Without wanting to give too much away. Out of these two firms which would you work for if you will be a junior architect and are interested in both firms but not for the same reasons. UN studio for their spatial organisation and Kuma for the hands on model making approach and research into facades.
however, i have friends who work at Kuma's who are given loads of responsibility and are learning amazing amounts doing amazing projects. He also runs a very good office,which is worth being part of.
to be honest though both options sound bloody good to me. such a nice dilemma.
as an outsider, kuma's works looks like some one who knows how to put things together as most japanese architects does, while UN studio, their works always looks like undergrads to me...
They are too different to make a choice, for me. Both have very different strong points, and very different negatives.
I don't know anyone at Kuma, but for what I hear from people working at UN, the description that Jump does about Kuma also sorta fits. You have to earn your place, but then you "are given loads of responsibility and are learning amazing amounts doing amazing projects."
u can check with their office service provided- most japanese office have the same person takes care the project from scratch to construction completion and provide all construction documents... while most stararchitects (may be for UNstudio), they only provide design (chicken sketches) and let the local architects office do the rest.
from my experience of starchitect's offices, they provide far more than sketches, maybe not construction drawings for the big projects but that would be the same for Ito, kuma especially if the building is overseas.
I think japanese architects have the luxury of doing nice small projects that they can control.
As far as i have seen, most starchitects do everything until after DD stage. CD is usually done by a specialist partner firm.
Dunno, I worked for a couple of starchitects and, depending on the scale of the project, CD were also made in-house. Just big / technically complicated projects were partially outsourced or we had consultants for CD.
From what I understand kuma does most dwgs himself except for work overseas.
My impression is that people on this site underestimate starchitects routinely. Don't know for certain about un studio but the complicated construction they do as matter of course probably means they are not passing dd off to an anonymous firm somewhere. Wouldn't that make things incredibly frustrating and more difficult? Would be interesting to hear the truth of it though.
Regardless either job is probably cool. Maybe picking randomly is the way to go.
As far as I'm aware, UN does those things themselves. Also because of the (spatial) complexity involved in the shapes. For some bigger projects (far) overseas, some work is done by partner firms, but other than that they keep a lot of things in their own hands.
And, as far as I know, most "starchitects" work like that. I don't know too many that actually give some sketch to a partner firm to develop: they like to stay in control - in order to get things the way they want them, they keep things in their own hands...
like most everyone else has stated, the firms are so different it's hard to compare the two. i'd personally go for kuma though; seems like you'd learn a greater breadth of skills and be involved in more phases of a project.
interesting. almost everyone ive talked to in person have said UN, yet most here seem to prefer Kuma.
Anyway.No, its not for an internship as i think we have all heard about the horror stories of interns in japanese offices. Not to say i wouldnt have interned at Ito if given the opportunity.
I have heard UN pays their long term interns the same as graduates. Incredibly nice if i may say.
un anyday, for location and type of work. was ito or sejima maybe, but kuma...no, go UN. I have seen a few kuma buildings lately and they are nice but rather uninspiring.
It's kinda of a dumb question tho, if I may say, specially in these recession ridden times. they are very different offices, and you should have known before you applied. or maybe you just went for all the big guys. you must be good!
well, like i said originally, im attracted to different aspects of these two offices. I dont believe an architect in this day and age should be a purest and we should be aware of all the work that is out there.
And when you look deeply these two offices are not polar opposite, both have done work that is outside of your expectations.
It's not like a zaha/OMA comparison. I would never work with maya to make buildings.
I don't see why Macpod can't be attracted to different offices? Why should you limit yourself to just one type of architecture - I'm sure you can learn a lot and do satisfying work in both places. And, bigness, especially in these days one has to stretch out and see what one can find.
Go to whichever office doing a better project right now so that you can join with that project team without spending in waiting a few years for a nice project.
Aug 23, 10 5:30 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Poll: work for Kengo Kuma or UN Studio
Without wanting to give too much away. Out of these two firms which would you work for if you will be a junior architect and are interested in both firms but not for the same reasons. UN studio for their spatial organisation and Kuma for the hands on model making approach and research into facades.
Couldn't tell you how things are at UN studio.
however, i have friends who work at Kuma's who are given loads of responsibility and are learning amazing amounts doing amazing projects. He also runs a very good office,which is worth being part of.
to be honest though both options sound bloody good to me. such a nice dilemma.
as an outsider, kuma's works looks like some one who knows how to put things together as most japanese architects does, while UN studio, their works always looks like undergrads to me...
Ignoring any (re)location issues: Kuma.
They are too different to make a choice, for me. Both have very different strong points, and very different negatives.
I don't know anyone at Kuma, but for what I hear from people working at UN, the description that Jump does about Kuma also sorta fits. You have to earn your place, but then you "are given loads of responsibility and are learning amazing amounts doing amazing projects."
kuma.
u can check with their office service provided- most japanese office have the same person takes care the project from scratch to construction completion and provide all construction documents... while most stararchitects (may be for UNstudio), they only provide design (chicken sketches) and let the local architects office do the rest.
from my experience of starchitect's offices, they provide far more than sketches, maybe not construction drawings for the big projects but that would be the same for Ito, kuma especially if the building is overseas.
I think japanese architects have the luxury of doing nice small projects that they can control.
As far as i have seen, most starchitects do everything until after DD stage. CD is usually done by a specialist partner firm.
Dunno, I worked for a couple of starchitects and, depending on the scale of the project, CD were also made in-house. Just big / technically complicated projects were partially outsourced or we had consultants for CD.
From what I understand kuma does most dwgs himself except for work overseas.
My impression is that people on this site underestimate starchitects routinely. Don't know for certain about un studio but the complicated construction they do as matter of course probably means they are not passing dd off to an anonymous firm somewhere. Wouldn't that make things incredibly frustrating and more difficult? Would be interesting to hear the truth of it though.
Regardless either job is probably cool. Maybe picking randomly is the way to go.
As far as I'm aware, UN does those things themselves. Also because of the (spatial) complexity involved in the shapes. For some bigger projects (far) overseas, some work is done by partner firms, but other than that they keep a lot of things in their own hands.
And, as far as I know, most "starchitects" work like that. I don't know too many that actually give some sketch to a partner firm to develop: they like to stay in control - in order to get things the way they want them, they keep things in their own hands...
like most everyone else has stated, the firms are so different it's hard to compare the two. i'd personally go for kuma though; seems like you'd learn a greater breadth of skills and be involved in more phases of a project.
Will you do what Kuma's office calls "internship"?
interesting. almost everyone ive talked to in person have said UN, yet most here seem to prefer Kuma.
Anyway.No, its not for an internship as i think we have all heard about the horror stories of interns in japanese offices. Not to say i wouldnt have interned at Ito if given the opportunity.
I have heard UN pays their long term interns the same as graduates. Incredibly nice if i may say.
So you're heading for Tokyo, not Paris? Cool... I'd like to go back! I've been there for 3 months and loved it...
I don't know how others feel, but I think you're obligated tell us why you asked such an asinine question at this point
Whom are you talking to, ahensch??
damn talk about spoilt for choice.
un anyday, for location and type of work. was ito or sejima maybe, but kuma...no, go UN. I have seen a few kuma buildings lately and they are nice but rather uninspiring.
It's kinda of a dumb question tho, if I may say, specially in these recession ridden times. they are very different offices, and you should have known before you applied. or maybe you just went for all the big guys. you must be good!
well, like i said originally, im attracted to different aspects of these two offices. I dont believe an architect in this day and age should be a purest and we should be aware of all the work that is out there.
And when you look deeply these two offices are not polar opposite, both have done work that is outside of your expectations.
It's not like a zaha/OMA comparison. I would never work with maya to make buildings.
I don't see why Macpod can't be attracted to different offices? Why should you limit yourself to just one type of architecture - I'm sure you can learn a lot and do satisfying work in both places. And, bigness, especially in these days one has to stretch out and see what one can find.
Did you decide yet?
Go to whichever office doing a better project right now so that you can join with that project team without spending in waiting a few years for a nice project.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.