This classification covers establishments primarily engaged in providing professional architectural services. Establishments primarily engaged in providing landscape architecture services are classified in SIC 078: Landscape Counseling and Planning. Those primarily engaged in providing graphic arts and related design services are classified in SIC 7336: Commercial Art and Graphic Design , and those providing drafting services are classified in SIC 7389: Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified.
541310 (Architectural Services)
Design firms primarily engaged in providing professional construction-related design services constitute the architectural services industry. This industry includes companies that offer engineering design services related to architectural work, but does not include civil engineering or ship and boat design companies. Landscape architecture, graphic arts, and drafting disciplines are covered in separate classifications.
Aside from actually designing structures, architects typically are employed throughout all phases of the building process—from conceptual planning through client construction. In the late 1990s an estimated 18,994 establishments employing 138,800 people existed in this industry. The Accounting Industry Association estimated that 91,000 licensed architects were operating in the United States in 2000. Licensure is the highest form of industry regulation, and all 50 states require architects to be licensed.
After suffering from a deep recession in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, the architectural services industry began a steady rise into the 1990s. Consumer confidence mounted throughout the late 1990s, and the economy boomed. Annual revenue growth in the industry averaged 10.2 percent in the late 1990s, and totaled 9.2 percent in 2000. Home and office construction skyrocketed during the late 1990s. When weakening economic conditions began to slow consumer spending, falling interest rates bolstered the home construction sector in the early 2000s, although the office construction sector began to slow at that time.
Architecture firms design a multitude of different structures for all sectors of the market. Office and apartment buildings, schools, military installations, churches, factories, hospitals, houses, and airport terminals are but a few of the facilities that they design for commercial, government, and private nonprofit organizations. While some firms specialize in serving one niche or a few related segments of the market, others are highly diversified and offer a variety of design services to all types of clients.
The Design Process. Building design can be a complex, detailed, and painstaking endeavor. In addition to the important consideration of appearance, architects must also stress functionality, safety, and economy in the design process. Even one minuscule flaw in a volume of construction drawings can result in costly litigation and the erosion, or destruction, of a firm's reputation. More important than pleasing the potential users of any structure or satisfying personal design aspirations, architects must accommodate the client that commissions and funds a project.
Design programming is the first stage of the building process. Architects are often called upon at this point to determine what type of structure to erect. Marketing research, demographic analyses, regulatory constraints, and other factors all help to determine economically viable development options. Site selection and acquisition follow the design programming stage. The architect analyzes factors such as soils, drainage, utility availability, tax rates, and traffic patterns to determine where to build a project. If the client already has a parcel of land, the firm can help determine the financial and physical feasibility of developing the site.
After the client decides to build, the architect begins the conceptual design process. Schematic drawings and relational diagrams, prepared by the architect, allow the client to study possible options for developing the site. Crude models are often used to represent ideas in three dimensions. The conceptual design process eventually results in a hypothetical plan that is used to generate cost estimates and guide the development of more detailed elevations, cross-sections, models, and perspectives.
After developing a detailed design, the architect begins the bulk of the design work—detailed construction drawings. These highly-detailed drawings determine accurate construction cost estimates and bids by contractors. They also dictate the quality of craftsmanship and materials to be used by contractors. Architects cooperate with engineers and other professionals to insure that the design is technically appropriate and complies with legal guidelines. When the working drawings are complete, the architect usually takes bids on the project from contractors, awards a contract, and supervises construction to ensure that the contractor properly executes design details.
Although rates vary, most architects bill clients on a per-hour basis. The total bill for architecture and engineering design services is often in the range of 2 to 4 percent of the total construction cost of a project, but can be much more or less depending on the type of project or the level of involvement by the architect.
Types of Firms and Projects. Three types of companies are primarily engaged in providing architectural services: engineer/architecture (E/A) firms; architecture/engineer (A/E) companies; and architecture firms. Typically it is only an estimated 15 percent of the total billings by architectural firms that are rendered by firms in the architectural services industry. Engineering and construction firms and other companies that offer services related to architectural work such as surveying services consume the bulk of the revenues.
Purely architectural firms bill strictly for architectural design work. They do not have engineers on staff and often offer limited construction management expertise. Building Design & Construction reported in July of 1997 that the top 10 firms of this type accounted for $327 million of industry billings in the prior year. Furthermore, this segment supplied only a small percentage of all architectural services rendered by U.S. companies.
A/E firms, while still emphasizing architectural skills, have engineers on staff with expertise related to architectural building design. Firms in this category typically account for 5 percent of all industry billings, as they service only a small percentage of the entire U.S. market for architectural services.
E/A firms maintain architects on staff but emphasize engineering design services that are related to construction work. These firms capture slightly more than half (approximately 54 percent) of all industry billings and furnish the highest percentage of all architectural services rendered by U.S. firms.
Architects have been designing structures in return for compensation for more than 3,000 years. Although several famous architects designed well-known projects during America's early history, such as Thomas Jefferson's Monticello in the early nineteenth century, an organized architectural profession did not exist in the United States until the 1850s. In fact, formal educational programs for architects were unavailable until the 1860s, with the establishment of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cornell University, and the University of Illinois.
Prominent works which sprang from the fledgling architectural services industry in the middle and late nineteenth century included the Marshall Field & Company building in Chicago, the Wainright Building in St. Louis, St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, and the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology in Cambridge. Prominent architects of the period who owned firms included James Renwick, Louis Agassiz, H. H. Richardson, and Louis H. Sullivan. Between 1900 and 1940, Frank Lloyd Wright, Mies van der Rohe, and Le Corbusier, among others, designed significant projects and had enormous influence on the profession. Famous works of this time included many office buildings, such as the Empire State Building and Rockefeller Center in New York.
It was not until after World War II that the U.S. architectural industry began to experience rapid growth and to become closely affiliated with building and construction industries. During that time, large corporations developed massive structures that projected wealth and distinction, and government expenditures for infrastructure and public works grew at an unprecedented rate. This development boom gave birth to many large architecture firms, like Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum and Perkins & Will, that employed hundreds of architects. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, one of the larger firms in the post-war period, designed such projects as the Connecticut General Life and Inland Steel Buildings. The General Motors Technical Center and Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum were other prominent landmarks that characterized the progression of the industry from the 1950s through the 1970s.
By 1983, however, new development activity was leading the architectural services industry into an era of unprecedented profit and growth. Deregulation of lending institutions, an influx of foreign investment dollars, and new tax laws all combined to generate a massive injection of capital into the commercial development industry. Between 1982 and 1985 the total amount of commercial space designed by architects ballooned from less than 700 million square feet per year to over 1.3 billion. At the same time, residential markets were also booming and the demand for new public construction increased. As a result, the total number of establishments in the architectural services industry jumped over 20 percent, from 14,089 in 1985 to a peak of 17,777 by 1987. During the same period revenues leapt from $5.9 billion to over $9.8 billion and industry employment shot up to nearly 140,000 from only 105,000.
In the late 1980s the flow of capital for new design projects waned. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, which discouraged new construction, and a shortage of savings and loan capital were two of the various factors contributing to a slowdown in 1987. Architecture firms saw a significant decline in the number of design jobs available in many commercial and residential markets. In fact, by 1989 it was clear that their industry had fallen into a severe, and potentially sustainable, recession. Total new commercial development plunged to about 1 billion square feet in 1988, and fell to under 800 million square feet in 1989.
By the end of 1989, the market for architectural services appeared to many analysts to have bottomed out. But, while most firms were on the ropes and struggling to survive the industry shake-out, the development market continued to plummet in 1990 and 1991. In fact, many office buildings that architects had designed in the late 1980s opened in the early 1990s without a single tenant; these became known as "see-through buildings." The total demand for new construction continued to fall from only $410 billion in 1989 to about $358 billion in 1991. The market for residential design services was also hit hard, as new construction in that sector fell 14 percent in the same three-year period. Although many firms were able to stay afloat by emphasizing public works projects, which experienced expenditure increases of 9 percent between 1989 and 1991, most firms lost revenue.
In response to dour market conditions, the architectural services industry became increasingly competitive in the early 1990s. As hundreds of firms closed their doors, most remaining companies took sharp measures to increase their market share and to maintain profits. In some cities, about 50 percent of all architects were laid-off. Those hit hardest were young, inexperienced workers and older, highly paid employees. Firms were also reducing fees in an effort to undercut competitors. Most importantly, however, architecture firms were looking to new growth markets and technology to give them an edge in the 1990s.
Market conditions improved slightly from 1991 to 1992, indicating that the development drought was easing. The total value of new construction increased about 4 percent to about $423 billion. Although work in commercial markets, especially office building design, continued to decline, housing and public works design projects increased. Furthermore, spending in some commercial niche markets, such as health care, improved by as much as 5 percent. Importantly, remodeling, retrofit, and repair construction for all sectors reached record levels in 1992, allowing many firms to boost billings on small maintenance jobs.
A survey of 100 design firms by Architectural Record in 1992 revealed that nearly half the respondents had realized a reduction in the construction-dollar value of their commissions since 1990. The average decrease was 10 percent to 25 percent, although some firms lost as much as 90 percent. Of the survey respondents, 34 percent reported that their workload was down, 24 percent said it was up, and 42 percent felt that it had stabilized. A similar survey by Engineering News-Record showed a 20 percent decrease in design work backlogs from early 1991 levels, indicating that work was becoming more difficult to secure.
Firms were taking a variety of steps to improve internal operations and increase competitiveness. Most firms were increasing their workload-to-staff ratio to save money, and decreasing fees to attract more business. This was often accomplished by relying on part-time help from trained architects that were called on only when they were absolutely necessary. A popular trend was "hoteling," whereby employees would check into offices for short stints on special projects until their services were no longer needed, or several employees would use the same office but at different times of the day.
One of the most important internal changes for many companies was the increased use of technology to lower labor costs. In fact, 12 percent of respondents in the Architectural Record survey indicated that despite an increase in billings they had elected to diminish the size of their staff. Computer automated design (CAD) systems were a major factor in this increased productivity for some firms. "I've eliminated my whole office staff with a computer," said Philadelphia Architect David Steele in "Architectural Record," March 1993. Many companies were also eliminating clerical help with the aid of new office technology. For instance computers, answering machines, and cellular phones were replacing receptionists in some offices.
In addition to increasing the productivity of their internal operations, many firms in 1993 were expanding their service offerings. Some companies were going into project management, using their design expertise to streamline the construction process and save money for contractors and owners. Other architecture firms were expanding into interior design, facilities management, and environmental planning and engineering to increase revenues. Conversely, some firms were reducing their offerings, choosing instead to specialize in tiny niche markets where they held a competitive edge. Niche growth areas in the commercial market for architectural services included designs for privatized prisons, arenas, hospitals and other health care facilities, long-term care facilities, warehouses, and recreational structures around river boat gambling casinos.
Entering new markets was another way that architecture firms were trying to maintain profitability. As design work for commercial construction continued to decline through 1993, public works projects were allowing many firms to increase revenues. For instance, while the amount of new hotel space plummeted 40 percent in just one year between 1991 and 1992, the value of new public works projects steadily increased from almost $91 billion in 1989 to over $102 billion by 1992. Water supply facilities and miscellaneous public buildings, which grew in 1991 and 1992 at a rate of 5 percent and 7 percent, respectively, offered the greatest potential for architecture firms competing for public works commissions. Design projects related to utility construction and conservation also offered increased opportunities.
After the recession of the early 1990s, the industry began to grow again, bringing in over $14.6 billion in 1994. Revenue was up 8.7 percent from 1993, and up by almost 20 percent from 1991, and industry strategists predicted the growth would continue well into the twenty-first century. According to the American Institute of Architects (AIA), building activity would increase by an average of 1 percent each year from the levels of the first half of the 1990s.
Commercial development of suburban office space contributed to the life of the industry in the early 1990s, as commuters fled the cities and downtown office vacancy rates soared. Even when urban office vacancy rates stabilized by 1996, suburban office occupancy increased, and vacancy rates in the suburbs dropped by 9 percent annually, as growing numbers of businesses abandoned their outmoded urban operations in favor of modern new quarters in the suburbs.
Social and Political Factors. Until the late 1990s, one of the most stable areas of growth for the industry had been retail construction sales, which increased a steady rate of 2.5 percent every year from 1980 to 1996. But several factors were pushing that figure down. Home shopping through network clubs and the Internet was taking away the need for retail centers. Also, as the baby-boomers aged, services became more of a concern than goods, lessening the need for retail centers even more. Some projected decline was offset by the effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Compliance with the act required that many newer buildings be made handicap-accessible; this was expected to provide millions of dollars in architectural design contracts, along with rehabilitation and maintenance design work, especially for aging infrastructure.
Computerized Design. Two important advances in the architectural services field in the early 1990s were computer-aided design (CAD) software programs and 3-D modeling. As late as 1993, architects in many offices were still designing with ink or pencil on vellum or Mylar surfaces. Designers sat at a drafting board and used triangles and compasses to produce precise technical drawings. With the introduction of CAD, however, an increasing number of professionals moved away from the drawing board and onto the computer to develop their designs. Although both methods were extremely labor intensive, CAD offered the advantages of allowing architects to save their work, to duplicate and move parts of a design, and to make changes more easily. Additionally, many tasks that were cumbersome on the drawing board were easily accomplished via CAD. Calculations of surface areas and volumes for earthwork projects were among the functions made easy by the CAD software.
Critics of CAD argued that it was too costly for smaller firms to implement, that it stifled the design process and limited flexibility, and that it displaced architects. Others maintained, in contrast, that the implementation of CAD systems increased productivity for designers and reduced staffing requirements. For instance, J. F. Borelli, a New York architect, increased billings at his firm by 125 percent in two years by 1992 when he expanded his CAD implementation. He maintained his staffing level at 65 employees and discovered that clients increasingly requested that projects be developed with the CAD software.
Even more sophisticated than CAD software were new 3-D modeling systems that allowed architects to design projects in three dimensions on computer. Three-dimensional modeling enabled architects to create "virtual walk-through" presentations of their projects, in order for clients and builders to ascertain a better sense of the reality of a structure. Through the implementation of three-dimensional animation, clients and builders might conveniently view the successive stages of a project, or they might view structures from different angles. By 1993, several larger firms used 3-D modeling regularly. The technology remained expensive, but the subsequent savings in construction time and improved communications between designer and client often justified the implementation of 3-D software and accelerated the recovery of equipment costs.
Turn-of-the Century Design Trends. As architects of the late twentieth century turned increasingly to new digital technologies for purposes of productivity, they experimented with 3-D technology to develop "e-topia" structures in modern communities, according to William J. Mitchell in Architectural Record. In pursuit of e-topia, an expansion of the kiosk concept, designers undertook the design of virtual malls for on-line commerce, as well as virtual amusement parks and other conceptual structures that were previously limited to the physical realm. Through virtual reality technology, architects became further empowered in the arena of restorative construction. Modern designers ushered the art of structure restoration to a new level of evolution at the threshold of the twenty-first century by tapping the potential of 3-D systems and virtual reality to redefine the parameters of architectural restoration. Through the process of virtual reconstruction, historical structures became available for simulated viewing in their original state. Even ancient structures that ceased to exist altogether at some time in the past might be recreated in simulation form, through intensive application of the technique.
Increasingly, as the twentieth century drew to a close, what was once old became new again, including the architectural theories of feng shui, which experienced a revival in the United States during the 1990s. Progressive architectural firms, encouraged in part by academics at the University of Buffalo, subscribed to the ethereal concepts of the ancient Chinese art, the substance of which involves strategic placement of space and energy. Proper implementation of feng shui begins prior to construction of a building, with the selection of a site. During the design phase, the orientation of the structure must allow for consideration of the forces of wind and water, as implied in the words "feng shui." Despite the ancient mystic and religious connotations of feng shui, adherence to the practice resulted in building designs not unlike those of mid-twentieth century architects.
In stark contrast to feng shui, designer Gideon S. Golany in a 1997 publication discussed the use of geo-space (building underground) to squeeze more space for structures from cluttered landscapes in highly populated areas. Building groundward presents a number of advantages, according to Golany, for better protection from the elements and lower energy consumption. The practice is most advantageous as a means of conservation, and despite the speculative nature of underground construction for human occupation, geo-space designers implemented designs in Montreal, Paris, and Japan by the end of the 1990s. Geo-space designs were particularly well-disposed to the growing trend among architectural designers to become involved in community development from the initial inception, in order to create a customized and cohesive functionality of design, in coordination with existing regional demographics.
At the turn of the twenty-first century, conditions worsened for the commercial building industry as the economy weakened and businesses began to reign in spending. At the same time, businesses found it much more difficult to secure funding for expansion efforts. Large projects, including office towers, suffered most severely as a result of the return to conservative lending policies, which brought an end to what some observers called speculative lending. Projections through 2006 indicate the likelihood of suppressed demand for office space.
Despite the slump in commercial construction in the early 2000s, the residential housing market—approximately 15 percent of total billings—held strong. Interest rates neared historic lows in 2001 and 2002, fueling new home construction. New housing starts, the number of new homes—both single- and multi-family—under construction, rose from 1.58 million in 2000 to 1.60 in 2001.
In order to encourage a continued source of work contracts, engineering and construction companies devised "one-stop shop" (design-and-build) services. Often, these firms offered architectural services at very low or negligible costs, so as to help the company secure large construction and project management contracts. Gaining prominence at the turn of the twenty-first century, the design-build industry saw sales for the top 100 design-build companies grow 22.3 percent to $39.89 billion in 2000. Consequently, U.S. nonresidential construction market share for the top 100 design-build firms grew to 35 percent in 2000, compared to 25 percent in the mid-1990s. As stated in Engineering News Record, "The trend is clearly away from project-by-project management and toward management of larger construction programs for clients." The Design-Build Institute of America predicts that design-build companies will increase their share of the U.S. nonresidential construction market to 45 percent by 2005.
Of the E/A firms that were not primarily engaged in the architectural services industry, companies such as Day & Zimmerman, ABB Lummus Crest, Incorporated, and Sverdrup Corporation, which operated as a subsidiary of Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., each held a significant share of the market in the early 2000s. Largest among them was Day & Zimmerman of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with total revenues estimated at $1.3 billion in 2002. Other E/A leaders included Austin Company of Cleveland, Ohio, with $820 million in billings in 2002.
Extremely large among the architecture/engineer firms in 1998, Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Incorporated of St. Louis, Missouri, had estimated billings of $233 million in 2001. The company originated as a purely architectural firm in 1955, and by 2001 it had developed into an international firm with 1,500 employees. One of the largest purely architectural design firms, California-based Gensler & Associates/Architects, posted $305 million in billings in 2002. Unlike Gensler, which employed 2,000 individuals in 2001, the majority of firms offering purely architectural services had four or less employees, as the more lucrative contracts habitually go to the engineering/architecture firms.
Among the most notable architectural projects of the 1990s was the largest building in Europe, designed by American architect Cesar Pelli. The 800-foot building was part of London's massive Canary Wharf development, an office and retail project comprising over 6.45 million square feet of space. Illustrative of many commercial projects completed at that time, however, the project was a financial flop and contributed to the financial collapse of its developer.
Most architects complete a five-year accredited college program. They must then work for at least three years before becoming eligible for certification after a series of exams. The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, which administers the licensing exams, recognized over 30,000 registered architects in 1999. Of all licensed architects in the late-1990s, 82 percent worked in an architecture firm. That percentage was made up of about one-third solo practitioners, another third in firms with fewer than four people, and the last third in firms with more than four employees. Those that did not work in an architecture firm were employed in the commercial/industrial sector (5 percent), design firms (3 percent), government jobs (3 percent), universities or schools (2 percent), contractor firms (2 percent), and engineering firms (1 percent). Jobs for licensed architects were expected to grow about as fast as those in most other U.S. industries, with most job openings expected to result from professionals transferring to other occupations or leaving the work force.
With modern technologies affecting the industry, new jobs openings emerged for technical staff. In 1999 AIA reported 57,000 members nationwide, including students, interns, and other non-licensed professionals. As architecture firms hired drafters with CAD skills and other technical specialties, only 7 percent of industry workers in the mid-1990s were architects, although that number was projected to increase by 27.9 percent by the year 2006. The largest segment of the workforce in this industry was drafters, who comprised 12 percent of the total. Additionally, 9 percent of the workers were civil engineers, and an additional 8.2 percent were electrical engineers and electronics experts. By 2006 the number of electronics and computer specialists was anticipated to increase by a factor of 94.4 percent according to projections based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The clerical workforce combined, among the smallest segments of the industry except for computer programmers, comprised 5.5 percent of the total employment, with typists (including word processing personnel) projected to decline by 15.8 percent by 2006. Other occupations within the architectural services industry included surveyors, drafters, CAD operators, and specification writers.
Overall, surpluses on both cross-border and affiliate trade reflected the United States' strength in major market development and extensive experience in multiple foreign markets. Particularly the United States' widely acknowledged expertise in oil and gas construction and engineering made countries like Venezuela, which was expanding its petroleum sector, and Saudi Arabia, already a powerful oil producer, even more in need of U.S. design expertise. Demand for services notwithstanding, cross-border trade remains subject to certain service barriers in many foreign countries. American architects and engineers who work in some countries are subject to the country's internal licensing requirements for those professions. In Venezuela and other countries, foreign engineers and architects must successfully complete the national professional examination process, including completion of a validation process through a Venezuelan university.
Climate Control. Peter Segalla, in Buildings, cited the issue of climate control as a critical concern for designers at the turn of the century. In apartment buildings, office space, and private residence, the notion of individual preferences for what is "too cold" and "too hot" contribute to the basic comfort, livability, and usability of a design. Segalla further encouraged the refinement and use of underfloor air distribution technology based in modular, insulated floor space that affords individualized climate control within the flooring. Segalla operates Peter Segalla Design in New York City; he implemented the technology in his design of a 93,000-square-foot building in Salt Lake City.
In 1999 the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) announced a promising new software tool called Energy-10. Energy-10 very quickly determines the most efficient energy and air flows within structures, to simplify the implementation of energy-saving designs for both climate control and lighting. NREL estimated that 40-70 percent energy savings might be realized with the use of Energy-10. The product can be applied toward the design of any type of structure, from a small residence to a large urban complex. Based on input regarding the size of a structure, in terms of floor space and number of stories, type of climate control system, and geographic location, Energy-10 assesses the potential rewards of designing solar heating, insulation, daylight and shading, and other features into a planned structure.
American Institute of Architects. AIA National Membership, 21 January 2000. Available from http://www.aiail.org .
——. Facts and Figures, 2000. Available from http://www.aia.org .
Darnay, Arsen J., ed. Service Industries USA. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group Inc., 1999.
Dean, Daniela. "Looking Ahead: Experts See Another Good Year, but Not Without Interest Rate Jitters." Washington Post, 8 January 2000.
English, Dale. "Ancient Chinese Concept Finds Modern Western Discipline." Business First of Buffalo, 26 April 1999.
Krasner, Jeffrey. "Lending Squeeze Damps Building Development." Wall Street Journal, 19 January 2000.
Mitchell, William J. "The Era of the E-topia: The Right Reactions to the Digital Revolution can Produce Lean and Green Cities." Architectural Record, March 1999.
"New Building Design Tool Saves Energy." R&D, August 1999.
Segalla, Peter. "Raising the Standard." Buildings, June 1999.
Tulacz, Gary J. "Design-Build Trends Draw a Wealth of Work … and Competitors." Engineering News Record, 19 June 2000. Available from http://www.enr.com .
——. "Design Firms Break Out of the Mold." Engineering News Record, 16 April 2001. Available from http://www.enr.com .
Turville-Heitz, Meg. "Creating a Neighborhood from Scratch …" Wisconsin State Journal, 6 June 1999.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1998-99 Occupational Outlook Handbook, 26 February 1999.
U.S. Department of State. 1998 Report on Economic Policy and Trade Practices, 31 January 1999.
Williams, Daniel. "Architects Need to Expand the Scale of the Profession to Include the Design of Regions." Architectural Record, August 1999.
Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: