SOM Special Collection. 1

Author: Wilfried Wang, Yang Changming, Zheng Lijun, Li Xiangjie
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-08-01
Features: At the end of 2000, an unusual invitation letter was sent by a partner from SOM to five individuals: artist Jenny Holzer (New York); architect Jesse Reiser (New York); structural engineer Cecil Balmond (London); architect, historian, and critic Kenneth Frampton (New York); and architect and critic Wilfried Wang (Berlin). The letter asked the five whether they would be willing to review certain projects from SOM's recent 46 ongoing projects in four offices in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and London. This group was chosen not only because they are experts in their respective fields and could form a review committee but also because each of them is known for their broad interests in other professional fields. This fact was later confirmed in the discussion of individual projects: the review was rational, concise, and constructive. The unusual synergy became evident throughout the day, clearly demonstrating the process of understanding and focusing on the selection of the review. The task of the review committee was to select 5 to 6 projects for a new SOM special issue, which is also a special issue where projects are published with content entirely edited by outsiders—a procedure believed to be as objective as possible. With the unanimous agreement of the five invitees, the review committee was scheduled to meet on March 18, 2001, at the New York office. All five invitees were very interested in the review process of one of the world's largest projects; they were all eager to understand the nature of the work of projects that have been recently implemented; would it be a tedious task? Or could it reflect certain new developments of SOM? Would it be a cliché? Would they reserve judgment in their comments? Or would it be an open and insightful event? The conditions for the review committee were simple. During the review process, no member of SOM would impose constraints, incentives, or interference. The five members of the review committee were completely free in determining the selection criteria, and the inclusion or exclusion of any project was entirely up to them. The simplicity of this was self-evident; without these conditions, none of the reviewers would have participated. The 46 projects, each accompanied by an explanation, were printed on 4 or 5 small digital printers. These projects were mounted on the walls of two meeting rooms. Some time was spent in the morning to understand the projects and begin the first round of discussion and selection. After lunch, the focus was narrowed to a dozen or so projects, and the final round of selection and elimination was conducted to achieve the goal of selecting 5 to 6 projects. The edited comments of the review committee are included in this book, accurately reflecting the insights and thoughts of each reviewer. In the first round of formal voting, the project with the fewest votes was selected, and in subsequent rounds, the project with the most votes was chosen. The final five projects and one research project were, in fact, all selected with unanimous praise. Now, in this special issue, the review results of the review committee are also included for the media to comment on.