Quoted By:
I'm an architect. Don't worry too much about the math and physics stuff. You basically just need that to be able to get accepted into a program to prove you aren't a complete retard. But in the actual professional practice? You'll probably never need to worry much about it. When we do need to worry about that, we bring in people who know about it. Easy as shit. The work sucks no matter what though. You'll probably just end up as some cog in a machine in some large firm and hate it all, then regret spending so many years studying it and putting up with all that stress.
In comparison, urban planning is annoying too. But also extremely useless. You'd basically be hired by some company to do extremely generic plans for things. Or by a local government to tell them where the best place to put a road would be - except they won't listen anyway, they'll do things how they have already concluded them to be most ideal. Also planners are a dime a dozen these days because there isn't much to it. Designing and engineering structures is hard. Pulling out some maps and strategizing where would be best to put a road, school or commercial plaza in some meaningless city somewhere is easy, so there are going to be too many planners.
I don't know what to tell you, OP. Both fields suck but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd just stick with architecture. Architects usually study a shit ton of planning anyway, so you can use that to your advantage. It mostly comes down to how good you are and where you get to ultimately work. A good firm with a good ethos that defines their design philosophy is fun as fuck and you can make nice structures for people. Planning is, well, you're basically going to be writing up reports for politicians to convince them why they should reduce parking minimums (they usually won't though).
Pic related. You can always get to design your own nice house as an architect. Planners get cucked and have to stay in 1 bedroom condos near their transit station.
