the magazine and why it is called "Architect" and not "Architecture - something". If so, then we think this point is all wrong. It not only exacerbates the problem we have with the image of the architect as the all-knowing savior but it simultaneously pushes the point that image is more important than anything else when it comes to architecture. Personally, we not only find this inaccurate but a disservice to what we do as a profession.

Why do we do such crappy buildings?

Most of the buildings we design are condominiums. It’s not a romantic job but someone has to do it. One question we often ask ourselves is, “why can’t we make nicer buildings”. The easy blame gets spread between the head designer and the owner but this doesn’t really tell the entire story.

First it’s important to clarify; I don’t think any of us feels particularly guilty about our work. We aren’t killing kittens or doing anything as unseemly as that. We are making a minor contribution to the world: people need a place to live. We are fulfilling a need. It’s not great that they seem to love living in little cubicles in the sky but what can we do about that? Also, our buildings don’t completely suck. They have a little detail, are typically not un-pleasant to walk by and they sure as hell aren't the worse things on the street.
One of the problems is that work is somewhat mundane. How many cubicles in the sky can you really design while keeping it interesting? Some architects get more excited if those cubicles in the sky are glass and steel instead of brick and wood but I am not sure there is that great a distinction between the two. Others are excited if you just change the shape of the cubicle – boy, if only that apartment were round or obtuse – now that would be more fun to design. Please…

I am not sure that the product is the problem. Part of the problem with designing these things is that we are only concerned with what sells. Granite counters, body sprays and rain cans, that perfect “sweet spot” of square footage. Oh, and it has to have a little outdoor space – even if that space is a 25 square foot checker-plate deck facing an garbage-filled alley, it has to have it. These are all that really matters in the condo world. And why is this so? It is easiest to blame the lemmings that seem to be lining the streets to buy this stuff. Or is it the developers who believe that this is all people want so this is what they are going to serve them. Perhaps it’s a combination of the two.
Another line of thought is that architects are to blame for this entire dilemma. Since we are the harbingers of architectural culture, it is our job to educate the public about quality space and design. If this were the case, wouldn’t we have spent more time learning how to teach and communicate then how to draw and design?

Ultimately, cheaper and bigger end up being the goal and in order to make the client happy (so we can get paid and commissioned to designed more “bigger and cheaper” cubicles) we do whatever it takes. Cheaper and bigger is what the client wants and it is what the client sells to the consumers – which is, in this city, most of us. What a screwed up circle.

One of the ladies formerly in our office informed us that Oprah had a show on “living small” (as if this would eventually change the world). The show featured one guy that lives in 94 square feet of space. This guy is obviously not married and he certainly doesn’t rake in the kind of dough that Oprah does. Does Nate Berkus live in 94 sq feet? Shit, I don’t think Oprah can confine herself to 9400 square feet (and I am not making a crack about her body here)!
Who knows, maybe Oprah is the answer. Perhaps she can begin to assist architects in the education of the general public about quality space through her show!!! Then again, I am not sure I could stomach a talk show filled with architects. HGTV and the DIY network are bad enough. Perhaps if we can convince Oprah what quality design is and that quantity is not everything, I am sure we are well on our way to not designing crappy buildings anymore.

Dear Annie Choi

Dear Annie Choi,

Good riddance. We haven’t been so keen on you hanging around us like an archi-hag anyway. It's too bad though, we will truly miss all of those “deep” interjections you have about turkey eggs and tacos.

We are sorry that you have not been able to use us for something self-gratifying like you do the rest of your so-called friends. Sorry we seem to have nothing to offer you but we do take offense at the suggestion that we are not good to hang out with at a bars. Frankly, we believe we are some of the most jovial drinkers out there. We are also typically quite generous with buying rounds as we hate to drink alone. Perhaps you didn’t catch a round because you were too busy ogling the doctors and lawyers at the tables next to us. Or maybe we were downing our drinks so fast that you missed a round or two.

We also don’t get the whole 11:00 at night dinner thing. We are sure that there are some in our profession that love to work more than anything else in the world and unless we have been out drinking and skipped a regular dinner hour, we typically dine right after work. It is unfortunate that those are the only architects you hang out with. We believe that if you started slumming it and hung out with some of us from the 2nd and 3rd tier architecture firms (not the SOMs, KPFs, or any of those snobby arty firms) you would quickly find that many of us realize there is much more to life than architecture. We typically show this by drinking profusely; religiously attending every nearby happy hour.

Don’t think for a moment though, that while slumming with us lesser architects you will escape discussions of architecture. We still over-indulge in ourselves and in our work and why shouldn’t we? We are the most brilliant and most important people we know. We are responsible for some really cool shit. We just don’t work as hard as our big-wig counterparts. Stressing over stuff like what angle to tilt our curtain walls or what type of zinc-coated panels to use on our buildings is really not high on our list of priorities.

Again, we are not so sad you are giving up on us. It's just too bad you have such a bad impression. If you stuck around long enough you might eventually see us slip into some meaningful conversations about space elevators, Adam & Eve, or Jessic Biel’s acting career.

Yours truly,

Architects Suffering a Life Without Andy

Green Architecture

Unless you’ve been living under a rock somewhere, you would have heard of this term. It seems to be the hottest thing going. You can’t open an architectural journal or read a newspaper article about a new development without seeing the word “green”. Great idea, huh? Frankly, I am sick of it and am generally annoyed how people in the construction and development industries are using the word “green” to justify just about anything.

Real Example A: An architect designs a home in the middle of nowhere, touted for its "green" materials and for the way it “fits in” with the environment. The home is approximately 5,000 sf.

Real Example B: An architect renovates a Chicago Bungalow. The home is given credit because it employs new HVAC systems, windows, walls and insulation, making it energy efficient and protecting the home from any infiltration.

Real Example C: A popular food chain is credited with having a green roof because it will help protect us from warmer micro-climates.

I could go on with another 10 REAL examples that piss me off but frankly, my lunch hour is only so long. The point is: something very wrong and warped has come from a good idea. If we are going to call something "green", I have a few new rules that should apply:

1. New construction can not be considered green. There has been a tremendous amount of energy put forth to date to create buildings. To "throw away" that energy is wasteful. Yes, there are times when we must build new – but those times are rare and we should do it responsibly. Old buildings are a great resource and will save us from producing new: walls, foundations, roof structures, windows, etc. You want to be green? Buy an old home or building and treat it the way you would a national park - as a steward.

2. Any single-family home greater than 2500sf can not be considered green. Anything beyond this is a waste. It is a waste of energy to produce, waste of energy to maintain and condition, and is more likely to contain spaces with "wasteful" appliances and other shit. You want to be green, live modestly and stop buying shit!

3. Any building NOT within walking distance of a public transit line, grocery store, and school can not be considered green. One of the greatest wastes we have going on is the expenditure of fossil fuels moving people around. The further you need to move people, the more waste is going on. There are several rural areas where construction is necessary and there are plenty of great old rural homes and farm houses that could use a new steward. Beyond that, I just don't get it. If you like nature so much, then why the hell would you marring it with your personal modern architectural statement? Get over youself! Fallingwater was built in a different time and place. Hopefully we have learned a few things about architectural responsibility since then. You want to be green? Move to a fucking urban area and walk!

4. Substantial removal of original items from a home or building is not a green practice. Where does this stuff go? To the construction fairy? No, it likely goes to a dump. What replaces it? Likely, this stuff is replaced with industrially produced sub-standard plastic crap. You want to be green? Re-use, renovate and repair instead of replace.

5. Making a building weather-tight is not green. People go to great lengths to insulate, seal, and "protect". Instead of finding ways to "seal" and separate us from our environment, we should be finding innovative ways to live within it. Trapping air, moisture, etc. within the walls of where we live and work will likely cause mold, or worse, disease. You want to be green? Live with the occasional draft or God forbid, open a freaking window if you want to cool down - fresh air never killed anyone.

6. Having a green roof on a building within a sea of asphalt parking is not “green”. You want to be green? Reduce parking and make people walk. It will do them some good to get some exercise before they eat one of your 1000 calorie burgers anyway. With the additional open space, add some trees. You will do more with a few trees on your site than those few blade of grass will ever do on your roof.

As I understand it, a lot of these issues have been taken into consideration in LEED. The problem with LEED is that it doesn’t seam to account for the fact that when a code or recommendation is given, the average person acts like a 3 year old. They will find out how far they can push it until they get a smack on the ass.

If they are going to institute a merit system then they need to conversely administer a demerit system. O.k., you get a point for doing that condenser with a high SEER rating but moron, you built a single family home with a heated indoor swimming pool – bang! Minus 2 points! Great, you located your office building near a transit line, you get a point. But wakeup asshole, you tore done a perfectly fine concrete and brick warehouse building from the 1920’s to do so – bang! Minus 3 points! On the other hand, why do we need a system of merits anyway? Why can't people just be responsible.

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.

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/

SGW - not your typical architecture firm

It's nice to know that life at SGW does not resemble the attached cartoon at all.

Who's checking these drawings....

Conry...Rutz? Rutz...Conry? Seems quality control let this one slip through the cracks and now tens of tens of innocent squirrels have bee destroyed without any proof they were in fact connected to any organizations bent on taking over the world. At least the old people have been taken care of.

More Encouraging News About Our Profession

Andy, There's still time to escape!!!

An Excerpt from CNN/Money:

"Most of us work hard for a living. And if we're lucky, we're well compensated for the effort. But there are some jobs you should take only if you really love the work because the investment you make to get the job and the hours you keep aren't necessarily commensurate with what you earn.

Not that all careers in this category are necessarily low-paying, at least not by national standards. But they may require a great deal of time and money in graduate education, offer working conditions that only passion can excuse, and there may be such a long run for the roses that you forfeit prime working and child-bearing years just to achieve a salary that college peers were earning a decade earlier. Here are just three of those jobs.

Architects

For every Philip Johnson or Frank Lloyd Wright in a generation of architects, there are countless more who work without fanfare on the everyday buildings where we work, live and shop.
Architects may spend up to seven years completing undergraduate and master's-degree studies, or up to three-and-a-half years in a master's program if they majored in another area during college. To be eligible to take the licensing exam, they also must log three years as interns working for licensed architects.

Architects with a master's might enter the work force with between $50,000 and $80,000 in student loan debt. But as first-year interns, they might earn only $34,000, the national median according to the 2005 compensation survey by the American Institute of Architects. Meanwhile, several steps up the ladder, senior architects earn a median of $68,900."