There is a difference between architects and architectural technologists. I obviously have a bias because I was trained as an architect but I will try to state the differences as fairly as possible.
Architects are trained to design. We are taught to think about things like narrative, tension, positive and negative space, in short the art of building. Technologists are taught how buildings are constructed. They learn the technological side of a profession with two faces. The difference is sort of like that between the clothing designer and the pattern maker. In a previous post (Separation of Church and State) I discussed some ways this division of labour is reflected in architects' offices and the work they produce. Now I want to discuss something with more immediate ramifications for me.
The OAA (Ontario Association of Architects) has a job-posting page; their version of classified ads. In the latest posting there are 6 positions for Technologists, 5 for Intern Architects, and 6 for Architects. This is only unusual in the number of positions for Architects - it's typically lower. When a firm hires someone fresh from school, they can either get a technologist or they can get an intern architect. The technologist will be able to start working on drawing sets immediately and will require less on-the-job training. Technologists do not need to be taught as thoroughly as interns need to be taught technology because technologists will never be expected to have mastered both sides - architects will. The investment involved in training a graduate of an architecture school ultimately results in a person who can design buildings as well as draw them. But it costs money in the short term. And graduates from an architecture school expect to be paid more than technologists. Architecture school takes 7 years. When I graduated (from a co-op program, meaning I was earning money as I went) I had six months before I had to start paying back my student loans - at the rate of $650/month. That's a financial pressure technologists don't have. I only include that to point out interns expectations of higher pay are not based purely on snobbery.
Unfortunately, architecture is often a short term business. The owner of a firm I worked for told me for the purposes of long-term planning, she considered her family a "one-income household" and that income wasn't hers. This was a successful firm that had been around for more than a decade but if the economy slows down, or you don't get any new jobs for a couple months consecutively then you are in the deep weeds. The only architecture firms that can plan more than six months in the future either have repeat clients who are always building or sustain themselves by sheer size (a firm of 5000 has different problems than a firm of 50). A firm of a dozen or so people can't possibly plan more than six months in advance with any accuracy. It is feast or famine.
I don't have a problem with technologists. I don't think they are stealing architect's jobs. I don't think they dilute the purity of the profession. I do think it is extremely short sighted for a firm not to balance the number of technologists and interns they hire. No matter how expert a technologist becomes they cannot get a license to practice architecture. So any firm that relies on technologists exclusively is setting itself up to definitely fail in the long-term.
High levels of uncertainty combine with economic pressure to lead firms with one or two architects to hire as many technologists as are required to produce the drawings. The architects spend all day on the phone, the technologists spend all day on the computer. No matter how successful the firm is they will eventually face a time when one, or even two architects just aren't enough to handle the workload. And that's the worst possible time to bring in an intern. Since the architects are already over-worked, they don't want to take on even more work training someone to replace them. The temptation is to hire an architect who interned somewhere else. But instead of the $45-$50k/year an intern would expect, they are going to want $80-100k. And what kind of loyalty are they going to have? If they get a better offer from another firm, why wouldn't they take it? Your firm hasn't done anything for them. An even more pressing question is where are the licensed architects coming from if no one is making the investment in training interns? The most recent posting was exceptional in that firms are looking for either interns or technologists. Most ads are for "Technologist or Intern" - meaning if you are an intern who can do the job of a technologist (and you are willing to work for less) you have a shot. These ads often ask for interns with 5 or even 10 years experience. As discussed below, if you have 10 years experience, you shouldn't be an intern anymore.
There is a place for technologists in architecture firms but (excuse me for stating the incredibly obvious) there must also be a place for intern architects! Right now most interns are training in giant firms - the kind of size that can weather a downturn. That's problematic for a number of reasons. Big firms are highly compartmentalized. Technically, the OAA requires around 3750 hours experience before an intern can qualify to take the exams for licensure but those hours need to be in very specific categories. So in a big firm it might take 5 or 10 years to get the required hours instead of 2 years. It's really inefficient. And it produces precisely the loyalty problem I discussed above.
Why is loyalty (or its lack) a problem? Because institutional knowledge is hugely important in a profession like architecture and it only gets passed on through stability in the institution. The OAA is trying to simulate something like institutional knowledge by the requirement all interns have a "mentor" - someone to whom they will, presumably, forge the connection they do not forge with their firm. But it is a stop-gap solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment