they seemed to have some talent and quality in and out depending on Owings' mood... read these 333 pages, its quite interesting if you're looking for some more SOM
i am not surprised by the number.. being a corporate and large firm especially now i reckon they do a lot and a lot of proposals.. by the way the number yuou mentioned... 10,000... is it proposals or built work? anyway correct me if i am wrong... but i think that might hold true for proposals... but i think they are also rebounding.
wary of being branded a factory of rehashing designs.. they are injecting some process and interest into their designs... at least they are trying...
but again i may be wrong. but thats how i see it now.
sure they are not what they used to be in the 70s and 80s (one look at the 'Freedom Tower' might lend some more depth to my observation)...they are a huge coroporate buiding making machine, but still much better than hundreds of corporate companies out there....
10.000 is the actual built buildings.
I'm not american, so i don't know how this big corporate firm could work.
My thinking is that they absolutely have a lack of knoweldge of history of architecture, they just build thinking more or the financial aspects than the others, not really caring where that building will be constructed.
matteo..i know people who have worked there ,they are a good and efficient firm.
Their designs aren't all that bad ,
It's just that such genre of firms like Skidmore, Owings & Merrill , H.O.K ,R.T.K.L etc indulge in less archi balltalk and concentrate more on actualising their projects with speed.
I agree it's a ruthless corporate, very business-like way of practicing your profession but it's by no means wrong or philosophically unethical.
I'm pissed off with them (SOM) .. they beat my firm to bag the "Abudhabi International Airport" .... supposed to be the most expensive airport ever !! .. dang and we were so close !!
would have looked good on my CV too ;)
no offense but i actually think SOM is trying to innovate in some ways more than HOK, some mideast projects by SOM are quite striking and interesting... however HOK doesnt have as much impact (in my honest opinion and no harm intended). HOK focuses more on sustainability though...
but these firms can build 10,000 buildings because of perhaps manpower efficiency, strong design influence from directors, as well as an arsenal of proposals both past and present to draw solutions and quickly work with...
i think they do concern themselves with history of architecture, maybe it is not evident in their designs? but im sure every architect aspires to contribute to the built environment with the context in mind...
and yes i agree they spend less on technobabble and more on delivering "eficiency" - both in design and work manner - to clients who want fast and thought-of results.
But I do like most of the HOK buildings in the middle east... even more than SOM .. But that's only in the middle east.. the only big thing SOM has going on around here is the Burj Dubai ( tallest building ? ) and maybe now the Abudhabi Airport
I'd say that Atkins has a bigger impact over here.
But I do like most of the HOK buildings in the middle east... even more than SOM .. But that's only in the middle east.. the only big thing SOM has going on around here is the Burj Dubai ( tallest building ? ) and maybe now the Abudhabi Airport
I'd say that Atkins has a bigger impact over here.
I wonder how many buildings CRS built in their short history?
As far as built work is concerned, I don't think pure numbers hold much weight. Imagine you did the Walgreens on every street corner. Sure, you'd have 1000's of them under your belt, but does that make your firm any better than the one that did the 100 unique drug stores?
anywayz...You'r right about ARUP
dunno which direction your proclivities turn to but ARUP has a very "engineers" kind of approach to their work( from my limited knowledge of them.I maybe wrong ). I personally would find that boring.
perhaps i didnt research much on HOK bldgs in the mideast... i only recall some proposal for beirut marina... but now they got sheikh zayed center in lahore.
on the other hand, i think SOM has a few interesting (and big) projects in the mideast. Burj Dubai is definitely one, but there is Infinity tower (twisting), Al Sharq Tower, jebel ali lighthouse tower in dubai. there is also the Al Hamra tower in kuwait (curtain wall like a cloak), and the office tower in Saudi Arabia (forgot the name). in china the jinling hotel tower and the nanjing greenland tower also look quite interesting.
Atkins struck gold with Burj Al Arab, and subsequently got good commissions and some nice recent designs as well such as the trump hotel tower, chelsea tower, a mixed use devt in pakistan, al rahji office tower in riyadh, and bahrain world trade centre. but there are some which are just plain mediocre and spin offs of the "sail" concept.
yes, arup especially its advanced geometry unit (headed by cecil balmond) tries to go beyond conventional and push the limits. but i think the collaboration between them and architects such as Ito, Koolhaas makes the magic formula. wonder why zaha doesnt work with them like she used to before (with peter rice and jane wernick) cos most of her recent work's engineering (together with FOA) are with Adams Kara Taylor...
anyway back to SOM... :) seems like i deviated too far out of the topic...
SOM has a few decent buildings, I am betting that most of the big names have at least some good/talented designers. Problem is, they make so many things that 99% is still crap.
KPF is still the best corp firm, with NBBJ coming in second. There's some designer at Perkins+Will that has done a decent building or two. But again, I've probably seen such a small fraction of their work.
SOM has some really good designers and some really bad designers. Infinity Tower in Dubai (not yet realized) is a really great project, and there are a handful of other small projects that are really great designs... The design will get better once Adrian Smith and David Childs retire. Clients want who they anticipate to be the marquis designers, but the younger designers coming up offer more cutting edge design that rarely gets built.
I also think that many of Ralph Johnson's projects at Perkins and Will are quite good, but that office also has many stinkers. However, SOM's and P+W's stinkers are better than the output of most large firms! KPF seems like they are finally getting over their additive tack-ons that adorned all of their buildings for the last decade, so maybe we'll see some better stuff out of them in the future.
SOM.
I was there, from 9 to 5 (or 6, or 7) and then headed to movies.
I met good people, hard working serious and honest guys, doing their best. Learn a lot about how the machine works and then I escaped.
I like it more from the outside though.
CJ
It has probably something to do with the Stockholm syndrome, but nevertheless I learned to appreciate my time inside the big corp from the outside.
Sometimes was like a big family, but you know, there are lots of novels written about those big fuck-up families and their impact in the well-being of its members.
All done with the best of intentions, of course.
Snake Plissken’s blue-eyed son has to chose between his ambition to design a few square miles of Shanghai in his name, and earning the respect of his activist love interest by fighting the corporate colonization of the third-world.
Staring Brad Pitt and Rachel Weisz
Sound track includes Nirvana’s Paper Cut and Neil Young’s This Note.
SOM is the walmart of architecture, there are some talented people there, but any freedom of thought has been squashed by the freedom tower. FREEDOM TOWERS FOR EVERYONE!
This might be a little off-topic, but to those of you who work at SOM, HOK, KPF, NBBJ, etc--how would you characterize the quality of your learning experience? What are you getting out of it?
I work at a large corporate firm too, although not global like HOK and SOM. I'm just curious because I feel like the bulk of what I've learned since I've been here has been about business realities (layoffs, HR bureaucracy, being a "skill set") and very little about design. That's all worth being exposed to, of course...but really dry.
The thing about HOK is the focus on the client. If the client says I want a Georgian building, HOK will give them a Georgian building. If the client doesn't like a design feature, its gone. The success at HOK is measured not by the quality of ideas, but by the satisfaction of its clients.
I think this is the weakest quality of HOK.. An architect has to be able to say no to a client even if it costs him a job or two. If a single architect or a corporate super-sized firm doesn't have a conviction or idea about anything, and act solely as an empty vessel for their clients to speak through, the publis will suffer at the expense of the client's poorly trained opinion. I think in the long run, this will make the clients who do agree with you even more loyal.
modo, well said, except you described about 90-95% of all architecture firms in the US.
a guy goes to a doctor, who says hey, you've got high blood pressure...you need to take a pill. and the patient takes the pill and pays the bill.
a guy goes to a lawyer, who says hey, your contracts leave you open to liability...you need to change your contracts. and the client changes the contracts and pays the bill.
a guy (same guy?) goes to an accountant, who says hey, you need to take these tax deductions. client takes the tax deductions and pays the bill.
then that guy goes to an architect and says he wants a cozy informal house with four living rooms and 12,000 SF of area. and the architect says yes sir, yes sir, three bags full...and then doesn't do anything when the client doesn't pay his bills.
i think what you described, modo, is applicable not only to what ochona said (90-95% of US firms) but i think it applies to majority of Corporate firms around the world, not limiting to US soil only.
i think it boils down to a basic fact that a big firm has to survive and its concerns and major thrust would have to be for the firm to exist as a business rather than for the sake of the profession which is upholding quality design. it doesnt mean though, that they put design in the backseat, but they just prioritize the existence of the business above everything else. (my POV)
Exactly, SOM, HOK, P&W, all have an opportunity to make a difference and they have proved that good design is possible. There is an incredible well of talent at these firms. HOK is proving that they can take a stand when it comes to sustainability. They are seriously focused on research, education, and implementation into their projects - at every level. However, the test comes when a client asks them to design a building that is highly ineffecient with its MEP, clad in endangered redwoods, and denies any natural light (or something like that) Can they tell the client "go find another architect, we can't be a part of that". I don't beilieve they can.
i used to live down the street from inland steel...i would make a point to touch the columns every time i walked past it. without a doubt my favorite SOM building, and my favorite building in chicago, too.
too bad they went from that to this in just 30 years:
every profession has a percentage of clients who a) won't take the advice offered; and b) who take the position that, since they pay the bills, they have some right to direct how the general solution unfolds. i don't think architects are unique in that regard -- however, i'm pretty sure that when i consult an architect, i'm facing much greater expenditures than when i consult a dentist or a doctor or an accountant or a lawyer -- that difference, along with the fact that architecture is infinitely more accessible to the average person than is law or medicine or accounting, tends to give clients much more confidence that they understand what we do
what i do think is truly different for us is the VERY poor way we tend to address our client's and their genuine needs. so often, we are all about self-expression, when what the client came to us for was a simple and afordable 3-bedroom house with a workable kitchen and a deck.
i appreciate and respect firms that do have a "client focus" - that doesn't make them knuckle-draggers or prostitutes. i think it makes them responsible architects.
the responsible architect takes his/her clients' stated needs and desires very, very seriously and works to achieve them. however, we would be very much remiss as a profession if we did not also strive to give our clients our best and biggest ideas. sometimes those ideas are a challenge or a stretch. we at least owe it to our clients to bring them. not at the expense of fulfilling their needs, but above and beyond fulfilling their needs. sycophantry is not the same as a client focus.
who wants a doctor who's just phoning it in and writing a prescription? if a doctor, say, has an original opinion about my condition, and perhaps some original advice or insight, damnit -- i want it. same for my lawyer and accountant.
what many of us (myself included) hate is when the architect simply phones it in. po-mo tended to create those solutions, although i think adrian's unfairly lumped into the "phoning it in" category. i helped out by posting rowes wharf, sorry.
have to say, adrian was one of the few postmodernists in some of whose work i ever saw something more than an image applied to a box. i love, just love jin mao and the bahrain bank he did (cannot think of the name but there was an incredible rendering of it in the SOM chicago lobby).
Can anyone name a single HOK project? Unfortunately, you can't include any sports stadium. That is a different company all together. They share nothing except the name and a stock value. They have actually competed at times. I'm talking about HOK, Inc.
: i embrace most of what you write above ... where i differ is over issues related to motivation. i agree that we should offer up our best ideas to our clients, but those ideas should be aimed at furthering the client's agenda, not our own ego-driven one.
i'm not suggestion that we ever operate as a drafting service for our client's ideas ... that would be foolish. but, when the client's needs start becoming subverted to our own ego-gratification agenda (and you know that happens all the damn time) then the profession as a whole starts to suffer and we're taken less and less seriously with each passing year.
i've worked with some very creative doctors, lawyers and accountants over the years. they brought a lot of innovation to the work they did for me. but, they never - ever - took their eyes off of my needs and the problem that i presented to them. i've knocked around this profession for many year -- i can't say that i consistently see the same level of professionalism among my architectural peers.
it's not about being "remembered" or "being famous" ... it's about serving the client's needs and solving the client's problem. if that can be done in a way that also accommodates self-expression, that's truly great. but, in my view, the client's needs always come first.
it's about serving the client's needs and solving the client's problem.[i/]
...and about being responsive to the needs of the general public at large. this includes environmental responsibility and attention to impact on the public realm. our projects take their places in the world. while it may sometimes seem like our 'ego' which drives us to go beyond what our clients ask for, sometimes it might also be our ethical responsibility to do a good project for [i]all
There are a lot of great projects coming out of SOM Chicago today, and 90% of them weren't designed by Adrian Smith. The firm is going in a new direction that is much more progressive.
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
I just came back from a lecture about this studio of architecture with offices all over the world.
I was shocked to hear that they produced over 10.000 buildings in 70 years.
It makes a building every 60 hours.
SOM is just quantity or has some qualities?
they seemed to have some talent and quality in and out depending on Owings' mood... read these 333 pages, its quite interesting if you're looking for some more SOM
hummmmmmm....snore......slobber......life is tough.....talent left a long time ago.....just another architecture machine in my mind.
i am not surprised by the number.. being a corporate and large firm especially now i reckon they do a lot and a lot of proposals.. by the way the number yuou mentioned... 10,000... is it proposals or built work? anyway correct me if i am wrong... but i think that might hold true for proposals... but i think they are also rebounding.
wary of being branded a factory of rehashing designs.. they are injecting some process and interest into their designs... at least they are trying...
but again i may be wrong. but thats how i see it now.
sure they are not what they used to be in the 70s and 80s (one look at the 'Freedom Tower' might lend some more depth to my observation)...they are a huge coroporate buiding making machine, but still much better than hundreds of corporate companies out there....
10.000 is the actual built buildings.
I'm not american, so i don't know how this big corporate firm could work.
My thinking is that they absolutely have a lack of knoweldge of history of architecture, they just build thinking more or the financial aspects than the others, not really caring where that building will be constructed.
matteo..i know people who have worked there ,they are a good and efficient firm.
Their designs aren't all that bad ,
It's just that such genre of firms like Skidmore, Owings & Merrill , H.O.K ,R.T.K.L etc indulge in less archi balltalk and concentrate more on actualising their projects with speed.
I agree it's a ruthless corporate, very business-like way of practicing your profession but it's by no means wrong or philosophically unethical.
I'm pissed off with them (SOM) .. they beat my firm to bag the "Abudhabi International Airport" .... supposed to be the most expensive airport ever !! .. dang and we were so close !!
would have looked good on my CV too ;)
supernova. where are you working ?
HOK ....
no offense but i actually think SOM is trying to innovate in some ways more than HOK, some mideast projects by SOM are quite striking and interesting... however HOK doesnt have as much impact (in my honest opinion and no harm intended). HOK focuses more on sustainability though...
but these firms can build 10,000 buildings because of perhaps manpower efficiency, strong design influence from directors, as well as an arsenal of proposals both past and present to draw solutions and quickly work with...
i think they do concern themselves with history of architecture, maybe it is not evident in their designs? but im sure every architect aspires to contribute to the built environment with the context in mind...
and yes i agree they spend less on technobabble and more on delivering "eficiency" - both in design and work manner - to clients who want fast and thought-of results.
all true .. all true ..
But I do like most of the HOK buildings in the middle east... even more than SOM .. But that's only in the middle east.. the only big thing SOM has going on around here is the Burj Dubai ( tallest building ? ) and maybe now the Abudhabi Airport
I'd say that Atkins has a bigger impact over here.
all true .. all true ..
But I do like most of the HOK buildings in the middle east... even more than SOM .. But that's only in the middle east.. the only big thing SOM has going on around here is the Burj Dubai ( tallest building ? ) and maybe now the Abudhabi Airport
I'd say that Atkins has a bigger impact over here.
I wonder how many buildings CRS built in their short history?
As far as built work is concerned, I don't think pure numbers hold much weight. Imagine you did the Walgreens on every street corner. Sure, you'd have 1000's of them under your belt, but does that make your firm any better than the one that did the 100 unique drug stores?
however .. I'd love to work for Arup .... they focus a lot on inovative design and systems
sporadic..poor zaha, you dumped her ! !
hehehe
anywayz...You'r right about ARUP
dunno which direction your proclivities turn to but ARUP has a very "engineers" kind of approach to their work( from my limited knowledge of them.I maybe wrong ). I personally would find that boring.
perhaps i didnt research much on HOK bldgs in the mideast... i only recall some proposal for beirut marina... but now they got sheikh zayed center in lahore.
on the other hand, i think SOM has a few interesting (and big) projects in the mideast. Burj Dubai is definitely one, but there is Infinity tower (twisting), Al Sharq Tower, jebel ali lighthouse tower in dubai. there is also the Al Hamra tower in kuwait (curtain wall like a cloak), and the office tower in Saudi Arabia (forgot the name). in china the jinling hotel tower and the nanjing greenland tower also look quite interesting.
Atkins struck gold with Burj Al Arab, and subsequently got good commissions and some nice recent designs as well such as the trump hotel tower, chelsea tower, a mixed use devt in pakistan, al rahji office tower in riyadh, and bahrain world trade centre. but there are some which are just plain mediocre and spin offs of the "sail" concept.
yes, arup especially its advanced geometry unit (headed by cecil balmond) tries to go beyond conventional and push the limits. but i think the collaboration between them and architects such as Ito, Koolhaas makes the magic formula. wonder why zaha doesnt work with them like she used to before (with peter rice and jane wernick) cos most of her recent work's engineering (together with FOA) are with Adams Kara Taylor...
anyway back to SOM... :) seems like i deviated too far out of the topic...
SOM has a few decent buildings, I am betting that most of the big names have at least some good/talented designers. Problem is, they make so many things that 99% is still crap.
KPF is still the best corp firm, with NBBJ coming in second. There's some designer at Perkins+Will that has done a decent building or two. But again, I've probably seen such a small fraction of their work.
Since we're chatting about mega firms- any thoughts on working for HGA (hammal green abramson); or Perkins + Wills?
Who is the best megafirm for sustainability? for employee perks? for professional development?
My thoughts are focused on the twin cities due to an impending move to the northwoods, brrrrr.
yeah.... I'm thinking of selling out!
SOM has some really good designers and some really bad designers. Infinity Tower in Dubai (not yet realized) is a really great project, and there are a handful of other small projects that are really great designs... The design will get better once Adrian Smith and David Childs retire. Clients want who they anticipate to be the marquis designers, but the younger designers coming up offer more cutting edge design that rarely gets built.
I also think that many of Ralph Johnson's projects at Perkins and Will are quite good, but that office also has many stinkers. However, SOM's and P+W's stinkers are better than the output of most large firms! KPF seems like they are finally getting over their additive tack-ons that adorned all of their buildings for the last decade, so maybe we'll see some better stuff out of them in the future.
I read this quote in "Sixteen Acres" by Philip Nobel
"We were entrepreneurs, promoters, expediters, finaciers, diplomats; we were men of too many trades and masters of none"
-Nathaniel Owings 1973
I think it still is on the mark.
did he really say that?
i mean, its like bashing your own self! :-s
hey treekiller, moving to the twin cities? i know someone moving there as well, perhaps you two can connect? email me....
SOM.
I was there, from 9 to 5 (or 6, or 7) and then headed to movies.
I met good people, hard working serious and honest guys, doing their best. Learn a lot about how the machine works and then I escaped.
I like it more from the outside though.
hi colo
seems like u had a good time in SOM... but why did you 'escape'? what do you mean when you say "from the outside"?
CJ
It has probably something to do with the Stockholm syndrome, but nevertheless I learned to appreciate my time inside the big corp from the outside.
Sometimes was like a big family, but you know, there are lots of novels written about those big fuck-up families and their impact in the well-being of its members.
All done with the best of intentions, of course.
i can't help but think they are all about quantity
some eerie similarities to Foster and Calatrava's work
“Escape from SOM!â€
Snake Plissken’s blue-eyed son has to chose between his ambition to design a few square miles of Shanghai in his name, and earning the respect of his activist love interest by fighting the corporate colonization of the third-world.
Staring Brad Pitt and Rachel Weisz
Sound track includes Nirvana’s Paper Cut and Neil Young’s This Note.
SOM is the walmart of architecture, there are some talented people there, but any freedom of thought has been squashed by the freedom tower. FREEDOM TOWERS FOR EVERYONE!
This might be a little off-topic, but to those of you who work at SOM, HOK, KPF, NBBJ, etc--how would you characterize the quality of your learning experience? What are you getting out of it?
I work at a large corporate firm too, although not global like HOK and SOM. I'm just curious because I feel like the bulk of what I've learned since I've been here has been about business realities (layoffs, HR bureaucracy, being a "skill set") and very little about design. That's all worth being exposed to, of course...but really dry.
I like the movie idea, Amandine...
Oh yes!
The cold beauty of the machine!
The thing is that it is so real!
so what happens now that adrian left SOM??
post adrian: no change. i think adrian was wise to get out as the chicago stock [partners] really is dismal.
The thing about HOK is the focus on the client. If the client says I want a Georgian building, HOK will give them a Georgian building. If the client doesn't like a design feature, its gone. The success at HOK is measured not by the quality of ideas, but by the satisfaction of its clients.
I think this is the weakest quality of HOK.. An architect has to be able to say no to a client even if it costs him a job or two. If a single architect or a corporate super-sized firm doesn't have a conviction or idea about anything, and act solely as an empty vessel for their clients to speak through, the publis will suffer at the expense of the client's poorly trained opinion. I think in the long run, this will make the clients who do agree with you even more loyal.
modo, well said, except you described about 90-95% of all architecture firms in the US.
a guy goes to a doctor, who says hey, you've got high blood pressure...you need to take a pill. and the patient takes the pill and pays the bill.
a guy goes to a lawyer, who says hey, your contracts leave you open to liability...you need to change your contracts. and the client changes the contracts and pays the bill.
a guy (same guy?) goes to an accountant, who says hey, you need to take these tax deductions. client takes the tax deductions and pays the bill.
then that guy goes to an architect and says he wants a cozy informal house with four living rooms and 12,000 SF of area. and the architect says yes sir, yes sir, three bags full...and then doesn't do anything when the client doesn't pay his bills.
i think what you described, modo, is applicable not only to what ochona said (90-95% of US firms) but i think it applies to majority of Corporate firms around the world, not limiting to US soil only.
i think it boils down to a basic fact that a big firm has to survive and its concerns and major thrust would have to be for the firm to exist as a business rather than for the sake of the profession which is upholding quality design. it doesnt mean though, that they put design in the backseat, but they just prioritize the existence of the business above everything else. (my POV)
at least they had their moments
Exactly, SOM, HOK, P&W, all have an opportunity to make a difference and they have proved that good design is possible. There is an incredible well of talent at these firms. HOK is proving that they can take a stand when it comes to sustainability. They are seriously focused on research, education, and implementation into their projects - at every level. However, the test comes when a client asks them to design a building that is highly ineffecient with its MEP, clad in endangered redwoods, and denies any natural light (or something like that) Can they tell the client "go find another architect, we can't be a part of that". I don't beilieve they can.
i used to live down the street from inland steel...i would make a point to touch the columns every time i walked past it. without a doubt my favorite SOM building, and my favorite building in chicago, too.
too bad they went from that to this in just 30 years:
Touch of irony - both Gensler and HOK Chicago have their offices in the Inland Steel building. Isn't it now partly ownerd by Frank Gehry?
every profession has a percentage of clients who a) won't take the advice offered; and b) who take the position that, since they pay the bills, they have some right to direct how the general solution unfolds. i don't think architects are unique in that regard -- however, i'm pretty sure that when i consult an architect, i'm facing much greater expenditures than when i consult a dentist or a doctor or an accountant or a lawyer -- that difference, along with the fact that architecture is infinitely more accessible to the average person than is law or medicine or accounting, tends to give clients much more confidence that they understand what we do
what i do think is truly different for us is the VERY poor way we tend to address our client's and their genuine needs. so often, we are all about self-expression, when what the client came to us for was a simple and afordable 3-bedroom house with a workable kitchen and a deck.
i appreciate and respect firms that do have a "client focus" - that doesn't make them knuckle-draggers or prostitutes. i think it makes them responsible architects.
the responsible architect takes his/her clients' stated needs and desires very, very seriously and works to achieve them. however, we would be very much remiss as a profession if we did not also strive to give our clients our best and biggest ideas. sometimes those ideas are a challenge or a stretch. we at least owe it to our clients to bring them. not at the expense of fulfilling their needs, but above and beyond fulfilling their needs. sycophantry is not the same as a client focus.
who wants a doctor who's just phoning it in and writing a prescription? if a doctor, say, has an original opinion about my condition, and perhaps some original advice or insight, damnit -- i want it. same for my lawyer and accountant.
what many of us (myself included) hate is when the architect simply phones it in. po-mo tended to create those solutions, although i think adrian's unfairly lumped into the "phoning it in" category. i helped out by posting rowes wharf, sorry.
have to say, adrian was one of the few postmodernists in some of whose work i ever saw something more than an image applied to a box. i love, just love jin mao and the bahrain bank he did (cannot think of the name but there was an incredible rendering of it in the SOM chicago lobby).
Can anyone name a single HOK project? Unfortunately, you can't include any sports stadium. That is a different company all together. They share nothing except the name and a stock value. They have actually competed at times. I'm talking about HOK, Inc.
If you work at HOK, don't answer.
: i embrace most of what you write above ... where i differ is over issues related to motivation. i agree that we should offer up our best ideas to our clients, but those ideas should be aimed at furthering the client's agenda, not our own ego-driven one.
i'm not suggestion that we ever operate as a drafting service for our client's ideas ... that would be foolish. but, when the client's needs start becoming subverted to our own ego-gratification agenda (and you know that happens all the damn time) then the profession as a whole starts to suffer and we're taken less and less seriously with each passing year.
i've worked with some very creative doctors, lawyers and accountants over the years. they brought a lot of innovation to the work they did for me. but, they never - ever - took their eyes off of my needs and the problem that i presented to them. i've knocked around this profession for many year -- i can't say that i consistently see the same level of professionalism among my architectural peers.
it's not about being "remembered" or "being famous" ... it's about serving the client's needs and solving the client's problem. if that can be done in a way that also accommodates self-expression, that's truly great. but, in my view, the client's needs always come first.
...and about being responsive to the needs of the general public at large. this includes environmental responsibility and attention to impact on the public realm. our projects take their places in the world. while it may sometimes seem like our 'ego' which drives us to go beyond what our clients ask for, sometimes it might also be our ethical responsibility to do a good project for [i]all
stakeholders.
crap. i screwed up my italics. you get the idea.
HOK project? dubai marina phase 1 complex for EMAAR properties.
Steven ... you make a very useful amendment to my thoughts.
thanks.
HOK....didn't they do the Mormon Temple in Missouri?
There are a lot of great projects coming out of SOM Chicago today, and 90% of them weren't designed by Adrian Smith. The firm is going in a new direction that is much more progressive.
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.