This is a bit OT, but I was interested in Tom's answer to what Pacific meant to his career: "It meant we would get more chances to work on great ground. But I think we had to “validate” its success with our projects in Australia and New Zealand before developers put us in the upper echelon of architects." I was struck by how Tom seemed to expect (and accept) this validation process, how he seemed to take for granted, without much rancour, that it was a necessary (or at least, unavoidable) step in the career/ladder -- and this even though he had a lot of good courses under his belt by the time Pacific came around. And I can't help comparing that attitude of his to one I've seen (deeply held, if not expressed openly) many times over the years, to people I know (one very well) in other creative businesses. The writer with his first published short-story collection, the film-maker with his first low-budget movie, the musician with his first independent release, the actor with his first paying gig -- what they felt (if not expressed) was that, now, no further validation was necessary; what they hoped was that, now, everything would take care of itself; what they expected was that, now, clients would come knocking at their door; what they eventually got angry about was the idea/realization that this one piece of work, even if it was pretty good, didn't validate them at all. Was it ego or idocy that held us (err...I mean, them) in its power? Whatever it was, it seems Tom has avoided its pratfalls. Man oh man, how many good things and good qualities have to come together it order for a career to flourish. Talent is just one of them....
Peter