after reading your post, a few things occur to me. architects can never (maybe a few) be the fictitious characters of immediate success and fame in the field unless you have already attained stardom through some other means, like our very own brad pitt.

the reasons according to me-
getting large scale projects needs the age (with which together comes popularity). with popularity comes more projects...being a young architect needs the right contact, the needs to show experience (the client needs to see it), your previous works ranging from barns to residences to malls... will mature an architect in dealing with client. its not dealing with the client alone that matters, perhaps the EXPERIENCES maketh the man.

would you prefer go to a young doctor or a much experienced doctor who could BOTH know to handle the case?
a quote i picked up from one of mayne`s speech which i think is so true- "young architects need to be guided through the complex problems that make up the discipline. one has to learn by example and a method of inquiry- it is a heuristic process and it is ideosyncratic to the person and the situation. it requires an equal balance of intuition, creativity and analytical skills. learning to be an architect is very much like psychoanalysis- its a slow process that you can`t speed up through force of will"

yeah, so maybe its the experience that makes the person produce their best towards the end of their lives.

chameleon...
have to agree/disagree.
although there aren't a ton of examples...there are examples
of young firms that have built major commisions right off the bat..
most, if not all, because they won a competition...the immediate
example that comes to mind is snohetta who's first built commission
was the library at alexandria...now they may not be as famous as
those above..but they have definitely received a number of large
scale projects since.

i also think that there are few stand alone young designers..but there
are all kinds of examples of young designers given lots of chances
at large firms.

perhaps these people would also produce their best works at the end of their career.

true..i guess i took your response out of context.
i think the obvious answer people create better architecture
at the end of their careers is the one stated above...experience.
you've already made most of the mistakes you're going to make
and don't have to worry about making those same mistakes/
or are able to avoid those mistakes as you get older.

i know at the beginning of my career i leaned heavily on the
older people in the office..constantly asked questions about how
to detail certain things..just a simple difference between not
knowing and having that information already in your head.

i also think there is something to be said for contacts...the older
you are the larger your network of sources/clients/consultants
etc.

My theory on why age is so important is that no one in their right minds is going to entrust $50 million to some wet-nosed kid straight out of school. They want you to have a few grey hairs and know a little something about where ducts go and how to write a contract.

It's only in solitary and/or creative professions that people win big at a young age. In professions where mistakes can't harm people either financially or physically.

So on one hand we have the experience, which is more about getting a project executed than the design. Robert Venturi has said though, that he refuses to design projects without a client, since it's the interplay between architect and client that is the architecture.

Thom Mayne gives a good example, and is himself a GREAT example, since he has been trying hard his whole life to build projects, is in this sort of zaha-koolhaas-mayne triumvirate of old revolutionaries with notorious tempers that have just started to get work built.

The question that his comment raises though, and one that I think was touched upon in Chameleon's first post, was through the question "which would you hire, a young doctor or an old one?" Disregarding the chasm of difference between medical practice and architecture practice (salary, not to say the least), there is something embedded, I think, in our culture that links age and architecture much as the way it links this choosing of an old doctor or a new one. Maybe experience is it, but a doctor is not likely to perform his most influential and tricky surgeries as old age is sneaking up on him. Doctors are also already pre-subdivided into different graspable specialties, something that makes the risk in choosing a young doctor substantially less.

With architects though, it's not as if people live or die if their house doesn't suit their taste or leaks (which are probably the two worst crimes an architect could commit, falling down should really be someone else's fault) but still people are loath to hire someone not only from Harvard, but someone who has published books on the subject. I guess someone might be bound to lose a lot of money if the public rejects a large apartment complex, but if economics was truly at the root of the matter, then it would make no difference if Rem was hired when he was 30 or when he was 60.

Mies -- considering the topic, what an odd set of tangents you've extended for yourself, while missing the obvious center point. Chameleon's Mayne quote nails it. It shouldn't be all that curious that an artist IS always greater than his/her last work. Assuming you've had projects built, don't you feel that way about your own work? That is, all things considered in the complicated process of learning to be an architect, wouldn't a 40-year old Miesvanderrice outperform a 30-year old one? Who's better, a 50-year old Sonny Rollins or some fifth-grader honking away? There's just really no complexity of societal conspiracy here.

majo--
there are plenty of people entrusting big bucks to twenty-somethings on wall street.

but mies,
re: rem and oma, rem has got to be 50 years older than anyone that works for him

and philip johnson was the director of architecture for MoMA when he was 24

and every starchitect was very well off before they started architecture...philip johnson, the Mr. Burns of the architure world, is heir to the Johnson + Johnson fortune (was). Young architects do get commisions all the time, the well off and well connected and wise beyond their years, ones do anyways...

The recurring class warfare argument...

philip johnson was not the heir to the johnson & johnson fortune...that's a myth

his father was, however, a harvard educated lawyer who set up a practice in cleveland during the latter half of the nineteenth century (a time when cleveland's economy was still experiencing above average industrial growth). anyhow, through his business dealings, the elder johnson acquired some stock that he passed on his son at age of majority (he was personally skeptical of the stock market and consequently set up philip's sisters with real estate, a sounder investment for the daughters who earnings were more likely to be limited than philip's because of their gender).

anyhow, turns out the stock was in a small aluminum enterprise called alcoa and during philip's freshman year at harvard (circa 1920) the roaring twenties kicked off and stocks soared. by the end of his freshman year philip johnson was a bona fide million...and independently so since the fortune was all in his name and he was a legal adult. an incredibly fortunate turn of events and, in fact, even better than being heir the johnson & johnson legacy where he would have likely been subject to family pressures. it's this combination of wealth and independence at such a young age that i think explains some of johnson's more erratic behavior during those years (such as his flirtation with nazi germany).

and one other thing to keep in mind, although he may have been the director of architecture at moma at age 24, moma itself was only a couple years old and not nearly the institution that it is today. johnson was the first director of architecture at moma (a position that may not have ever existed had philip not been indy wealthy and able to work without compensation).

whew, i feel kinda like paul harvey, "and now you know the rest of the story..."

One thing we can all agree on -- Philip Johnson sure was an old fart.

regarding the actual question as to why age is important in architecture? i suspect that it's no more important in architecture than it is anywhere else. most of the world's big decisions are made by those who have the money and power and these tend to be held by old people.

even so, there are plenty of examples of relatively young firms getting opportunities with large projects. aside from the aforementioned snohetta (library in alexandria), FOA (yokohama terminal) and studio granda (reykavik city hall & iceland's supreme court building) both immediately come to mind.

As if on cue...

I don't think Frank ever felt old...nor did Bruce...or Louis...and I doubt age had very little if anything to do with their
success. This is myth...this is myth...from and old bald headed gray bearded guy with bi-focals.

Everytime old age comes up in architecture, I thinks of that picture of Mies with a cigar in his hand looking sideways and contemplating.

the knowledge communities of the aia have been studying the problems associated with helping architects grow more capable for several years now ... one of the main outcomes of this exercise has been the emergence of a continuum that goes something like this:

... the accumulation and mastery of data leads to information
... the accumulation and mastery of information leads to knowledge
... the accumulation and mastery of knowledge leads to wisdom

one might say that schools help us assimilate data and information ... working in firms on real buildings helps us assimilate knowledge ... many years of practice help us assimilate wisdom

it's called practice for a reason ...

miesvanderrice, please don't marginalize me/us into providing flashing details and decor. If a building falls down it IS the architect's fault as most likely the structural engineer was contracted to the architect. I want to be responsible for the whole thing and wish more architects felt the same way.

And to topic, if I'm responsible for everything from foundation details to decor, that's a truckload of knowledge to have under control - so it's not surprising to not really have a solid grasp on all that knowledge until you're 50.

'Why does it seem that a lot of the most successful and revolutionary architects tend to produce their best work towards the end of their lives?'

I don't think that is true at all... They successfully execute larger buildings, because you need to be older to pull off bigger buildings for obvious reasons.

A lot of architects did their best work towards the begining of their careers, such as schindler, others never progress or even nosedive, like the new york 5...

Lib-

That's just the problem though, I want to marginalize you, but perhaps the word I would use would be "specialize" instead. I feel that all this responsibility that we have, to know the guts of the building as well as the flashing details and decor is an incredibly holistic and pure undertaking, and that attitude of having the building in complete harmony with itself is what is so important about our current system of architecture. (I'm not quite ready to stand by my previous statements, but I'm exploring ideas)
There is something though, about removing all these details from the architect's job, and having the designer of structures step back into a more specifically cultural role. i.e, if we move from the building of buildings into the authors of cultural statements. There is a role in society that needs to be re-established.

Silverlake - It may be true that a lot of architecs pull off their better work in their youth, but we as a society know about this only retrospectively. Schindler has been the target of a major reinvestigation in the last 40 years or so, or perhaps we would have never known about his work at all. He was extremely marginalized when he was working, and this addresses the point which I brought up in the first place. New York Five? Not to say that it was his goal, but Hejduk didn't even get built at all until he was 59. Meier is getting more contracts than ever at what? Graves? I can feel you on Gwathmey, his stuff is terrrrrible now, but I never really liked his work at all to begin with. also, what are those obvious reasons for why they need to be older to pull off bigger buildings? FOA pulled off a huge building in Japan at a very young age. It only comes down to the clients selection, and clients usually represent the culture.

I hear your point, Mies. I too would like to see architects have value in the public's eyes as authors of cultural statements - cultural statements that happen to be built and functioning.

It does however remind me a little of something I read in the Times recently and is tangentially related to Oana's latest blog entry: in a world where 40 different kinds of mustard are available, and "cultural rules" determine which mustard is appropriate for which application, there need to be mustard experts. People who specialize in some incredibly narrow field of interest have a certain value. But there can only be so many of them, as their market is not very broad.

My personal preference is to understand wholistically every decision made on a building project, and to take responsibility for all of it. Granted, part of my desire to hold this much knowledge is that I currently don't (as my silence on the recent "help with brick detail" thread attests - I'm blown away by how much informal knowledge was displayed on that thread). For many many architects that is not a problem: if the HVAC sytem works, they don't want to think about it again. For me, and it's entirely a personal choice, I'm more interested in doing a quality job exactly to the needs and aspirations of a singular client than in making any larger cultural statement.

Again, just preference. I appreciate your comment above.

Did you know that statistically younger investors are more successful than older ones? Then again, when I invest in Wall Street I'm not exactly worrying about the HSW of the floor traders.

I think by nature the young are more natural risk takers. That can pay off well in financial markets, but architecture is more than making an "educated guess." With age comes valuable experience.

Besides, I would assume that all the star-architects have someone in the mid 20's-30's doing a lot of design work on SD's and DD's. Just the recognized name gets all the credit. After all, how many faceless people design for all the big firms. SOM is taking credit - not the designer.

the Archigram team in was in their 20's when they published most of their projects.

Rem wrote Delirious New York right after he finished a degree at the AA.

old thread, sorry to repost again, but in response to the last two comments, they point out the interesting nature of age in architecture.
A's post remarks on thread's post, in that the reason these people (archigram, REM) published such ground-breaking non-physical work in their early twenties was that they were risk-takers, and instead of getting a job in a big firm and riding it out, they decided to do something like write a book or do concept work.

To re-define the original intent of this post though, Why is it that architects get most of their big built work as they get older. As the FOA and the Renzo/Rogers competitions show, young firms are capable of pulling off big projects, but just not getting them on their own. It's the getting of the projects that has to do with age, and not really the success on them. The getting of the projects is what I'm suggesting has something to do with the culture that a firm is operating in and what age has to do with that.

Any ideas?

Hummmm...I must be getting good...cause I'm Old and bald and pudgy. Seriously, most of the Architecture which makes the press,
comes from some connection. I do strongly believe there is alot
of high quality architecture overlooked by the press for a number of reasons. Number one is that alot of client's don't want to be in a glossy magazine on everyones table in the world. Number two, most
magazines do have budgets, and most of there articles apply to easy at hand quality work. I don't think the pockets of architecture they profess in photo represent what is really going on in the world of Architecture. Yes I do agree Phillips time has past!

architecture is complex and hard ... the risks associated with failure are immense - to the client, to the user and to the community ... the people who commission and fund large projects typically tend to be risk averse

we're not talking here about an artist's canvas or a sculptor's piece of stone ... we're talking about millions and millions of dollars in construction that have immense life-safety and urban impact implications

it's called practice for a reason ... it takes a long time for most architects to demonstrate effectively that they know a lot about their profession and can deliver the goods ... it's not a body of knowledge that one masters while in school and during a few short years of internship ... it's a lifetime of study and effort and passion and growth

indeed.

"we're not talking here about an artist's canvas or a sculptor's piece of stone ... we're talking about millions and millions of dollars in construction that have immense life-safety and urban impact implications"

i think thats irrelevant in that it is part of the trade and thats all. its useless disparaging the artists canvas or the sculptor'e piece or a poet's words. imagine the tortured span of a life that took paul celan from his early lighthearted lyrical poems to the dense discordant deeply-suspicious -of-language poetry of his later years. its as much expressive as it is a 'trade' or profession or ..basically a working knowledge. whats this silly aggrandization of one over the others.

and sometimes being an architect is TOO easy, if we wanna go there sis.

: i was not disparaging the "value" of the work by a painter or by a sculptor or, by extension, by a poet ... if i gave offense, i apologize.

however, you have to admit that a painter or a sculptor or a poet largely work for themselves ... to produce what they want to produce, they are not spending tons of other people's money and the result of their creativity typically does not have life-safety implications ... or impact in a major way the performance of a major institution

that's all i was trying to say ... as an individual, i personally may be willing to buy a great painting by a very talented 28 year old painter. i'd be much less inclined to entrust $40,000,000 to an architect of that same age

u could have conveyed the point minus mention of the other arts?
yes

a sentence/s holds its fullest meaning. why compare in the first place?
the little tick that made you compare, that said something. whether its an actual belief or a rhetorical cliche. so...that wasn't my point.

... hey, lighten up a little ... this is one place where we don't need content police ... you're free to disagree with my opinions ... but, i conveyed regret that i might have written my thoughts badly and possibly caused offense ... let it go

i'm not policing your thoughts, but...are you american?

as in u.s. american * my apologies godard *

what possible relevance does my heritage have to anything we're discussing here ?

but yes, i'm 100% red-blooded US american ... born in the great state of New Mexico and have live most of my adult life in the mid-west

i hunger for mid western

one possible flipside to this issue...there ARE clients out there who would RATHER hire young architects than old...not everyone wants some elder statesman hand-drafting his garage addition at $100 an hour. people have been building buildings for 7000 years...it's not rocket surgery.

but in general, it does take a long long time to get to the top these days...i say, these days, because frank lloyd wright was reinventing architecture in his twenties. i think it has to do with the sheer number of architects relative to those days. takes longer to get to the surface of a deeper pond when you start out at the bottom as we all tend to do.