MOST LEADING DESIGN FIRMS INCREASED

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86-00244R000200530015-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 15, 2002
• Sequence Number: 15
• Content Type: MAGAZINE

P1. c) -1
THE
7 fC~ I~rr~1~,r~r 1
- C7
R Approved For R !(2/t
500
The largest design firms in the U.S.
squeezed record billings out of 1970's
tight-fisted construction market, ac-
cording to ENGINEERING NEWS-
RECORD's seventh annual survey.
Fewer architectural and engineering
names made this year's roster than in
1969 because more design-constructors
crowded them out.
Two-thirds of the leading designers
billed owners for more work in 1970.
Several of the largest design firms
racked up increases of 100% or more
over their 1969 billings, And the 442
leading designers billed $1.9 billion last
year, a substantial increase from 1969's
$1.7 billion garnered by 460 leading de-
sign firms.
The maximum billing volume of the
leading designers peaked to a new
record as two firms billed $30 million or
more in 1970. The minimum billing
volume also rose, to over $1.3 million,
up from $1.2 million a year ago.
Design-constructors did not match
the growth of their design-only counr-
More A-E's join The ENR 500
218 ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS
and ENGINEERS-ARCHITECTS Soo
166 CONSULTING ENGINEERS
billed $604 million
58 ARCHITECTS billed
$165 million
58 DESIGN-CONSTRUCTORS
won over $16.5 billion
in new contracts
Approved
erparts. More design-constructors made
the list this year, 58 compared to 40
firms in 1969, but only one out of three
that made the list both years increased
their volume.
Top 10 designers shuffled. The 10
increased
leading architectural and engineering
firms were well shuffled in 1970. Chas.
T. Main, Inc. leads the list for the first
time, moving up from its No. 3 slot in
1969 to push Sargent & Lundy back to
No. 2.
The top 58 design constructors and .. .
Construction value of new 1970 contracts
Design-and-construct plus design-only contracts valued at
estimated erected cost of project
1. Boise Cascade Engineering & Const. Group, New York, N.Y. ?..
2. Bechtel Corp., San Francisco, Calif...........................................
3. The Ralph M. Parsons Co., Los Angeles. Calif ..........................
4. Kaiser Engineers Div.. Kaiser Industries, Oakland, Calif.. ........:..
5. Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, Tex ........................- ...................
.......;. ~?
6. The Rust Engineering Co., Pittsburgh, P'a..:..' ..........
...............
7. Stearns-Roger Corp., Denver, Colo. ...........................
8. Fluor Corp.. Los Angeles, Calif .................................................
9. The Lummus Co.. New York, N.Y ..............................................
10. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa...........
11. Arthur McKee & Co., Cleveland, Ohio .......................................
12. Foster Wheeler Corp., Livingston, N.J.. ........... ...... ... . .... .... .. .
................................
13. The Austin Co., Cleveland, Ohio ...............
., ng Corp Roston Mass.
Stone
15. Chicago bridge is iron to., Oak DNUH, .................................
16. Burns & Roe. Inc., Oradell, N.J. .. ... .. . ...... ... .. . . ..... .............
17. C. F. Braun & Co., Alhambra, Calif... .., ..... . ... ... . .................
..................,....................
18. The M W. Kellogg Co., Houston, Tex
19. Catalytic, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa .................................................
... ....
............................
20. Procon, Inc., Des Plaines .
21. The Badger Co., Inc., Cambridge, Mass ....................................
22. Swindell-Dressler Co , Pittsburgh, Pa ........................................
23. The Kuljian Corp., Philadelphia, Pa............
24. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., New Orleans, La .........................
25. Dravo Corp.. Pittsburgh, Pa.. - - - - ...- ...... . ....... .... * ....... . ...
28. Daniel International Corp., Greenville, S.C ................................
.
.
27. Treadwell Corp., New York, N.Y ..............................................
28. Day & Zimmermann. Inc., Philadelphia, Pa .........................
29. Sanderson & Porter, Inc., New York, N.Y... .... .... ...... .. ....
30. Ragnar Benson, Inc., Chicago. Ill ..............................................
31. Blaw-Knox Chemical Plants!Inc., Pittsburgh, Pa ...................
32. Jacobs Engineering Co., Pasadena. Calif .................................
33. Scientific Design Co , Inc., New York, N.Y......, .......... ..... ..........
34. S.1 P., Inc., Houston, Tex ..........................................................
35. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Pittsburgh, Pa .......................
M
1970 volume Construction specialty
in $ millions Mfg.
Build- High-
Total
Foreign plant i
ng Heavy way
2,458.3
505.4
+
+ +
1 ,579.0 f
94.0
+
+ +
1,220.9
321.4
+
+ +
.2
1,
021
546,
+
+
2
0
8
+
+ +
756.1
377.8
+
+ + '?
756.1 .
756.1
30.6
+
.. + ??
756
9
639
1
5
3 33
1
5
+
+ + +
.
.
.
.
0
+
?
639
.
+
593.0
465.0
+
?? ??
448.0
2360
+
+
398.3
106.3
+
+ ??
391 .1
'
n.r.
+
378.5 25.7
368.0
0
15
+
+
5.
368 .0
6
+
0.0 42.9
3
+
266.8 212.6
158
0
+
+
.
200.0
+ + +
186.0 136.0
+
.. +
6
., +
0.31 85.2
1
+
.. +
6
58
+ +
124.5a
n. r. .
+
+
92.6 0
+
+ +
5
5 44
84
+
+ +
.
.
0
80.6
+
80.6 19.3
+
7572 7 7
n. 0 0
+ +
+ ??
??
62 0
0
+
+
66.0
0
+
+ +
63.2
60.1
0
1
58.3
7.0
+
+
58.0
2
+
56.8
4.5
+
55.0
0
+
53 0
20.0
+
50.2
0
+
+ +
47.8
0
+
+
45 2
1 8
45.0
0
+
42 2
0
+
42.2
5.0
+
??
38.0
0
+
37.7
0
35.6
0
35.0
0
33.2
18 0
1
30.3
0
30.3
0
.
56. Jos. L. Muscarelle, lno., ay a n. r. +
$7. Siebert Engineers, Inc., Hinsdale, Ill ........ ........... .............:.........
29.0 4.0 . +
58? Construction Aggregates Corp., Chicago, Ill ....................
ar on repor
f
002/Ol '-veC '- 8' ~''j 45h tru t not reported . re ort d Ranked
6n rucors n.r. Nor reported separately.
10509
billings for 1970 design services (b) nc udes:
.....................
o ..
36. Bank Building & Equipment Corp., St. Louis,
37. The H. K. Ferguson Co., Inc., Cleveland, Ohio ......... ..................
38. Cunningham-Limp Co., Birmingham, Michigan .........................
39. McDowell-Wellman Engineering Co., Cleveland, Ohio ..............
40. Centex Corp -J. W. Bateson Co., Inc., Dallas, ex ......................
41. Townsend and Bottum, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich ...........................
42. J. F. Pritchard & Co., Kansas City, Mo .....................................
43. Wigton-Abbott Corp., Plainfield, N.J .........................................
44. The Hannan Consl. Co., Cleveland, Ohio ..................................
45. Fenix & Scission, InC. Tulsa, Okla.............................................
46. Highland Const. Co., Southfield, Mich ......................................
47. Ramada Development Co., Const. Dept., Phoenix, Ariz ............
48. Crawford & Russell, Inc., Starntord, Conn ...............................?
49. Macdonald Engineering Co., Chicago, III ..................................
50. Robin Const. Co., Chicago, III ........................
51. H. F. Campbell Co., Detroit. Mich ..............................................
52. The Law Co., Wichita, Kan ........................................................
53. Monsanto Enero-Chem Systems, Inc., Chicago, Ill ....................
54. Delta Engineering Corp., Houston, Tex._ ...............................?
55. 'Di-Com Corp.. Glenview, Ill .......................................................
..... .....:................ ....
M wood N J
 a~Hfln s in '70
Stratton ('T'AMS) is back among the top
10 after a five-year absence. TAMS
jumped to No. 5 from the 12th position
Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. moved up
two notches to No. 3 and Skidmore,
Owings & Merrill holds down the No. 4
slot for the second consecutive year.
Two newcomers joined 1970's 10
largest architectural and engineering
... 442 largest designers in '70
it held in 1969. And Gibbs & :Hill, Inc.
slipped into the No. 9 spot.
Howard, Needles, Tammen & Ber-
gendoff slipped down to No. 6 from its
No. 2 peg a year ago. Gilbert Assoc.,
Inc., DeLeuw, Lather & Co., and Louis
o~~b c~ 8~~c4~a a`+.e k p NV 2;
s' ~c`~ ~' cr ~` a o"
1. Chas. T. Main, Inc., Boston, Mass ..................................................... EA + + + + + + + + +
2. Sargent & Lundy, Chicago, III ...................... ........................... -......... E .. + + + + + + .. +
Billings totaled $25 million to $29.9 million
3. Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., Rochester, Pa .............................................. (a) EA + + + + ... + + +
/4. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Chicago, New York, San
Francisco, Portland, Ore. & Washington, D.C.* ............................. AE + .. + + + + + + +
Billings totaled $20 million to $24.9 million
5. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, New York, N. Y .......................... EA + + + + + + + + +
6. Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff, Kansas City, Mo.
and New York, N. Y ....................................................................... EAP + + + + + + + t +
1. uuoert Assoc., Inc., Heading, Pa ................................ ........ ............_. EA + + + + + + + + +
8. DeLeuw, Cather & Co., Chicago, Ill... .................... ......... ..... ......... .. E + + + + + + + + +
Billings totaled $15 million to $19.9 million
9. Gibbs & Hill, Inc., New York, N. Y ..................................................... EA + + + + + + + + +
10. Louis Berger, Inc., East Orange, N. J ................................................ EAP + + + + + + + + +
11. Sverdrup & Parcel and Assoc., Inc., St. Louis, Mo ............................. EAP + + + + + + + + +
12. Black & Veatch, Kansas City, Mo ....................................................... E + + + + + + + + +
13. A. Epstein & Sons, Inc., Chicago, IIL ................................................. EA + .. + + + + + + +
14. Frederic R. Harris, Inc., New York, N. Y ............................................. E + + + + + + + + +
15. Pioneer Service & Engineering Co., Chicago, III ................................ EA + + + + + + + .. +
16. Giffels Assoc., Inc., Detroit, Mich ...................................................... AEP + + + + + + + + +
17. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, Los Angeles, Calif .................. AEP + + + + + + + + +
18. Commonwealth Assoc., Inc? Jackson, Mich... ................................... EA + + + + + + + + +
Billings totaled $10 million to $14.9 million
19. Sandwell International, Inc? Portland, Ore .......................................
E
+ + .. + + + + .. +
20. International Engineering Co., Inc., San Francisco, Calif ...................
E
+ + + + + + + .. +
21. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc., Omaha, Nab ....................
EA
+ + + + + + + + +
22. Welton Becket & Assoc., Los Angeles, Calif.` ...................................
AE
+ .. + + + + + + +
23. Parsons, Brinckerhoff:Ouade & Douglas, New York, N. Y .............
EAP
+ + + + + + + + +
24. McIntire & Ouiros, Inc., Monterey Park. Calif. ................................... .
E
.. + .. + + .. .. + +
25. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc., New York, N. Y ...........................
EA
+ + + + + + + .. +
26. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Boston, Mass. ..................................................
EAP
+ + .. + + + + + +
27. Leo A. Daly Co., Omaha, Nee ...........................................................
AEP
+ + + + + + + + +
28. Dames & Moore, Los Angeles Calif- ................................................
ES
+ + .. + .. .. .. .. +
29. Ellerbe Architects/Engineers. St. Paul, Minn .....................................
AE
+ + + + + + + .. +
30. Wilbur Smith & Assoc., New Haven, Conn .........................................
E
.. + .. + + + + + +
31. Harza Engineering Go., Chicago, III ..................................................
E
.. + .. + + + + + +
32. The Perkins & Will Partnership, Chicago, III .......................................
AE
+ .. + + + + + + +
33. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Assoc., Inc., Detroit, Mich..... ....... ............ I
AE
+ + + + + + + + +
34. VTN Corp., Irvine, Calif .....................................................................
(b) EA
+ + + + + + + + +
35. The Firm of Dermot Reddy, New York, N. Y .......................................
(c) EA
+ + + + + + + .. +
36. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc.. San Francisco, Calif ...............................
ES
+ + .. + .. .. .. .. +
37, Consoer, Townsend & Assoc., Chicago, III ........................................
E
+ + + + + + + .. +
38. Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett, Inc., Syosset, N. Y ..............................
E
.. + ,. + + + + + +
39, A. M. Kinney, Inc. & Affiliates, Cincinnati, Ohio .................................
AE
+ + + + + + + .. +
40. Gannett, Fleming, Corddry & Carpenter, Inc., Harrisburg, Pa............
E
+ + + + + + + + +
41, Ammann & Whitney, New York, N. Y. * .............................................
E
+ + + + + + + + +
42. Charles Luckman Assoc., Los Angeles, Calif .....................................
AEP
+ + .. .. .. .. + +
a-Includes John Graham & Co. and Carl G. Baker & Assoc. b-Voorheis-Trindle-Nelson, Inc.
--Formerly Theodore J. Kauffeld
their rankings to make room for Gibbs
& Hill.
New top design-constructor. The 58
top design-constructors accounted for
over $16.5 million in 1970 awards.
Their total was greatly boosted by
Boise Cascade Engineering and Con-
struction Group that broke the $2-bil-
lion mark for the first time in the his-
tory of The ENR 500.
The 10 largest design-constructors
had few shake-ups in their listing this
year. Boise Cascade jumped to the No.
1 slot for the first time. Bechtel Corp.
and The Ralph M. Parsons Co. edged
back to Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Kai-
ser Engineers Division, Brown & Root
and The Rust Engineering Co. kept the
same positions they occupied in 1969.
But Stearns-Roger Corp. leapt from
No. 16 to oust The M.W` Kellogg Co.
from the No. 7 peg.
Fluor Corp. jumped five slots to No.
8, pushing Arthur McKee & Co. down
to No. 10. The Lummus Co. again
ranks No. 9 this year.
Twenty design-constructors joined
The ENR 500 this yew. that did not
make the roster in 1969.
Average billings per staff jump
Architects-Engineers-up 11 %
525,800
$21,200 C"'l
Engineers-Architects-up 9%
$21,700
316,500 ,.-----,
*Billings estimated by ENR, based on company-reported size of staff # KEY TO TYPE OF FIRM: A -Architect;
classified themselves. ApprovednFor;Release 2002/02//060.ISCl RDP86 002448000200530015-1
Approved For Release 2002/02f0 et~sl b~ytt"cgq iflvR0g0 05130015-1 slightly shuffled in IDD r.
 Two out of five work abroad. Two ou#
2/~8c1iUX IDPt6MO244Rd i3ooiRe Igners overseas work
erations. Billings for work outside the 1 180- -180
TUBE SLAB
CONSTRUCTION
CAS T IN PLACE
CONCRETE FLOORS
AND ROOF SLABS
WITH PAPER OR
METAL TUBES
ADVANTAGES
? Quality construction at low cost
? Post-stressing in long spans
? Flat soffit
? Reduces floor thickness
? Eliminates projecting beams,
providing more efficient me-
chanical layouts
? Lightweight
? Flexibility of design
? Fireproof, soundproof, rigid
? Increases span capabilities of
Concrete slabs
A proven system, based on a simplified
design procedure, nationally used for
over 12 years in construction of office
buildings, schools, auditoriums, hotels,
garages and bridges.
? Staff engineers will assist archi-
tects, engineers and contractors
to obtain best application' and
results. ,
? Arrangements can be made for
manufacturing tubes on the
job site.
Authorized tube manufacturers furnish
license with tube purchase.
THE TUBE SLAB CO.
44 GILLETT ST., HARTFORD, CONN.
[phone]
Manufacturing franchises for
selected areas are available.
"Refer -1111 sLMOMFRelea
U.S. increased for architectural and en-
gineering firms, but contract awards for
design-constructors dipped.
Two out of three of the 58 top de-
sign-constructors won contracts in for-
eign countries in 1970, a smaller per-
centage than in 1969 when three out of
four design-constructors signed up jobs
abroad.
More design-constructors joined the
ENR 500 this year, but their $4-billion-
plus in contracts for overseas projects
failed to match last year's $4.4 billion
foreign total for only 29 firms.
Kaiser Engineers Division again had
the highest awards from foreign work,
but its $546.2 million in 1970 fell way
below the $705.6 million it reported a
THE
ENR
500
F ~e ~a
0" 4 6 ti~ec4 Z, 4Zi 4 !;y
A,A'f o $ 4~' C` P
43. C. F. Murphy Assoc., Chicago, III ...................................................... AE
44. Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Inc., Jacksonville, Fla ................................... AEP
45. CH2M/HILL, Corvallis, Ore .............................................................. (d) EP
46. J. E. Greiner Co., Inc., Baltimore, Md ................................................. EA
47. Charles A. Maguire & Assoc., Inc., Providence, R. I .......................... AE
48. Ford Bacon & Davis, New York, Dallas & Monroe, La ......................... EA
49. Stanley Consultants, Inc., Muscatine, Iowa ........................................ EAP
50. Camp, Dresser& McKee, Boston, Mass ............................................. E
51. Lester B. Knight & Assoc., Inc., Chicago, III ...................................... AE
52. J. E. Sirrine Co., Greenville, S. C ....................................................... EA
53. Vincent G. Kling & Assoc., Philadelphia, Pa ...................................... AE
54. Dalton-Dalton-Little, Cleveland, Ohio ................................................ AEP
55. Adrian Wilson Assoc., Los Angeles, Caiif .......................................... AEP
56. Sanders & Thomas, Inc., Pottstown, Pa ............................................. EA
57. Wm. Pereira & Assoc., Los Angeles. Calif .......................................... AEP
58. Syska & Hennessy, Inc., New York, N. Y ........................................... E
59. Gruen Assoc., Los Angeles. Calif ...................................................... AEP
60. Hellmuth. Obata & Kassabaum, Inc., St. Louis, Mo ............................ AE
61. Bums & McDonnell Engineering Co., Kansas City, Mo ...................... EA
62. CRS Design Assoc., Houston, Tex .................................................... (e) AEP
Billings totaled $5 million to $7.49 million
63. Benham-Blair & Affiliates, Inc., Oklahoma City, Okla... .............. ........
64. Green Engineering Co., Sewickley, Pa. and Green Assoc.,
Inc., Baltimore, Md......... ..............................................................
65. Lyon Assoc., Inc., Baltimore, Md .......... ...........................................
66. Pipe Line Technologists, Inc., Houston, Tex ......................................
67. The Architects Collaborative, Inc., Cambridge, Mass .........................
68. Edwards & Kelcey, Inc., Newark, N. J.- ..............................................
69. Law Engineering Testing Co., Atlanta, Ga .........................................
70. John Carl Warnecke & Assoc., San Francisco, Calif ..........................
71. Quinton-Budlong, Los Angeles, Calif ................................................
72. Madigan-Praeger. Inc . New York, N. Y .............................................
73. Buchan Assoc and Buchart-Horn, York. Pa ......................................
/74. I. M. Pei & Partners. New York, N. Y ...................................................
75. Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, Inc., Boston, Mass ..................................
76. Whitman-Requardt & Assoc., Baltimore, Md ......................................
77. Albert C. Martin & Assoc., Los Angeles, Calif ....................................
78. Vollmer Assoc , New York, N. Y .......................................................
i.79. The Eggers Partnership, New York, N. Y.? ...................................:....
80. Malcolm P rnie, Inc., White Plains, N. Y ............... ..................... :........
AE
EA
E
AP
EA
ES
AP
EA
EA
-AE
A
E
EA
AEP
EA
A
E
+ .. + + + + .. +
+ .. + + + + + + +
d-Merger of Cornell, Howland, Hayes & Merryfield, Inc. with Clair A. Hill & Assoc. e-Formerly Caudill. Rowlett & Scott
Billings estimated by ENR, based on com an -report ed f K Y TO TYPE OF FIRM: A-Architect;
Soils engineer. Firms classified them-
selves.
Designers bill 10% more jobs abroad in '70.
year ago. Boise Cascade Engineering
and Construction Group came close to
matching Kaiser's foreign total as its
awards jumped to $505.4 million.
Designers bill. 10% more. Foreign
r t,
 billings of the leadin e~ t 0r kel~asel (4 o to O6r tC1At aRb RA6r0W
$170.3 million. Consulting engineers
billed the largest portion, $69.6 million,
a 19% increase over a year ago. Engi-
neers-architects billed the second high-
est sum, whereas they had the largest
share of overseas billings in 1969. Ar-
chitects upped their foreign billings
40% to $2.1 million while architects-en-
gineers billed 3% less for jobs abroad
than in 1969.
While 280 of the leading designers re-
continued THE
projects Iii s y r v. ivxai. y -. ...-_
did have jobs overseas last year saw
their billings drop, especially designers
that billed less than $2.5 million.
Consulting engineers had the best
growth record in foreign billings; two
had increases for every consultant with
a drop in foreign billings. About one-
half of the leading architects-engineers
and engineers-architects increased their
overseas billings. But more architects
Billings totaled $5 million to $7.49 million
'81. Harrison & Abramowitz, New York, N. Y ...........................................
82. Edward Durell Stone & Assoc., New York, N. Y .................................
83. L. Robert Kimball, Ebensburg, Pa .....................................................
84. Schmidt, Garden & Erikson, Chicago, III ............................................
.....
85, McGaughy, Marshall & McMillan, Norfolk, Val I ........................
86. Walk, Haydel & Assoc., Inc., New Orleans, La ...................................
87. Albert Kahn Associated Architects & Engineers, Inc.,
Detroit, Mich ................................................................................
.....
88. Haines, Lundberg & Washler, New York, N. Y.'. .. ... . ..... . .. .
Billings totaled $2.5 million to $4.9 million
89. Greeley & Hansen, Chicago, III .......................................................
90. O'Brien & Gere Engineers. Inc., Syracuse, N. Y...... .. ....... ... ... ...... 91. Rogers, Butler & Bergun, New York, N. Y .........................................
92. Rogers, Taliaferro, Kostritsky, Lamb/RTKL Inc.,
......................... .... ........
Baltimore, Md. .............. ..........................
93. King & Gavaris Consulting Engineers, Inc., New York, N. Y.__ .........
94. Simons-Eastern Co., Atlanta, Ga .......................................................
95. R. W. Beck & Assoc., Seattle, Wash ...... ..........................................
98. Lyles, Bissell, Carlisle & Wolff, Columbia, S. C ..................................
97. Daverman Assoc., Inc., Grand Rapids, Mich ......................................
98. The Pace Co., Houston, Tex .............................................................
99. Auburn & Assoc., Inc., Pittsburgh, Pa,.., ............. .. ...... . .... ........
.
.100. Whitman & Howard, Inc., Boston, Mass., .. ............ .. .... .. . ... .........
101. E. Lionel PavlO, New York, N. Y ......................................................
102. Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, Pa.- ............................................
103. Naramore, Bain, Brady & Johanson, Seattle, Wash ............................
104. Seelye, Stevenson, Value & Knecht, New York, N. Y ..........................
105. Hudgins, Thompson, Ball & Assoc., Oklahoma City, Okla .................
106. Boyle Engineering, Santa Ana, Calif .................................................
107. Skilling, Hells, Christensen, Robertson, Seattle, Wash .......................
108. McFarland-Johnson-Gibbons Engrs., Inc., Binghamton, N. Y............
109. Turner, Collie & Braden, Houston, Tex ..............................................
110. Engineering-Science, Inc.. Arcadia, Calif, ............. ... I ....... I ..... .... 1. .
111. Forrest & Cotton, Inc., Dallas, Tex .....................................................
112. Wilsey & Ham, San Mateo, Calif .........................................................
113. C-S-T Engineering Co., Los Angeles, Calif, ......... . ..... .....................
114. Norman Engineering, Los Angeles, Calif ..........................................
115. Rader & Assoc., Miami, Fla ...............................................................
119. Goodkind & O'Dea, Inc., Montclair, N. J .............................................
......
117. Burke, Kober, Nicolais & Archuleta, Los Angeles, Calif, ...............
118. Stone, Marraccini & Patterson, San Francisco, Calif ..........................
119. Maxwell Starkman & Assoc., Beverly Hills, Calif ................................
120. Connell, Pierce, Garland & Friedman, & Connell Assoc.,
Inc., Miami, Fla ..............................................................................
121. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, Baltimore, Md ...........................................
122. Murray,& McCormick, Inc., Sacramento, Calif. ....... 1-.1.1- .................
123. Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc., Boston, Mass ................................... .
124. Cahn Engineers, Inc., New Haven, Conn. & Newman & Doll,
White Plains, N. Y ..................................................... .............
25. Erdman & Anthony, Rochester, N. Y. & Camp Hill, Pa..................... .
28. Alan M. Voorhees & Assoc., Inc., McLean, Va .................................
27. Kahn & Jacobs, New York, N. Y.
'-Formerly Eastern Engineering Co.
k+~
c~ ~e m 1P ~ ~+ o
'i
4b ~J~' u
~ P G 4, V T
A
+ .. + .. + +_..
A
+ .. + .. .. .. .. .. +
E
+ + + + + + + + +
AE
+ .. + .. + + + .. ..
AE
+ ++++++++
EA
+ ++++++.. +
AE
+ ++++++.. +
AE ,
+ .. + + ++ + + +
E
.. + + + ? + + .. ..
A
A
+ .. + .. ..
E
+ +.. +.. ++.. 4'
(f) EA
+ + + + + + + .. 4-
E
+ + .. + + + + .. ..
AEP
+ ++++++.4.
AE
+ ++++++.. 4-
E
+ + .. + + + + .. 4-
E
+ +.. ++++.. +
EA
+ +++++++i?
E
.. + ++..y. .. I.
E
.. + .. + + + + .. ..
AEP
+ .. +.. .. .. +++
E
+ + .. + + + + + +
AE
+ ++++.. .. ++
EA
+ ++++++++
E
+ +.. ++.. ,. .. +
E
+ + .. + + .. +
E
+ + .. + + + + ? +
E
.. + .. + + .. .. .. +
E
+ + + + + + + + ..
EA
+ +++++++,.
++++++..
EA
EA
+ +
+ ++++
++.. +
to
+ ++++
+++d
ES
.. +.. ++,. .. ++
AE
+ ., + + + +
A
+ ? + ? ., ? .. +
A
+ + ,. .. .. .. .. ..
AEP + +++++++..
E .. + .. + + .. .. +
E + +++ .. .. ? +..,
EA + ++++++++
Billings estimated by EI4RPRrawdoFnaryR (ease, 2002/112O6r9 Dt -RDP186gOfi2#4R0
;-Consulting engineer; AE-Architect-Engineer; EA-Engineer-Architect: S?Soils engineer. Firms classified them-
selves.
CHJ1tECIURAL
CONCRETE
WITH
RIBBED LIHER'
The Calumet Construction Co.,
Hammond, Ind., used Symons Steel-
Ply Forms with Symons 11/2" Deep Rib
Plastic Liner for all bearing walls and
columns on the First National Bank of
Lansing, Ill. The liners were handset
for each re-use.
These deep, architecturally dra-
matic ribs can be easily cast into any
concrete surface. As the sun revolves
through the day, distinctive shadows
appear within the ribs, giving the
concrete surface. strong, clean lines.
Several different finishes are possible
with this liner. Concrete can be left
smooth, sandblasted or roughened by
hammer blows and bush hammering,
The rough finish shown was obtained
by bush hammering. Liner life is high
and not affected by the number of
concrete casts.
Symons architectural form liner
brochure is available upon request.
- VVJJVV
DIVISION OF 1S''` SVMONS CORPORATION
114 E. Touhy Ave., Des Plaines, III. 60018
r4FG. COMPANY
 uAmwa8 -:?i. &0% 11
I nJVV LU LVII
a column by
its cover.
When you see a Sonotube
Fibre Form on the outside of
a column, there are a couple
of things you can be sure of
about the inside: Not only
will the concrete column be
economical, but it'll also be
easy to form.
Because a Sonotube is
lightweight. It can be erected,
braced and stripped quickly.
It has a built-in moisture
barrier that allows wet cure
without sacrificing the
stability of the form.
It can be drilled, cut or
sawed right on the job.
It's disposable. So there
are no cleaning or inventory
costs.
It's available in a wide
variety of sizes. And in two
styles-Seamless Sonotube,
requiring little, if any,
finishing, and A-Coated
Sonotube for ordinary
finished surfaces.
And there's a lot more.
Write Sonoco Products
Company, Hartsville, S. C.
29550, and we'll send you a
free copy of our illustrated
brochure.
Sonoco Products Company.
Innovators in construction
. materials,
Aped For Release
billed less work abroad. than increase
00,
2A t s~itril t~a~iPs e'fi7 ~Tc`~rlM
architectural and engineering firms.
Currently, 120 jobs keep leading firms
busy in 19 European countries with
France leading the tally. South Amer-
ica is the second most popular conti-
nent, followed by Asia. The leading de-
continued THE
EXIN
Billings totaled $2.5 million to $4.9 million
signers are also active in 26 African
tlQQ~~n~~s
O8 dt"a~1~in'le country, Canada has the
most attraction. Thirty-three of the
leading design firms are working there
now. Brazil is second with 26 designers.
Average billings up 13.5%. Two out of
three leading designers in 1970 billed
owners for more work than in 1969.
4
~~ 20 4!J P 4 ~i`' ~~ W U '4
128. Bovay Engineers. Inc., Houston, Tex.' ..................................... E + + + + + + + r
129. Meyer, Strong & Jones, New York, N Y ........................................ E + .. .. .. .. + + ,. ..
130. Tudor Engineering Co., San Francisco, Calif ..................................... E .. + + + .. .. + +
131. Porter and Ripa Assoc., Inc., Newark. N. J ........................................ EASP + + + + + + + + +
132. Bellante, Clauss. Miller & Nolan, Inc., Scranton, Pa..... ...................... AEP + + + + + + + + +
133. Engineering Consultants, Inc., Denver, Colo ..................................... E .. + .. + + + + + +
134. Max O. Urbahn Assoc., Inc., New York, N.Y..................................... AP + .. + .. .. .. .. + +
135. Harry Weese & Assoc., Chicago, III .................................................. A + +1 +F .. ., ., .. .. +
136. Robert & Co Assoc., Atlanta. Gar.....c.........' ........ .........'................. AE + + + + + + + + +
137. Sargent-Webster-Crenshaw & Folley, Syracuse. N, Y........................ AE + + + + + + + .. ..
138. Soil Testing Services. Inc., Northbrook, III .......................................... S + + .. .. + +
139. Hanford Engineering Services Div., Vitro Corp. of
America, Richland, Wash ............................................................... AE + + + + + + + .. ..
140. Barton-ASchman Assoc., Inc., Chicago, III ....................................... EP .. + ., + .. .. .. + +
141. Matz. Childs & Assoc., Baltimore, Md ................................................ EA + + + + + .. .. +
142. Rose. Beaton and Rose, White Plains, N. Y ...................................... AE + .. + .. + + + ..
143. MacKay & Somos, San Jose, Calif ..................................................... E .. + + .. .. .. +
c O,E.,+man v Eutz Phi'cdcl ...P- nEP + ., t .. t i - .. ..
145. Severud-Perrone -Stu rm-Bandel, New York. N. Y ............................... E + ., .. .- + .. .. .. +
146. The Grad Partnership, Newark, N. J .......... ........................... (g) AEP + .. + .. .. .. .. + +
147. Ritchie Assoc., Inc., Chestnut Hill, Mass.. ....................... .................. A + .. + .. .. .. .. .. ..
148. Chas.W.?Cole & Son, Inc., South Bend, Ind.: ............... ..................... EA + + + + + + + .. ..
149. James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineer, Inc.
Pasadena, Calif ............................................................................. E + + .. + + + + + +
150. Chance Enterprises, Inc., East Detroit, Mich ..................... ............. AE + + + + + + + .. +
;h51. Dewberry, Nealon & Davis, Fairfax, Va ................................................ EA + + + + .. .. .. + +
152. Harland Bartholomew & Assoc.. Memphis, Tenn ............................... E + + + .. + + +
153. Peter F. Loftus Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa ................................................. E + + + + + + +
154. McClelland Engineers, Inc.. Houston, Tex ......................................... S + + + .. .. .. ,. +
155. The Cannon Partnership, Niagara Falls, N. Y .................................... AE + .. + .. + +
156. George S Nolte Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc.,
San Jose, Calif .............................................................................. EP + + ? + + .. .. +
157. Curtis & Davis, New Orleans, La. & New York, N. Y ........................... A + .. + .. ,. .- ,. + +
158. Minoru Yamasaki & Assoc., Txoy, Mich .............................................. AE + .. + .. .. + .. .. +
159. Engineers Inc., Newark, N. J ............. EA + + + + + + + .. ..
160. Fenton G. Keyes Assoc., Providence, R. I...._ ................................ ... AE + + + + + + + + +
161. Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Roanoke, Va.................................. AE + + + + + + + .. +
162. Harley Ellington-Pierce, Wolf, Yee & Assoc., Southfield,
Mich ........ ...... ............................................................................. AE + ++++++++
163. Joseph R. Loring & Assoc., Inc.. New York, N. Y ............................... E + + + .. + + .. ..
164. Johnson & Anderson, Inc., Pontiac, Mich .......................................... E + + + + + .. .. +
165. Davis Brody & Assoc., New York, N. Y ............................................. A + .. + .. .. .. .. .. +
166. Williams & Works, Grand Rapids. Mich ............................................. E .. + + + + .. + + +
167. Langdon & Wilson, Los Angeles, Calif. ................ ............................. A + .. + .. .. .. .. .. +
168. The Ken R. White Co., Denver, Colo., ......................... ... ..EA + + + + + + + + +
169. Wilson & Co., Salina Kan ................................................................. EA + + + + + + + + +
170. Samborn. Steketee, Otis & Evans, Inc., Toledo, Ohio ......................... EAP + + + + + + + + +
171. Brevard Engineering-Stottler, Stagg & Assoc., Cape
Canaveral, Fla........................ ..................................................... EAP + + + + + + + + +
172. Blauvelt Engineering Co., New York. N. Y ......................................... E .. .. + + .. + + ,.
173. Gruzen & Partners, New York, N Y.......... ....................................... AEP + .. + .. ., ., .. + +
174. Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc., Bloomfield Hills, Mich ............................. E + + ., + .. .. .. .. ..
175. Office of Alfred Easton Poor. New York, N. Y ..................................... AE + + + + + + + .. +
176. Alden E. Stilson & Assoc., Columbus. Ohio ....................................... E + + + + + + + .. ..
177. Ferrenz & Taylor. New York, N. Y .................................................... A + .. + .. .. .. .. .. +
178. Brown & Caldwell. San Francisco. Calif ............................................. E + + + + + +.+ +
179. The Chester Engineers. Inc , Coraopolis, Pa ..................................... E .. + + + + + .. +
180. LeMessurier Assoc., Inc., Cambridge, Mass ...................................... E + .. ?. .. + .. .? ??
181. Lockwood. Andrews & Newnam, Inc., Houston, Tex ......................... E . + + + + + + + + +
182. Holabird & Root Chicago, Ill. .. ............ + + +. + + + +
g-Formerly Frank Grad & Sons
Billings estimated by ENR, based on company-reported size of staff =KEY TO TYPE OF FIRM A -Architect;
IInOQRvegNeg:epsiraerrtbP` 8t1 bNr7RdA.Q.fspplit"6rah1(gt; -Soils engineer. Firms classified them.
SO 491
 The increase stems from both higl_ ing design firms by 13.5% to $4.2 m
029 ~~ 'E~io--RID pet40Z 50001S.Flfirm. This sustained a good p exity of projects that require total en- erage rate of growth that saw avera
vironmental and sociological planning. billings per firm climb 13.1% in 1969.
These factors offset the impact of fewer Consulting engineers fared the be
new construction starts in 1970 than in in 1970 of any type of design organiz
1969, so that only one out of three lead- tion. Four out of five consultants bill(
ing designers saw their billings owners for more work last year than
squeezed by last year's tight money 1969. Architects had the second be
conditions. record; three out of four increased the
But those firms with higher billings billings last year. For architects-ene
raised the average billings for all lead- neers and engineers-architects, t1A
continued THE
BUMPING POSTS
Hayes' six different types of bump-
ing posts are designed to meet
every car-stopping requirement
encountered in protecting persons
and property at track-ends. Other
Hayes products complete the spur
track safety system.
Free leatherette ring-
binder catalog of world's
most-specified derails,
bumpIng posts and wheel
stops (Including periodic
supplement sheets). Write
on letterhead.
HAYES TRACK DIVISION
FEDERAL
SIGN & SIGNAL
CORPORATION
RICHMOND, INDIANA 47374
Call A1yd 6'Relea
(It's a name we enjoy living up tol)
Billings totaled $2.5 million to $4.9 million
\ " L`3 a . cP ~ c" i
O 8 CA ~?, CA ,~~ C . cP `,p a
'2' 0 P G 4i`~S?'