Home  /  Being an Architect   /  Different Types of Architects   /  Maybe Someday I’ll actually Design a Building and see it Built

Maybe Someday I’ll actually Design a Building and see it Built

That’s what Architects are supposed to do, right? There’s a big series of posts coming about this topic, but I wanted to foreshadow a bit and ask a question.

If you were to give a two word description of the following architect, what would it be:

The architect who loves the act of designing through the media of our trade-whether pencil on trace, scale models, or digitally. After being asked by a client to design a building, this type of architect can sit down in front of a blank piece of paper (or empty model space or stack of chipboard) and just start sketching a design. Because they have a central concept of what Architecture should be, because they have a stylistic preference, because they know the project-type so well, or because of some other ineffable quality they can just create. I don’t know what it is. There are lots of architects like this. They are usually design architects. One of my old bosses in particular fits this model perfectly. A client would say “I want a cabin, here’s some basic info” and he would-with a pen on a napkin, with a pencil on trace or with a stick in the dirt-create forms out of thin air.

What would you call that type of architect?

A (fill in the blank with one word)-Architect.

There are design architects that don’t work this way. So the answer isn’t Design-Architect. There are students in Architecture School who can do this from day one. So the answer isn’t Experienced-Architect. There are architects who do this but produce garbage. So the answer isn’t Good-Architect. Artist-Architect doesn’t work because I know too much about art to understand how wrong that title is. To say that the answer is just Architect is, well, ignorant. What are these architects?

I don’t know. And one of the reasons I can’t codify this group is that I don’t work like this. I never have and I’m not sure I ever will. I’m something different (I know what I am, but that’s for a future post).

Why are you asking this Jared?

Unsurprisingly, the deeper answer is within that rhetorical question. But the more immediate answer is that today is February 28th, 2013. One year ago on February 29th, 2012 I quit my day job. One year ago, I mustered up the courage and said “Fuck it.” Time to blaze my own path. And so I have for a full year now. And I LOVE IT. This year has had some ups and downs, but it’s been a wonderful year filled with great opportunities, new friends and acquaintances, surprising challenges, and a wonderful amount of successes. Plus a ton of self discovery. When you run your own business, when all your work time is under your control (from an idealized perspective), it’s very telling when you look at what you do or don’t do; at what types of work you seek out or avoid.

When I was in school and early on in my career, I always assumed I wanted to be an architect so that I could design buildings. I always expected that was the goal. I train as an architect. I do my time as a grunt. Then I make it. Then I get to one day point at built stuff and say “I created that.” At some point over the last decade my career started to shift, to head down a different path. I didn’t understand it then and I don’t fully understand it now. But year after year, job after job, opportunity after opportunity, I found that the goal of being the guy who gets a design challenge, sits down in front of a blank canvas and just creates wasn’t getting any closer. For whatever reason other opportunities within firms were easier, more enjoyable, and more attainable. Frustration grew. I didn’t understand why others could move down that path but I couldn’t. It wasn’t because their designs were better. It wasn’t because my secret life goal was to be a technical production guy or a BIM Manager (which are both worthy aspirations). There was something else going on. Many of my contemporaries could sit at their desks and design things. That was maddeningly impossible for me.

I’ve been doing Shoegnome full time for a year and I understand myself better now. I love design and creation. I love exploration. But this is THE BIG THING I’ve discovered. Do I want to design buildings and one day stand in them? Of course. That sounds wonderful. Do I really care? Will I lie on my deathbed and regret never getting a project built? Absolutely not. Do I even feel I need to be involved in the direct creation of buildings (whether as the Project Architect, Production Architect, or some other role)? Nope. Does that mean I’m not really an architect, other than according to NCARB and the State of Minnesota? That’s not even a question I seriously ask myself.

So I’ll ask my question for all of you again:

What’s the two-word descriptor for the architect I describe above who can conjure designs on cue?

Once I find a good answer to that question, I’ll explain the bigger picture.

PS – Thank you all for your support this year; I’ll do my best to spend the next year giving even more back. Year Two of full time dedication to Shoegnome is going to be even better than Year One!

Update 03/19/13 – I found my answer.

Follow Shoegnome on Facebook and Twitter for more on being an Architect in the 21st Century.

Comments

  • February 28, 2013
    reply

    The answer is??!!!

    Howard Roark for the win.

  • February 28, 2013
    reply

    I would call them a ‘practicing’ architect.

    There is never a blank canvas. There are always constraints of site, zoning, climate, client wishes/demands, materials, cost, quality, schedule, etc., that direct the design. So the blank canvas is reduced in scope and direction before pencil ever touches the trace.

    A ‘practiced’ architect knows to initially include these constraints and direct their design accordingly. Obviously, some design efforts are far more challenging than others. Pondering a design challenge before grabbing a pencil and trace maybe be a more prudent course of action. And many times, while doing required mundane work, ideas appear…

    Then the ‘practiced’ architect can quickly sketch their ideas, making it look easy. It’s not. He/she is just ‘practiced’ in their craft to know the laws, codes, zoning, materials, methods, systems, nature, habitation, living, working, etc., to create a living/working environment… with form and sustainable function.

    Whether one like his/her design is another story. Art is subjective and a ‘practicing’ architect just plies their craft creating art and/or functional habitation as best they can to resolve their client’s building needs. Good or bad is for all to determine but only the client counts…

    And let it be said, “I feel as though I know less, the older I get…”

    Cheers!

  • February 28, 2013
    reply

    I do remember a guy in one of my design and rendering classes who was so far above everyone’s skill level that I wondered why he was there and NOT teaching the class.

    And I thought I was good but compared to him I was zip. All I could do was just look at him in awe… thrilled to be in his humble presence, looking over his shoulder.

    I had forgotten him but even now, I feel a sense of astonishing amazement…

    He was truly ‘gifted.’

  • February 28, 2013
    reply

    Jason Smith

    Jared, I have been following your progress from about a month before you started fulltime with Shoegnome. I must say excellent job. I check everyday to see what your next topic is.

    My answer for your question is
    ‘Miracle’ Architect.

    I can’t do it. I struggle with, where to start Form – Function?
    Design over ease of construction detailing?

    I’m a details guy I love the challenge of how I can build (model) the details to make the design work, ie make the roof over hang a skinny as possible just like the Design Architect scribble it down on paper.

    Thank You Jared
    Keep up the great work.

  • February 28, 2013
    reply

    Mark

    For me, the word that describes it, you’ve already used – ‘concept’. We have many ‘concept architects’ in the UK, perhaps too many. They tend to fail (sorry, under perform) when they have to deliver the technical documentation & contractual aspects of running a job though (the boring & risky bit). Many successful architects (another point – is “successful” a profitable architect? or a well known architect?) make a living in preparing the working drawings of projects designed by concept architects. There is a theory that architects aren’t taught technical content to avoid hindering the design flair. Most day to day architects need to design to a brief & budget. So, what I’m saying is you have different types of architects in practise.
    I’ve worked with architects who never designed a building in their 40 year careers but wow were they good project runners, knew everything that was needed to know. I’m not an architect, I’m an architectural technician and I love detailing and drawing buildings. I do design, (I can apply a brief – but I’m useless when briefless) I think I’m good at designing footprints, I can squeeze the last ounce out of a site or create the perfect floor plan, however, I really struggle with elevations…the form, the proportions, the golden section – I’m restrained by construction logic. I can’t come up with something from fresh air – I need restraints to work around. I also think its because I’m more mathematical than artistic and that’s why I think I’m better at plans than facades. I don’t behold this abstract, eureka gift of, or is it perhaps I’m just not imaginative enough. But I don’t often need it, perhaps that why its not stimulated in me.
    I tell all aspiring architects, that designing buildings is probably less than 1% of your workload. My 11yr old daughter wants to be an architect, (comes home from school – what are you designing today daddy – not another school extension? yawn!!) she has sketchup on her laptop, she won’t be an architect, she hasn’t got the personality, highly artistic & creative but the job isn’t for her because of the 99% of the job an architect has to do – the horrible bit (from door schedules to meeting minutes to telling big hairy builders that their brickwork is shit and take it down). But she could be a concept or abstract architect – she has imagination. An imaginative Architect as opposed to a sensible architect?
    Money is in concept, less likely to be sued, no hassle, big fees!. However, these sorts of architects, the abstract artists, produce something totally random and subjective…some people will hate but others will love, (Marmite Architects – you may not get this joke sorry) this is what creates attention. The Salvador Dahi of architects.

    So, 12months, it feels you’ve been ‘on the scene’ for years. Keep up the good work.
    (ps. sorry if I went off track a bit – I got carried away there)

  • February 28, 2013
    reply

    Anthony C.

    I might be missing the mark here a little. I’m a recent graduate (ok not that recent it’s been 2 years) and unfortunately I am not that grab a design out of thin air type. My interpretation of this idea is the Conceptual Architect. Not that the rest of us aren’t concept driven, we just work differently. I for one know that I can design more freely (it seems that way anyway) when I have a set of parameters to work within. If I can take this a step further and share a little of my background at the same time that may shed a little light on why I think this way. Before I went to architecture school I worked in construction (actually I worked in construction the whole time I was in college) and I believe that this has slowed down my design mind. Not slow in the sense that it has gotten worse slow in that I don’t jump into a design without first thinking does this actually make sense in the real world. Is this design physically feasible? I noticed that my designs in school weren’t the best in the class however my professors noticed that I included most of the time was a certain level of “real” detail, a sense of yeah I can actually see that working, not just wow that is really cool I wonder if it would actually stand up. (I guess thats why I did my thesis in Vernacular Architecture). Ok enough of the tangent.

    That’s my thought on the topic.

    On a side note, I really appreciate what you have going here Jared. I never followed a site as much as yours it’s inspiring to see someone follow their dream and let us all tag along to see how it goes.

  • February 28, 2013
    reply

    Jason Smith

    ‘Natural’ Architect.

    Natural – a person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.

    Your next title could be ‘Learned’ Architect, Passion + experience + time =Architectural Skills. These skills could also be seen by others as ‘natural’ abilities.

    The other word I thought of is ‘Instinctive’

  • March 1, 2013
    reply

    Jared, I think maybe the answer is “Partial” Architect. Your post makes a good point about the different aspects involved in our profession. The person you describe as being good, possibly amazing, at the design part only is not becoming involved in the other aspects of architecture. To me, being an architect involves more than specializing in one part of the entire process, but rather assisting the client from concept to completion. This in no way diminishes the fact that each of us will have our strengths and weaknesses at different times during that journey, but that you found ways to overcome them and complete the project.

  • March 1, 2013
    reply

    Jared I thought you might appreciate that. Yo post brought to my mind the infamous scene from the movie The Fountainhead” when Rourk sat in front of his client sketching his ideas of what a design should be on the spot.

    I am not on of those types of designers. I have seen people who are and it is truly amazing. I am very much more technically oriented.

  • March 1, 2013
    reply

    Mark

    Is that a cake that will look really good or taste really good? Do you devote the time to focus on a unique type of decoration or research the trusted ingredients?

    My wife is the baker and she always says you rarely get both. I think its her excuse for losing the cake competitions in the village summer fetes.

    There is a familiar theme going on here me thinks!

    Happy Birthday Baby Banks!

  • March 1, 2013
    reply

    Erik

    One word descriptor is “Unappreciated.” Or under appreciated. I think this is an issue across the industry. Often GCs and technical architects seem to have little appreciation of the skills. And the reverse is true. These architects often have hold the same opinion of the skill required to make their ideas reality.

    Seems like that teamwork idea really hits the nail on the head though.

  • March 19, 2013
    reply

    Oz. A.Samra

    Dear Jared.

    As much as this is truly challenging, to try and figure out what to call this kind of an architect…(and it does give us some good yet extremely humble understanding of what it is) i believe that we should not try to name it unless we have some experience or have directly practiced or lived that kind of architecture career.

    You, me, and pretty much everyone else here would have that small giggle when an outsider from the public(architectural-muggle) would try to name what architecture is…. or try to determine what kind of an architect you are and you’re pretty sure he hasn’t the slightest clue…. same argument stands with this post as we are the muggles of that alienated-like kind of an architect.

    i think that determining the name would be through sharing our experiences and examples of our practical involvement (no matter how small that experience that was) with that kind of architectural practice.
    There is an architect of all kinds inside all of us, and i’m pretty sure we all at some point and even for a small second felt like that architect of that description. Remembering that moment, and what -the hell- we were thinking back then would be of great help to this quest.

    wishing you (and all of us) a great life and career 😀

    P.S.: love the smiley face in the bottom left corner of your blog 😉

  • November 22, 2014
    reply

    Joseph Migadde

    Hi Jared. I’m very fascinated by the subjects you write about and i’ve been pondering them for some time now.

    I feel like i could provide some unique insight. I studied technical drawing and art in my o-levels and technical drawing in my a-level as well. I have always had the ability to visualize and draw complex objects (unlike most people in those classes).

    After my A-levels (A in technical drawing after partially teaching the class),i decided to pursue a BSc in Quantity Surveying. My reasoning was; i can get skills vital to the construction industry while i can always draw/design in any capacity later on in life if it’s my true calling.

    I had a horrible experience studying Quantity Surveying, i found it easy yet tedious hence boring. I didn’t attend much class throughout. I still graduated with a second class upper degree.

    I left university with plans to start and run a “low cost design-build firm”. But first i had to make my bones as a Quantity Surveyor working as an apprentice to a registered Quantity Surveyor. Here i discovered that it wasn’t very rewarding work, was stressful and i truly felt like i was pissing my life away.

    Then i got the opportunity to design and build a home for a relative because of “drawing” exploits in high school. At that point, i would still draw a bit on occasion but i had not kept up with the designing/bim/cad programs. So i hired a friend from high school who was a practising to help me translate my ideas into a design and plan meeting the client’s brief. Together we achieved a lovely and functional design which i built successfully (under budget, thanks to my QS knowledge).

    On completion of my first project (age 24 One and a half years after graduation from Uni), i learned a few things about myself;
    1. i was never going to be happy doing QS work exclusively.
    2. i have an incredible need to draw in my day to day life.
    3. the combination of QS skills and “innate” building designing ability could make me a successful design-build professional.
    4. i could work alone and i preferred working alone away from rigid structure and frameworks.
    5. i could teach myself anything as long as i’m willing to put in the work (reading, watching videos, experimenting etc)

    So i quit my job and started the “low cost” design-build firm. I experimented with rammed earth technology (earthbag), interlocking stabilized soil block, water harvesting on a few projects, real and experimental. This whole time i was teaching myself archicad, autocad, artlantis basically any application i thought could be useful. So when that company didn’t survive (it ran out of money). I went off and practised as an independent design-build contractor. I am currently in the process of setting up a Company that shall handle main stream construction while carrying out continuous research on low cost construction technology and sustainable housing design.

    Sorry for the long post but i felt like i should paint a more complete picture for you. The term for what i am in worldly terms i believe is “autodidact”. I face stigma because i’m self taught without the qualification. I’m now 27, very happy and i live with my fiancee and our son. Jared, i think i fit your description of the “artist-architect”, while i also build. How i can prepare myself for the future, any advice? I am now certain my happiness is linked to my being able to design and build things.

    *Thanks for all your written work and videos Jared, we appreciate it a lot.

      • November 29, 2014
        reply

        jeph

        Thanks for the reply Jared. I’m teaming up with more traditional architects because of my cost engineering angle. I’ll keep you updated on my endeavors.

Post a Comment