How strong collaboration simplified the merger of two small firms

The similarities between Terrence O’Neal and Anthony (Toney) Baker are undeniable, but the differences ended up being the most crucial aspect of their partnership. 

Both O’Neal and Baker knew they were going to be architects from a young age after some inspiration from their father. 

“I was about eight or nine years old when my dad told me what architects do and I thought that it sounded great,” said O’Neal. “I didn’t know any architects; I just knew they designed buildings.” Ultimately, O’Neal had to decide whether to pursue a music career (he still plays trumpet) or architecture, and the stability of an architecture path appealed to him first and foremost.

“I got the knack from my father who was a carpenter,” said Baker. “He was always sketching and drawing. I was very good at mechanical drawing and eventually that led me to the field.” 

Both Baker and O’Neal worked for a variety of different firms before striking out on their own. O’Neal worked in small, medium, and large firms before starting his own, Terrence O'Neal Architect LLC in 1993. Baker worked in smaller and medium sized firms before he began his firm, ACB Architect PLLC in 1983. 

But their differences made the eventual merger of their two firms into one—Tonab Architecture PLLC—as smooth as they could have hoped. 

“Toney’s biggest strength is in general management and financial management. I’ve learned a lot about managing people from Toney and how he approaches things,” said O’Neal. “I think my strength is design management, so when you put the two together it’s a very strong collaboration.”

Both Baker and O’Neal sat down with the Architect to talk about the story of their merger, the biggest challenges they faced in merging firms, the future of architecture, and more. 

What is the story behind your merger? 

Toney: I met Terrence because we used to go to forums held by different agencies and organizations. We always had a relationship like “Hi, how are you doing,” and just recognizing each other. 

I got to a point where I needed to step back in my firm. I had an employee at my firm for over 20 years and I was talking to them about taking over the firm but I think that person started to realize the challenges of maintaining a firm and eventually backed out. So I was at a point where I asked myself “do I continue or do I close the firm?” 

After much thought, I approached Terrence with this proposal of merging. Initially he said no, but months went by and I was persistent. He must have gotten sick and tired of me because, finally, he suggested that we sit and talk about it. We got together and there was some synergy there. 

Terrence: There was synergy there. Toney was very clear he didn’t want to be at the forefront and run the firm and make all the decisions, but I do want to do that! He had been in that position for so long and he wanted to step back. So that’s one of the major reasons it worked out, I want to run a firm and Toney doesn’t want to run the day-to-day operation of the practice. But Toney doesn’t want to stop altogether, either. 

Another aspect that worked out was Toney’s work in the airport industry. I had previously tried getting into airport architecture.  It’s hard to start a whole new building type as an architect without some kind of previous experience in the specific typology. You need the background and track record in order to compete with other firms that specialize in a particular building type. 

What are the biggest challenges when it comes to merging firms? 

Terrence: Deciding on how to structure the merger was the biggest challenge. We consulted a firm that specializes in mergers and acquisitions for architects and engineers. They helped us out with how to structure our business, and to helped hammer out the agreement between us. We decided that we wanted to start a new firm. We each had ongoing contracts under our individual practices.  It was especially challenging to reassign our individual contracts to the new TONAB entity. 

Toney: I had never had a partner before. I had to be able to understand what it takes to not fully be in charge and that was the hardest thing for me. I was able to do it because I recognized that it was the best way for our relationship and for our firm to work.

Terrence is the managing principal and I tell everyone that. If a decision needs to be made and somebody comes and asks me, the fist thing I ask is if they’ve talked to Terrence yet. I recognize that he’s the one that is running the show. 

But we reach out to each other a lot. I’ll give Terrence my suggestions, but it doesn’t mean he needs to do what I say. I listen to him, he’ll listen to me, and I fully support the direction he decides to go. We’re not butting heads. 

Terrence: Toney is a very smart guy. He knows what he wants and what’s going to work and what isn’t going to work. When he told me that I should really run the firm, that made a difference. 

I was always weary of partnerships. You can run into conflicts and disagreements in any partnership, but if one person is the decision maker, it eliminates a lot of possible conflict. 

One of your core principles is the belief that architecture can and should have a positive impact on people. How has your firm exemplified that concept?

Terrence: Most of our work is in the public realm like airports, public schools, and housing. We design with a sensitivity that the public is going to occupy, use, or visit the spaces we design. We don’t cling to one design philosophy or one way of approaching a project. We design based on the client and their needs. 

Toney: I’ve always told Terrence that he is a better architect than I am. I was always more on the business side of architecture and I still gravitate towards that. I do consider myself to be a good architect because I had very good mentors and teachers. 

But I really look at the business side of things, architects usually aren’t businesspeople. I firmly believe if you’re not profitable, if you’re not managing your business properly, if you’re not taking care of your staff then you can’t have a good impact on people. Without being successful and being able to stay afloat you can’t service your clients and you can’t service the public. 

What are some of the key challenges facing the future of architecture? What are your thoughts on the state of the profession in 2024 and beyond?

Terrence: The first thing I think of is artificial intelligence. I think it’s something that will enhance and improve our work, I don’t see it as something that will reduce the need for architects. The younger generation coming up will have to decide how AI will interface with the profession.

I also think increasing diversity in the profession is important. There has been progress with minority professionals getting hired at firms, but I’d like to see more black and other minority equity ownership in some of the larger practices. The law profession has made a lot of advancements, but among the large multinational architecture firms there are very few, if any, black architects that are equity partners. 

Toney: Terrence and I talk about this a lot. I agree with everything he said. I like to listen to younger people talk about the future of the profession. Their approach to architecture is so different to my approach twenty to thirty years ago and I think that’s a good thing.