MIT Sues Frank Gehry Over Buggy $300M CS Building 388
theodp writes "MIT has filed a negligence suit against world-renowned architect Frank Gehry, charging that flaws in his design of the $300 million Stata Center, one of the most celebrated works of architecture unveiled in years, caused leaks to spring, masonry to crack, mold to grow, and drainage to back up. The complex, which houses a Who's Who of Computing including Tim Berners-Lee and Richard Stallman, includes the William H. Gates Building."
Re:Just look at the building (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just look at the building (Score:2, Interesting)
As other posters mention, Wright's buildings are notorious for leaks and other problems. $1.5 million to fix a $300 million innovative/radical/experimental design isn't going to cause any hardship for MIT. They should be relieved it was so cheap to fix.
I don't remember Building 20 leaking (Score:5, Interesting)
My recollection is that the famously shabby Building 20, built hastily as a temporary building during World War II and kept in service until the Stata replaced it, was a perfectly adequately functional building that did all the various things you'd expect a building to do. (That could be a sexist remark: I don't remember what the ratio of mens' to womens' bathrooms in building 20 was; they might have been unequal).
I do not remember anyone who worked in it ever complaining about it. There must have been some, but I think it was by and large very well liked by its inhabitants.
One of the things that seemed odd to me about the Stata is that it was often felt that something about Building 20 actually seemed to encourage creativity and collaborative work, and I've always wondered why MIT, Gehry at all didn't first make a serious study Building 20 to see how and why it worked before embarking on what frankly looks to me like a half-baked display of architectural egotism.
I think Building 20's lack of visual distinctiveness may have been a plus, because it did not feel as if you were living under the shadow of someone else's creativity.
Any person with even a touch of humility would have to feel intimidated by looking out the window of one of MIT's main buildings and seeing names like Newton and Lavoisier looming over them. I've never been in the Stata, but I think it would give one the impression of being subordinated to someone else's sense of play, instead of letting one free to express one's own playfulness.
Re:KISS (Score:5, Interesting)
For another, the extreme temperature changes from summer to winter, and the requirement that the building be heated and cooled from MIT's central steam plant.
Add into that the security, networking, and social interaction requirements, and you have a really complex building before the architect even picks up his light pen. Simplicity is just out. "Managed Complexity" is necessary.
MIT knows a lot about preserving its buildings. Many of its buildings are landmarks and are carefullly preserved. It used to let ivy grow on the outsides of some buildings, in the traditional manner, except the ivy destroys the mortar between the bricks. It's very expensive to replace, so they just ripped out all the ivy. Harvard has also done this.
The external form of a building is really a rather minor point and has little to do with how well it is designed or executed. MIT has parking garages with leaky roofs, You don't need Frank Gehry to design a building with a leaky roof.
Vision over Practicality (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, there are some things that buildings, especially public buildings, should do. They should make it easy to find things, especially central, shared resources like elevators, lobbies, cafeterias, and, especially, exits. The Stata Center fails on all counts. It is difficult-to-impossible to navigate to the uninitiated and, from what people who work there tell me, it is difficult for them as well.
The interior spaces are very architecturally interesting. But have so many bugs it is unbelievable. There is one meeting room where the walls are made with perforated plywood; this is a cool idea, but, regrettably, due to the mechanisms that human vision uses to fuse the images between the two eyes, the sea of holes makes people feel queasy in that room. The workspaces are part of a grand open-office design. The previous building where LCS/AI was housed was the antithesis of open design -- a series of small offices -- and it worked very well. With the new building, researchers and students spend more of their time at home, rather than in the building, because the lack of acoustic privacy in the open design makes it extremely difficult to get any research done. In another area, there are ledges high up in one two-story space that are visible only from the story above -- kind of interesting, but these ledges will never, ever be cleaned and are starting to accumulate a goodly layer of dust. This wouldn't be so bad, except that people entering that space from the elevator lobby are immediately faced with this grime.
From what people intimately involved with the planning have told me, Geary approached the design of this building with astonishing hubris and disregard for any of the actual needs of the occupants. Interactions with him were often tense and acrimonious. Geary's willing ignorance of the real use of the building, rather than his imagined fantasy, shows. It's a cool looking structure that works very, very poorly as a research laboratory. Although few people who work there are willing to state it out loud, the rumblings are being felt that the decline of computer science research at MIT has in no small part been due to this negative influence of the building on daily worklife.
A good building will not only be easy to use, but will inspire its occupants. The old building at 545 Tech Square wasn't showy at all, but had some fantastic vistas, and a reasonably efficient use of space. (I had a series of offices in that building over the span of 14 years.) It was perhaps no accident that the basis for much of Computer Science (time-sharing operating systems, language research, the internet, high-performance compilers, distributed computation, microarchitecture, multi-processor design, speech recognition, theory, and a host of other areas) was performed there. I hope that this illustrious history will be continued in the Stata center, but am beginning to wonder if it will.
Re:Just look at the building (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Vision over Practicality (Score:4, Interesting)
I was around when they first unveiled the building and no body liked it from the start. The administration thought it would be a neat idea to put this ugly red metal installation art piece in the grass in front of Stata. Some creative people over at EC decided to turn it into a giant swing. The administration got angry and took it down right away. I tried to find pictures of this hack, but I couldn't find any. However, in a related incident, some more MIT hackers did this [mit.edu] to the MIT sign sitting outside of Stata. I think that says it all.
The building has always had problems. During the first year, the fire alarm would randomly go off and everyone would have to evacuate. This was especially bad because the first floor housed a handful of classrooms (almost everyone had at least one class in 32-123, which held around 300 people, regardless of their major).
I held several UROPs (undergraduate research) in Stata and I can attest that the open work environment doesn't work. I usually ended up sitting around a bunch of people that weren't even in a related group so they became huge distractions. They would talk to each other a lot and brainstorm, but I was left trying to concentrate on my work. In the end, I just set up the software on my laptop and worked from my dorm room.
The floor layouts are definitely confusing. I always got lost when I had to find a professor's office for the first time. More importantly, I'd get lost trying to find a bathroom on a particular floor. Not cool.
Ironically, there is a huge water filtration system present just outside that harvests the tons of rainwater that we get and uses it in the toilets and stuff. I'm surprised that hasn't broken yet (maybe it has and I just don't know it yet).
And the only reason why MIT made such an odd looking building is for tourism. Tons and tons of people visit MIT every day for tours. They may be visiting MIT explicitly or they may just be visiting Boston and decided to take the trolley tour (which starts in Kendall Square, i.e. 2 blocks from the Stata Center) and they ALL take the same pictures. They pose in front of Building 7 or in Lobby 7 (77 Mass Ave.), they'll pose in front of the Great Dome in Killian Court and they all pose in front of the Stata Center (either the steps to the third floor or the, now reconstructed, amphitheater). I mean, without a few interesting sights, the tourists would get bored. While I agree that this sort of tourism doesn't necessarily generate MIT revenue, but it does generate attention and enough attention can be used to turn into money.
Re:Frank Gehry is not a proper architect (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean he's just like every other well know architect. Frank Lloyd Wright pull the exact same crap. His roofs were notorious for leaks and yet he's still Americas best known architect.
MG
Re:Just look at the building (Score:1, Interesting)
It is a pain in the ass to get around, nothing makes logical sense. Elevators that go 1/2 a floor only, stairwells outside that don't look like stairwells, and lead random ass spots (stairwell goes to a patio, which is an absolutely unusable space, and from there it finally leads down, but the stairs on the patio are non-standard dimensions, etc. THe "ampitheatre" mentioned in the article has stupid ass trees in the middle of the rows of seats, so it's useless as an ampitheatre. The rooms are non-standard shapes, and the "custom" benches/seating on the interior first floor are just plywood.
MIT was stupid for every building this monstrosity.
Re:flakey architects (Score:5, Interesting)
You would be amazed at the details that archtects overlook. Do you know why houses in the north tend to have overhanging roofs? It's so the melting snow and ice will fall away from the foundation and not cause leaks in the cellar. The lack of overhang also causes unslightly stains on the ouside of the house from the dripping water. Those "modern" buildings they have in California look really stupid here with all their water damage.
Re:Just look at the building (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just look at the building (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Architecture vs. Engineering (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:flakey architects (Score:4, Interesting)
Spend a few days in the building and all of those quirks are less endearing. Wright not only designed far beyond his materials, the air flow within the building sucks so the environment is often uncomfortable, the restrooms feel like an afterthought, and I had to double-check that I hadn't just let my self into an electrical panel access closet at least once, there's no sense whatsoever of the changing needs of a building, traffic and work flows are stuck in 1960s procedures or modern lines and people management have been awkwardly introduced around his designs, and a fellow juror reaffirmed that the courtrooms make one feel like we're stuck in the midst of an ongoing alien abduction.
Wright, Gehry and their ilk are overrated hacks, but they're appreciated by the same pointy-haired types who spec a problem into oblivion and then blame the engineers when their hallucinations can't actually be built problem free, so the worship goes on. I think the poster up above who compared the divide between architects and structural engineers to that of web designers versus programmers is dead on. there are, indeed, great designers, but as anyone who has, say, tried to pay their bills on a service provider's web site recently can tell you, they're far less common than the hacks who talk a good line and will make the logo bigger while destroying usability.
Re:Architecture vs. Engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the article, both Skanska and an outside consultant formally objected to the design, requesting soft joints and drainage systems. Gehry told them to shut up and go ahead with his design.
"An architect can't do all the work"
Yes, that would be obvious to most people. Unfortunately, it appears that the architect in this case isnt 'most people'.
That said, personally I used to think it would be hard to design eyesores worse than 70's projects concrete horros, but frankly I'd say Gehry's work actually qualifies. Apart from the fact that they look like someones three year old got hold of a 3d modelling program (which, as far as I can tell, is more or less exactly how he makes them), they instinctively evoke the desire, not merely to fix them, but to actually tear the buildings down and start from scratch.
I guess it's the architectural version of Defective by Design.
Re:flakey architects (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you're one of the "pop stars" of architecture like Gehry. He has consistently ignored environmental conditions when designing buildings, leading to titanium clad buildings that melt asphalt walkways on sunny days and many others that cannot tolerate rain or snow. For those posters who claim that it's the civil engineers responsibility to ensure the buildings are structurally sound, let me just say that when you're working on something as prestigous as a Gehry or Norman Foster project compromise is rarely possible. Often a civil engineer or contractor will point out a flaw in the design only to have the architect threaten to walk away from the project, with possible legal consequences. The sponsors of the project then take sides with tha architect, not wanting to put themselves into a bad PR position. Happens all the time - for example the Gherkin in London where I briefly worked is a Norman Foster ego-fest. Too hot in Summer, too cold in Winter and one of the supposedly indestructible windows fell out not long after completion. Add in the remarkably low floor space inside, thanks to the massive central column along with a large number of interior balconies, and you've got a building that's an over priced status symbol.
Re:Vision over Practicality (Score:5, Interesting)
The seminar room you mention ("Kiva") is unbelievably disorienting; the problem goes far beyond perforated plywood, which certainly accentuates the problem. The walls jut in and out at odd angles, and lean inward and askew as they climb to an offcenter window. I find the room nauseating; visitors I've brought by don't believe that the floor is actually level, the effect is so strong.
Security in the building is a complete joke, as there is no logic to the organization and separation of space, requiring complex electronically controlled access policies that are fundamentally broken.
HVAC in the building is horrible, although I understand that this is the case in many places, and was certainly the case in our previous building, NE-43.
Navigation is a nightmare; when people are lost in the building, I often lead them to where they want to go. There's no point trying to explain it to them, because the layout is so nontraditional that it defies simple explanation.
Office spaces are a mixed bag; some are beautiful spaces with recessed windows that make nice sitting areas. Others are cramped cubicles or have columns jutting through the middle.
I don't object to daring design-- it's just that Gehry seems to go out of his way to make things unusable.
There's a brief interview with Gehry in the film "My Architect" about Louis Kahn, and Gehry was interviewed in his architectural office, and it's as traditional as you could imagine: a big rectangular room with drafting tables. That settled it for me: it's not just hubris; he's an asshole. He sits in his comfortable space and designs expensive torture chambers; there's a Gehry-designed level of hell awaiting him.
Re:Just look at the building (Score:2, Interesting)
His building on the Case campus, the Peter B. Lewis building, had more issues than just the deadly icicles. It was over budget by nearly 2x the original price, which Peter B. Lewis (founder of Progressive Insurance) himself donated for the building.
He was so pissed that after the building was finished, he boycotted all Cleveland charities, including the university, asking that the boards be restructured. There is a lot of overlap on the boards of Case and the various Cleveland charities and non-profits.
Article here [ohioroundtable.org].
Re:flakey architects (Score:2, Interesting)
But, it does have one thing going for it. From a block away, there is a view of the building from down a railroad track overgrown with sumac. That view has a cool end-of-the-world dystopian sci-fi look to it.
So, here's the deal. Mod this post up to at least +3, and I'll run out, take a picture, and post it.
Re:Construction? (Score:2, Interesting)
When they closed it, a paper did an interview with the designer, Taylor Hardwick. They asked him what inspired him to make the unique design choices that made it stand out and be so interesting/attractive (the fins, the design-covered metal sheeting covering the balconies on the south side). A true architectural engineer, he told them he didn't give a damn about how pretty it looked, he designed it to work. (The fins, for instance, were designed as wind baffles against hurricane-force winds)
Re:Just look at the building (Score:3, Interesting)
We also found it sobering when, the day after our wedding, the chapel where we were married held the memorial service for the man killed in that attack.
Re:Form over Function (Score:3, Interesting)
But if you create a weird sculpture and start trying to stuff a building inside, things are getting ugly.
I've seen quite a few "late eastern bloc" eyesores that worked fine as buildings but were just that, zero care about appearances, "renovated" by putting a wrapping of glass, by adding some interesting extras here and there, making them quite interesting pieces of architecture without destroying the functionality.
Currently I'm working inside of a modern building which was built to the second paradigm. People are universally cursing it. The kitchen is so small only one person may use it at a time. The AC works ok, milling the same air, while air vents freeze people on ground floors while not bringing any air to the top. There are blood stains on a corner of one AC duct, the sharp corner placed just on people's forehead level in a quite frequently used passage. Windows don't open at all. And finishing of creation of the building was delayed by over a year... because it crosses the the law-regulated border height defining a "high building" by 25 centimeters, and as such had to be modified to conform to an entirely different and way more restrictive set of fire-prevention rules that it would have to conform had it been 25cm lower (including a special lift, extra construction layer, a room designated for a huge water tank on the last floor and so on).
Stata Center off the tracks (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm sure nobody thought of that! (Score:5, Interesting)
Ultimately the GC will sub out all the real work to the contractors for each trade. They hire the workers who end up putting in the sweat. Gehry may have sketched the design, but a $15 per hour employee did the roof, did the drywall, did the framing, etc.
The architect draws the pretty pictures, and if an engineer says it CAN be done, he'll believe it. If the engineer can prove it, presumably. Most architects are fairly sharp with buildings, believe it or not.
I guarantee you, if the lawyers for Gehry have any common sense they will turn around and sue everyone else with their name on a drawing for that structure. THOSE people will then turn around and sue the subs who did the work, claiming they didn't follow the drawings or used sub-par materials or whatever. This will turn into a grand mess. The engineers and architects (I presume?) have liability insurance, and the only real winners are the lawyers.
I worked for an engineering firm who was named in a lawsuit where a building was designed right but parts were installed terribly. The fingerpointing was massive.
Re:Frank Gehry is not a proper architect (Score:3, Interesting)
You should read some of the books Frank Lloyd Wright wrote. Can't find a link for you on Amazon but he wrote a couple of books in which he really breaks down a lot of his design decisions and, at least for a lot of his houses, he did take a lot of engineering questions into account that were genuinely ahead of his time. In particular, there's a house here in Chicago that he devoted a few pages to describing exactly how best to accomplish a carport such that groundwater wouldn't seep into the floor (remember: carport not garage, so the floor was a pretty intricate layering of gravel and sand).
Obviously, he still screwed up a lot. The Falling Water house is amazingly beautiful inside and out, and I love it more than I can really explain here as an architectural idea, but as a house it sinks slowly into the soft earth below. Still, if you look at his original blueprints he did take a lot of that into account, and some of the seepage is actually the result of the house aging, as well as additional problems post-construction. I don't know if, at the time, when nobody had attempted something like that, he could really have anticipated every problem.
Frank Gehry is much more a sculptor than an architect if you're expecting an architect to be a combination of a sculptor and an engineer, like they should. Many of his buildings are stricken with bizarre problems. Does anybody else remember the building of his (maybe it's the same one, now that I think of it) where a concave section of polished metal on the outer carapace, unbeknownst to everyone, was actually focused on a window of a building across the street. In the room with that window, the temperature was noticeably warmer than the rest of the building and was actually causing all kinds of havoc. That in particular, I'm not entirely sure that an engineer could really see it coming until the building was already built because the problem is so dependent on the particulars of the site and surroundings.
Long story short, take it easy on architects. Part of their job, like web designers, is to imagine things that may be ridiculously difficult to build.
Full disclosure: I quit architecture in school very early after finding out from an accomplished architect that most architects don't get to do any of the cool stuff until they become famous, and they have to be lucky to get there. I didn't feel lucky, so I studied art and computer science instead.