Interesting presentation... You mentioned that Nikolas Grimshaw no longer heads the practice... This is now becoming a common issue in the U.K with large practices (particularly the High Tech movement) which built globally... Richard Rodgers, Norman Foster, Nicolas Grimshaw and Michael Hopkins: All were founded in the 1970's and became very successful and indeed built globally and employed 100's, if not 1000's of people... Yet the founders have now either entered retirement or in some cases sadly deceased... (In the case of Richard Rogers and Michael Hopkins)... Yet their practices continue to produce buildings which the original founder no longer makes any contributions to their deisgn. (I would also include Zaha Hadid, as she sadly pased away prematurely) These practices seem to me to be becoming more like the famous 'Corporate Fashion Houses such as Gucci, Christain Dior, Chanel, etc, where they just have a 'house style' which they now apply to any given project... Is a Zaha Hadid building still a Zaha Hadid building if it is designed by her practice after she has passed? I would however make two exceptions here: Robert Venture and Denise Scott Brown, and Micheal and Patty Hopkins... Both practices were jointly founded by both husband and wife but the husband has since passed away... Yet the wives still participate in how the practice is run... Perhaps you can do a presentation on this? As I would love to know your opinion on this phenomenon... And whether it styfles architectural creativity in the broader sense, in so far as that it prevents new more innovative practices being formed in literally in their 'wake' Should these well established practices continue, once their founder 'has left the building' so to speak, in order to keep its loyal employees employed?
Interesting
Interesting presentation... You mentioned that Nikolas Grimshaw no longer heads the practice... This is now becoming a common issue in the U.K with large practices (particularly the High Tech movement) which built globally... Richard Rodgers, Norman Foster, Nicolas Grimshaw and Michael Hopkins: All were founded in the 1970's and became very successful and indeed built globally and employed 100's, if not 1000's of people... Yet the founders have now either entered retirement or in some cases sadly deceased... (In the case of Richard Rogers and Michael Hopkins)... Yet their practices continue to produce buildings which the original founder no longer makes any contributions to their deisgn. (I would also include Zaha Hadid, as she sadly pased away prematurely) These practices seem to me to be becoming more like the famous 'Corporate Fashion Houses such as Gucci, Christain Dior, Chanel, etc, where they just have a 'house style' which they now apply to any given project...
Is a Zaha Hadid building still a Zaha Hadid building if it is designed by her practice after she has passed?
I would however make two exceptions here: Robert Venture and Denise Scott Brown, and Micheal and Patty Hopkins... Both practices were jointly founded by both husband and wife but the husband has since passed away... Yet the wives still participate in how the practice is run...
Perhaps you can do a presentation on this?
As I would love to know your opinion on this phenomenon... And whether it styfles architectural creativity in the broader sense, in so far as that it prevents new more innovative practices being formed in literally in their 'wake'
Should these well established practices continue, once their founder 'has left the building' so to speak, in order to keep its loyal employees employed?