Last year, this magazine launched the Architect 50, our twist on a top firms ranking—one that recognizes ecological commitment and design quality as much as profitability when measuring the country’s very best A, AE, and AEC firms. And what a year we chose for the debut.
Esteemed firms—including, but not limited to, the
global “alphabets”—had seen their revenues fall sharply and responded
with layoffs. Capital was scarce; new projects were exceptionally tough
to win, and pencils-down orders on projects in hand became all too
common. Somehow, though, we were able to produce a robust ranking our
first time out. It helped that firms were being assessed on their
revenues from 2008, a year that a lot of firms started (at least) with a
Embarking on our research for the second annual ranking,
we were not sure what to expect. Would firms want to take part in a
year when competition is especially fierce? Would partners worry about
revealing weak financials, or that the ranking would just yield more bad
news? In the end, some firms did decline to participate—but not many.
Firm leaders had been enthusiastic about the Architect 50 on its launch,
and most seemed eager to repeat the experiment.
between last year’s ranking and this year’s are not dramatic. Three of
our top five firms (overall) are holdovers. Some commercially focused
firms that were prominent last year have dropped off the list;
conversely, this year’s biggest upward movers tend to be those with a
bedrock of public-sector and infrastructural projects, like Denver’s
Fentress Architects and Chicago’s Epstein.
The Architect 50 survey
was administered from early January through mid-March to 161 firms,
most of which were invited (a small number applied to the editors; all
firms are welcome to). They completed a short entry form, which our
research consultant, entered into a database before performing a
thorough analysis. Although we tried to be as systematic as possible,
the ranking is less than perfectly scientific, and it comes with a
couple of caveats:
• We asked firms to indicate a range for number
of staff and for revenue. This was meant to allay any worries that
firms had about disclosing their exact revenue; it also provides some
“wiggle room” to accommodate small fluctuations in staff size. However,
this year, employee numbers dropped precipitously at many firms. Readers
should bear this in mind.
• Last year, we asked respondents to
check boxes indicating which major awards they had won; this year, in
order to be more comprehensive, we asked firms to submit full lists of
awards and honors. However, this meant that minor recognitions crowded
out prestigious awards, even when weighted appropriately. We weighted
the scoring strongly in favor of awards that carry national
distinction—chief among them, AIA Honor and COTE awards and P/A Awards.
Congratulations to the firms that made the cut.
Click here to see details on the methodology that we used to create the ARCHITECT 50 ranking.