Collecting oral histories related to the SOM Foundation is an ongoing initiative as we look back and celebrate the first forty years of awards. The oral histories below include reflections from former SOM Foundation leadership and jurors on the early years of the awards program and how it has changed over time. More importantly, they also represent the experience of SOM Foundation Fellows and the lasting impact of the awards.
"Volume: Bringing Surface into Question," 2011 SOM Prize for Architecture, Design, and Urban Design. © Brandon Clifford.
SOM Foundation Chair (1979–1989)
August 27, 1996
The start of the SOM Foundation was very simple. In 1979 SOM was doing very well, and we thought that schools of architecture needed some assistance at the student level. From the beginning I had the help of a number of individuals in the firm who were willing to commit their time and money to the effort. In the early days of the Foundation this included Bill Hartmann, John Merrill, Marc Goldstein, Tom Eyerman, and others. We started with a select number of schools and then opened it up when we found that many of the best people we were getting in the office were not from the most famous schools.
I always felt that my job was to help make the thing work, but as far as the actual competitions went, I stayed out of the way. I usually didn’t serve on juries, but I did make sure that we got the best jurors and directors that we could. For example I knew Vartan Gregorian very well, first when he was a Provost at my alma mater, Penn, and later when he was the head of the New York Public Library. I was friendly with the Kennedys, especially Bobby Kennedy, and brought Mr. (Stephen) Smith on board and Patrick Moynihan as well who was always interested in education. These were all remarkable men. The non-architects brought a certain amount of perspective to the Foundation. Architects love to meet and talk with other architects, and they think of what they do as an expression of themselves. This is silly, of course, because architecture is always an expression of its time. The self-aggrandizement of the architect never lasts. It always dies with the architect. As Mies once said, the architect should express himself in bed, not in the architecture.
I was the head of the Foundation until I retired. I have not had much connection with it since then, but it remains for me a good experience.
SOM Foundation Chair (1990–1995)
July 9, 1996
I have been involved with several juries. One, I remember, was with David Childs, Stanley Tigerman, and Charles Moore (in 1982). Another was with Stanley and Charles Moore again (in 1987). Another was with Ralph Johnson, Larry Booth, and Stuart Cohen (in 1990). One of the things I find more interesting is how the jury acts. Usually, it seems, one person takes charge. I remember [Edward] Chuck Bassett taking charge. Stanley Tigerman did the same. Stanley was a marvel. He would choose instantly, but we would all come around to similar conclusions eventually.
Given the number of SOM partners in the jury over the years, you might have expected the awards to reflect the kind of work that SOM was doing at any given point. Actually, I don't think this happened very much. In the early 1980s, for example Post-Modernism was strong in the schools but not at SOM. Later on it was just the other way around. It is probably that the jurors, especially the SOM jurors, have usually been more conservative in their office work than the students, but I think most of the jurors have seen their role as trying to find the best work no matter what the style. I think many of the jurors relished the chance to deal with work that was much less conservative than work they did for their own clients. I think most of the SOM partners thought of it more like the PA awards than like the AIA awards. For them it was exhilarating to see fresh work, the more avant-garde the better.
SOM Foundation Chair (1995–2002)
August 26, 1996
I served on an SOM Foundation jury for the first time in New York in 1986, and subsequently chaired juries in San Francisco in 1990 and 1996. In 1995, I succeeded Adrian Smith as chair of the Foundation. For me, the most rewarding part of my involvement with the Foundation has been the process of selecting the fellowship winners and then seeing the results of this process in the final reports of the winners. Their accounts are personal, sometimes poetic, and often beautifully illustrated with drawings or photographs, and occasionally punctuated with revealing insights.
I find the portfolio review to be the most provocative aspect of the selection process. The freshness and energy of the best student work is always stimulating, and so is the debate of the finalists. When the final voting takes place, there is always a great deal of speculation—generally wrong—about which school sponsored which finalists.
The finalist interviews take a week later. It is not uncommon for the jury's opinions about the strengths of the candidates to be reversed as a result of these discussions. Not surprisingly, directness, clarity, and evidence of a mind that is open to exploration tend to prevail over dense theoretical constructs or evidence of a narrow range of interests.
The Foundation has evolved considerably since 1979. In the mid-1980s, outside directors were invited to join the Foundation's board. This led to the creation of the Chicago Institute for Architecture and Urbanism (CIAU), funded primarily by the SOM Foundation. The Charnley House was then purchased and renovated by the Foundation to house CIAU. When CIAU proved to be too costly to keep going, it was wound down, the house was sold, and the proceeds reverted to the Foundation. The return of these assets to the Foundation has allowed us to expand its activities significantly while continuing to reinvest and build the capital base of the endowment.
SOM Foundation Chair (2002–2005)
September 7, 2020
In 1992, Craig Hartman invited me to join the SOM Foundation awards jury. Seeing the high level of student submissions and efforts by an earnest jury committed to identifying and awarding the best candidates impressed me as something important for SOM. Later, as the chair of the Foundation from 2002–2005, I was able to experience firsthand the impact the awards have had on the academy and profession.
During that time, SOM partners questioned the finances and structure of the Foundation. This self-reflection was important as fluctuations in the financial markets, various initiative expenses, and increasing administrative costs threatened its resources. At the same time, we saw other new prizes and awards being introduced with impressive payouts.
Happily, we were able to stabilize the endowment, reduce administrative costs, diversify awards, and increase award amounts. More importantly, the Foundation was able to reach out to many architecture school deans and chairs, as well as past awardees, to survey them about their thoughts on the SOM Foundation awards. The response was overwhelmingly positive and heartening.
We increased the number and award amount of now combined awards for architecture, urban design, and interiors to complement engineering awards and reflect the interdisciplinary nature of design in our own practice. Toshiko Mori, then chair at Harvard, and other school leaders offered that the $15,000 was plenty for a student. They thought it was important to increase the number of awards to cover more schools and qualified students.
At the time, we were able to hold finalist interviews after a first round of juried portfolio reviews. While this added administrative costs to the process, we found those opportunities enlightening to see and hear the candidates personally describe their plans and goals. Many aspirations mirrored traditional “Grand Tours,” others sought to discover sometimes obscure or esoteric design gems in far off destinations, and a few brought creative and unexpected proposals—like using a RV to visit and study the design and sociology of Walmart parking lots across in US.
Perhaps most surprising was learning some students hadn’t ever been out of the country. As Liz Plater-Zyberk, then dean at the University of Miami, said, many of the middle-class constituency at her school never had the privilege of travel and needed the award to see the world. Of course, the Internet has increased access to architectural discovery, but there was universal agreement that independent travel, without any strings attached, that could benefit as many of the top students across the country as possible was very important to the schools.
This idea of the SOM Foundation Traveling Fellowship as the contemporary Prix de Rome felt limiting if it remained only a prize for Americans. In addition to the UK Award, we initiated the China Prize as a gesture to the firm’s increasing work and connections to the schools in that country. In a sense, this evolution of the Foundation’s reach is true to the mission, now global, of benefiting the design education process and future of the profession.
As chair, I strongly encouraged SOM partners to support the Foundation and awards. The impact was illustrated one day when I received a note and $10,000 check from Santiago Calatrava (1988 Fazlur Khan International Fellowship) who wanted to give back and foster the Foundation’s goals that benefited him. When asked, Marion Weiss (1982 Master of Architecture) said it was life transforming, adding, the ability to go alone was important as a way of finding yourself and essential to understanding architecture and design.
SOM Foundation Board Member
August 15, 1996
I was not involved with the creation of the SOM Foundation or the very first discussions about the traveling fellowships. All of that was Bruce Graham. He was really the force behind the Foundation. But I did get involved very soon afterwards, at the funeral service for Fazlur Kahn, in fact. At the service Bruce and I made our peace. It was the beginning of a truce between us. I advised Bruce on bringing in a number of other architects both for the Foundation juries and for other projects. That led to the Chicago World’s fair charettes, to the King’s Cross (London) scheme, to the Chicago Central Area Plan, and it led eventually to the Chicago Institute for Architecture and Urbanism.
The jury process works very much like the Rome Prize. The jurors come together to cull through the portfolios and then invite a certain number of people to interview. It was always very well done, and it is just as prestigious as the Rome Prize. In fact, in my view, the SOM Fellowship is harder to win than the Rome Prize. I have been on two SOM Fellowship juries, three Rome Prize juries, and AIA and PA juries. They are all quite similar in some ways. There may be one curmudgeon who wants to argue about one or another of the entries or someone who has a stylistic point of view to push, but, at the end of the day, most jurors will pick quality, and there is usually a consensus. Once the finalists are chosen they are brought to New York, or wherever the interviews are held, and they either select or destroy themselves. They are products of their temperaments, their education, and their mentoring, and it is apparent almost immediately what their level of maturity is, who would be able to handle a piece of money.
SOM Foundation Board Member
August 5, 1996
The idea for a foundation was discussed on and off since about 1975. The partners finally agreed to it in the late 1970s. The idea was to consolidate the various donations made by the local offices. During the first discussions about the Foundation one of the themes we kept coming back to was the idea of improving architectural education. So we worked on the idea of fellowships. Bruce Graham was the driving force. Much of the work setting it up was done by a small group that included Bruce, myself, and Chuck Bassett. Other people who were extremely important in developing the Fellowship program were Tom Beeby, Harry Cobb, and Stanley Tigerman. The model for the fellowships was in part the Rome Prize (for study at the American Academy in Rome). I have been on the board of the Academy and realized how important it was. Chuck Bassett spent time there and so did Stanley Tigerman. The jury process, for example, where we invite Foundation directors and outsiders we took over directly from the Academy. Another element was Harry Cobb’s interest in reinstating the thesis at Harvard. He wanted some tangible product at the end of each student’s last year in architecture school, and he thought of the fellowship travel in the summer before the final year as the perfect kind of thesis research.
One of the interesting early debates was about the location for the Foundation. I had wanted it to be in New York. There was also some thought that it should be in Washington DC. But at a meeting we had at the Century Club in New York Harry Cobb won the group over by his arguments for Chicago. He convinced everyone that Chicago was in the heart of America, was a city identified with great architecture and was the city most closely identified with SOM.
SOM Foundation Board Member
August 12, 1996
I was invited into discussions about the traveling fellowship program during the first years it was in operation. There was some feeling that the Foundation should only deal with the best schools. I was an advocate for opening it up. We wanted the best students and who knows where the best students are?
Oddly enough, one of the problems in the early years was how to have people take it seriously. You would think that if you are giving away money everyone would be clamoring to get in, but it didn’t always work that way. In fact a lot of the professors were somewhat suspicious of SOM and they conveyed that to the students. One of the earliest decisions was to ask the deans or department heads to nominate the students. This was a good move since this way the schools themselves would be involved and someone there would always know about the Foundation and what was going on.
SOM Foundation Administrative Director (1985–1992)
August 1, 1996
I was Bruce Graham’s secretary starting in 1972. Then I worked for the Foundation. From 1985 until I left in 1992 I was full time at the Foundation, first at the SOM offices and later, when the program moved over to the Charnley House, over there. I was around at the beginning of the Foundation, but I was not directly involved with it except in so far as it related to Mr. Graham. You have to remember that by this time Mr. Graham was thinking ahead, maybe looking forward to the time he would retire. He was at a point where he could relax a little about his architectural career and think more about what else he wanted to do with his life. A lot of people know Bruce Graham as a businessman, as a corporate architect, but he was more than that. He was conscious of civilization. When he was talking about his plans for the Foundation, I heard him repeatedly say to people, “I’m not talking about five years from now. I’m talking about 50 years from now.” I think he wanted to experience architecture in different ways. I’ve seen his enthusiasm and admiration for Gehry, Cobb, Moore and others. And he always thought globally, not locally. I think that may have been because he was not born in America. He has experienced and seen much more.
I was involved with the fellowship program in several ways. During the years when a partner in the Chicago office organized the fellowship process I was the one who corresponded with the candidates. I also needed to keep track of them while they were traveling. The vast majority of the students were extremely conscientious in sending back cards and keeping us informed and then in sending in their final reports. After they finished their travel we would still try to maintain some contact as they have continued their career. So I’ve gotten to know a number of them fairly well that way and have followed their careers, although usually at some distance. That has been a good experience for me.
I was also the one who organized the juries. The jurors met twice. During the first round they narrowed down the number of portfolios to a manageable number. At this stage of the process I took the portfolios and removed the identification before the jurors met. Then I sat in on the portfolio review. That part of the process could be an endurance test. You have to remember that there could be 100 portfolios that every juror had to look at. I would go around the room trying to see who had seen what. Each juror was given a work sheet. It was a process of elimination on the first round. When we got to the finalists there was more discussion. That was extremely interesting because I was the only one who knew who the candidates were. I was always curious to see if they could tell which ones were done by women, for example. The jurors usually referred to the candidate as “he,” but it was obviously a generic “he” because they knew that many of the portfolios were from women, and it never surprised them when it was a woman, but I don’t think they could ever tell. Of course I had my own ideas on the portfolios, too, so I was curious to see whether the jurors agreed with my ideas. I was always impressed by the juries. You have to remember that there were some enormous egos in the room, but I don’t think that the egos got in the way. When that started to happen the jurors would keep each other in check. The jurors always rose to the occasion and put away their own agendas. They sometimes made quips about overwrought portfolio presentations, but generally they were very serious and admiring of the student work.
After the first round we would bring in a number of the candidates for their interviews. This was a most interesting time watching the pleasure and sometimes surprise when the jury connected up the portfolios they had seen with a real person. Sometimes the portfolios were wonderful, but the student just didn’t have much to say about the work. Other times, though, and this was so gratifying, the student would just shine at the interview. I think the architects were always impressed by the non-architects on the jury, people like Elmer Johnson who had been at General Motors, and William Randolph HearstJr., and the others. It was interesting that between architects and non-architects there was always a lot of meeting of the minds. It was also interesting to me that there was not really a lot of discussion about the specific style of the portfolios. They were looking for quality. These juries were for me, and I am sure they were also for many of the jurors and the students, some of the most cherished moments of my professional life. I am really one of the converted when it comes to the traveling fellowships. It shows what can be done when you do a good job setting the stage.
SOM Foundation Administrative Director (1997–2005)
August 25, 1996
I got involved with the fellowship program about 1989. At the time I was working for Mr. (Adrian) Smith. The CIAU was just splitting off from the SOM Foundation, and Mr. Smith was taking over the chairmanship of the Foundation. I have been doing the administration of the fellowship program since then.
Much of what I do involves contact with the students and the schools. Getting to know the students has been extremely enjoyable. They are the nicest people you can imagine. Of course, no matter how carefully you organize things there are sometimes problems. Last year when we had our jury in London, despite all of our warnings to the schools, we found out at the last minute that one of the students still didn’t have a passport. Everyone went rushing around to see how we could get him one in the shortest possible time. I remember he had to fly to Chicago, take a taxi into town to a Fed Ex office, pick up his passport and then take a taxi back to the airport to catch his plane for London. We have had calls from students who are traveling. Sometimes when they get into a fix they call us. We had one student who had his luggage stolen, and we tried to do what we could from here to help him out.
Then there are the problems with the portfolios. Once we had a portfolio come in that was made up of many small Plexiglas pieces that were supposed to fit together almost like a puzzle. The trouble is the pieces had all come apart in the shipping. I did the best I could to reassemble everything with rubber bands to hold it together. We have had other Plexiglas projects that were fine, of course. Then there was the student who hand-delivered a portfolio one year. He (she?) had made it with steel plates and had packed them in a redwood box. It must have weighed 60 pounds. It was a wonderful piece of work, but how did he expect jurors to react when they have to pass around over 100 portfolios? Actually I think the jurors are just as likely to be impressed by a portfolio that arrives in plain black folder than a very elaborate one. They tend to concentrate on the work more than the packaging.
Sometimes there is also a tendency on the part of some students—many of them come, after all, from artistic backgrounds—to try to be creative with our rules and regulations. For example we say 12 sheets, no bigger than 11 X 17. One year one of the students submitted a portfolio with sheets 8 1/2 by 11, which is OK of course, but one of his sheets was an entire sheet of slides. The result was that he had many more projects represented than anyone else. I am not sure what we did, but I think we disqualified that one. Other times we have let students bend the rules a little bit, for example when they have 12 sheets but they have some overlays for text. When things like this happen, we have to make a judgment call, but then for the next year we fine-tune our rules. We sometimes face the problem of how lenient to be. We don’t like disqualifying anyone, but we want to make sure that the process is fair for everybody.
One thing that we are not very sympathetic with is when schools don’t give their students a fair chance. I had one director of a school tell me that he wasn’t going to submit any student’s names because they would have such a small chance of winning. That is really unfair to his students. Why shouldn’t students at every school be given a chance to compete? Another time we had a director who insisted that he was going to send in three students’ work rather than two. We kept telling him that our rules were that it could only be two. He ended up sending in three anyway. What were we going to do? We couldn’t just accept all three because that is not fair to everyone else, but, on the other hand, we didn’t want to disqualify all three students over something that was not their fault. In the end we asked one of our partners to be an impartial judge. He picked two out of the three, and those are the ones we gave to the jury.
Usually, though, everything goes well, and the students are such a joy to work with. When they are traveling we ask them to send back postcards keeping us informed about their trips. It is so interesting to hear where they have been and what they have seen. Some of them have been so creative with their time and money. A few of them been able to stay away much longer because they found out how to supplement their fellowship with a temporary job. We had a student who worked for Ando in Japan, for example. Of course, we wouldn’t want a student who just went somewhere and worked, but we try to be very flexible in letting them work out their own arrangements. We send them off with letters of introduction. Several of the students have found these very helpful in opening doors. We had one student who used the letters to get into the cave at Lascaux after they had closed it to the general public. Many other students have met architects they always dreamed of meeting that way. Rebecca Dudley, who is getting ready to leave on her trip, has told me that the letters of introduction seem to work wonderfully in Japan.
1982 Master of Architecture
July 2, 1996
Perhaps the most important impact of the SOM Foundation fellowship was the opportunity to experience firsthand the architecture that remained locked in my mind as ideals or icons, but only in printed form, or, at best, enlarged in a slide lecture. Dislocated from site, time, locale, texture, and culture, they held the imperious allure and aloofness that distinguishes the image of architecture from Architecture.
The tactile reality of this experience led me to a keener focus on materials, the art of tectonics, and the compelling will of site. To say this has directly affected my practice today is an understatement. Perhaps even more important than the observations above is a more personal one. As a practicing architect and professor of architecture, the Fellowship intensified an awareness that a passion for architecture is, in fact, a companion to the passion to explore, travel, observe, reflect, and invent.
The trip I took to Europe in 1983 exposed me not only to my “pilgrimage” site but also to unplanned wonders, just as browsing in the library inevitably reveals a wonderful unknown text. The Alhambra in Granada was just such a text. The juxtaposition of the dry landscape of Granada with the lush oasis of the Generalife Gardens and the sound of water next to the crush of gravel beneath the feet, overwhelmed my expectations. A half day “checklist” visit became a week’s stay. The experience radically expanded my horizon of what architecture includes, and my practice today is committed to this broader definition of what the site of architecture is.
1983 Master of Architecture
July 28, 1996
Even though I was already a licensed architect and had been to Europe, my year there with the SOM Foundation Fellowship was the most significant year in my life as an architect. I tried to do everything. I wanted to travel as much as I could to the point where exhaustion set in. Even though I scaled back, I still saw an enormous amount. I went from northern Finland to Egypt by way of Russia. I saw so much that was really interesting. In Finland I was astonished by how close Aalto’s work was to barn buildings and other local vernacular structures, something that most historians and critics never seem to pick up on. Egypt, on the other hand, is the ultimate measure of architecture. You know, standing there, whether you want to be an architect. The fellowship gives you the luxury of time. You need time to sit there and draw in a sketchbook. You need to be able to wake up for the fourth morning in Athens and say “I think I’ll spend another day sketching some particular building.” Meanwhile the tour buses are just whizzing by with people who have one afternoon to see the Acropolis.
I think that the timing of the fellowship is perfect. When a student is about ready to finish school he or she is probably more open to influences than at any other time. I also think that Americans in general don’t have a high opinion of the role of architecture as a framework for everyday life. Most architects here don’t believe that an architect can really play an important role. In Europe, on the other hand, architecture is really part of everyday life. You can observe its influence just by walking around the city or by sitting at a cafe. I think taking a year and just observing is one of the most important things any architect can do. It is about regenerating ourselves. It reminds us why we wanted to be an architect in the first place.
1985 Bachelor of Architecture
May 23, 1996
My travels made possible by the Fellowship did what travel is supposed to do—it opened up for me new worlds and new ways of thinking about architecture. I went to Europe to study building ornament, but I found myself intrigued and excited by the other end of the scale—the context of the architecture and architecture as context.
In meeting and talking with European architects, particularly in Berlin and the Ticino, I found that they held an attitude very different from that of their American counterparts. The did not design buildings per se, but saw themselves as making contributions to a larger, communal built work—the city. As young architecture students, this notion of the city as design was a revelation to me, one that eventually steered me toward the path my career is currently taking.
Upon my return from Europe, I sought an internship with Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. I was fortunate to work at a number of their new towns, where I was able to study firsthand the nexus between architecture and context. I have since returned to my hometown of Austin, Texas, currently one of the fastest growing cities in the country, where I am able to fully participate in the important act of city building. I work for an architecture firm [Black + Vernooy] that specializes in urban design, and I am currently directing an ambitious project to restore Guadeloupe Street, an important, historic commercial street bordering the University of Texas campus. I can only hope to give back a small portion of what I gained from the SOM Foundation Fellowship.
1988 Architectural Educator Fellowship
August 13, 2021
As I reread my 1988 proposal today, midway through 2021, I am amazed how much of my career proceeded from that bit of chutzpa written nearly half-a-lifetime ago. It took quite a while for the book, then promised, to reach publication. But multiple “drafts,” involving courses and design studios, symposia and seminars, professional assignments, travel, and several prior books, were all instrumental in making good on the promise made in the proposal: “Under the auspices of the SOM Foundation Fellowship I would advance a long-standing objective to prepare material for a book on the evolution of the American city.”
Now, something perhaps I shouldn’t admit; I used a portion of the award to partially subsidize the then barely-budding practice of Chan Krieger, in partnership with my GSD classmate Lawrence A. Chan. A career combining practice and teaching, almost in equal measure ensued. Though at times requiring more stamina than likely helpful to one’s health, I would recommend embarking on such a dual career to many.
I thought then that among the objectives in the creation of the SOM Foundation must have been to further advance how the realms of professional practice and the education of future practitioners might interact. On the one hand, bringing the aspirational and speculative aspects so critical to the studio experience back to the office, where the pragmatics of client needs and budgets tend to govern. While at the same time, enabling the academy to better appreciate the efforts and the delight involved in carrying a design concept to physical realization. Regularly seeking out overlaps between practice and teaching surely improved both my teaching and practice, and my writing, I believe, too.
I would once more like to sincerely thank the SOM Foundation for enabling me to pursue youthful ambitions across by now a lengthy and rewarding career.
1992 Master of Architecture
June 4, 1996
My receipt of the SOM Foundation Fellowship in 1992, which focused on the turbulence of the restructuring identity of the former Eastern Bloc countries through modern architecture, Communist housing, and nuclear power stations, has allowed me to greater understanding of the extent to which “modernity” has effected (both positively and negatively) the human condition.
Today, as the Design Director of our [Ellerbe Becket] Asia Pacific market, I am responsible for a wide range of designs from masterplans to high-rise mixed-use development and everything in between. Everyone that is working in these hyperdeveloping countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, etc. knows how important the process of design will be for the long-term investments of these countries. My foundation for the understanding of this context in many ways has been formulated within my studies at Columbia University with the William Kinne Fellowship and from the real-world exploration during my SOM Foundation Fellowship.
1999 Mechanical / Electrical Building Systems
The opportunity afforded to me by the SOM Foundation was invaluable. During my travels, I attended outstanding international CIBSE/ASHRAE conferences on sustainability and engineering design. I visited fourteen individual buildings at various stages of completion, took over 550 digital images, and met with several members of the consulting engineering community to share experiences and dialogue. The paper here includes only a fraction of the experience due to its varied nature. Most importantly, I achieved all the goals I set out for. I now better understand UK design practices and subsequently US practices, and I have made friendships and acquaintanceships that should last throughout my career. My most sincere thanks goes out to all those who made this possible.
2004 Master of Architecture
The fellowship was an extremely important transition from graduate school to the profession. The knowledge that I gained through traveling continues to inform my research, teaching, and practice.
2006 SOM Prize for Architecture, Design, and Urban Design
January 1, 2022
When I look at the calendar and reflect on my career path thus far, my travels for the SOM Prize feel rather far away in years. And yet, when I consider the experience and the ideas that sparked the work and evolved over the journey, I am certain that time is still with me.
The true brilliance and joy of the SOM Prize for Architecture, Design, and Urban Design is the time and space to literally chase an idea around the world. For me, that chase was a very real pursuit of storm chasing and how the weather and geography play into our built world in a joyful and productive manner. This occurred alongside natural disasters that understandably were causing great fear and fortification against the threats of the atmosphere. Conditions and thoughts that will always be there. Hovering around this for me was also a keen sense for how the weather, shifts of day and night, and the seasons, are so key to the experience of any built space. It was here that I began to understand that these more fleeting moments in a way complete any architectural space and greatly impact our relationship to the environment. This can be read in all of the material and built work that I have made since.
Not only do I continue to work with these ideas that drove my time as a SOM Foundation fellow, but the dedication to sites, travel, and experiencing the atmosphere elsewhere has continued to be my most productive form of research and inspiration. The model of physically and optically experiencing new locations as seen through architectural thinking remains key to my practice.
I am forever grateful for the insight of the SOM Foundation to support the travel and ideas of young architects. The SOM Prize signals a commitment to timely and impactful inquiry that undoubtedly shapes the future both in method and content. My heart expands for everyone who takes up this journey knowing that it is lasting.
2007 SOM Prize in Architecture, Design, and Urban Design
Without the generosity, support, and trust of the SOM Foundation, this research would not have been possible. Because of their munificent gift, I was able to document not only some of the most notable works of American modernism, but also more than 200 lesser-known buildings and residences that may someday only exist in this document. As members of the profession of architecture, we become stewards of the profession. We strive to achieve new ideals and we capture the knowledge of those whose previous contributions lay the foundation for the future. I owe a debt of gratitude to the SOM Foundation for extending me this award. Their genuine effort to promote the emerging members of the profession is unmatched and embodies not only sincere philanthropy, but also the motive to put change in action, to bestow a greater conscientiousness on the emerging and to thereby improve the design fields through unconventional intellectual pursuits. This progress has influenced my entire future, with my beginnings bound up in a sense of social responsibility that I will strive to embody. Thank you.
