damn that son of his could be a Calvin model

I think I found the one I'd convert for

convert to the cult of REM I mean ;)

thamarit_suchart:

Not making a comparision of design, just the desirability of position- NBBJ makes at least twice the fees of OMA. The top is still the top, no matter how you slice it.

jetcetera:

So you mean to say that the "desireablity of position" is determined by monetary means? Furthermore, by "top" do you mean to say that the "top" is determined by financial prowess? If that is the case, then the architects who garner the most respect in terms of pushing the field forward cannot be regarded as the top since their profit margins are not their overriding primary concern.

No-

I'm stating that whether the firm is high-design oriented or a corporate den of viper(s)(say like a Gensler, for instance) there will always be a political and tactical minefield of haters, backstabbers and those who think you're too young or inexperienced to take the helm. If you have alot (or even some) of talent, and a shit load of luck, connections, drive,and political acumen, you can break through as did Josh or Tim Johnson. Or even Helmut Jahn way back in the days of C.F. Murphy.

Nomesane...?

wow...can you imagine having rem koolhaas as your father? that's gotta be interesting.

they probably tried to double-team the hilton sisters... what are their names... paris and kikki ?

rem koolhaas as your father? You'll probably see him twice a year!

Hey Vlad, you wouldn't happen to be Javier, would you?

Hmm... Now I wonder how many people have alter ego handles on this forum...

wasn't there a breakdown of rem's time spent in smlxl, or am i thinking of something else? there were x amount of days spent flying, x amount of days in a hotel, etc.

are you all really that stupid to think that his "connections" and money had nothing to do with King Rem giving him the keys to his realm. the fact isnt that he is not talented- maybe he is- though i have worked with them, so i digress- btw- that rumor that he did put money into the firm- is true; just fyi for all of you people that insist that some poor sap, who might have as much drive and talent (hey some of us were even star athletes too! yes, olympic and national qualifiers just like good ol' Josh) have the same opportunities as mr. big bucks, can have all of the same opportunities at the ripe old age of 35 or heck even 25 are out of your freakin minds. well, i guess then its true what most other professionals say, architects really are idiots.

are you all really that stupid to think that his "connections" and money had nothing to do with King Rem giving him the keys to his realm. the fact isnt that he is not talented- maybe he is- though i have worked with them, so i digress- btw- that rumor that he did put money into the firm- is true; just fyi for all of you people that insist that some poor sap, who might have as much drive and talent (hey some of us were even star athletes too! yes, olympic and national qualifiers just like good ol' Josh) can have the same opportunities as mr. big bucks ARE seriously working with DEMENTED LOGIC- or maybe high on PCP. Yes, what am I saying, of course we can have all of the same opportunities at the ripe old age of 35 or heck even 25- people who dont think so must be nuts! any , bitter, old, architect will GLADLY hand over the keys to any kingdom to some new college graduate, in fact, traditionally the architecture kingdom has been nothing but accommodating to the young- and especially the young who dont have money or connections. YOU ARE all out of your freakin minds. well, i guess then its true what most other professionals say, architects really are idiots.

and YES, he comes from MONEY, and again YES that makes a BIG difference in term of how early one can gain SUCCESS- if you look at the history of architecture, most got their start from either a) building their parents house then getting it published b) buying into a "known" design firm c) and lots of publicity- this all costs $$$ that someone with an accumulated 100,000 debt (at least for undgrad at harvard or any likeminded ivy league school- not to mention more for grad school) would not be able to afford- now children, it's either that- or he has a sugar daddy (but i know the former is true for a fact- hey i've seen him prada lined outfits and all- oh, those student loans must be a huge burden- i know the first thing that i would do if i had massive debt is go out and buy a 2000$ outfit). Will Prince, let's hope you are rich, because you sound like a flipping moron...either that or his bestest buddy in the whole world.

nice outburst loanbehold !

I think we need to put this in perspective...

Zaha = rich
Foster = married rich woman
Pawson = rich (family textiles business)
Zumthor = rich

it is a common thing in all fields.

i just don't like how slow he talks (as if to imply his inteligence and serenity) in the video for museum plaza. he sounds like a tosser. its like one word a minute!

I think I remember reading in one of those interviews with Prince-Ramus that he spent like 6-8 months hanging out in Rotterdam until OMA initially hired him. In the context of the article, it made it seem like a testament to his tenacity and self-assuredness. Truly though, it most likely speaks to the kind of deep pocketbooks that allow for indefinite patience.

I begrudge the guy nothing for his station. He seems shrewd and determined. That his coronation were by BusinessWeek and Fast Company are no accident, in my opinion, and may actually be good things for the profession. But to think that it is a reflection of higher talent or drive than everyone else who has graduated from architecture school is foolish and self-defeating. Those qualities have helped, no doubt. But as with anything, a backpack of the old filthy lucre never hurts.

Also, just curious: How did Zumthor get his money, mhollenstein? I thought his father was a cabinet maker...(?)

shouldn't there be a warning label in arch history classes that lets you know if the 'hero' you're studying honed their art whilst on artificial life support ? subsidized art making seems a little like cheating on your spelling test.

but seriously, tutors present these characters as though they made their work on a totally level playing field. as in 'Corb did this, Mies did that, Kahn did this, and Zaha does that' as though these people were playing the same game. shouldn't overwhelming privilege at least get a footnote?

Zumthor's father was a furniture manufacturer.

-John Adams

really great quote (really), but it reminds me of a common bumper sticker I saw in college that said 'spending daddy's money'.

my issue with all this is that in the relm of art, priviledge is the big inequity that dare not be spoken. that forced ignorance is a joke on any loftier ideals architecture might claim.

cabinet-maker sounds much more romantic
than furniture manufacturer.

Piano- middle class

Libeskind- poor


there are always exceptions to the rule.

alright people, this is starting to piss me off -

it's time to put up or shut up. loandbehold - give me the proof that you so assuredly have that joshua came from untold family wealth and that fact alone is why he advanced through oma. what's that? you don't have any, but because he's wearing a prada suit he must be made of money (because, you know, like my 20k a year job and crushing student debt wouldn't allow me to do that...)

you sound like a pathetic whiny nit. take the bitter pill out of your mouth - all that choking noise is beginning to irritate me.

laru,
i'm sorry if loandbehold is irritating you (and he does sound a bit bitter), but alas....the sad fact of the matter is that most people who do make a name for themselves in this profession do come from quite a bit of money...as the old adage goes "the best way to make a small fortune in architecture is to start with a large one"
not that there aren't those that do "make" themselves in the profession...just they're the exceptions and not the rule.

laru,
i'm sorry if loandbehold is irritating you (and he does sound a bit bitter), but alas....the sad fact of the matter is that most people who do make a name for themselves in this profession do come from quite a bit of money...as the old adage goes "the best way to make a small fortune in architecture is to start with a large one"
not that there aren't those that do "make" themselves in the profession...just they're the exceptions and not the rule.

laru,
i'm sorry if loandbehold is irritating you (and he does sound a bit bitter), but alas....the sad fact of the matter is that most people who do make a name for themselves in this profession do come from quite a bit of money...as the old adage goes "the best way to make a small fortune in architecture is to start with a large one"
not that there aren't those that do "make" themselves in the profession...just they're the exceptions and not the rule.

i agree with laru. don't complain about people who make the most of their opportunities. complain about those who do nothing with their great opportunities. it's not as if ramus is sitting around eating potato chips while the paychecks come in.

the fact that he was an olympic athlete and judging his ability by his work on seattle library, i see that he is a person of

discipline
talent
desire

i don't know him personally, but my guess is most people on this thread don't either. my stance: who cares what your background is so long as you are DOING something advance the profession....hacks.

super-impose -

that's pretty funny. and, yeah, i probably need to spit out the bitter pill in my own mouth, but jeepers, can't we go at least one week on this board without a 'he sucks and got where he is because of 'x' (money, connections, etc). i totally agree it's much easier to get started with money than without, but why is it that everytime someone gets worked up about a younger practitioner having success it boils down to 'well, they came from money'? it's asinine...

there is some serious betterness here. ppl complaint when others do crappy work and complain when others work hard to do good. jeezus.

heh, heh. serious bitterness that is.

from architectural record...

"In an amicable split, Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA)’s New York office, led by principal Joshua Prince-Ramus, has spun off into a new firm. Unlike OMA’s other offices, which are owned collaboratively by six other partners, the New York office was owned by Ramus and firm founder Rem Koolhaas.

In May, Ramus, with former OMA colleague Erez Ella, bought out Koolhaas and retained the 35-member staff to form REX, which stands for Ramus Ella Architecture. Ramus also keeps high-profile projects like Museum Plaza in Louisville, Kentucky, and the Annenberg Center for information Science and Technology in Pasadena, California. OMA and REX will collaborate, and OMA is planning to open a new office in the U.S.

“It’s really been unremarkable, no revolution, no crisis,” says Ramus. “The biggest challenge now is going to be building our own identity.” "

So... apparently there is/was some sort of financial investment in the firm on the part of JPR... as is to be expected for a partner in any firm...

where does the X come from in REX? sounds like a dogs name.

more power to REM i say.

while it is obvious that ramus-prince, and perhaps his partner erez ella (whom i have been told has a well-off businessman/developer dad back in his native israel) invested money in their enterprise, the lesson that has to be learned is probably different: money can help, but without some talent (not much), a great deal of hard work, stoic perseverence and a constant focus on your objective (whether it is success per se or anything else) no one gets very far. yes, luck helps, but focused hard work over a long period of time does the job better than anything else.
i wish these rex guys only the best. they've probably earned it.

so the fact is that architects are usually very bad businesspeople. and our disdain for finance shown here may have something to do with it. it takes money and savy and schmooze to make interesting stuff, art, architecture, whathaveyou.
otherwise we're just designing call centers and strip malls for the lowest bid. or selling watercolors at the county fair. and there would be nothing for us minions to aspire to and drool over and posture and wax poetic about. and there is much drivel that much money is spent on, and much of value that money is spent on, so i would say that makes money a red herring. the fact that rem (like it or not he has changed our lives) is willing to part with so many projects and entrust them to JPR shows that there must be something amazing about him (not a trust fund). he sounds like a decent fella.
(and the whole prince thing, i think its sweet that he took his wife's name.)
(and don't think i'm writing this because i have any money, because i donnut)
its called an investment people. things in america don't work without it.

question.
if metrosexual joshy weren't well off would he be were he
is today?

answer.
no.

does it matter? no. do i care? no. should you care? no.
is he making architecture better? no.

but hey, at least he's blowing his money TRYING to do
good projects, which is more than you can say for
a large percentage of architects.

huzza.

"[Repealing the estate tax would be like] choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics." -Warren Buffett to the NY Times

World's Second Richest Man Chooses Charity Over Inheritance

i think it's an important discussion not so much so we can be bitter or say that so and so doesn't deserve it, but to help us not feel so down about ourselves that we haven't achieved as much... it's extremely rare to head a successful firm starting from nothing (or very little), and I think impossible at age 35. it's just economics.

indeed R.A. this is why one should focus their energies on doing things they love and doing a good job at them and not on being famous or not.

e, but what if you focus on doing what you really love, and do it so well, that becoming famous is just a nice side-effect?
or from a different angle: what if you understand that becoming famous actually allows you to do what you love, and it is only a means to a totally different end?
should we be upset with architects whose names we recognize (even if we may not recognize a single building they've designed) while we ourselves are drawn to discussions about them???
fact of the matter is that in order to get good commissions, it is better to be famous. and to be famous in the world of design requires hard work. whether "rex" will rise up to the occasion and leverage their fame (and resources) to make truly good architecture, or at least interesting one, is yet to be known.
but at the very least they've worked hard to create this opportunity for themselves. becoming famous is just part of this effort - it is possibly nothing more than p.r. work.

that's fine xray. imo, becoming famous should always be a side effect and not a goal. props to anyone who becomes famous by doing what they love. curses to those who put becoming famous above their love.

anyone here worked for OMA NY (or REX)? anyone interviewed with them?
(curious)

okay if rex is about "non authorship" then why do i see this guys' grille everywhere i look? maybe its just on here with all the starfucking and the starfucking wannabe's or if your like me you flex your envy and spit your bitterness. anonymity aint all its cracked up to be josh.

point vado.

i think this "authorship" argument is a little lame. its just someone trying to be different. authorship still exists in cases where someone comes up with everything, but just can't do it. it doesn't exist when no-one has the talent to come up with everything, so they get lots of people with bits of talent and put them together.

Also, if he was serious about it, why would he have his name in the firms title?? OMA sounds less "authorship" like than REX.

is it just me, or does naming your firm after a long extinct dinosaur seem the opposite of what you want a progressive firm to say to people....