SOM Special Collection 1

Author: Wilfried Wang
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-08-01
Features: At the end of 2000, an unusual invitation letter was sent to five individuals by a partner from SOM Company: 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 individuals whether they would be willing to review certain projects from SOM Company's recent 46 ongoing projects in four offices located in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and London. This group was chosen not only because they are experts in their respective fields, capable of forming a review committee, but also because each of them is known for their broad interests in other professional fields. This fact was later confirmed during 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 the content entirely edited by outsiders—a procedure believed to be as objective as possible. After unanimous agreement among the five invitees, the review committee was scheduled to meet on March 18, 2001, at the New York office. The five invitees were all very interested in the review process of one of the world's largest projects; they were 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 Company? Would it be a cliché? Would they hold back 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 Company would impose constraints, incentives, or interference. The five members of the review committee were completely free to determine the selection criteria, and the inclusion or exclusion of any project would be entirely their decision. The simplicity of these conditions is self-evident; without them, no reviewer would participate. The 46 projects, each accompanied by an explanation, were printed using 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 round of discussion and selection. After lunch, the focus was narrowed to a dozen or slightly more 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 members are included in this book, accurately reflecting their insights and thoughts. In the round of formal voting, the project with the fewest votes was selected, while in subsequent rounds, the project with the most votes was chosen. The final five projects and one research project were, in fact, selected with consistent praise. Now, in this special issue, the review results of the review committee are also included for the media to comment on.