That's what I'm asking... examples! I am interested in the extent of what is possible to do. Some architects have had the audacity and the ability to organize offices to realize large-scale works. I wonder who these architects are, because I would like to find out what they did, how they did it. The case of FLW is interesting because despite the quantity of projects, he kept a line, a "signature". From what I know, he has his own touch on the projects.

However, if anyone, as a designer, who was prolific in number of homes designed that was built --- then you might be looking at someone like Cliff May whose work was substantive influence on an entire style as well that was prolific during the big housing boom during post-WW II and virtually every house of the style was designed by him or was a derivative ripoff of his work. He sold designs for about 18,000 homes, according to the article on Cliff May on the Los Angeles Conservancy website and some 1000 or so custom homes. From that, there is most easily millions of derivatives from those designs and many more that were built. He was a building designer and was in fact a "registered building designer" in California until that program ended and he was granted an architect license near the end of his career. I would argue that Cliff May is perhaps one of if not one of the most prolific residential designers and has influenced a very significant period and style of residential architecture in the United States and beyond. I am not fully clear as to how much extent Cliff May had in actually building homes but he has had a significant hand in residential architecture especially of the mid-20th to late 20th century and the style is still occassionally built maybe with some update from 1950s to 2020s.

Thank you rcz1001, I am sad to see that there are so many negative comments in this forum. Architects wear black, I am an architect who wears light colors. I didn't know, Cliff May, I will look into it. That's why I write here, to get informed opinions and not black bile. Thanks again.

While I may wear black but on the occassion I wear other colors but it has little to nothing to do with the profession specifically but it sure is nice to hide ink when doing things old school with ruling pen (and calligraphy pen) and good ol' black india ink and draw or write (or both) on paper. I don't think it is absolutely a requirement for architects to wear black but its a preference that some push more than need be. Wear what you like.

if you want a guess without numbers though i'd look at either a large acquisitionn-heavy AE like aecom or stantec - or the very old east coast partnerships like sheply bullfinch.

an example of the challenge of creating an accurate account of creative works exists in classical music - and yet that's much simpler given the individual nature of the artistic invention. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Köchel_catalogue

Exactly. My ~30 person firm starts about 100 projects a year - of which 2 will get any attention. This is an impossible question to answer. I'm thinking this is a student whose instructor is playing games.

If the OP had said 21st century, you could probably narrow it down to less than a dozen companies just by virtue of size. You'd still probably never get an exact answer. However, with the prompt being for the previous century, it's really hard because you would have to have some sense of the size of these companies over time, and when they started. For example. SOM is quite a bit smaller than Gensler, but started 30 years earlier... AECOM is insanely larger than both of them and any other architecture company, more like the top 20 combined, but their work is much less categorically architectural... regardless they may well have had a chance... except that they only existed for 10 years in the 20th century, so .... nope. 

Is the Chicago office of Gensler or AECOM distinct for these purposes from the San Francisco or NY office? Often (especially like at SOM) they are distinct business and design entities operating under one corporate name, often with other financial and legal entanglements, but still, distinct. It is a very hard question.

this is not a quote from my question but from the voice in your head and your reading of my thread. Sorry, I can't do anything for you. If the topic seems stupid to you, leave. As the french rapper BOOBA would say "si tu kiff pas renois, écoute pas et puis c'est tout".

French rapper who? No one cares about French gangsters.

Calice de t’abarn...

@Archietalksabout We are not here to do your essay research - go to the library or learn how to google - to speak of size as the single measure of what its important without value is the failure of 20th C approach to architecture and perhaps society. Your question lacks an understanding of complexity, empathy and history. Good luck with that essay. 

Dear TED, If you think a forum is where you do research... or write essays by googling. Anyway. I don't think you know who you are talking to. I probably have more architecture books in my private library - that I have read - than in the one of the university where you studied... I have to admit, it's more like the local bar here. I won't be doing this for long. So keep your opinions and beliefs to yourself. If you're not interested, if you don't have constructive suggestions, leave the discussion. With my respectful greetings. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

In good French it's the tabernacle, and it's not an insult.

And if you still think rappers are gangsters.... especially the French ones, I can't do much about it. ...

Sti.

And you can keep your swear words in Quebecois, believing you can't be understood while pronouncing them...

blasphemy is a victimless crime and using such terms as expressions is not "swearing". Calice.

@ Archietalksabout again....’my books are bigger than your books?’
This is your first post - please don’t criticise me unless you review my post going back to the start of Archinect.

I think I have more interesting things to read than these thousands of posts, which should disappear before the end of the energy machinery era, the day this site closes. Unless the state invests in scanning everything and saving it on magnetic tapes in a bunker. Tschuss ;)

I built a tree house for my 4y old. So I refute your statement thus.

i'd like to see those permitted drawings, sir.

crayon not permissible.

Not a building. No permit required but I don’t think my railing filled with rock climbing holds will pass as non-climable guard tho... so don’t tell the city.

I presume you're being cheeky... but how would you define building? Paying for it? Swinging the hammer? Being a contractor?

anyone who, yes, actually swings a hammer, or has direct responsibility for/legality related to/supervision of someone swinging a hammer. and certainly not paying for it- a developer is no more responsible for building anything than a family who hires and architect to design their house and a contractor to build it.

it's not an insult, just the reality of the situations. architects aren't responsible for building anything, they're responsible for making instructions for building.

e.g., ikea doesn't build your dresser.

I didn't mill the wood. I didn't write the instructions, I could not have built my (bookshelf) without Ikea. I get what you're saying, but I also think construction has become more and more abstract in that sense.

Does an architect build if they are part of a design/build team or company. Does a GC build if they don't self perform work? 

If the architect has to go out to the site, and tell people how to construct things during construction, is that not building? 

It's fine if not, it's not an insult to say architects don't build buildings if you're just defining building in that way. Would you say that architects get work built? How else do you separate built from unbuilt work? 

Square.... This is what we use to call a metonymy. . . and you use it maybe every day ... "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

Or maybe you are being ironic and talking about the lack of mandates and work.... reason why all the people discuss on this forum... ;)

the architect is not legally permitted to instruct anyone on site how to do anything related to the means and methods of construction (this is very clear in aia contracts, the most commonly used). in other words, there is a very strict and intentional division. design-build is indeed different (though still uses the same dichotomy we are discussing), but most firms are not structured that way, and this thread seems to be discussing traditional architectural practices.

but yes, i would say that architects certainly contribute something to the building of works that follow their instructions, i just think it's a bit of a stretch to say they have built anything. a great alternative word is design, which covers work both built and unbuilt.

...metonymy...

i'm afraid you still don't understand the definition of the word..

experiment: ask a contractor, next time you are on site: "good sir, do you not agree that 'build' is simply a metonymy for 'design'?"

keep trying.

First, architects are not architects unless they are the chief/master builder and in charge of construction trade if we go by the etymology of the word architect to its original meaning in Greek. Yes, some architects are also licensed as a GC and they will be in charge of the means and methods of constructing what they design. I think the original question should be rephrased better because most modern day architects don't build anything. The question then is what exactly is the question. Architects whose designs most influenced the built environment in the 20th century. I don't know we can get an exact answer that is able to be adequately quantified. A good question might be to start with understand the degree of influence some architects & designers had on the built environment of the 20th century. It might be hard to pin any one in all aspects of 20th century built environment but we can certainly find significant architects & designers who had significantly influenced certain types of architecture and styles during their period of significance. We are certainly talking about a time frame but the 20th century isn't just one style or one singular period of significance. We aren't just talking about residential or commercial or whatever. It is definitely something of legitimate research which I agree with midlander on.

What for "What for" ?

Yes, that was what I was thinking of; like Bob, who designed Plan150C "Spring Creek" for Richmond Homes and a quadrillion 150C's were constructed across the US and Canada.

I wish I was Bob.

Do you referre to William J. Levitt and Levittown ... ?! https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/28/levittown-america-prototypical-suburb-history-cities

"I wish I was Bob." lol, no you don't. Big boy developers use in-house designers. So Bob was probably a underpaid architect and Richmond owns all the rights to the design. Bob might see a quadrillion houses he knows he designed; but he didn't really make any money or get any credit because the big boys really don't want to pay commissions or royalties each time they pull that plan off the rack.

Who needs credit or royalties when you can look out across the barren suburban wasteland and know that they are all living in some nightmare you designed while sipping claggy coffee and smoking pall-malls in some developer's depressing office park headquarters? Sounds fucking groovy to me.

At first you might think that, but I'm talking about people who plan, not clients...

then this is the wrong forum for the question, architects don't plan anything, developers do. Now, the real answer may be somewhere between China and UAE.

Well, either you are not an architect, and if you are an architect who doesn't plan, I don't know what you are ...

Or maybe the country where you are, the architects are not worthy of the name ...

sure daphne, get to work on your list and stop shitposting.

Bla bla Boomer

"Get on Work" yourself, b e polite and call me by my last name.

I think they won't be back. We've been duped again.

Haha...

This made me laugh, we have underestimated the OP's commitment to their post.

great, do that.

I think I remember you. You must have been that student in the back. Another condescending boomer?

Nope, that's the late randomised sr. you're talking about.

The question is: how many paintings did Picasso do? How many projects has FLW done. Is it so complicated?

FLW HAS A POSSE

So did Raffaello the renaissance painter. 250 peoples in the back office...

I believe I am correct with this assumption. Big Green Head, blink twice if under duress.

I think this is a good point. To be honest, this was my first forum discussion – I think this was my last! My IRL architects community is easier to talk with . . . ! Love.

Maybe comment on other threads or news articles.

i am a licensed architect but i am posting across state lines. does that still give my comments more legitimacy?

For the point given, if you are licensed where you are practicing because it is required.... you are an architect as far as I am concerned in the context of general forum posting. There are people who are not licensed and can't legally use the architect title and there are people who just aren't in the architectural field. I believe you are a licensed architect as you claim you are. There are some people who just flat out aren't. There are people in the license track but lack the knowledge and skill for independent practice even as a building designer to do such work competently. Then there are places where licensing isn't required so there isn't really a system in place to verify beyond portfolio of work and verifying with clients. YOU have legitimacy which is proven. One can still have some legitimacy without licensure for their comments but that depends on their comments and other measures of legitimacy. The point of my comment above is, if the OP is who the OP claims to be, then obviously the OP would gain legitimacy and recognition among the group including some that are suspicious over time. We have seen some real bozos on this forum in the past for sure. I know some are who they say they are and are licensed. There are some, that can't be verified. Some use anonymity which does make it hard to verify squat. There are some who just aren't architects or even building designers or whatever. There have been scammers and trolls as well. So if there is suspicion, it's because the OPs in new to the forum and sometimes the kinds of questions and posts the OP made resembles the kinds of posts of some of the bozos of the past on the forum.

ok thanks!