"We barely even published many of the projects from those first years. But even then, there was stuff we weren’t showing to people. On the other hand, the doghouse we still show in lectures. There are others that really are seminal for us. The Target store was our really first big one. We were recommended on that project by a graphic design consultant. About five-years ago I did a study trying to understand where we had gotten all of our projects from. That was really looking at the beginning years of the office. By far, the biggest percentage of work came through from recommendations of consultants and peers. Which is kind of weird. A lot of people would think that is an unlikely source. That was really where we got some projects in the early days."- Dan Wood (Work.AC)
In the Fall of 2013, I sat down with Gregg Pasquarelli (SHoP), Brad Cloepfil (Allied Works), Paul Lewis (Lewis.Tsurumaki.Lewis Architects), Dan Wood (Work.AC), and Stephen Cassell (Architecture Research Office). I wanted to understand and document how each of them formed their respective offices. I was after the nitty gritty details not typically published in the glossy magazines. I was looking for the hard times, the struggle, and the projects that were never published, but paid the bills. This interview is part four of a series of 5 posts that will go through each of these architects and discuss the these topics.
Another great interview, very open. Thanks James! It's encouraging to read about people doing interesting work who didn't necessarily have a plan going into it, but worked out something good.
Why have so many good architects left OMA? Is Rem just too intense to stay with long term?
That's a good question. I wonder if it has more to do with how many architects head to OMA with the idea of one day setting off on their own. In the book American Architects and the Mechanics of Fame, Roxanne Williamson creates this really amazing chart of connections of who worked for whom. She goes on to talk about the crucial pivot point when people leave a "big architect" to go out on their own, and how it relates to the overall body of work of the "big architect." Its a great read!
I've uploaded this great chart. The book is from the early 90's so is a bit out of date.
James great series on the interviews...this is why Archinect is 10x better than those other archizine/social media etc...sites...forum posters have real contributions.
Thanks for the network graph. I was ALWAYS told Wright had no followers, no school of thought, this graph clearly shows he did.
That chart is fascinating though it could use a refesh and some disentanglement. The book sounds intriguing; is it worth looking for?
Wright is an interesting case. He definitely had a school of thought and influence, but he didnt fit into the academic world at all, nor was he part of the big corporate practices in NY, Chicago, LA that schooled so many through work experience.
Actually it would be interesting to try to update this chart to distinguish the affinities of the groups of architects- the Richardsonians, Art Deco, modernists, post modernists, etc.
That books is really only worth the read for that particular chapter. Most of the remaining bits are a bit too historical and not helpful. Then again, the book is only $4 shipped (used) on amazon. So I'd say its worth $4.
Interview with Work.AC's Dan Wood on starting up the practice.
"We barely even published many of the projects from those first years. But even then, there was stuff we weren’t showing to people. On the other hand, the doghouse we still show in lectures. There are others that really are seminal for us. The Target store was our really first big one. We were recommended on that project by a graphic design consultant. About five-years ago I did a study trying to understand where we had gotten all of our projects from. That was really looking at the beginning years of the office. By far, the biggest percentage of work came through from recommendations of consultants and peers. Which is kind of weird. A lot of people would think that is an unlikely source. That was really where we got some projects in the early days." - Dan Wood (Work.AC)
Read the full interview.
In the Fall of 2013, I sat down with Gregg Pasquarelli (SHoP), Brad Cloepfil (Allied Works), Paul Lewis (Lewis.Tsurumaki.Lewis Architects), Dan Wood (Work.AC), and Stephen Cassell (Architecture Research Office). I wanted to understand and document how each of them formed their respective offices. I was after the nitty gritty details not typically published in the glossy magazines. I was looking for the hard times, the struggle, and the projects that were never published, but paid the bills. This interview is part four of a series of 5 posts that will go through each of these architects and discuss the these topics.
Another great interview, very open. Thanks James! It's encouraging to read about people doing interesting work who didn't necessarily have a plan going into it, but worked out something good.
Why have so many good architects left OMA? Is Rem just too intense to stay with long term?
That's a good question. I wonder if it has more to do with how many architects head to OMA with the idea of one day setting off on their own. In the book American Architects and the Mechanics of Fame, Roxanne Williamson creates this really amazing chart of connections of who worked for whom. She goes on to talk about the crucial pivot point when people leave a "big architect" to go out on their own, and how it relates to the overall body of work of the "big architect." Its a great read!
I've uploaded this great chart. The book is from the early 90's so is a bit out of date.
You can see the full size here.
James great series on the interviews...this is why Archinect is 10x better than those other archizine/social media etc...sites...forum posters have real contributions.
Thanks for the network graph. I was ALWAYS told Wright had no followers, no school of thought, this graph clearly shows he did.
That chart is fascinating though it could use a refesh and some disentanglement. The book sounds intriguing; is it worth looking for?
Wright is an interesting case. He definitely had a school of thought and influence, but he didnt fit into the academic world at all, nor was he part of the big corporate practices in NY, Chicago, LA that schooled so many through work experience.
Actually it would be interesting to try to update this chart to distinguish the affinities of the groups of architects- the Richardsonians, Art Deco, modernists, post modernists, etc.
That books is really only worth the read for that particular chapter. Most of the remaining bits are a bit too historical and not helpful. Then again, the book is only $4 shipped (used) on amazon. So I'd say its worth $4.
I'm sure I have seen more modern day versions of this graph. Particularly when it comes to OMA offshoots. Here is a great article with some charts: http://famousarchitect.blogspot.com/2011/02/73work-for-rem.html
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.