Architect Richard Meier is retiring from his firm renamed Meier Partners in a restructuring plan that signals an official end to the 86-year-old architect’s involvement with the practice.
Meier has been away from the office since the fall of 2018 after sexual harassment allegations published in The New York Times that spring ensnared him in the Me Too movement sweeping across various high-profile industries at the time.
Meier founded the firm in 1963 after brief stints in the studios of SOM and Marcel Breuer, eventually contributing designs for the Getty Center and San Jose City Hall before stepping down. Richard Meier & Partners Architects was then headed briefly by Bernhard Karpf, who left in July of 2019 to start his own practice in Brooklyn.
New additions to the firm were also announced as Meier and his daughter Ana continue on in advisory roles. George Miller will become COO and Dukho Yeon is the firm’s new lead designer. Both will have equity in the new arrangement. Former Partner Michael Palladino will lead a new independent venture out of the former Los Angeles office called STUDIOpractice. Palladino had previously been the only non-family member with equity in the firm.
Yeon will first work alongside the younger Meier on a research initiative that will “evaluate the effects of daylight on health and emotion,” and inspire “a larger conversation about the importance of light,” according to a statement on the new Meier Partners website. She had initially been promoted to Partner in the wake of the scandal, and with Miller, will now take over a firm that had been losing partners and new domestic business since its founder stepped down.
17 Comments
.
F THIS PERVERT
Meier is reportedly opening a new boutique firm called Nasty Erections.
.
The guy can retire. As an architect, he has nothing to prove. He has a fair amount of projects he has done. I don't have a problem with the architectural style of his. I am not getting involved in or judging anything regarding sexual harassment. A good judge must not hold any opinion until all sides have presented their case and arguments, evidents, and so forth. This also means I do not condemn him of sexual harassment OR condoning any sexual harassment he may or may not have conducted. FACTS before judgment. FACTS is not the same as claims. The fact I can judge is his architectural work and the style and methods he used throughout his career are what I'll say is remarkable and overall career.
Bury your head in the sand, but yeah, there are plenty of VALID CLAIMS of him as a fucking pervert. He had a whole system in his office wherein young women would be categorically directed towards him. His sterile, antiseptic buildings are merely a mark of his internal denial of his crooked self. I feel sorry for his employees, but the ones that kept their mouths shut even after knowing all of this - hope their careers are doomed.
I don’t need to hear all the “facts”, I have no reason to doubt the accounts of his victims. I can still admire the WORK, (much of which was created by those who suffered his abuse), while condemning the MAN, and all those who enabled it to continue. With that said, I can’t condone any future “office” that would allow his
continued inv
We are legally qualified to judge. We are not judges and it is up to the courts. It is not our place to judge, condemn, and discipline a person for claims of criminal conduct. That is for the courts. It is a felony crime to engage in vigilantism. If someone committed criminal conduct or other such acts including sexual harassment, you go and report it to the police or the district attorney and/or file it to the courts for civil court actions in addition to criminal court actions that is up to the police and the district attorney or federal DA (depending on the jurisdiction) to deal with. You don't wait weeks or months let alone years (yes.... YEARS for how long it takes for statutes of limitation to have expired and for statutes of repose. If you waited that long, it was f---ing consensual. Women had the right to sue for sexual harassment for over 40 years and sexual discrimination since 1964. Except for certain number of months when he started his firm in 1963 and the limited number of years for any action he may have done from the time he started his career in architecture and architectural education, every woman since 1964 and especially since 1980, who was sexually harassed by him should have taken legal action when those laws came into effect and taken every legal recourse and from 1980 going forward, should have done so within days and weeks of sexual harassment let alone wait until there is no legal recourse just to condemn the person. THERE IS A TIME LIMIT TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION. It's all hearsay. There is no way to prove who is right. It's just claims and accusations which can be made up after the fact. Is there audio recordings or video recordings of him doing this? In the age of smart phones, don't you think to use software audio recording or video recording function? If not, it's hearsay. Unless we can go back in time to take a recording of the events and then present it in an actual court with proper procedures of evidence presented, all persons including women should be presumed innocent of any crime until proven guilty of a crime. I seen a lot of bullshit where people are making claims. However, where are ACTUAL evidence and FACTUAL proof of evidence supporting the claim? I don't want words of accusations and claims. The way some of you apply justice is such that all I have to do is make a claim that you committed a crime and YOU are automatically guilty. "Court of public opinion" is not a court. It's criminal vigilantism and mob assault. That is what you are engaging in and supporting. Bring it to the courts with factual data. Have recordings of him actually committing sexual harassment. Have evidence for F--- sake. Have the evidence..... to a level that a district attorney would be willing to prosecute the case. If you can't get a DA to prosecute the case or an attorney to actually represent the claimant in civil court then it probably doesn't have legal merit. If it doesn't have legal merit then it either didn't happen or it is made up. I'm holding claimants and supporters of claimants to meet the burden of proof of a criminal court case. If not, STFU about it. The standard I hold is that of the judicial courts in the United States. Substantial claims most certainly requires substantial proof beyond any reasonable doubt. If he sexually harassed a person there should be sufficient proof of evidence that happened. If there is a pattern of cases that he had been proven guilty of having done so and that was the ruling of the court then I'll say he did that. Until then, they are claims that have not been proven judicially. It may have happened or it may not have. Until proven, the lawful thing to do is presumption of innocence and not take any sides. In which case, if any of you are called to jury duty on this, you must declare your personal bias in that you have already made up your mind. My position IS.... judgement is pending proof of evidence. Show me and then I can decide but I will not decide this.... the courts should and then that is made. For me to issue a judgment of guilty or not guilty and to declare a discipline against him if found guilty, I would be committing a crime. For you to do so is also a crime because you are impersonating a judge and/or law enforcement which you are not authorized under law to do and that is what vigilantism is and why it is outlawed.
Like Xander Cage says, "if it ain't on video, it didn't happen!" That applies to cases of sexual harassment and any case of serious legal matter. If it ain't recorded, it didn't happen. The legal system even in a civil court case to prove their claim and arguments by substantiating their claim with evidence. Now, whether or not sexual harassment cases are civil, criminal, or involving both civil suit and criminal charges, it is not lawful to make claims without proof and substantiating the claim. Even then, I am not going to let claims made outside of court influence anything. Sexual harassment is a serious legal matter. Therefore, legal standard must apply. My position is, I am not judging him. That is for courts to decide. I am not a Court judge. It is not my place to decide. I have this question, why are so many such claims done decades after the fact instead of filing the claim when these things happen or during the statutes of limitations / statutes of repose time frame?
Edward Singer,
Condemning a person is for the courts, not us. Are you a court judge?
You said that you have no reason to doubt the accounts of the victim. First, you already implied they are in fact a victim before the evidence proven. You do realize anyone serving on a jury is required to hear the whole case presented in court from opening arguments for the case to the closing arguments. In civil court, it is similar from beginning to closing arguments, and evidence presented throughout the arguments made by each side.
You must be attentive throughout all and not make any decision until the end and then it's deliberation. You are putting deliberation before trial which is backwards of justice.
You have a claimant (plaintiff or prosecutor) and a defendent. There can be any number of reasons to potentially doubt the claimant when they wait to well after the statutes of limitations and repose have ran out. EEOC places a time limit to 180 or 300 days from the last incident of harassment. Think about it. SIX MONTHS.... that is plenty of time to file a claim. Did they file such claim with EEOC?
In Oregon, it's upwards of 5 years for filing suit for sexual discrimination in court. In general, if you are filing a claim with EEOC then you should already be filing legal action. It is not the end of one's career, ever. If your claim is legit and employer sexually harassed you, you should sue.... PERIOD.
At the time you are doing that, you should already have applied and possibly have your new job.
If you make claims 10 years to even 20+ years after the supposed incident took place then I have reason to be suspicious. Women aren't innocent just because they are women. Men and women are both equally capable of deceit, lying, and such. With cases like sexual harassment, it is nearly impossible to prove if you are truthful or lying if you are only going to go by verbal accounts of events.
I'm not judging Richard Meier. It is not my place nor anyone other than a court judge or jury in a court case to judge a person on the matters of such serious legal issues. I'm not a jury member nor are any of us are on any case regarding this. It is not our place to judge a person on serious legal matters outside the court of law.
My point equally applies if a woman architect was subject to sexual harassment. For example, a woman architect that I know the name of on this forum, Donna, if she was accused of or claims of sexual harassment were levied at her, I would hold the same standard to her of not judging a person outside that of court and the legal standard of presumption of innocence. (NOTE: THIS IS NOT A CLAIM OF ANY SUCH ACTIONS ON HER)
The case, the arguments from both sides of a case, and evidence needs to be presented to support and substantiate the claim made.
In addition, my points made above is it is not my place to judge on these matters.
Nor is it anyone elses except the proper legal venue to take these matters. If we flip the legal concept to a person is guilty until proven innocent then we have no justice system and you can be claimed to violate anything and no amount of evidence to prove otherwise could ever work because you'll be guilty and then the disciplines carried out including death. This is how corrupt governments like North Korea works.... you're guilty and in their courts, there is no trial... it is just a formality of propaganda to paint you as an evil enemy and be swiftly executed via a public execution. You wouldn't have a chance to defend yourself. It's how corrupt institutions oppresses the people.
Blah blah blah, legal this, judgement that. I don’t have to prove anything to anyone period. My point wasn’t about that anyway, it was that we didn’t
Have to defend him to still appreciate the work.
Fair enough.
In fact, that was my original post in this thread in the first place. My first post was in the first place was saying along that line that I wasn't going to judge him for his conduct with employees and other people.
As for his architecture, I appreciate his architectural work which I am sure is not all him over his entire career but that he did have an architectural talent and skill. His choice of the color white is his choice and preference and I do not have a personal issue with as much as some although I personally would use more colors and where possible natural material colors/texture versus always being painted over or white all over. Yet, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate his work. I appreciate the De Stijl character in 3d form is characteristic of his architectural style and method of breaking up the form.
Sounds like most of the senior staff have left.
He should have kept his senior staff in his pantaloons
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.