After a recent panel hosted within SCI-Arc, called Basecamp: How to be in an office, sparked protest from students and alumni, a slew of events unfolded within the school that rippled into the architecture community, prompting passionate discourse about ethics within professional practice and academia, especially as it relates to internships and the treatment of students and young professionals. But this isn't an essay about SCI-Arc, or an account of what is going on at SCI-Arc. The events have already been well documented online and in Archinect's latest reporting on April 1.
Instead, I want to explore the deeper historical and philosophical concepts that I believe underlie what we’ll call the conservative view of architecture work culture: that long hours, toil and suffering, and low pay are inevitable realities of pursuing a rigorous design career. I see a disconnect between the traditional professional ethos and the advent of the current zeitgeist that has been born, particularly in the last three years, and that refuses to see professional achievement as the ultimate ideal one should strive to attain in life. The hope is to connect a gap between generations to understand where this conservative view came from and why it no longer holds up today.
"Shun those studies in which the work that results dies with the worker." – Leonardo da Vinci
The image of the lone master, seated at his drawing table (yes, his), while his pupils stand by, in awe of the toil and finesse of the master's hand, thankful to be in his presence, is an image we can associate with the mythologized history of architecture. The arrangement was simple: the young apprentice came to the master, hoping they were worthy of working under him, grateful when given a chance to do so—whatever the costs.
Going as far back as the Renaissance, this model was relatively fair. Take the workshop of Andrea del Verrocchio, the mentor of Leonardo da Vinci. Verrocchio had the great responsibility of helping young artists develop their craft. Those artists used the skills they learned to support the workshop and in exchange received clothes, food, and lodging (basically, they were compensated). Pupils even worked with Verrocchio, the maestro, on several projects the workshop was commissioned to complete. But Verrocchio's apprentices were not necessarily working for him; they were being cultivated by him, molded to be the best practitioners they could be. Verrocchio was their mentor.
Even back then, accomplished artists were revered by the public and young artists alike. We've brought that along with us to the modern era. Within architecture, it's where we get terms like "starchitect." Successful practitioners become mythologized in an unwritten oral tradition prevalent across Western architecture. A small group of people become design deities and garner themselves a seat on the Mount Olympus of architecture. They become mythologized masters. People flock to them, eager to learn, associate, and tap into the new ways of thinking they pioneer.
The conservative idea says this mythologized master is so special and so sought after that interns should be willing to do anything and everything, any task for however long the design leader wishes, and be grateful for the chance to do so. The belief that one should try to earn the favor of the established professional through sweat, suffering, and self-sacrifice is a result of the outdated notion of the mythologized master.
Here, “master” has a double meaning. There is an individual of great skill and ability. But there is also another: someone who presides over servants and slaves. Remember: there is a difference between a master and a mentor.
"I tell my students, 'When you get these jobs that you have been so brilliantly trained for, just remember that your real job is that if you are free, you need to free somebody else. If you have some power, then your job is to empower somebody else. This is not just a grab-bag candy game." – Toni Morrison
We used to revere the eccentric genius, giving him a pass on his transgressions because his creative ability served as sufficient atonement for his sins. We don't have to look far to see figures like Steve Jobs, the workplace tyrant; Albert Einstein, who terrorized his first wife and abandoned his children; or Picasso, the womanizing egotist, presented as paragons of virtue. Their virtue was earned as a result of their achievements: the metric that, until not too long ago, trumped almost every other aspect of what it means to be human in this world.
Those three men actually inspire me. They show me what is possible if I push myself, but also who I don't want to be: the kind of colleague and workplace leader I would never want to become, the kind of father and husband I do not want to be, and the manner in which I do not want to treat women. I'd never want to be like them. Before, we saw achievement as a pass for bad character. Today, character and ethics prevail over achievement and ability.
We've moved into an age of accountability where, no matter who you are, how famous you are, or how brilliant, you can no longer manipulate the moral landscape in your favor without reaping the consequences. Those advocating for reform in the architecture workplace don't care if you're a genius if you're also an asshole. This is a common disconnect with those who believe a young professional should bow to the elder's feet in reverence. We know the saying: They don’t care what you know until they know that you care.
Most interns are, in fact, grateful and excited for an internship opportunity. They are enthusiastic about finding a place where they can contribute the skills they've acquired thus far in their journey, receive mentorship and develop their skills further, and receive a fair wage. The unspoken assumption is that they will be respected, treated with dignity, and regarded as a whole person who is not owned by the firm or looked down upon because they are going to have dinner with their family at 8 pm on a Saturday.
I can already hear those folks mustering up the slippery slope rebuttal: the argument that we can’t all hold hands and stand in a circle and sing kumbaya, that we can’t baby everyone and get so caught up in feelings and emotion when there’s real work to be done. And, of course, that’s not what anyone’s asking for. No one’s advocating for an easy pass or the annihilation of hard work.
"My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive; and to do so with some passion, some compassion, some humor, and some style." – Maya Angelou
I can't think of many students, recent graduates, or young professionals in architecture who are lazy. Most are tremendously driven and hardworking. It comes with the territory. I'd argue that anyone who has managed to graduate from architecture school is a diligent, devoted person. So, when I hear folks say that interns and junior staff who don't want to work 60 hours, come in on the weekends, or stay late into the night aren't passionate enough, or aren't thinking about their reputation, or any of the other reasons that select group of practitioners conjure up, I find it befuddling.
Here is the problem as I see it: traditionally, things like passion, devotion, and enthusiasm are measured by one metric—hours. Those who work the most hours are the most devoted. Those who stay the latest are the A-players, the serious ones. Those who go in on the weekends really want to progress in their careers. They see the bigger picture. As for the rest of us? You know, those of us who want to spend time with our families, focus on our mental health or live a full life. Well, we're just mediocre.
We forget about the automatic social privilege that architects of the past (and starchitects of the present) enjoyed. In the absence of pragmatic concerns such as financial burdens and childcare arrangements, among several others, it becomes exceedingly easy to “live at the office.” The social price that comes with this reductionist view of work (“it’s all about the hours”) is impossibly high for most people, disproportionately favoring the privileged while perpetuating a continuous cycle of inequity and elitism.
Now, please, don't misunderstand me. Sometimes there are deadlines. Sometimes we should sacrifice time in our personal lives to see something through at work. But that should not be the norm, and we should not be made to do so or scolded if we cannot. Frankly, if you're at a workplace that respects you, your time, your life, you'll be eager to stay when those inevitable late days or busy weeks come about. You'll want to be there. Imagine that.
"To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss." – Michael Oakeshott
Emerging professionals want to be whole people, hardworking and healthy, diligent and dynamic, able to work in an environment where they are respected as humans and valued as team members, where their worth is not measured in hours but in who they are as people, their intensity of focus, how they work with their colleagues, how quickly they learn, how they take initiative.
When colleagues are well-rested, fit, properly nourished, involved in meaningful activity outside of work, spend time with loved ones, they are better people, better coworkers, more of a pleasure to be around. The younger generation isn't asking to sit on an island somewhere, throw up their feet, sip a fruity drink, and look on into the sunset.
We all know the argument: "This is how it is, this is how it's always been. You have to grind, you have to suffer. My mentors went through it, so did I, and so will you." It’s when we believe something should be a certain way because it has traditionally been that way. This incoherent reasoning even has a name—we call it the appeal to tradition.
The problem with an appeal to tradition is twofold. First, it assumes that the old way of thinking is somehow correct by the mere fact that it has been practiced for a long time ("We've always done it this way, so it is right."). Second, it assumes that the reasons that resulted in the old way of thinking are justified and relevant in our modern time ("We've always done it this way because of how things were back then, things are still like that today, therefore we should continue to do it this way."). It’s a lazy way of thinking and childishly assumptive.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. – F. Scott Fitzgerald
We don't want to assume that a conservative view of things is 100 percent wrong and a progressive view is 100 percent correct. We should try to understand the virtues and the vices of both. With the progressive view, focused on collaboration, flexibility, and a balanced life, we risk things like groupthink, soon finding ourselves with no direction and no vision. If we overprioritize flexibility, it could become hard to unify a team around a common goal. With everyone inevitably holding conflicting preferences, the pursuit of utopia can end up producing greater dysfunction.
The conservative view holds several elements of value itself. There is something to be learned from the unwavering work ethic that produced the great works of architecture many of us admire today. Most of the architectural vocabulary young people hold comes from this older generation who put in the hours to show us what is possible in the field. That is not to be taken lightly. Moreover, much of the knowledge, techniques, and lessons that help us be competent, formidable designers directly result from the long hours we are critiquing, the trial and error served by our predecessors so that we do not have to serve them ourselves.
Isaac Newton said in a letter to scientist and architect Robert Hooke, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Let's not completely throw out what was achieved in the past because we today understand the processes by which those feats were achieved to be inadequate. It is possible to acknowledge value and error in a single thing in a single thought. The hope is that in realizing what is to be gained by introducing a progressive outlook on the dysfunctional way of practicing architecture, we can create pathways for even greater innovation, well-being, meaning, and fulfillment.
It is time to value people over projects, individuals over industry, compassion over concept.
Additional resources for students, recent graduates, and young professionals
For someone new in the field of architecture, much of what has been discussed can seem overwhelming. Below is a list of articles and short essays that share tips around job hunting, insight into the architecture workplace, how to deal with different types of people, and how to navigate things:
What to Expect After Graduating From Architecture School
A 3-Step Guide to Choosing Your Next Architecture Job
The Secret Nature of The Job Interview
Professional Growth and The Power of Observation
Do You Feel Like Quitting Your Job? Read This First
The Importance of Building Professional Relationships in Architecture
The Architecture Student’s Guide to Studio
Burnout, and the Architecture Work Culture
Career Evolution Through Autodidacticism and Accelerated Learning
Burnout, Fatigue and the Architecture Workplace
The Importance of Physical Fitness in Mental Performance
How to Face a Jury in Architecture School
Balancing Studio With Other Classes
Archinect's Guide to Job Titles: Intern
Thoughts on Black Tokenism in Architectural Practice
Equity in Architectural Academia: A Conversation with Cory Henry
Sean is Editor-at-Large at Archinect. His essays and articles explore themes spanning history, pop culture, and philosophy and how they connect to the practice and process of architecture.
"Here is the problem as I see it: traditionally, things like passion, devotion, and enthusiasm are measured by one metric—hours."
Sean! I wish it was the metric. The truth of the matter, and one we all know, and acknowledge, is this; the Metric, is simply based on the complex matter of Ego. The larger the Ego, the empathy for the suffering of others. It doesn't matter how many hours you spend on a project, if it mattered, then we could devise a mathematical solution to arrive at the greatest design solutions. We would all work hard for empathetic bosses, put in longer hours, come in on the weekend, I would, and did, but only because they did not move the fucking goal posts, the day before it was to be presented.
The simple fact is this, and one I learned in my only stint with a big fish in a small pond; fuck you pay me, and if you treat me like garbage, I bolt, that day, right then and there.
I am unsure where to begin, here.
Architecture can be a subjective profession. Coupled with the possible long hours and potential low pay; You can be hired or dismissed for anything. The boss doesn't like your smile or your braces or demographic etc.Its no coincidence that Architecture is still one of the least diverse professions despite serving a social purpose.
https://archinect.com/news/art...
The schools reflect the profession/society issues unfortunately and Sci-arc is no exception. Remember Sci-arc bolted out of Cal Poly .The underlying issues still the same. Developers have taken advantage of these weaknesses and are now running the industry indirectly.
Architecture schools should have been at the forefront of solving social problems working to reflect the society they serve and producing pragmatic graduates. The field can be biased from admissions, to recruitment, to training, to hiring, to pay to licensing. The future is now tricky thanks to developers and technology.
Architect might have covered this already but a companion piece on how firms of different scales/growth stages/market segments manage their finances and conduct business development would be great. I think there is a strong corollary between a well-run practice and one that treats its employees well - that is, a company with strong fundamentals rather than one that competes on pricing or doesn't compete at all as it is a vanity project.
mono - not enough time this morning to go in deep but fundamentally, understanding how firms charge fees (and it is market segment driven, just like medicine - a GP makes less than a highly rated plastic surgeon) and the relative pressures in each market will go a long way to shaking out why you see some trends or not. throw in the pressure - constant pressure - to try and get to the 'top of the heap' and you get the combustible mix that seems to converge around some firms. just as an example - right now, with interest rates rising, the carry costs for owners on buildings is rising, quickly. that proforma? might be outdated. so the pressure to turn around work insanely quickly, so that you can try to lock in your funding, is the most intense i've seen practicing. that doesn't align well with doing 'great' architecture - iteration times are cut down, you're left trying to stack up more staff to do the same work in a shorter time. we can all argue 'is this the kind of clients we want to work with?' but it's never really that simple is it?
I feel for those with disabilities and other commitments, like family caregiving, who cannot work 60 hours a week but are dedicated and intelligent nonetheless. The ableism of the architectural field truly saddens me. You have to be fit and healthy to succeed.
Traditionally, architecture has been an elitist "profession". (Buckmonster Fuller called it a "slave" profession.) Consider the simple fact that only monumental, socially defining buildings have been (and still are) considered (A)-architecture. The last splash we had on that highbrow inaccessible front was the work of Eisenmann & Meier of the "White School 5 which included Gwathmey, Graves & Hedjuck. (Check spelling). Of those only Eisenmann combined articulate theory with actual construction; that, nonetheless, leaked. (Gwathmey's didn't; thanks to Seigel.) Permit me to play the stick-in-the-mud historian wherein the White School guys were the last gasp of European "Modernism" celebrating Le Corbusier from "revolution" into mannerism. This is an entirely separate stream from the Mies influenced glass and steel monoliths of Johnson's "international Style" that corporate America ate up with impersonal deadpan institutional "optimization". This is the architecture where every urban skyline looks like a Bloomingdale's perfume bottle showcase top. Then, after Hugh Stubbins' Citycorp evercool slice of the world things were chopped and shorn to avoid setbacks. Great: Neo-Plasticism pumps out the air and seals the environment. When you reach that level of vertical density there is not much choice. After they had their 15 minutes (actually 10 years - 1968 to 1978) of fame the Gravesian Po-Mo Fiberglass (EIFS) Disney Neo-Classicism imagistics echoed the most Pop-Arch manifesto of our time: Complexity and Contradiction. That treatise single pagedly allowed architecture to be "FUN" which is exactly what the American public wants to see. Americans hate anything intellectual, or requiring thought. Abstract Expressionism failed because of just that: It was Abstract. As a people, we do not like that. That is ok. It did not go over very well in Europe, either. Ghery is so "popular" because his work is Junk Pop desultory cartoons. God help me, I love it! Today it just ain't the thing to be white anything. Moreover the question of some form of esoteric authoritarian mystique couched in convoluted terms invites derision. Monumentalism completely aside. It is curious, that Corbusier vacillated between Communism and National Socialism then celebrated indigenous mid-East architecture while wallowing in high-tech romanticism. Nonetheless- his 5 points dominated architectural thought for over 50 years.(1924 until 1974). I wonder how many of today's students, or young architects, can quote those points, much less the essential Vitruvian dictums. Oops, sorry, white guys. That Cubism was an immature, incompetent nod to the non-Euclidian geometry of Lobachevsky with overtones of cinema mechanics echoing the confluence of the colossal triumverate of Van Gogh, Cezanne and Gaugain (as French structuralists) folding Italian Futurism into the mix we can see that as the century turned and dynamism roared through into a cacaphonic 20th Century the multitasking scatatological referential overlays of the late 20th (Now 21st) century yields a fractured imagery without reflection in a world seeking multiple identities where there is none. We are in a phase of syncopated "rejection" at 22 frames per second; Bollywood speed. Therefore, enter the self-justified world of K-Pop as a spinoff of easy disco played by a quartet of mixed gender, ethnic, racial, (all-in-one) under 40 (30)-something architects who work in a world where buildings are not built; but assembled and ordered (not specified) on line with corporate accessibility and code conformance revised weekly. As long as it gets published, what do I care. Ask then, what does all this have to do with an office working environment? Those offices no longer exist. Save for the elite, like Gehry. His is a studio, not an office and his clients pay for the privilege. That alone remains the "profession" of architecture. Skidmore is now, and always was, a business. Bunshaft, notwithstanding.
"This is how it is, this is how it's always been. You have to grind, you have to suffer. My mentors went through it, so did I, and so will you." If you hear this, run. It's an excuse to be mistreated. While you will have to burn the midnight oil to get things done, if this is the pattern, it's not right.
The companion argument is: "To accomplish great works of art, one must sacrifice sweat and blood!"
It's a building or worse, an imaginary building from a 50-year old reliving his student glory days. If this was a race to invent a drug that would save millions - then yes, sacrifices must be made. But the stakes at these make-believe practices are so slow you're pretty much just sacrificing yourself for someone else's vanity project.
Bottom line, trust your instincts. If you are in a relationship with an abuser, get away. This is just as true in architecture school as a job. Especially those professors who have no experience. Your mental health is more important than anything else. Without it, all else is bitter.
The problem is real - the extent goes further than architecture though.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/us/ucla-adjunct-professor-salary.html
I’ve practiced in both worlds.It’s really all about time & time management. New technology has helped disrupt this. The old guard doesn’t really know how much relative time is necessary to get things done on computers, etc. (either fast or slow) so they panic and set false deadlines for young architects, who rebel when they find out they have been had. The trust is missing. But this issue can be solved over time by working together.
A quote from another site: " When I look back on those times in my life I have some fond memories, but mostly I have regret for the anguish I put myself through."
How many times did an associate stab her in the back?
How Many times was her work destroyed or damaged?
Did an associate come to her residence in the dark of night to either cause damage or leave an indicator showing that they knew where she was?
Did an associate make an anonymous call to her residence in the middle of the night to harrass?
Did an employer tell her outright that the person she had replaced had suddenly needed to leave the state?
And if she was set to meet with her employer the next day to resolve an acute concern, was she awoken at 1:30 a.m. by high powered gunfire in an alleyway near her bedroom window - i.e., this being an implication that she keep her mouth shut regards said employer's accepting kickbacks from suppliers involving very high end residential work? - for said employer's ripping off very high end clients any which way that he could?
All that I could say to her and to students in view of the above is that I have no regrets whatsoever, that I did not sacrifice my own soul and that I kept my early vision of what might be despite hideous gossip and character assassination based upon ignorance and misassumptions.
The amount of wounded comrades in this comment section is profound. And after wounding comes cynicism, and, I do not blame them.
When treated in such a powerfully lesser manner, the effected can neither turn a blind eye nor explode outwardly.
Something instead happens inwardly. As words, deeds and other happenings in the profession—which go counter to one's intuition— slowly erodes once glistening eyes of art school, anger calcifies into resentment.
Create the Atelier/ studio that you wish existed. This is the anecdote. Homelessness, poverty and the like will perhaps meet you if you choose this path—however it will save our souls from calcification.
I can think of no other way but to respond with the creation of a better system on an individual basis.
I strongly agree with the movement to abolishing the ethos of overtime work as a path to respect, and we should direct our work culture towards the 4 day week. Having said that, I avoid people in the office who build their relevance and favor in the company by constructing a social infrastructure while doing terrible work. The city is filled to the brim with terrible Revit-generated buildings made by very nice, sociable people whose only concern is to satisfy investors. I do not like very socially nice people who have terrible drafting habits and fail to correct them, who are loud and inconsiderate, who dismiss theory or going beyond in the favor of the public well-being, who have no desire in challenging clients to do better for the city, who insist on playing distracting music, who have meetings through a speakerphone, or who form exclusive social cliques. I'd rather work with quiet people who quietly do what they have to do with purpose, with true love, veneration and respect for our profession, who don't say things like "OMG TGIF!" or whose favorite response to challenges is "it is what it is". A working space that honors the profession occurs when workers honestly and truthfully love architecture, this true commitment yields a place to work where no distractions are required. Committed architecture office leaders understand the need for everyone to attain to sustainability, therefore allowing employees to work from home to avoid unnecessary commuting, which has the additional benefit of allowing employees to avoid routine, making work even more enjoyable. The same type of person I met in studio who hated being there, never stayed late to share the culture and dismissed theory usually become the type of office worker who has no further desire than to do the minimum required, avoids specifying new materials to avoid "upsetting" the contractor or spending necessary time in the design stage. They completely fail to understand what the true mission of our profession is. I see too many people in offices who realize that they should have rallied their efforts and clearly stated their desire to be designers. They drag along the office with CDs being their only mission in life, which entitles them to oversimplify design and condemn designers. The problem lies in university, public schools allow way too many people without talent screening, they allow them to pass with utterly terrible work, and then graduate them by the thousands. This is not elitist, it is the truth.
Imagine if Elon Musk ran an architecture firm
he actually does(autoplant design), and it's 70 hour weeks minimum
Rationalization of work,as explained in the article, methods for the business of architecture sounds like exactly like a protracted form of child abuse. The question is, "is 'voluntary' participation in one's own disintegration really voluntary?"The only counters to this form of abuse is either (1) start your own firm/other biz;(2) change your mindset to manage the culture; (3),commit karoshi(Japanese for 'work to death');(4), refuse to enter the ring; i.e., become some cognoscenti-architectural personage for a related field like development/real estate/planning; artist/academic;or, (5),Unionize to put the architectural workers on parity with managers/owners. );(6) go where the grass is greener and the atmosphere is ultimately inexorably toxic. I have done all but karoshi( but I may in the Stygian pipeline;but that is another delusion,another story. The 5th strategy was the best solution for me, and produced the most good for the most people. It was certainly not the isolated endeavor of the other paths. Working in an architecture concern is not about knowledge and proving oneself;it is not the same as working as an architect: in the procrustean bed of practice, we all become too well paid to remain profitable either thru age or merit or both. The Archinet 'situations,wanted'page is filled with the well-informed/well-intentioned who have timed-out, like uncomprehending children, who don't know what they could have done differently to continue practicing architecture, and find themselves on the outside looking in.
PS: it is all biz, either as sole-practician or corporate vagabond; we just think of it as way,way above the mundane to keep our sanity?Do you really think we live in a meritocracy of accountablity? That is the new self-spell.
That was a great article- had I read it when I was in school I would have studied geology or coached a sport.
There are some basic issues not directly addressed:
It's not so tragic;
look- I know it’s has surely been hard on your path.
keep you head up. your dreams are still available to you- don’t count yourself out!
anything you can picture in your mind, if you work at it long enough shall manifest.
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?