They are the powerful and the philanthropic, the talented and the profitable. Our fourth annual ranking of U.S. architecture firms answers the question: Who had the best year?
Practice makes perfect. Let’s be clear: Ranking architecture firms is equal parts art and science. We refine our methodology every year. But the goal of the Architect 50 remains the same: to reward accomplishment according to the broadest possible criteria.
The list is designed to celebrate practices of all kinds—practices that are as adept with building technology as they are in business, that can win design awards and also give back to their communities. Indeed, for the first time, this year we included pro bono work and water modeling in the survey. Given the impact that the economy, natural disasters, and drought are having around the country, how firms stack up in those categories seems especially relevant.
The overall winner? A big hand for DLR Group, which drew raves in 2011 for its Joplin Interim High School in tornado-ravaged Missouri.
Other firms that excelled: RBB Architects topped the business category; Westlake Reed Leskosky ranked first in sustainability; and perennial list-maker Skidmore, Owings & Merrill led the design/pro bono category. Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, meanwhile, was the biggest mover, finishing 5th after missing the top 50 last year. And Frank Harmon Architect showed that firms with only a handful of employees can compete with big multinationals.
We hope this year’s list will inspire energetic debates. Dig into the numbers. And don’t be afraid to tell us what you think.
via
Practice makes perfect. Let’s be clear: Ranking architecture firms is equal parts art and science. We refine our methodology every year. But the goal of the Architect 50 remains the same: to reward accomplishment according to the broadest possible criteria.
The list is designed to celebrate practices of all kinds—practices that are as adept with building technology as they are in business, that can win design awards and also give back to their communities. Indeed, for the first time, this year we included pro bono work and water modeling in the survey. Given the impact that the economy, natural disasters, and drought are having around the country, how firms stack up in those categories seems especially relevant.
The overall winner? A big hand for DLR Group, which drew raves in 2011 for its Joplin Interim High School in tornado-ravaged Missouri.
Other firms that excelled: RBB Architects topped the business category; Westlake Reed Leskosky ranked first in sustainability; and perennial list-maker Skidmore, Owings & Merrill led the design/pro bono category. Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, meanwhile, was the biggest mover, finishing 5th after missing the top 50 last year. And Frank Harmon Architect showed that firms with only a handful of employees can compete with big multinationals.
We hope this year’s list will inspire energetic debates. Dig into the numbers. And don’t be afraid to tell us what you think.
2012 Architect 50 Key: Employees Scale: 1 = 1-10; 2 = 11-99; 3 = 100-499; 4 = 500-999; 5 = 1000-plus. Gross Revenue Scale: 1= $999,999 or less; 2=$1 million-$9.9 million; 3= $10 million-$99.9 million; 4=$100 million-$999.9 million; 5=$1 billion plus. |
---|
Rank | Firm Name | Employees(see Key above) | Gross Revenue(see Key above) | Score | Sustainability Rank | Business Rank | Design/ Pro Bono Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | DLR Group Omaha, Neb. | 4 | 4 | 100 | 11 | 41 | 5 |
2 | William Rawn Associates Boston | 2 | 3 | 99.98 | 4 | 4 | 81 |
3 | HOK St. Louis | 5 | 4 | 99.21 | 25 | 25 | 4 |
4 | Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects (ZGF) Portland, Ore. | 3 | 4 | 99.12 | 10 | 49 | 2 |
5 | Pei Cobb Freed & Partners Architects New York | 2 | 3 | 96.22 | 13 | 20 | 21 |
6 | Westlake Reed Leskosky Cleveland | 3 | 3 | 95.39 | 1 | 59 | 27 |
7 | Skidmore Owings & Merrill New York | 5 | 4 | 93.13 | 62 | 16 | 1 |
8 | Payette Boston | 3 | 4 | 92.61 | 6 | 24 | 41 |
9 | SmithGroupJJR Detroit | 4 | 4 | 91.52 | 15 | 64 | 10 |
10 | Cannon Design Grand Island, N.Y. | 5 | 4 | 90.93 | 30 | 42 | 8 |
11 | HDR Architecture Omaha, Neb. | 5 | 4 | 90.92 | 46 | 23 | 9 |
12 | Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz Architects (KMD) San Francisco | 3 | 3 | 90.29 | 22 | 5 | 94 |
13 | Centerbrook Architects and Planners Centerbrook, Conn. | 2 | 3 | 89.8 | 43 | 19 | 14 |
14 | Perkins+Will Chicago | 5 | 4 | 89.43 | 31 | 51 | 6 |
15 | Pearce Brinkley Cease + Lee Raleigh, N.C. | 2 | 3 | 89.12 | 3 | 32 | 80 |
16 | BNIM Kansas City | 2 | 3 | 87.45 | 8 | 118 | 3 |
17 | Frank Harmon Architect Raleigh, N.C. | 1 | 1 | 87.34 | 7 | 103 | 12 |
18 | HGA Architects and Engineers Minneapolis | 4 | 4 | 85.46 | 26 | 47 | 22 |
19 | Mark Cavagnero Associates Architects San Francisco | 2 | 2 | 85.41 | 49 | 31 | 16 |
20 | RNL Denver | 3 | 3 | 83.79 | 5 | 76 | 46 |
21 | EYP Architecture & Engineering Albany, N.Y. | 3 | 3 | 83.15 | 20 | 67 | 25 |
22 | EHDD San Francisco | 2 | 3 | 82.61 | 2 | 69 | 86 |
23 | Eskew+Dumez+ Ripple New Orleans | 2 | 2 | 82.4 | 42 | 57 | 15 |
24 | NBBJ Seattle | 4 | 4 | 82.27 | 61 | 11 | 33 |
25 | Sasaki Associates Watertown, Mass. | 3 | 3 | 81.94 | 54 | 37 | 18 |
26 | The Miller Hull Partnership Seattle | 2 | 3 | 81.4 | 9 | 89 | 34 |
27 | AECOM Los Angeles | 5 | 4 | 80.97 | 63 | 50 | 7 |
28 | Lord Aeck & Sargent Atlanta | 3 | 3 | 80.56 | 12 | 114 | 19 |
29 | H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture New York | 2 | 2 | 80.48 | 34 | 28 | 55 |
30 | RBB Architects Los Angeles | 2 | 3 | 79.88 | 117 | 1 | 74 |
31 | LMN Architects Seattle | 2 | 3 | 79.56 | 21 | 79 | 28 |
32 | Richärd+Bauer Phoenix | 2 | 2 | 79.14 | 19 | 87 | 30 |
33 | Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects San Francisco | 2 | 2 | 78.6 | 24 | 85 | 31 |
34 | Goettsch Partners Chicago | 2 | 3 | 77.55 | 68 | 6 | 98 |
35 | Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture Chicago | 3 | 3 | 77.48 | 28 | 46 | 67 |
36 | LPA Irvine, Calif. | 3 | 3 | 77.28 | 35 | 65 | 36 |
37 | HKS Architects Dallas | 4 | 4 | 77.25 | 52 | 38 | 39 |
38 | Ratcliff Architects Emeryville, Calif. | 2 | 3 | 76.79 | 37 | 63 | 43 |
39 | Studios Architecture Washington, D.C. | 3 | 3 | 76.54 | 40 | 45 | 49 |
40 | Little Diversified Architectural Consulting Charlotte, N.C. | 3 | 3 | 76.24 | 17 | 120 | 17 |
41 | Ehrlich Architects Culver City, Calif. | 2 | 2 | 75.15 | 23 | 43 | 108 |
42 | Good Fulton & Farrell Dallas | 2 | 3 | 74.94 | 89 | 8 | 54 |
43 | Robert A.M. Stern Architects New York | 3 | 3 | 73.78 | 67 | 21 | 59 |
44 | Ross Barney Architects Chicago | 2 | 2 | 73.31 | 27 | 111 | 26 |
45 | Tsoi/Kobus & Associates Cambridge, Mass. | 2 | 3 | 73.14 | 47 | 35 | 77 |
46 | FxFowle New York | 3 | 3 | 73.13 | 41 | 61 | 52 |
47 | Architectural Resources Cambridge (ARC) Cambridge, Mass. | 2 | 3 | 73 | 16 | 74 | 97 |
48 | Ann Beha Architects Boston | 2 | 2 | 72.91 | 72 | 36 | 42 |
49 | PBK Architects Houston | 3 | 3 | 71.19 | 59 | 17 | 104 |
50 | Clark Nexsen Norfolk, Va. | 4 | 3 | 71.01 | 36 | 58 | 93 |
via