Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

How Many Architects Does it Take to Build a Bank?
DealBook asked a pointed question yesterday, riffing off a WSJ article:
How many investment banks does it take to run an initial public offering?
Apparently it's not only the mega-IPOs, like Visa, which are suffering from too-many-cooks syndrome: even tiny MAKO Surgical's $51 million float had two joint book runners and four "managing underwriters".
That's nothing, however, compared to the number of architects working on the new Goldman Sachs headquarters:
Pei Cobb Freed and Adamson are working with Preston Scott Cohen, SHoP Architects, Ken Smith Landscape Architect, Piet Oudolf, Office dA, Architecture Research Office, Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg Architects, Gensler, and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, each of which has charge of some facet of the building.
The stated rationale for the long list is a little weird, to say the least:
"The premise is that each of these diverse talents will cause the other to do their best work," said Timur Galen, the head of corporate services and real estate for Goldman Sachs, who is an architect himself.
I'd love to hear this argument in a bit more detail, because it makes no sense to me as it stands. Great architecture generally involves a unified vision: I can't, off the top of my head, think of this a la carte approach ever being particularly successful in the past. And how, in practice, do you even get ten different architectural shops to work together seamlessly and respond intelligently to each others' work? For that matter, how do you even divide an architectural commission into ten parts to begin with? The number of meetings involved must have been absolutely staggering.
I can't help but wonder whether there's a security issue here. This building will house billions of dollars' worth of financial information, and access to certain areas will be very tightly controlled. Far from requiring all the different architects to share everything with all the others, maybe there were large chunks of the project operated on a need-to-know basis, with no one architect (except, one assumes, Galen himself) ever being in possession of all the information.
Of course, I'm speculating wildly, and chances are Galen just wanted to give commissions to a lot of different people. But mandating ten different shops does seem a little excessive.






