In and Out of Work

(by Hunter)

Finally a “job status” post…

There have been significant developments on the employment front. After weeks of searching and interviewing and negotiating, Candace and I both secured jobs within days of each other. A few days later, I quit. Seriously. More on that in a minute.

Candace is working for a small architecture office that does mostly high-end housing, but recently won a competition for a winery. The office has about a half dozen people, and they do good work. Candace will be initially working on a very upscale house addition and pool. She has been going into the office occasionally to get settled, but can’t officially begin work until the visas are changed over. Her employer is pretty laid back about the timing of the project, which allows Candace time to settle in and also pursue other things…such as sailing. On a whim, she applied to be a sailing instructor at a local yacht club, was accepted, and is now training to be an instructor with the club. What this means is lots of free sailing for her! Once she gets her own class, she will actually be paid to sail around on the beautiful Sydney harbour – a prospect that seems too good to be true.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I took a position at a large high-profile firm. On the surface, it seemed ideal – an upper-level position, decent salary, a large international firm. Just what some people might consider ideal. Notice I said “some people”…obviously I am not including myself in that group. I will now try to do some explaining...

I pursued and accepted the position knowing that it wasn’t really where I ultimately wanted to be, but it seemed an acceptable means to an end. Of course I can’t expect to move to another country and get an ideal job, right? This I knew and (still) willingly accept. But there is only so far one can go.

It starts with the bait and switch: I was tantalized with an interesting sounding project and then was given a different project. This is a groaner, but not uncommon in the architectural hiring process.

Then you get the distinct feeling that the office doesn’t seem to care that you have started: no desk, no computer, no one willing to spend any time giving you an introduction to the office, and no one willing to introduce the project to you, even when pursued. Not even so little as providing the work done-to-date for me to review. The four person (!) computer team tells me of a computer in the office which I need to disconnect myself, carry across the office and set up at a desk that I unearthed. The computer doesn’t work.

The next day the computer has been fixed/replaced, but needs software. I log on to find that my name is misspelled in the computer system – which affects the auto signature in emails, the directory, etc. Not too big a deal, except that I can’t change it. In fact, I can’t change anything. The computer is locked down so tight that you can’t save anything to your own computer, much less customize settings, toolbars, or any of the usual things. I was restricted from making Google my default homepage. It was security that would make NASA proud. No personal files allowed at all on your computer. No shortcuts can be saved to the desktop. Nothing can be changed from the way it is set up, even your choice of font. All correspondence is monitored and is “company property” – typical legalese, I know, but this company made it clear that they were actively searching for infractions, and gave lurid examples of past employee’s infractions regarding the storage of their private information.

This company had a mandatory system for everything. I have worked at some pretty corporate firms with standards a-plenty (heck, I have even been on the Standards Committee), but I have never experienced anything on this scale of scope and rigidity.
There was a form for everything, and an accompanying ponderous bureaucratic process. I was told not to speak directly to an administrative assistant, receptionist, or IT support – I had to submit my request on an electronic form, in a queue, and they would get to it eventually.

I could go on for some time in this vein, but I fear I am already at risk of sounding petty. This is all to paint a picture of the firm: super-corporate, highly rigidized, grey and oppressive. Have you seen the movie “Office Space”? Similar to the movie, the environment of the office has taken a draining toll on the employees - there was no one with a pulse in this place.

Much worse, the architectural approach of the office to my project was astoundingly careless. Described to me by the firm as “just a tin-foil and glass box addition”, it was an addition to a large international airport in a very hot climate (specifics held back on purpose). Their response to this challenge was an arbitrarily shaped (not responding to solar orientation or context), un-insulated curtain wall of glass and sheet metal. Seriously, there was no insulation at all, except “perhaps” a thin layer to dampen the sound of falling rain on the metal. No sun shading on the floor to ceiling glass at all. When I asked about this, they said “no worries, we have plenty of air conditioning”; and indeed they did, the units took up a good 1/4 of the floor space.

There was also no waterproofing membrane backing up the sheet metal – it was just sheet metal screwed straight to structure. No sheathing, vapor barrier, etc. The only exit path in case of an emergency was across the roof of the existing building, in the open air, and into an existing access stair intended only for maintenance access. There was not ANY stair, much less a fire stair, to/from the space – only an elevator and escalator. And this didn’t seem to concern anyone.

And this architectural quality is from a “prominent”, “respected” and international firm. They have offices in at least seven countries. Furthermore, you should read the hypocritical jabber about “sustainable design” that they use for marketing.

I think many an architect has had to proceed with projects that compromise on issues that we feel passionate about as professionals. This is to be expected to varying degrees on most projects. However, decent firms struggle against these negative forces, and do what they can within their power. Far too common, however, are the firms that think nothing of providing the quick and disposable architecture asked for by those whose only focus is short-term bottom line. The corporate world is exporting this brand of placeless, expedient architecture at the cost of cultural and climactic distinctions, and our dwindling natural resources. As thousands die in wars waged to protect access to diminishing power supplies, can I possibly justify participating in architecture that blatantly disregards even a token guesture toward building performance?

So it didn’t take long until I realized that I was climbing in bed with the Enemy. Candace, responding to my imagery, summed them up perfectly: they were The Borg, and I was being assimilated (that’s a Star Trek reference for the uninitiated).

Adding insult to injury, they wanted me to switch from AutoCad to ArchiCad. Ha!

Thus, after a few days in this lovely place, I ran away screaming - for better or worse. I could not imagine being associated with the work coming out of that place, nor could I imagine spending the better part of my waking hours in that environment. I hope that this doesn’t make me appear to be a primadonna. I think the architects out there understand that this profession is a labor of love, and therein the reward lies; there certainly isn’t adequate compensation coming from other avenues.

Candace was wonderfully compassionate as I discussed this dilemma with her. Despite the difficulty that might effect us both if I don’t secure employment soon, she was supportive of my need to let this “bird-in-hand” fly away, because...well... it was a sick pigeon.

So I’m back on the search. Wish me luck.