i trying to decide which to take,architecture or drafting but i don't know whats the difference b/t them.which one would you recommend

Architecture is actual design. Drafting is drawing other peoples' ideas. Of course, young architects spend most of their time drafting.

whatever you choose you won't start doing (A)rchitecture until you are, at least, 40 or 45...

whatever you choose you won't start doing (A)rchitecture until you are, at least, 40 or 45...

Not sure what that means. If you're any good you should be producing good architecture in your thirties. Personally I plan on peaking around 60ish mind you. :)

As for the thread question the thing I would most recommend is to try and get some work experience in an architectural practice and see how you feel. Draughting and Architecture are philosophically pretty different, even if they may spend a lot of their time doing superficially similar things.

Not sure what that means. If you're any good you should be producing good architecture in your thirties. Personally I plan on peaking around 60ish mind you. :)


Is it easy to do that? If I'm an average architect, will I really only start producing architecture at 40? :runaway:

Are you the kind of 1 in a million people?:)

I started to get my own ideas on the paper at about 32 or something and in fact finished university at 28 or something

It really depends on who you work for, how much your ideas are being appreciated, your capabilities and luck. With some working experiences and hardwork of course, architects in their early thirties striking out on their own are not unheard of.

Not sure what that means. If you're any good you should be producing good architecture in your thirties. Personally I plan on peaking around 60ish mind you. :)

As for the thread question the thing I would most recommend is to try and get some work experience in an architectural practice and see how you feel. Draughting and Architecture are philosophically pretty different, even if they may spend a lot of their time doing superficially similar things.

lol.. well maybe sixtyish would be too late, some people have already a foot in the other world at that age.. xD ... we've been talking about Thom Mayne, from Morphosis, at the spanish forum recently, and he hasn't started to build works big enough to take advantage of his academical architectural knowledge until his 50's... but maybe that's a special case -which may happen if you're too involved with the university world or are a theory-driven architect-..

what i meant is that.. first, you won't design good architecture until, let's say at least 30-32... of course you can do good -formally attractive- sketches, thoughtful urban proposals, or be excellent copying construction details from books and magazines and adapting them to that house you'll build for your parents/cousins/friend/occasional-client-fallen-from-the-sky when you're 28-30...
but only experience and a good bulk of knowledge, which requires some years to gain will help you to design good architecture... you'll get that basically working for other architects, better in either small or medium-sized firms where you get the chance to see all the stages of the project, instead of a big firm -not to mention an international corporate firm- where you'll probably get a bigger salary but you're just another piece of the production chain ... around the beginning of your thirties you are ready to enter this 'architectural-wise' club (if you have started studying architecture at 18 or 20).

but you won't have too many chances to build good architecture -public works or private works with enough budget/enough construction experience-, until you're 40-45 and clients will see in you someone who they can trust their money to...

of course there are these one-in-a-thousand students who have "real" architectural talent and develop this career way much faster than (us) the average architect/student...
but if you're wasting your time in an internet forum you're not, probably, one of them.. :D

@ Meditt

Sorry it took so long to reply but I had to design an international art museum for the gugenheim trust yesterday (sigh - always they want a piece of me) :)

No you're right enough in a way about the timing. It all depends on what you consider "good architecture" in the first place. There's a lot of stuff out there besides museums, cathedrals, galleries, opera houses and the like. If you build a really iconic concert hall then everybody can probably agree that you're producing great (A)rchitecture... and as an architect, hell that would be really fun to do some time. But what if you can build really good social housing for example on the sorts of budgets they attract. If you can then are you a better architect than Foster or Calatrava, who to my knowledge at least do little of this sort of work?

The practice I work for designs mainly commercial buildings some of which I believe constitutes good architecture (there's mediocrity in there too mind you ;) ) It's a fair size practice, even for London at about 125 people, but I've never had a problem with anonymity here - partly luck, partly the fact that I'm opinionated but that was one reason why I didn't want to work for a 'signature' architect straight out of uni.

It's also worth bearing in mind that never never never is it just one architect genius with a fat pen and a roll of butter paper producing the genius ideas. Norman Foster probably had about as much to do with Swiss RE for example as the cleaners but everyone calls it a Foster building. No wonder Shuttleworth has set up on his own (with about a dozen other people from Fosters).

and finally, you're right... I spend way to much time on this site :) Gotta go, I've got Gehry on call waiting :cheers:

@ Meditt

Sorry it took so long to reply but I had to design an international art museum for the gugenheim trust yesterday (sigh - always they want a piece of me) :)

No you're right enough in a way about the timing. It all depends on what you consider "good architecture" in the first place. There's a lot of stuff out there besides museums, cathedrals, galleries, opera houses and the like. If you build a really iconic concert hall then everybody can probably agree that you're producing great (A)rchitecture... and as an architect, hell that would be really fun to do some time. But what if you can build really good social housing for example on the sorts of budgets they attract. If you can then are you a better architect than Foster or Calatrava, who to my knowledge at least do little of this sort of work?

The practice I work for designs mainly commercial buildings some of which I believe constitutes good architecture (there's mediocrity in there too mind you ;) ) It's a fair size practice, even for London at about 125 people, but I've never had a problem with anonymity here - partly luck, partly the fact that I'm opinionated but that was one reason why I didn't want to work for a 'signature' architect straight out of uni.

It's also worth bearing in mind that never never never is it just one architect genius with a fat pen and a roll of butter paper producing the genius ideas. Norman Foster probably had about as much to do with Swiss RE for example as the cleaners but everyone calls it a Foster building. No wonder Shuttleworth has set up on his own (with about a dozen other people from Fosters).

and finally, you're right... I spend way to much time on this site :) Gotta go, I've got Gehry on call waiting :cheers:

oh sure, social housing and "anonymous works" can be, and are, good (A)rchitecture (sometimes even (E)xcellent (A)architecture :) )... yet you'll still need the experience that like around a decade of practicing will give you, not only for learning construction tricks but also on how to deal with limited budgets...

I agree about that of the starchitects taking all the glory when the credit should be for all the people involved in a project, from the disoriented-intern doing scale models to the sometimes anonymous project captains.. same happens in the film industry or even the music industry...

Say hello to Frank, tell him I'll have these translucent-formica-new-whales designs for him when the IT guys fix my comp, my licenseless CATIA copy has messed up my PC... :D

...Of course, young architects spend most of their time drafting.

LOL Story of my life!!!

Ahh - it can be so frustrating being stuck in a job without any excitement. If you've ever thought of changing your current job for a more glamorous one, at least now you know you're not the only one....

Original story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A2501407)

a little bit of topic but hey. :)

Architecture - It's where the glamour is baby yeah!

whatever you choose you won't start doing (A)rchitecture until you are, at least, 40 or 45...
hmmm... takes quite a long time...

always consider moonlighting, it many times lands you your own personal jobs that lead to other jobs, etc

uptown-midtown and LeCom,
if you're considering architecture, try reading this book first if you can:

Architect? A Candid Guide to the Profession
by Roger K. Lewis

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262621215/qid=1107533602/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-9488104-7319262

it's funny but informative, a lot of things are generalized but give you a pretty good idea on what what you're embarking upon.

hmmm... takes quite a long time...

everything worthy takes some time (and patience).
architectural wisdom and experience are priceless and gets some time to gain, but they are unavoidable to make good architecture..

but, well.. let's leave it in 35-40... that's probably the most exciting age in an architect's career... (a good mix of a somewhat still inexperienced-passion and drive to reach something good and enough skills and background already to do (capital A)rchitecture and to not look like a fool in the work site, which is important too.. :D)

maybe even 30-35 if you're *really* good (that is, above the average middle-talented, middle-gifted architect)..

truth is that I'm not even 30 yet so I'm only speculating for what I've seen, heard and read... :D

everything worthy takes some time (and patience).
architectural wisdom and experience are priceless and gets some time to gain, but they are unavoidable to make good architecture..

but, well.. let's leave it in 35-40... that's probably the most exciting age in an architect's career... (a good mix of a somewhat still inexperienced-passion and drive to reach something good and enough skills and background already to do (capital A)rchitecture and to not look like a fool in the work site, which is important too.. :D)


Ahh, go on then... I'll go along with that. Gives me a few years to get me act together :D

Ahh, go on then... I'll go along with that. Gives me a few years to get me act together :D

The Best Is (always) Yet To Come ... true words for the students & young architects, they should put neon signs in front of every arch school with these words.. they give hope, and sometimes arch students are short of hope (specially before a crit)... does it ring a bell?... :D

I dunno how it works in London, but in Barcelona and Catalonia, after leaving school, and once you've landed on the professional stage, you still have crits... with the city council's architects... which sometimes can be even more frustrating that school crits... but, huh!.. still the best is yet to come.. you just have to repeat this one 3 times every morning in front of the mirror... :D

uptown-midtown and LeCom,
if you're considering architecture, try reading this book first if you can:

Architect? A Candid Guide to the Profession
by Roger K. Lewis

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262621215/qid=1107533602/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-9488104-7319262

it's funny but informative, a lot of things are generalized but give you a pretty good idea on what what you're embarking upon.
Thanks, I'll have to get that one.

i was a drafter from 1997 - 2003 and if you like to draft and do not mind doing it as a career then go for it but if you want to execute your own designs or be creative, go into architecture.