Viewing page 3 of 3

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

approaches to the business."

Indeed, Siegel, 55, handles the business end of things. Cool and businesslike with no-nonsense approach, Siegel describes herself as someone who is able to "find practical solutions to problems, though I sometimes have the tendency to lose sight of what needs to be done and when." She received her training at the Pratt Institute in New York City, and after graduation in 1955 went to work for firms in New York and Los Angeles, designing churches, private residences, apartment buildings, offices and industrial facilities. She opened her own firm in 1972 before combining talents with her two current partners.
Diamond, 33, is the partner in charge of design. She began her architectural career in 1976 while completing her education in Israel. The sometimes brash, always assertive Chicago native joined the Israeli Air Force and became responsible for the design of dormitory complexes, recreational and social support services and community centers. After returning to the United States in 1979, she joined Benton/Park/Candreva in Los Angeles where she was involved with the design of commercial and residential structures. A talkative, highly enthusiastic woman, Diamond believes her ability to translate vague concepts into working ideas and "communicate the excitement of design" makes up for her relative inexperience in the field.
But it is Sklarek, the company's partner in charge of project management, who has had to overcome serious hurdles to get where she is today. As a youngster she grew up in one of the poorer areas of Harlem but earned such high grades she was accepted at Columbia University. There she studied architecture and, in 1950, joined only a handful of women who had at the time managed to earn a degree in the male-dominated discipline. Later she became the first black woman registered as an architect in the United States, and the first woman in A.I.A.'s Los Angeles chapter to be granted a fellowship. She went to work at several firms, including Gruen Associates in Los Angeles, where as director of architecture she oversaw the design of he U.S. Embassy in Tokyo.
Inside their sleek offices adjacent to busy Santa Monica Boulevard, the interior of which they designed themselves, the three talk openly about the realities of women working to make headway in such a masculine, if not macho, field.
"Clients tend to be older and more conservative, and the principals of firms are often afraid of having a woman handle a project because of the client doesn't like it they may lose that client," Diamond insists. "So, at the first hint of opposition to a woman or a minority, they will quickly slam the doors shut and run the other way."

"There's a lot of exciting work going on, but there's a lot of trite, boring stuff being produced," says Diamond. "It's a searching and stretching time in architecture."

Strong talk. But behind these bitter complaints is, in fact, a long and documented history of women taking a back seat in the profession. According to the American Institute of Architects, women still account for only 7.1 percent of the organization's membership; 2.9 percent of the members are Asians, 1.3 percent are Hispanics and less than 1.6 percent are blacks.
And while today, according to Sklarek, about 30 percent of all architectural students are women (compared to about 2 percent when she and Siegel went to school in the 1950s), the problems these young professionals face after graduation haven't changed much, they say.
How do others in the profession view the problem? Says A.I.A.'s Axon: "It's often a double-edged sword. Sometimes women get jobs because they are women, while other times they lose projects because of it." Thomas of Bobrow/Thomas Associates adds: "Architecture by its nature is a political profession. Whether or not one gets a project is based to a large degree on the politics of the company assigning the project."
Yet, regardless of how one views the issue, the fact remains that the three have managed to survive, if not thrive. In fact, adversity has only served as greater motivation. As Sklarek explains: "We have been able to succeed because we work twice as hard as other firms. We go into a presentation so well-prepared that the client sometimes finds out things about their own property that they didn't even know before." 
In practical terms, this often translates into 70- to 80-hour work weeks, including extensive research outside the office. And though working in such close proximity has its advantages, it can also have its downside. The three make no attempt to hide the fact that disagreements are a regular part of things. 
Yet, so far, serious hostility and animosity have no emerged. Says Siegel: "We certainly have heated discussions from time to time, but in the end we work through it." 
Decision by committee also hasn't dampened their enthusiasm for putting together appealing and practical structures - usually without the benefit of mega-dollar budgets. Designing the Lawndale Civic Center meant constructing a building that would be compatible with an existing group of structures, one that would be worthy of civic pride and one that could be built on a modest budget of $4.5 million. The building at UC-Irvine had to be tied to an existing structure and satisfy the demands of those who would use the building.
Yet the philosophy of delivering maximum design for a client's dollar is only part of the SSD formula. The firm has also made it a point to be well-versed in a variety of designs. 
And as far as Siegel, Sklarek and Diamond are concerned, that's good. "Nowadays," says Siegel, "there are a lot of architects doing different things. It's more exciting than it used to be and there's a lot more freedom. You're not limited to only one style. The practical side is that you're able to do a greater diversity of projects, and if there's a downturn in one area of construction, you're not so heavily hit." 
But along with the freedom has come a good deal of responsibility, which is something not all firms have learned to handle well. As Diamond observes: "There's a lot of exciting work going on, but there's also a lot of trite, boring stuff being produced. It's a searching and stretching time in architecture."
However, all three feel that it's just as much the fault of their profession as that of developers and zoning officials. "As architects, what we are selling are very amorphous values," Diamond relates. "Trying to convince someone that it makes sense to commit extra effort to design and spend more money is not always easy." 
Indeed, it's clear that Siegel, Sklarek and Diamond have made a commitment to go beyond ordinary and fight for a place at the top of their profession. Yet, as Diamond puts it, "We don't want to get into the mindset of thinking we need to increase volume. We want to increase the scope of the projects. Our goal isn't to do $2 million next year and then $4 million the following year. It's simply to make good money and to do the best quality work we can for big clients....Growth for growth's sake is not good. We never want to lose the personal involvement."

40 / THE CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE/NOVEMBER 1987