Regino Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Does anyone know what would be the average salary in US for a permanent position of 3d architectural visualiser? Lets say, 5 years experience... I underestand this can vary from state to state and even from company to company, but I would like know it as a general guide mainly. thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcorbett Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Does anyone know what would be the average salary in US for a permanent position of 3d architectural visualiser? Lets say, 5 years experience... I underestand this can vary from state to state and even from company to company, but I would like know it as a general guide mainly. thanks in advance A few positions around here have recently gone for $50-60K. (Cost of living in this area is low, however). From what I hear, though, those positions are opening up because the previous occupants decided they could make more as freelance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbr Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 They'll make more than architects with similar experience, which is around $60k or so. It depends on if you are working for yourself or a company. A large arch company will, most likely, pay more for their in house guy simply because they can rely on him, and, really, he's one of the best investments they can make. Architects are a dime a dozen (hate to say it, but there's no shortage), arch viz specialists that can render well are rare. They teach you to model in school, but not render. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatomical gift Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Do you honestly believe a 3d "artist" deserves more money than an architect? That's rediculous. A good architect is not a dime a dozen as your post suggests and as 3d technology becomes a more regular part of the architect's education, 3d specialists will no longer be necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Do you honestly believe a 3d "artist" deserves more money than an architect? That's rediculous. A good architect is not a dime a dozen as your post suggests and as 3d technology becomes a more regular part of the architect's education, 3d specialists will no longer be necessary. He didn't say "good" architects are a dime a dozen. Thats certainly not the case because I know that there are definitely a lot of "bad" architects out there. Good architects are invaluable. But there will always be a place for renderers. Do you think an architect will be able to spend a week producing a high quality interior rendering, or an animation for that matter? No, he is busy pouring over contracts, attending design review meetings, sorting paperwork, and building clever soapbox derby cars for his kids. And once in a while, in between everything else, he'll get to do a little design work. It's fairly safe to assume that most architects know the basics of Autocad. Well then, why do they need drafters? The same reason that they will need renderers - they are too busy and too slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Bussell Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 A company is going to place people where they're most adept and valuable to the company - an architect should probably be designing and creating working drawings. This doesn't necessarily mean 3D...and if it does, it's usually modelling only for analysis and control (BIM) - not for beauty or public education (zoning approvals and such). Also, I don't believe architects will ever replace artists (what renderers are) - they just don't have time in their day to do both well - and keep up with the technology & methods (artist and architect) and City, County, State, Federal, and International regulations (architect). As for salary...What is that? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Oh, and to the main question... I believe a good cg artist will make anywhere from 35-60k at a company, and potentially a lot more if he's on his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regino Posted April 2, 2004 Author Share Posted April 2, 2004 Thank you guys for your input. So then is safe to asume 50-60k considering 5 years+ and a very good portfolio... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbr Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I consider myself a "good" architect - to - be (note: not licensed...yet), I've got a very solid education (Bach from UF in Arch, Masters in Arch from UCLA - that's 7 years) and some decent experience. But, I graduated with a class of about 20 or so (from UCLA), out of that, I was the only one that pursued 3D. They are all pursuing the traditional path. This is the same at most schools. The reality of architecture is that you simply don't get what you deserve, at least for the education and the effort. So many of us leave the profession in search of careers that are more valued, more in demand, and less saturated. Arch viz is one of them. Most architects can buildt a little in 3D, but most don't know how to render. It's entirely unfair, and trust me, I prefer designing my own buildings to building 3D models of others designs, but I've got a lot of loans and want to retire someday, so here I am. This is how the profession works. It's a profession of passion, and passion blinds us all (at least until we graduate). Some of my friends are still working towards a regular career, where the top salaries, on average, will never get beyond $70k, unless they make partner of a large firm, or really luck out - and they are all immensely talented, award winning designers. It's simply a matter of supply and demand, not who deserves more compensation. Imho, architects should make what lawyers make, and, at the very least, good architects should be able to charge more than bad ones. It's the only profession I know of where it's a level field, regardless of your talents or education. The worst part about it, is that good architects don't make anymore than bad architects, in a general sense. Architects, whether they are celebrities or not, get the same pay. It sucks, to put it bluntly, but I enjoy the 3D and it allows for a certain type of freedom. This way, I don't have to worry or care about the designs themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voltaire_ira Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 $50-60 K? really? if they earn that much then please, please, please somebody hire me so i could leave this forsaken country! can somebody help me? i would really appreciate it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salf Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 $50-60 K? really? if they earn that much then please, please, please somebody hire me so i could leave this forsaken country! can somebody help me? i would really appreciate it! HA!...tell me about it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawyer Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 I think the idea of an architect taking the place of a renderer will never happen. There have been renderers before 3d computer programs and there have been architects who do there own renderings. I have seen good architects do terrible renderings and I have seen good architects do good renderings. Reallly it is a matter of time and I think architects do not have the time to play with this stuff. But no doubt that will be an endless debate. $ 50k seems right for a good 5 years. Then again I know an architect who has 16 years exp. (8 as a lic. architect) and he makes just over $60k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbr Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 I agree. It is about time. Most of us that have gone to school in the last 8 or so years know at least some 3D, but we use it to design, then acad to draw the CDs. Rendering is not hard, it just takes time. Most find it rather boring, to be honest, and would rather focus on the business management side of architecture. I think 50k is on the very, very low side for 5 years experience. One of the potentially problematic scenarios are firms that have a 3D guy do drafting while there are lags between projects. This 'dumbs' down his abilities to that of a draftsman, which make next to nothing. This lowers his monetary value. The next is the architect-turned-3D guy that does not do his homework and works for the same as he expected to get paid as an architect. I am sure this happens often where firms transition an existing employee into the 3D position. The thing is, if all architects knew that 3D guys made more than them, with less experience (in terms of years), many would switch. But I think most feel that it's 'simple' compared to architecture (it is) and the renderers will therefore make less. So don't tell anyone ;-)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now