SOM has employed the world's most influential architects since 1960.
Every major city in the world has a building done by SOM. Most of these cities have an iconic skyscraper that is a primary focal point of their skyline. Skylines are the contemporary representation of a city's global identity. Food, music, and clothing are now the outdated cultural icons. SOM did the majority of iconic skyscrapers throughout the world. SOM therefore has been the most important contributor to skylines throughout the world, and has stimulated the entire global economy because of their significance to tourism.
The entire city of Chicago rallies behind the Hancock Center and the Sears Tower. People shouldn't consider Chicago a global city, but if they do its because it once had the tallest building in the world, not because O'Hare's airport is the busiest. The entire city of New York rallies behind the WTC. Because of the significance of these two cities to the US, the entire country is aware of SOM's work and service to the world.
Most Importantly: More common folk appreciate SOM's work than any other architecture firm SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. SOM may as well be considered on par with Apple Computers. Yes, SOM is a stressful place to work, but so is Apple. Companies that have an immense impact on the world are always stressful. You need to handle that pressure to be truly great.
some people are into S&M - why is the assumption that this thread is a swipe at either SOM or S&M?
I couldn't agree more about their impact on architecture... as far as corporate firms go, they are in a league all their own. Except the early 80's to mid 90's work. That's all pretty terrible, but it was a low-point for S&M too, what with the justice departments obscenity ruling in regards to domination in pornography. Can't win em all.
Josh, I've never worked there. I hear the same stories, even from close friends that I am similar to, but something optimistic in my head tells me, "that was their problem, not yours" - I've never felt the need to worry that someone else's problem will become my own. Maybe I'm delusional and exploiting my own blissful ignorance, but if you work at SOM and find a lot of problems with it, chances are I'll see those problems as soluble opportunities.
Not you, but when people complain in general I see it as a sign of weakness. I think resiliency and discipline are imperative traits to becoming an adult.
Not you, but when people complain in general I see it as a sign of weakness. I think resiliency and discipline are imperative traits to becoming an adult.
Our motto is failure is not an option - sure we left at 5am now and then - but we got it posted
Honestly if I was 23 instead of 33, and just starting out instead of building my life, I'd work at SOM. The work culture seems to drastically contrast with my current goals and building my life outside the office.
The reality is that when starting out esp at Skidmore, you are expected to put in the hours, its a culture of doing what it takes - putting the project and your teammates first and your own comfort last - many a friday night, we had to work until 1am - and miss the last bart train out of SF, too bad - "go take cab" is what we did - its all about doing what it takes -
Currently work with many ex-SOM employees. All of them left because they commented on the harsh, terrible corporate environment. The office environment is not good in a creative profession.
These are words from my co-workers. I have no comment on SOM.
Why are you so delusional about these corporate firms? You rush to their defense in about every thread where they are mentioned.
I think you should wait and work at one of these firms before you heap on the praise, and probably adapt a different criteria for evaluating architecture above thinking “if the firm builds a lot it must mean they are good.”
"Why are you so delusional about these corporate firms? You rush to their defense in about every thread where they are mentioned." - working at SOM is comparable to working the at the most prestigious companies in other industries. SOM: Architecture; Goldman Sachs: Finance; Apple: UX + InfoTech. NFL/NBA/MLB: Sports.
"I think you should [...] probably adapt a different criteria for evaluating architecture above thinking “if the firm builds a lot it must mean they are good.” - Most firms that build a lot are bad. SOM does NOT build a lot, relative to the rest of the industry. The companies that build a lot are in the suburbs. The criterium I've used to evaluate architecture is how significant its impact is to its society. Large scale projects with high quality of design are the archetype for this, and that's what SOM has mastered. I think even if you build 100,000 single family homes in your career and become a billionaire, your impact is still lesser than SOM's. Obviously SOM is a frighteningly huge conglomerate, so simply working there as a fact isnt THAT significant, but if you're one of the 45-65 year old design directors, you are at the very top of the industry. Working on a team led by someone that experienced is monumentally beneficial.
"KPF > SOM? Why do you say that?" - because I know the owner
Gensler builds a lot, does good design work, and treats their employees about a million times better than SOM. Same with Perkins+Will, STUDIOS, NBBJ, and any number of other corporate firms.
Every interaction I've ever had with SOM gives me the impression they're a corporate dinosaur still desperately clinging to the coattails of their postwar glory days.
SOM has better clients than Gensler. SOM has an insurmountably more global impact than NBBJ. I agree Perkins+Will is comparable to SOM, in fact I believe Ralph Johnson is better than anyone at SOM, period. However, P+W hasn't provided as much back to the industry in the form of innovation or inspiration.
splitting hairs ... but he would be saying McDonald's is the most prestigious company in food because they have had the biggest impact on society and working there means you are at the top of the food industry.
"By your logic, McDonald's has the best quality food because they're so ubiquitous." - I'm surprised you're so mistaken on this because I believe you're a smart guy. I've already explained my logic and how it is about magnitude of impact, not the multitude or prevalence. The magnitude of impact is a function of design quality x project size/type x location.
""Better clients" is a very subjective criterion." - how about clients that willingly spend their money in accordance of their belief that your holistic talent and knowledge is unique and essentially invaluable. Adrian Smith is the only guy on the planet who can
"[...] McDonald's is the most prestigious company in food because they have had the biggest impact on society and working there means you are at the top of the food industry." - it is the most prestigious company in FAST FOOD, yes. They have had the most significant impact in fast food and have simultaneously impacted the civilization and economy of almost every country in the world. Impact = importance = value. If you're an executive at McDonalds I would believe you're a bit more valuable to society than an executive at Burger King. McDonald's is akin to Gensler seeing that Gensler grew from 5-5000 employees in 50 years through marginalizing their product and acquiring inferior offices. A solid product (most people agree McDonald's taste good and that Gensler buildings aren't ugly) that is downgraded for the means of commercial efficiency. Innovation occurs at its logistic level but not at its design.
Adrian Smith is the only guy on the planet who can - You're joking right?
If you want to drop a few billion on the tallest building in the country, you call the guy most famous for designing the tallest buildings in the country. If you want a flashy flowy spaceship, you call the woman most famous for doing that. If you want to be on TV, you call Bjarke.
Not saying SOM isn't deserving of a certain amount of credit, just that your praise in this thread is approaching worship, and it looks silly.
BR.TN, what does knowing a partner of kpf have to do with it being a better firm? Maybe you should pursue that connection and try working there a bit to get some needed perspective on this.
"it is the most prestigious company in FAST FOOD, yes."
Thinking McDonald's influence is limited to fast food is almost as stupid as thinking that the measure of a great architecture firm is their impact on a city's skyline.
"Maybe you should pursue that connection and try working there a bit to get some needed perspective on this." - I can't because null pointer told me that he directly works with them and he says they're incompetent.
"Adrian Smith is the only guy on the planet who can - You're joking right?" - yes, because I didn't actually get to finish that sentence and accidentally pressed send too quickly before re-reading it. It would have said something more like, "Adrian Smith is the only guy on the planet who can successfully alleviate his client's budget by coalescing all of these architectural imperatives into practice"
like most designers and architects you discount the "infrastructure"needed to design and get built these types of projects. its more than obvious that SOM has a unique and highly effective "infrstructure". add culture to that, if you do not like the culture and the infrastructure then you go elsewhere......for instance tske Shuttleworth formerly of Foster, you think when he left it was only him? same goes for Adrian Smith. and some other former SOM guys like Moed (i think) etc...
Every interaction I've ever had with SOM gives me the impression they're a corporate dinosaur still desperately clinging to the coattails of their postwar glory days.
yep - after the recession - here in SF, Heller Manus stole their thunder
i see the advantage of a corporate firm with strong ethos like SOM or Foster (or KPF) as the ability to advance the practice of architecture through technology and research while simultaneously making money. This would be in contrast to smaller firms that may still do nice design but are more service oriented.
exactly. they can afford to have research done and push the envelope. in grad school I remember Kieran Timberlake telling us they put 3% aside for pure research.......i make just enough to operate and survive which means I spend most my time "servicing" clients.
when I was at SOM, I did a lot of BIM research when I wasn't on one of the teams - a lot of us cycled from teams to research, then back to teams - or layed off for being average
“Working at SOM is comparable to working the at the most prestigious companies in other industries.”
Nope. Having worked at one of the major corporate firms now mentioned in the thread, I can’t really say my experience there has really opened doors for me. If I am asked about my time there it isn’t about my time working on all these SUPER DUPER AMAZING SKYLINE SHAPING projects that you think are so magnificent and worthwhile, it it’s more along the lines of asking about how terrible and toxic the culture is and how happy I am to be out of there. I actually now see my experience there as a red mark, there are times where I am worried I won’t be taken seriously as a designer because of time I spent working on the next great generic contextually unaware obelisk/monument to runaway capitalism in a poor South East Asian country that needs massive marble walls with brass insets and apartments with two kitchens because some building in London has them. You keep on heaping praise on these firms that you think are doing heroic work. I worked at one of these places. We did a lot of stupid, stupid buildings.
Is architecture a commodity or a body of knowledge? Seems like if it is a body of knowledge, heroic amounts of work are justified in advancing that knowledge.
S&M vs SOM
Compare and contrast. Opinions?
SOM has employed the world's most influential architects since 1960.
Every major city in the world has a building done by SOM. Most of these cities have an iconic skyscraper that is a primary focal point of their skyline. Skylines are the contemporary representation of a city's global identity. Food, music, and clothing are now the outdated cultural icons. SOM did the majority of iconic skyscrapers throughout the world. SOM therefore has been the most important contributor to skylines throughout the world, and has stimulated the entire global economy because of their significance to tourism.
The entire city of Chicago rallies behind the Hancock Center and the Sears Tower. People shouldn't consider Chicago a global city, but if they do its because it once had the tallest building in the world, not because O'Hare's airport is the busiest. The entire city of New York rallies behind the WTC. Because of the significance of these two cities to the US, the entire country is aware of SOM's work and service to the world.
Most Importantly: More common folk appreciate SOM's work than any other architecture firm SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. SOM may as well be considered on par with Apple Computers. Yes, SOM is a stressful place to work, but so is Apple. Companies that have an immense impact on the world are always stressful. You need to handle that pressure to be truly great.
Found the SOM employee.
BR.TN-
some people are into S&M - why is the assumption that this thread is a swipe at either SOM or S&M?
I couldn't agree more about their impact on architecture... as far as corporate firms go, they are in a league all their own. Except the early 80's to mid 90's work. That's all pretty terrible, but it was a low-point for S&M too, what with the justice departments obscenity ruling in regards to domination in pornography. Can't win em all.
I was thinking more along the lines of "finishing (a project) is so much more gratifying when you have been whipped mercilessly beforehand."
Josh, I've never worked there. I hear the same stories, even from close friends that I am similar to, but something optimistic in my head tells me, "that was their problem, not yours" - I've never felt the need to worry that someone else's problem will become my own. Maybe I'm delusional and exploiting my own blissful ignorance, but if you work at SOM and find a lot of problems with it, chances are I'll see those problems as soluble opportunities.
Not you, but when people complain in general I see it as a sign of weakness. I think resiliency and discipline are imperative traits to becoming an adult.
Lastly...KPF > SOM
I worked at SOM_SF
Not you, but when people complain in general I see it as a sign of weakness. I think resiliency and discipline are imperative traits to becoming an adult.
Our motto is failure is not an option - sure we left at 5am now and then - but we got it posted
The reality is that when starting out esp at Skidmore, you are expected to put in the hours, its a culture of doing what it takes - putting the project and your teammates first and your own comfort last - many a friday night, we had to work until 1am - and miss the last bart train out of SF, too bad - "go take cab" is what we did - its all about doing what it takes -
Currently work with many ex-SOM employees. All of them left because they commented on the harsh, terrible corporate environment. The office environment is not good in a creative profession.
These are words from my co-workers. I have no comment on SOM.
BDSOM
I know a ton of ex-SOM people, not many current SOM folks. The fact that they can't retain staff longer than a couple of years should give you pause.
Then again, if you want to be a slave to a system that inherently doesn't reward its staff, go ahead
I know where you work and I think you should stick around a bit longer
BR.TN,
Why are you so delusional about these corporate firms? You rush to their defense in about every thread where they are mentioned.
I think you should wait and work at one of these firms before you heap on the praise, and probably adapt a different criteria for evaluating architecture above thinking “if the firm builds a lot it must mean they are good.”
KPF > SOM? Why do you say that?
Late nights are for thesis studio.
I very much enjoy getting paid for 40 hours and working 40 hours, thank you.
"Why are you so delusional about these corporate firms? You rush to their defense in about every thread where they are mentioned." - working at SOM is comparable to working the at the most prestigious companies in other industries. SOM: Architecture; Goldman Sachs: Finance; Apple: UX + InfoTech. NFL/NBA/MLB: Sports.
"I think you should [...] probably adapt a different criteria for evaluating architecture above thinking “if the firm builds a lot it must mean they are good.” - Most firms that build a lot are bad. SOM does NOT build a lot, relative to the rest of the industry. The companies that build a lot are in the suburbs. The criterium I've used to evaluate architecture is how significant its impact is to its society. Large scale projects with high quality of design are the archetype for this, and that's what SOM has mastered. I think even if you build 100,000 single family homes in your career and become a billionaire, your impact is still lesser than SOM's. Obviously SOM is a frighteningly huge conglomerate, so simply working there as a fact isnt THAT significant, but if you're one of the 45-65 year old design directors, you are at the very top of the industry. Working on a team led by someone that experienced is monumentally beneficial.
"KPF > SOM? Why do you say that?" - because I know the owner
Gensler builds a lot, does good design work, and treats their employees about a million times better than SOM. Same with Perkins+Will, STUDIOS, NBBJ, and any number of other corporate firms.
Every interaction I've ever had with SOM gives me the impression they're a corporate dinosaur still desperately clinging to the coattails of their postwar glory days.
Living in Gin,
SOM has better clients than Gensler. SOM has an insurmountably more global impact than NBBJ. I agree Perkins+Will is comparable to SOM, in fact I believe Ralph Johnson is better than anyone at SOM, period. However, P+W hasn't provided as much back to the industry in the form of innovation or inspiration.
By your logic, McDonald's has the best quality food because they're so ubiquitous.
"Better clients" is a very subjective criterion.
splitting hairs ... but he would be saying McDonald's is the most prestigious company in food because they have had the biggest impact on society and working there means you are at the top of the food industry.
"By your logic, McDonald's has the best quality food because they're so ubiquitous." - I'm surprised you're so mistaken on this because I believe you're a smart guy. I've already explained my logic and how it is about magnitude of impact, not the multitude or prevalence. The magnitude of impact is a function of design quality x project size/type x location.
""Better clients" is a very subjective criterion." - how about clients that willingly spend their money in accordance of their belief that your holistic talent and knowledge is unique and essentially invaluable. Adrian Smith is the only guy on the planet who can
"[...] McDonald's is the most prestigious company in food because they have had the biggest impact on society and working there means you are at the top of the food industry." - it is the most prestigious company in FAST FOOD, yes. They have had the most significant impact in fast food and have simultaneously impacted the civilization and economy of almost every country in the world. Impact = importance = value. If you're an executive at McDonalds I would believe you're a bit more valuable to society than an executive at Burger King. McDonald's is akin to Gensler seeing that Gensler grew from 5-5000 employees in 50 years through marginalizing their product and acquiring inferior offices. A solid product (most people agree McDonald's taste good and that Gensler buildings aren't ugly) that is downgraded for the means of commercial efficiency. Innovation occurs at its logistic level but not at its design.
Adrian Smith is the only guy on the planet who can - You're joking right?
If you want to drop a few billion on the tallest building in the country, you call the guy most famous for designing the tallest buildings in the country. If you want a flashy flowy spaceship, you call the woman most famous for doing that. If you want to be on TV, you call Bjarke.
Not saying SOM isn't deserving of a certain amount of credit, just that your praise in this thread is approaching worship, and it looks silly.
BR.TN, what does knowing a partner of kpf have to do with it being a better firm? Maybe you should pursue that connection and try working there a bit to get some needed perspective on this.
"it is the most prestigious company in FAST FOOD, yes."
Thinking McDonald's influence is limited to fast food is almost as stupid as thinking that the measure of a great architecture firm is their impact on a city's skyline.
Fosters + Partners anyone?
Foster + Partners > KPF > SOM
Skidmore is great compared to having to work 4 days and nights at OMA - every week is hell week there
"Maybe you should pursue that connection and try working there a bit to get some needed perspective on this." - I can't because null pointer told me that he directly works with them and he says they're incompetent.
"Adrian Smith is the only guy on the planet who can - You're joking right?" - yes, because I didn't actually get to finish that sentence and accidentally pressed send too quickly before re-reading it. It would have said something more like, "Adrian Smith is the only guy on the planet who can successfully alleviate his client's budget by coalescing all of these architectural imperatives into practice"
Fosters + Partners is a bitch to work for btw, trust me. You'll never want to work for them.
1) Adrian Smith is no longer with SOM.
2) There are lots of architects who can do what Adrian Smith does. He's successful, but he's not a particularly special snowflake.
McDonald's influence is significant for architects pursuing medical projects
like most designers and architects you discount the "infrastructure"needed to design and get built these types of projects. its more than obvious that SOM has a unique and highly effective "infrstructure". add culture to that, if you do not like the culture and the infrastructure then you go elsewhere......for instance tske Shuttleworth formerly of Foster, you think when he left it was only him? same goes for Adrian Smith. and some other former SOM guys like Moed (i think) etc...
Every interaction I've ever had with SOM gives me the impression they're a corporate dinosaur still desperately clinging to the coattails of their postwar glory days.
yep - after the recession - here in SF, Heller Manus stole their thunder
i see the advantage of a corporate firm with strong ethos like SOM or Foster (or KPF) as the ability to advance the practice of architecture through technology and research while simultaneously making money. This would be in contrast to smaller firms that may still do nice design but are more service oriented.
Thoughts?
exactly. they can afford to have research done and push the envelope. in grad school I remember Kieran Timberlake telling us they put 3% aside for pure research.......i make just enough to operate and survive which means I spend most my time "servicing" clients.
archanonymous, I agree
when I was at SOM, I did a lot of BIM research when I wasn't on one of the teams - a lot of us cycled from teams to research, then back to teams - or layed off for being average
BR.TN, you are an idiot, really. Goldman Sachs is the best in finance?
All in all, in the large corporates, SOM is one of the few still pushing (structural) innovation, but its is true hell-hole to work in.
Its people like you, who genuflect to them, that cause their Design Principals to be complete dick-holes of the first order.
Disclaimer: never worked there, but know people that did, and met a couple of dick-hole Design Principals first hand.
“Working at SOM is comparable to working the at the most prestigious companies in other industries.”
Nope. Having worked at one of the major corporate firms now mentioned in the thread, I can’t really say my experience there has really opened doors for me. If I am asked about my time there it isn’t about my time working on all these SUPER DUPER AMAZING SKYLINE SHAPING projects that you think are so magnificent and worthwhile, it it’s more along the lines of asking about how terrible and toxic the culture is and how happy I am to be out of there. I actually now see my experience there as a red mark, there are times where I am worried I won’t be taken seriously as a designer because of time I spent working on the next great generic contextually unaware obelisk/monument to runaway capitalism in a poor South East Asian country that needs massive marble walls with brass insets and apartments with two kitchens because some building in London has them. You keep on heaping praise on these firms that you think are doing heroic work. I worked at one of these places. We did a lot of stupid, stupid buildings.
Is architecture a commodity or a body of knowledge? Seems like if it is a body of knowledge, heroic amounts of work are justified in advancing that knowledge.
BR.TN works at KPF.
If he's in NYC, I can tell you with 99% certainty that he's a underqualified moron.
archanonymous: architecture is an artisanal craft. there is some underlying body of knowledge in that, but it's about technique more than principle.
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.