Practical Matters
SOM has traditionally been a service-oriented firm that places a priority on meeting the needs of its clients. How do you accommodate the client and make good architecture at the same time?
Ross Wimer: The redevelopment of Penn Station is an example of our ability to transcend the requirements of the program and the budget to make a piece of architecture that we are proud of, that goes beyond accommodation. The client kept coming to us with watercolors of McKim Mead & White’s original design for Penn Station. They wanted to recreate the glory of the old station, which was demolished in 1963. I think we were successful in pushing the client to go beyond the vocabulary they had originally intended. The client also pushed us to go beyond the schemes that we had come up with, go beyond the bounds of what anybody expected. In this case, we were the beneficiary of an enlightened client, who, for political, as well as aesthetic reasons, wanted something spectacular. We aspire to make the new Penn Station equivalent in purpose to the Grands Projects in Paris. The spatial geometry of the shell simultaneously reaches out beyond the boundaries of the site and shelters a great civic space.
David Childs: On a more theoretical level, our greatest client over the years has been the unspoken client: the city. Today, most of our clients are not CEO’s envisioning another Chrysler or Empire State building. Most development in the city is guided by community review boards and city agencies. Our sense of responsibility is often driven by the needs of the unspoken client, not solely by the person who signed our contract. We see our buildings as another note in the music of the city.
Jeffrey McCarthy: I don’t think service and great architecture are mutually exclusive. Good design should satisfy issues of identity and culture. Architecture should be a reflection of its client.
Tony Vacchione: We tend to measure success by how efficiently we meet the schedule and budget. But we should also achieve great architecture more consistently. And I think we fall short on that.
Roger Kallman: It is disingenuous, I believe, to produce a design that does not satisfy the client’s needs and then declare the project an outstanding piece of architecture.
Carrie Byles: Meeting a client’s goals, budget, and schedule doesn’t preclude great architecture. These restrictions can be a springboard to it. There was a period in the 1980s when architects were not always being responsible with client’s money; they lost confidence in the profession and in our ability to spend their money wisely. Clients now hire consultants to rein in the architect. We need to regain control, show clients how responsible we can be.
Yes. It’s a profession-wise problem, but SOM’s organization seems well-suited to reestablishing control. Project management is a critical piece of the organizational puzzle at SOM. Most of the managing partners are, in fact, trained as architects. What does this training bring to the work?
Keith Boswell: You cannot manage what you have not done. Most managing partners are ex-project managers. The project manager is the point person. The client liaison. The manager is responsible for the overall performance of the project, ensuring that client’s goals, schedule, and budget are met. It’s an extremely fine line between being the client’s eyes and ears and representing SOM.
Jeffrey McCarthy: We have been called the IBM of architecture. It is an appropriate comparison, I think, because we are structure and disciplined in our management approach and that’s what clients expect from us.
George Efstathiou: The client depends on a single point of contact to provide a sense of continuity throughout the process. More often than not, the project manager is the first one on the job and the last one off.
The firm has long been known for its ability to orchestrate the design and construction or large-scale projects. What are the key components in the process?
Tony Vacchione: Developing and maintaining the trust of the client is the key to success. It is crucial to our ability to guide the client through the decision-making process. It is also important to gain the trust of related stakeholders, such as community groups, to ensure that the decisions being made by SOM and our client are understood and accepted by people in the neighborhood.
T.J. Gottesdiener: The organization of the project is equally important. We dissect the program and divide it into manageable pieces, which are implemented concurrently or sequentially, depending on the specifics of the projects. Columbus is a good example of this type of project. With 2.7 million square feet of retail, office, residential, hotel, and performing arts space, we organized the program into individual components, each supervised by a single member of the project team.
Projects like Columbus Centre and others of its scale and complexity require a multidisciplinary effort. How are the other disciplines—within SOM and outside consultants—integrated into he process?
Carrie Byles: We like to engage the other disciplines, including the general contractor, early in the schematic design process. We bring in specialists from other SOM offices, as needed. We might bring in an acoustician from Chicago to work on a symphony hall or a doctor-turned-architect for a medical facility. It is part of the multidisciplinary culture of the firm. When consultants are involved up front, even on a conceptual level, you have a better chance of meeting the budget.
We see design as a multidisciplinary process. It’s like building an engine and making sure that the parts go in sequentially so that there are no leftover pieces. We don’t design the building and then try to stuff everything in afterwards.
What is the relationship between SOM’s nine offices? Do they share information?
Keith Boswell: I don’t think there are ever two or three offices working on a single project on a day-to-day basis. Clients need to know that there is a dedicated team handling their project. The client also needs to know that we can tap expertise from our other offices. In recent years, we’ve developed more of a support system, with one office taking the lead on a project and being helped out as needed by other SOM offices.
The grapevine works very well at SOM. Someone in one studio may know someone in another SOM office who can answer a question. Most of our colleagues are happy to share information. The biggest problem is getting them off the phone.
T.J. Gottesdiener: But we don’t consistently take advantage of firm-wide resources. If we are working on an urban design project in the New York office we should draw upon the experience and knowledge of planners in other SOM offices to provide the best solutions for our clients.
Do the individual studios also share information and staff or they operate as autonomous entities within each office?
Jeffrey McCarthy: The studios share staff. There are some people who reside permanently with a studio because they developed a particular area of expertise. The younger people tend to move around a bit to get a breadth of experience. Studios tend to have functional expertise, at least in the Chicago office. They may specialize in performing arts facilities, hotels, convention centers, or other programs.
Keith Boswell: In the San Francisco office, a core team is assembled—architects, interior designers, planners, and engineers—for each project. The team grows as the project moves through the process and shrinks down as the project nears completion. The group that builds the white models and develops early massing studies is the same group that sees the project through construction documents, and in most cases, construction administration.
I’ve worked at firms that have a departmentalized approach, where the design group hands off the schematic documents to another team that is supposed to implement them. That system also works, but I find that our approach results in greater clarity and consistency of vision, both in design and detailing.
What are the management issues presented by overseas commissions?
T.J. Gottesdiener: I’ve worked on projects in the Middle East, Asia, and South America. We never presume to do the job alone. We have always engaged partners, including local architects and consultants. We work with people who can educate us about zoning and local construction technologies and materials.
Jeffrey McCarthy: Because we are not typically licensed to practice in other countries, it is important to have a local partners.
Keith Boswell: The biggest challenge in working on unfamiliar ground is understanding the terrain. When you work in someone else’s back yard, you play by their rules.
Back to Top