bab, i have to tell you, i think office da is probably one of the most difficult firms to get an internship at right now. they are a young, incredibly interesting firm and they teach at harvard, so the pool of applicants almost definitely includes the best of the best.

but i'm with you; if i thought i was going to move anywhere near boston, i would send them an application asap. definitely one of my dream firms to work at (based solely on how frickin cool i think their work is).

their work look interesting but a bit theoretical. And the site is really difficult to browse I think.

Yeah, their site is difficult to browse. You probably don't want to work there.

it's not what I meant. I'm just a bit disappointed not to have the time to understand the way it works so that I can see some of their projects.

Here is something I posted to these boards a while back. The question of style and intellectual exploration is admittedly a subjective one, but the question of their ethics, and the way they use their help, is not:


"I wanted to add a few thoughts to this thread, for, while I don’t intend to make this an unwarranted 'drag 'em through the mud' session, I feel that there are several levels on which Office dA should be held accountable if they are to be promoted as a model outfit for working within the profession these days.

First is the matter of professional ethics. I have not worked for them myself, but I know several people who have. From what I have learned from them, I find their use of help to be very troublesome. Of course, they are notorious for working people long hours for little pay (this is not news, or cause for alarm, to most of you, I’m sure). I could tell you countless stories of people leaving their real jobs on Friday nights to go spend the entire weekend on a charrette carving little basswood bricks for them. This is not unheard of at other offices. But it is more the level to which they expect their employees to commit to them is difficult to comprehend.

One friend of mine, not yet licensed, worked for them as a project designer, working on several assignments but primarily taking a small project through CDs. He told me the story of what caused him to quit the firm: Given that neither Nader nor Monica was licensed at the time (this was early 2000), my friend’s name on the drawings was expected to represent the architect of record. My friend resigned, realizing the potential for liability given that the firm was so inexperienced with actual construction, and frustrated that they would be willing to let him assume that liability on top of all the unrewarded effort he had already put into the project.

But it is more troubling to consider that, not only have they made their reputation for award-winning projects almost completely on the backs of their help, but the work that they’ve been producing amounts to little more than variations of their own personal formal interests, with little concern for the greater social or cultural role that their projects play. Whether a project is in Venezuela, China, or Wisconsin, they approach it the same, as a one-off tour-de-force of material and spatial permutations (often the same limited palette of materials). As for macro-scale, or anything larger or more socially resonant than a single building, they have little to offer beyond the sort of urban design work that they were doing for Machado/Silvetti over a decade ago.

The adulation that they receive for their game of repetitive formal/material manipulations is astounding. They have received accolades for their craft, but it is a sort of craftsmanship that is only practicable at a micro-scale, and cannot easily be scaled-up. Except for their Interfaith Chapel at Northeastern, which is an exceptional project (and which they reportedly hand-finished), and Mantra (sheer curtains, entry vestibule, furniture, a sculptural wooden hut, and a urinal/sink that’s too clever by half all added to an extant bank space), their built work is often of poor quality (look at Upper Crust on Charles Street in Beacon Hill for a good example of this). As far as I know, none of their formally obsessive PA-award winning projects have been constructed (except for Zahedi house--which reportedly came out severely compromised (the copper cladding, the formal lynchpin of the project, was excluded)). One might be inclined to hastily (and probably unfairly) conclude that most of them were never meant to be built.

I’m convinced that they have risen to prominence because they are well-connected and, moreover, they are willing to work themselves and those who flock to them to death to produce seductive renderings and models in order to gain the respect and admiration of their peers and students (and thus advance within the profession without actually having to build or otherwise deal with the outside world). This is very seductive to talented students coming out of school, who see in Office dA a professional model by which they can isolate themselves from the world at large, create beautiful work that is completely disengaged from society, and make a living on the prestige garnered from one’s peers. By doing so, however, they do nothing to advance the state of the profession beyond an old-boys’ network solely concerned with its own status.

For those within the profession who are concerned with architecture’s ever-increasing marginalization over the years, the promotion of the self-consumed Office dA as an exemplary role model is very troubling."

One of the preceptorships at my university, Rice, is at OfficedA. It is only the second year that it has been on the list. From the student who went there, it is a lot of work, a lot of stress, a lot of hours, not much pay (salary). He went back and forth on loving and hating it. There were the moments when Nader sat down with him and he observed his design process, but there were other times we he didn't sleep because he was working so much. The guy that went there is a little hard on himself and a little high strung, so he might have been stressing even more than the average person would.

herbst - it is sad to hear that office da pays their interns poorly. however, "poorly" seems like a good step up from "nothing" - the amount that way too many popular architects pay their interns (there was a thread about this a while back...). i actually heard recently that, at one point, eisenman was charging people to work there!!?? fuckin a.

anyhow, regarding their "formalism"... their work, to me, seems to strike a very skillful balance between the seeming abstraction of their spatial/scenographic/constructive theory of architecture and the increasingly-popular blending of traditional and digital fabrication techniques; i suppose the key word is "seeming," as their theoretical approach is actually quite rooted in a thorough understanding or constructive practices.

i saw a presentation by monica a few weeks back, wherein she showed a few different built projects of theirs (a handful of interior/exhibition works and one house in chinea), and her descriptions of the projects' processes, from client to design to execution, were all extremely interesting, seemingly quite efficient.

they are a young firm still establishing their own approach to architecture, and i would not disregard their work as simply "formalistic" or "disengaged from society." their creative use of masonry alone is quite significant as a method of critically integrating historical constructive methods within the developing contemporary paradigm of digital design and fabrication, and is worth watching as more of their projects get constructed around the world.

and, as to their "self-consumed"ness, it is necessary for firms championing the benefits of digital design and fabrication (mass customization, extremely precisely crafted building components, reduced on-site labor, etc. etc.) to be insular to some significant degree, as they are not only developing designs but the technology and methodologies to construct them (often subsuming/evolving existing techniques with digital methods). the idea that the efficiencies of digital processes can eventually bring good design to more people for less money is as rife with potential, very similar to the potential associated with mass-production techniques developed post WWII. it is in our interests as proponents of good design to support and nurture the development of this potential; office da recognizes this and acts upon it.

..."thorough understand OF constructive practices"

..."works and one house in CHINA"

...and i had an extra "as" in the second-to-last sentence.

my bad.

herbst account of working in the firm unfortunately ecchoes what I've heard from other students who either worked there or had friends who have. REgardless of where a firm is in its developemnt or what one thinks about a its stylistic approach to design there is no reason to treat employees that way, especially those who are your own students.

while i COMPLETELY agree with the sentiment that interns should be paid better than they usually are, it's important to recognize that the practice of underpaying is quite widespread. everything i've heard about almost every avant garde firm doing exciting work says that they don't pay their interns properly. a friend of mine worked for eisenman this past summer for no compensation, and as far as i gathered, he was just one of a large group of young kids stuck in a big room making a big model. they were often made to work late and on weekends, and if eisenman every called you by your actual first name you almost crapped your pants. which is to say that many of us see something to gain (other than a load in your pants and a smile on your face) from working for an influential/exciting architect for no tangible compensation. though i would never work for less than i'm worth, if i was in a position to do so (won the lottery, etc.) office da would be on the shortlist of firms i would whore myself out to.

I had an internship at Office dA summer of 2003.

Monica and Nader are perfectionists. They expect whatever it takes from their employees to get there. That can be invigorating or frustrating depending on how you like to work. They both have strong personalities and tend to be bluntly honest. If you can handle all that then you'll be fine. I gather OdA has a unique environment and people either love it or hate it. That said, the majority of people who work there burn out after a couple of years. But I suspect that's the same in a lot of small, high pressure offices. Why architects in general work such long hours for so little pay is a question I could ramble on and on about.

As far as your other specific questions bab, hours were usually nine or ten if no deadline was looming, and typically fifteen if you were working on a charrette, with an all nighter thrown in now and then. Coming in for around four or six hours on Saturday or Sunday seemed to be the norm, longer if you're under pressure. The bottom line was just get it done and get it done the way Monica and Nader want, which could sometimes take a long time.

We used AutoCAD and 3DsMax, but there was talk of shifting to Maya, plus Photoshop for completing renderings and Illustrator for putting it all together.

There were fifteen people working there when I was, but apparently it's often lower (around 10 or 12).

I had a good experience. I learned a lot and I found it a really exciting place to work. Granted I was only there for three months and had only worked at one other architecture firm before, but still, I liked it.

what's in it for you? if you can answer that question and honestly justify the decision, go for it. but take as much as you give, and by that i mean if you are going to be a slave to name brand firms, understand what it will take for you to get there yourself, who do they know, how did they meet them, how can you meet and impress them. also photocopy their rolodex.... i skipped the chance to work for zaha because i knew it would consume me for the time i was there and when i left my kid would be a year older and not know my name..

herbst, good post -- exactly to the point. my experience with da is da same.

thanks for your inputs guys.
i've been contamplating where I would apply after the graduation, and It turned out that even deciding where I would want to work was not very easy decision to make.
I found Office DA's projects are extreamly interesting, and have alots of respect for them.
but I guess it takes what it takes to achieve cirtain level of sophistication.
It seems to be the bottom like.
Wheather I want to become part of it or not, would be my decision to make.
I will think about the issues with the informations you guys provided me.
But I cannot help to notice the sadness of the current situation in this field.
Thanks again, and wish me luck.