The topic is architectural office names: the fact that new practices are increasingly sounding like web 2.0 startups. Of course, if Polshek is jumping on the wagon, it means the trend is over. I wonder what the new wave of office names will be?
*personal anecdote warring*
A friend from my school days, long before graduating, picked out RKTech is the awesome name he will be known for the rest of his days, including (hopefully) starting an office by that name one day. He used that name for e-mails, screen names, etc... His handle on ICQ (a chat program popular in '90) was RKTech. So I promptly changed my ICQ handle to RKTech 2000.
What hollowed was a series of pleads and (eventually) threats for me to change back my screen name. I never did. We stopped being friends over this. It was totally worth it though, if not for the laughs the 'feud' brought out in mutual acquaintances.
*/anecdote*
Have you had an awesome arch. name in mind, only to realize it kind of super-sucked only a few years later? Please do share, my little design hipster you!
My handle was different. It had the number 2000 in it. It showed I was forward thinking! Great artists borrow/steal, etc...
Anyways, it's not like I registered a trademark. You could change your handle on ICQ as often times as you'd like. It was a shitty chat program popular with teenagers and some college students.
The monosyllabic office name is not exactly in an emerging trend. Half the offices in LA are some generic name that could easily be an office or a nightclub.
More than anything, if you are going to have some trendy, ironic name for your office, you better have a portfolio of equally interesting work to back it up with.
i never get the thing with the clever names --- in the vast majority of cases it seems so wildly pretentious and indulgent, and sometimes flat-out silly
it sometimes makes me think of going with just -- my name, Architect -- if I ever have a firm
i did have a website for a while, several years ago, named freearchitecture, though it is gone now -- i thought it was clever b/c it signified both that i would have to give my ideas and designs away for free (b/c i just moved to a new part of the country with no connections, was just starting out and no one would hire me) and b/c, since it was not for any real client, it would be architectural design freed of the constraints of the mundane that always water down and sanitize work
now i am a fan of simpler names, simple neologisms or even just initials or acronyms b/c, if i were to open my own office, i would not want the office name to suggest that i was young, new, inexperienced or a fly-by-night; and i think trendy names can have that effect --- which may be okay in a booming economy, but seems ill-advised now
I kinda like alot of the new web-based crazy names to a certain extent if that is the type of work that the firm wants to go towards. They ARE meant to stand away from the older formal firm names. Moving toward a newer web based format that coincides with the new digital area of the profession. Plus the article does make a good point about longevity after the boss leaves.
But Ennead? Man that might be the worst name I've heard. Plus Polshek isn't a SO-IL , NOx, FOA, Asymptote type of firm...
PS: "The new names are a reaction against the image of the architect, embodied by Ayn Rand’s character in “The Fountainhead,” Howard Roark — the visionary artist against the world. "
Damn we still can't get away from Howard Roark comparisons?.... If anything the new names stand for a form of rebellion against the pre-established norm...
i understand the polshek change. polshek himself was leaving active practice and the 9 partners wanted to register that fairly big landmark. the only question i have about it is a question: if the name 'ennead' specifically recognizes that there are 9 partners, can there only ever be 9 partners?
anyway, i don't hate it. and i like the new website.
I scratch my head and say..."polshek" he didn't design the Smithsoninan American Indian Museum. He stole the design from Douglas Cardinal, with the help of Bill Clinton and his underlings.
that was an unfortunate episode for which i'm not sure the polshek office was responsible. they finished cardinal's project, sure, but the circumstances were messier than a simple 'stole'.
the polshek office has done a lot more, snook. newseum, standard hotel ny, brooklyn museum, clinton library, wgbh boston, ... : they've got some good stuff!
And it's not that hard to pronounce if you have a fair grasp of trying to read Hellenistic Greek.
Pronounced In-knee-add. Rolls off the tongue.
The last post I wrote in this thread addresses why firms might get away with naming themselves after partners.
Which I find mildly amusing because one of the biggest voices and or best minds at the intersection of branding and architecture is Anna Klingmann. Why is this amusing? Because her firm is "Klingmann Architects & Brand Consultants." !!!
However, even she despite having a surname branded firm, buries this quite deep in her website-- i.e., it's not on the front page or about us section. You actually have to click on "founder profile.' Well played, Ms. Klingmann!
Time Magazine had an article about this same topic a while back, too.
Anyways, the concept is to divorce ownership and leadership from market appeal. In client-based professional services, clients will often refuse to work with 'subordinates' because they hired a surname rather than a brand. In a sense, every single idea, product or service that leaves that office is attributed to the genius of a single or few individuals.
By branding under a generic or person unspecific word, attribution and ownership passes into a collective rather than a surname. This allows you to separate yourself from your work a little more as your name is not necessarily tied to product anymore.
Also, it allows a brand to grow when the founder sells, leaves, dies or retires from practice. Even though they are defunct, why would someone hire Yamasaki & Associates when Mr. Yamasaki died in 1986?
Even though branding doesn't seem that significant, its the start of moving away power structures from absolutism to constitutional monarchy.
i just wasted about 15 seconds of my life reading this, thanks, archinect.
BIG is an acronym. so is SHoP. so is OMA. so is SOM, so is KPF. what do these firms have in common?
do you know why acronyms were and are so big in terms of firm names? it's because back in the day architects were looking for legitimacy, and law firms were typically done in acronyms. whoopty do.
nowadays, i don't think the public [cares about architecture at all] cares what or how the firm is named, as long as it produces a viable, necessary product.
Oct 5, 10 5:06 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Polshek gets wacked. Inside job says NYT.
Interesting article from yesterday's NYTimes.
The topic is architectural office names: the fact that new practices are increasingly sounding like web 2.0 startups. Of course, if Polshek is jumping on the wagon, it means the trend is over. I wonder what the new wave of office names will be?
*personal anecdote warring*
A friend from my school days, long before graduating, picked out RKTech is the awesome name he will be known for the rest of his days, including (hopefully) starting an office by that name one day. He used that name for e-mails, screen names, etc... His handle on ICQ (a chat program popular in '90) was RKTech. So I promptly changed my ICQ handle to RKTech 2000.
What hollowed was a series of pleads and (eventually) threats for me to change back my screen name. I never did. We stopped being friends over this. It was totally worth it though, if not for the laughs the 'feud' brought out in mutual acquaintances.
*/anecdote*
Have you had an awesome arch. name in mind, only to realize it kind of super-sucked only a few years later? Please do share, my little design hipster you!
Whay did you even take the handle in the first place, if you knew he/she had dibs on it?
I am not keen on riffs on architect, such as RKTKT etc.
My handle was different. It had the number 2000 in it. It showed I was forward thinking! Great artists borrow/steal, etc...
Anyways, it's not like I registered a trademark. You could change your handle on ICQ as often times as you'd like. It was a shitty chat program popular with teenagers and some college students.
The monosyllabic office name is not exactly in an emerging trend. Half the offices in LA are some generic name that could easily be an office or a nightclub.
More than anything, if you are going to have some trendy, ironic name for your office, you better have a portfolio of equally interesting work to back it up with.
Zinkwerks - the original spelling of my last name plus work, during my Germanic phase.
Like diabase I'm not a fan of plays on architect/ure. But I'm also not a fan of names that are too contorted - SO-IL is right on the line for me.
Honestly, what is so wrong with "last name A"-"last name B" Architects?
When you try to get too cute, you just look like a student.
i never get the thing with the clever names --- in the vast majority of cases it seems so wildly pretentious and indulgent, and sometimes flat-out silly
it sometimes makes me think of going with just -- my name, Architect -- if I ever have a firm
i did have a website for a while, several years ago, named freearchitecture, though it is gone now -- i thought it was clever b/c it signified both that i would have to give my ideas and designs away for free (b/c i just moved to a new part of the country with no connections, was just starting out and no one would hire me) and b/c, since it was not for any real client, it would be architectural design freed of the constraints of the mundane that always water down and sanitize work
now i am a fan of simpler names, simple neologisms or even just initials or acronyms b/c, if i were to open my own office, i would not want the office name to suggest that i was young, new, inexperienced or a fly-by-night; and i think trendy names can have that effect --- which may be okay in a booming economy, but seems ill-advised now
I kinda like alot of the new web-based crazy names to a certain extent if that is the type of work that the firm wants to go towards. They ARE meant to stand away from the older formal firm names. Moving toward a newer web based format that coincides with the new digital area of the profession. Plus the article does make a good point about longevity after the boss leaves.
But Ennead? Man that might be the worst name I've heard. Plus Polshek isn't a SO-IL , NOx, FOA, Asymptote type of firm...
PS: "The new names are a reaction against the image of the architect, embodied by Ayn Rand’s character in “The Fountainhead,” Howard Roark — the visionary artist against the world. "
Damn we still can't get away from Howard Roark comparisons?.... If anything the new names stand for a form of rebellion against the pre-established norm...
I agree, dcblock, that Ennead is not a great name - it makes me think of larvae, for some reason.
Two clever names I like recently: Matter-Practice (in New York) and Method (Indianapolis). I also like Work-AC. And Ply, in Ann Arbor.
i understand the polshek change. polshek himself was leaving active practice and the 9 partners wanted to register that fairly big landmark. the only question i have about it is a question: if the name 'ennead' specifically recognizes that there are 9 partners, can there only ever be 9 partners?
anyway, i don't hate it. and i like the new website.
I scratch my head and say..."polshek" he didn't design the Smithsoninan American Indian Museum. He stole the design from Douglas Cardinal, with the help of Bill Clinton and his underlings.
that was an unfortunate episode for which i'm not sure the polshek office was responsible. they finished cardinal's project, sure, but the circumstances were messier than a simple 'stole'.
the polshek office has done a lot more, snook. newseum, standard hotel ny, brooklyn museum, clinton library, wgbh boston, ... : they've got some good stuff!
Steven,
You forgot to mention the Clinton Library... I'm sure Douglas Cardinal begs to differ. It was a railroad job to push Cardinal out of the project.
It's very strange to me that they'd ditch a recognizable brand for "an obscure group of nine Egyptian dieties" that's hard to pronounce.
I don't know. That's kind of clever.
And it's not that hard to pronounce if you have a fair grasp of trying to read Hellenistic Greek.
Pronounced In-knee-add. Rolls off the tongue.
The last post I wrote in this thread addresses why firms might get away with naming themselves after partners.
Which I find mildly amusing because one of the biggest voices and or best minds at the intersection of branding and architecture is Anna Klingmann. Why is this amusing? Because her firm is "Klingmann Architects & Brand Consultants." !!!
However, even she despite having a surname branded firm, buries this quite deep in her website-- i.e., it's not on the front page or about us section. You actually have to click on "founder profile.' Well played, Ms. Klingmann!
Time Magazine had an article about this same topic a while back, too.
Anyways, the concept is to divorce ownership and leadership from market appeal. In client-based professional services, clients will often refuse to work with 'subordinates' because they hired a surname rather than a brand. In a sense, every single idea, product or service that leaves that office is attributed to the genius of a single or few individuals.
By branding under a generic or person unspecific word, attribution and ownership passes into a collective rather than a surname. This allows you to separate yourself from your work a little more as your name is not necessarily tied to product anymore.
Also, it allows a brand to grow when the founder sells, leaves, dies or retires from practice. Even though they are defunct, why would someone hire Yamasaki & Associates when Mr. Yamasaki died in 1986?
Even though branding doesn't seem that significant, its the start of moving away power structures from absolutism to constitutional monarchy.
Raymond Hood had something to say about dead architects designing buildings. I might have to look for the passage over the weekend.
Raymond Hood had something to say about dead architects designing buildings. I might have to look for the passage over the weekend.
I do believe there was a poster many years ago on this forum who expressed interest in naming his firm PooP for the symmetry of the word.
...I believe the poster was puddles...
i just wasted about 15 seconds of my life reading this, thanks, archinect.
BIG is an acronym. so is SHoP. so is OMA. so is SOM, so is KPF. what do these firms have in common?
do you know why acronyms were and are so big in terms of firm names? it's because back in the day architects were looking for legitimacy, and law firms were typically done in acronyms. whoopty do.
nowadays, i don't think the public [cares about architecture at all] cares what or how the firm is named, as long as it produces a viable, necessary product.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.