Slashdot Mirror


MIT Sues Frank Gehry Over Buggy $300M CS Building

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."

388 comments

  1. Just look at the building by Nimey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a reason why most buildings don't look that way, and in fact have a very building-like look. Certain techniques *work*.

    IMAO, this is as much MIT's fault as the architect's, because they approved this very experimental design.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:Just look at the building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The responsibility of preventing these sorts of issues falls squarely on the architects involved. After all, that's why architects are licensed and paid large sums of money for their services.

    2. Re:Just look at the building by coop247 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This building on campus at Case Western Reserve Univ. was also designed by Gehry. It also has issues with snow/ice (its in Cleveland) building up on the odd angles then falling on people. I walk by it every morning, and if you ask me it's just plain ugly.

      --
      //TODO: Insert catchy phrase
    3. Re:Just look at the building by clesters · · Score: 1

      Thou shalt not commit bikesheds

    4. Re:Just look at the building by khuber · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Easy for you to say, AC. No, this is all about PR for MIT. Otherwise they would build a box like everyone else.

      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.

    5. Re:Just look at the building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at Case Western Reserve University and have never liked that building. It doesn't fit in with anything around it and I don't find the interior all that inviting either. They finally came up with a permanent solution to ice and snow falling on people, they built concrete flower beds that take up about half the sidewalk. Before they went in, each winter season barricades were put up next to the building.

    6. Re: Just look at the building by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      This building on campus at Case Western Reserve Univ. was also designed by Gehry. It also has issues with snow/ice (its in Cleveland) building up on the odd angles then falling on people. I walk by it every morning, and if you ask me it's just plain ugly. I had classes (at a much less prestigious institution) in a building that won architectural awards when it was built back in the 1960s, but had to have functionality refits later. It especially had problems during thunderstorms, with areas that would channel rain through it sideways like a wind tunnel, and drains that would act as geysers and soak the unwary passer-by in semi-indoor areas.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Just look at the building by phobos13013 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't forget about this baby, too! This one is scary considering the parent and TFA since its INTENDED to contain thousands of people. Disney may want to take their name off that building JUST IN CASE. Safety issues aside, I think the work artistically is stunning, and as art should be appreciated so... but similar to Rem Koolhaas and the OMA AMO, its intellectually mind-blowing, but functionally, it seems, dangerous. Perhaps art and life aren't as compatible as these folks so detached from everyday reality seem to want to make it.

      --
      ...and it should be known by now
    8. Re:Just look at the building by Steve1952 · · Score: 1

      This is why you don't do drugs, kids.

    9. Re:Just look at the building by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They should be relieved it was so cheap to fix.

      I have to disagree. If I am spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a building, I expect it to work. At the very least, I would want my $15 million back from the architects. The architects were hired to design a building - the design doesn't work - so they shouldn't be paid. If you hired someone to landscape your yard, and it turned into a river of mud after the first rain, wouldn't you want your money back?

      Sure, to MIT $1.5 million isn't that bad. However, to say they should be relieved they only have to spend that much, (so far), is a little extreme.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    10. Re:Just look at the building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I agree in large part. The building is a functional waste.

      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.

    11. Re:Just look at the building by Palpitations · · Score: 1

      I have to say, I'm really disappointed in MIT for even considering hiring Gehry... He's designed some absolutely stunning, beautiful buildings - I'm not about to argue that. But come on now. MIT? Really? I would expect them to choose function over form 110% of the time.

      Who knows what sorts of scientific advances we could have had if those $300,000,000 were spent on research instead?

      *sigh*

    12. Re:Just look at the building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The responsibility for these issues falls squarely on the engineers to whom the architects gave their designs and asked if they would work. Look for who put their professional seal and signature on the construction plans to determine who is responsible. An architect signs their name so you know who made it look that way. An engineer signs their name and places their seal signifying to the best of their ability it met all acceptable criteria.

    13. Re:Just look at the building by dhovis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That building also posed a problem for Cleveland's SWAT teams when a crazy former student charged in and started shooting people. The SWAT team found it difficult to operate in a building with no right angles.

      --

      --
      The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

    14. Re:Just look at the building by TheGeneration · · Score: 2, Funny

      These buildings are ugly now and they were just built. I can only imagine how future generations will look at this Gehry turds on the urban landscape.

      Whatever, I'm going to just warm up some Jiffy Pop and enjoy the demolition of these eyesores. I can't wait to find out if the Millenium Park Concert Center has popcorn inside.

      P.S. this is not meant to be a troll. I really am this apoplectic whenever I see a city, or instution paying for work that I consider hideous.

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    15. Re:Just look at the building by fatlaces · · Score: 1

      i've known some architecture grad students, and they seemed to assume that structural engineering is a mature discipline, and that the artistic and engineering aspects of the building should be balanced. A pretty building that is comfortable, fits its natural and man-made surroundings, and won't collapse on you.

      These douchebag, fancy architects like Gehry, though progressive in design are just too full of themselves and screw up the balance.

      Santiago Calatrava FTW?!?!?!!?!?!

    16. Re:Just look at the building by tompaulco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm surprised to find no mention of Frank Gehry associated with the abominations all over the University of Illinois at Chicago campus. Cold and stark, crazy angles creating lots of unusable space, huge three foot thick slabs of concrete walkway creating dangerous dark and wet (because the huge slabs are ill-fitting) walkways underneath. As horrible as it looks and functions it simply MUST be nominated for some sort of accolade.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    17. Re:Just look at the building by PabloJones · · Score: 1

      Your landscape argument doesn't work.

      Architects provide a service, they can't guarantee/warranty anything. That's the contractor's realm.

      Gehry, love him or hate him was hired to design a building, which MIT signed off on, window boxes and all. He was also paid to draw up plans, details, etc. explaining to the contractor how to build the building. All architects are held to a "standard of care," which basically means that you have to operate in a manner consistent to what other architects would do in the same situation. Despite what you might think, the building does not have to be perfect.

      To prove negligence, MIT has to show that Gehry acted in a manner inconsistent with other professionals in his field. Being a complicated building, MIT should have known the risks involved.

    18. Re:Just look at the building by Steve+B · · Score: 1

      Without knowing what futurism is like, Johansen achieved something very close to it when he spoke of the city; for instead of describing any definite structure or building, he dwells only on broad impressions of vast angles and stone surfaces.... I mention his talk about angles because it suggests something Wilcox had told me of his awful dreams. He said that the geometry of the dream-place he saw was abnormal, non-Euclidean, and loathsomely redolent of spheres and dimensions apart from ours....

      /
      --"The Call of Cthulhu"
      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    19. Re:Just look at the building by forrestt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An architect is not just a building designer, and they don't just provide a service. Anybody can design a building. In order to have a building you design built, an architect must approve the design. An architect must take many classes in engineering and is certified by the state similarly to an engineer. When an architect puts his name on a building he/she isn't just saying, "look at the cool building I designed". They are certifying that if built according to the specifications it will be structurally sound. They are the ones that determine how large a beam is needed to hold up a roof or what thickness of glass is required in the exterior windows, etc. They are also (at least at this level of building) typically at the build site to oversee construction and ensure that the proper techniques are being performed to meet the structural requirements of the building. In other words, if the building is faulty due to design flaws, it is the architect that is responsible as they verified that it was flaw free. If the building is not built correctly, it is the architects responsibility to assure that the faults are reported even if they are not fixed. Fixing them may require deviation from the original plan due to costs of fixing vs. costs of redoing, but a sound building is still a requirement of their job.

    20. Re:Just look at the building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting as AC as to not throw off my mods to others

      Maybe SWAT teams should lease the buildings out on weekends to perfect multi angle entry designs for when such a thing happens again. For any smart crimial could then just build a building without right angles and the SWAT teams will be happered by said fact.

    21. Re:Just look at the building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There seems to have been an overriding reason to have it look differently:

      "... MIT said it wanted to create a complex of buildings ... designed to
      catalyze interactions and innovations among MIT's faculty and students..."

      Will this premise be borne out in time? Will this supposedly unique and
      stimulating environment actually lead to greater productivity and innovation?

      Somehow, I would not think that any earnest scientific investigator requires
      a fancy building as a source for creativity. Great minds can formulate great
      ideas even within a barren hovel.

    22. Re:Just look at the building by nih · · Score: 0

      This building [case.edu] on campus at Case Western Reserve Univ. was also designed by Gehry.
      It also has issues with snow/ice (its in Cleveland) building up on the odd angles then falling on people
      any of that on YouTube?
      --
      I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
    23. Re:Just look at the building by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Smart criminals who can afford to build such buildings _own_ the people who control SWAT teams.

      --
    24. Re:Just look at the building by PabloJones · · Score: 1

      Architects do just provide a service. They certify their design to "the best of their knowledge and ability," in accordance with building codes, etc. This is known as the standard of care. They cannot provide any sort of guarantee that their building will be leak-proof, falling ice proof, or whatever.

      A sound building is not necessarily a perfect building. MIT basically has to prove that Gehry & Partners knew that they were designing faulty flashing/drainage details, or neglecting to design them at all, and allow the contractor to "figure it out" in the field.

    25. Re:Just look at the building by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. An architect's duty to the state is to ensure that the building provides at least the code-minimum egress, accessibility, and fire resistive requirements. That's pretty much it.

      Structural engineers make it stand as defined by building codes. Mechanical engineers ensure proper ventilation and plumbing requirements are met. Electrical engineers manage fire hazards associated with electrical installations and ensure adequate lighting.

      As for roof leaks, and the ensuing problems that they cause, it is hard work to eliminate them, even in a simple box. While architectural details for waterproofing are often... challenged... by building complexity.

      The only famous architect I ever worked with for any duration was terrible at space planning. Functional detailing was even worse. That's about what you expect... the engineers at that point have an obligation to step up and make things work.

      If you want function, hire an HOK, SOM, or a Gensler. If you want a sculpture, hire a Gehry, Jahn, or Botta.

    26. Re:Just look at the building by schnablebg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The MIT Gehry building is not the only one of his campus buildings to result in controversy.

      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.

    27. Re:Just look at the building by CompMD · · Score: 1

      And here I was thinking that SES was designed so that if you got in and didn't belong there, you could never find your way out.

    28. Re:Just look at the building by coop247 · · Score: 1

      Thats a pretty interesting article. Not being a native of the mistake by the lake I didn't really know who Lewis was. The article is pretty old, so I don't know if he is still pissed at Case. The new president is all about cutting costs, despite the fact that the endowment is well over a billion.

      --
      //TODO: Insert catchy phrase
    29. Re:Just look at the building by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      If he wants to do art, why not just wrap islands with colored plastic or set up really big stones in a circle?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    30. Re:Just look at the building by operagost · · Score: 1

      Clearly, as an evil overlord, it would behoove me to have this brilliant architect build my impenetrable lair!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    31. Re: Just look at the building by shlashdot · · Score: 1

      That sounds pretty cool actually...

      --
      Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
    32. Re:Just look at the building by Skidge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heh, I was having my wedding rehearsal on campus a block away when that happened. It's a bit creepy when the cops show up and tell you to keep the doors locked in case a homicidal maniac managed to escape the building he was holed up in. It's also nice when the newspaper headline from your wedding day says something like "8 Hours of Terror".

      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.

    33. Re:Just look at the building by encoderer · · Score: 1

      They didn't spend 300MM on a BUILDING. If so, they'd have a goddamned baseball stadium.

      They spent 300MM on a piece of modern art, a world-class PR machine that attracts interest and eyeballs.

      Leaky or no, it was still the piece of art they wanted it to be.

      Besides, who's to say the DESIGN is what's flawed here? Could it not just be the implementation? And wouldn't that be the fault of the builder?

    34. Re:Just look at the building by Sylvak · · Score: 1

      I applaud him for trying to think outside the box. MIT knew what they were getting into by selecting him as the architect. They could have saved millions by going for a 'standard' building, but proved their will to experiment by selecting him and approving his work.

    35. Re:Just look at the building by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      When they built it I talked to an architect and asked him how a building with that many corners and unusual custom made structures could be kept from leaking or even reasonably maintained. His reply was "A roofing builder once told me that those are the kinds of designs that keep him in business."

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    36. Re:Just look at the building by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      Not really. I know a number of people at a good architecture school, and they really don't have to take any engineering. Lots of design, yes, but pretty much nothing in terms of calculus or structural engineering. Maybe in some states they're required to be licensed as structural engineers too, but it doesn't seem like they put much emphasis on it. Of course, if they themselves aren't, they should be hiring engineers to do this sort of thing...

    37. Re:Just look at the building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Architects do not size beams, slabs, steel etc.. Structural Engineers do that.
      2) Architects are rarely at the jobsite and do not oversee construction. General Contractors do that. Architect's insurance prohibits them from overseeing construction.
      3) The primary responsibility of the Architect is to provide a safe building that fulfills the clients needs and looks like "something" acceptable to the client and community.
      4) Shit happens. It will be nigh impossible to prove negligence by Gehry. The design was challenging, and Gehry has a wonderful thing called the "errors and ommissions" clause in his contract.

    38. Re:Just look at the building by coaxial · · Score: 1

      That's because Gehry has every been associated with the brutalist and neobrutalists movements. (Seriously. That's what it's called.) He's all into swooping curves and shiny metal skins. Brutalism is all about giant slabs of featureless concrete. It's ironic that the brutalist movmement invokes thoughts of totalitarianism and prisons, as it was founded by a utopian movement!

    39. Re:Just look at the building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMAO? Arrogant? Annoying? Maybe both?

    40. Re:Just look at the building by architimmy · · Score: 1

      Actually architects are NOT paid very much for the work they do given the scope of responsibilities and liability they often undertake in the building process. An architect's fee almost always covers the fees of all the sub-contractors which includes everything from building systems engineers (HVAC, plumbing, electrical, structural) to consultants for LEED (green building accreditation, a must for university work). Factor in general overhead costs which include printing (architects print piles of drawings every day), IT (think tons of data produced and backed up on a regular basis), software costs (Gehry's firm develops their own software inhouse in addition to using commercial stuff), high end hardware (yeah... architects do a ton of rendering and animation work), and all the other regular business expenses. Toss the cost of liability insurance for exactly this kind of thing on top of that big pile of money and you would probably see a fairly thin line of profitability for architects.

      Most architects who make good money make it through the developer process (i.g. Design Build) which doesn't apply with University work.

    41. Re:Just look at the building by akirapill · · Score: 1

      Gehry's a self absorbed wanker from LA. Water, ice, snow, and all the other issues one finds in the real world outside of the desert are probably the last thing on his mind. From a practicality standpoint, LA is a city that never should have been. He probably still wonders how his stolen tap water keeps magically reappearing every time he flushes the john.

    42. Re:Just look at the building by zxnos · · Score: 1

      ...and paid large sums of money... ha ha ha ha ha a lot of us wear black, drink wine and drive used bmws so people think we have money...
      --
      always mosh clockwise
    43. Re:Just look at the building by JBdH · · Score: 1

      Actually this is not true, in general architects only have the faintest clues about the technical sides of buildings. A host of technical experts/consultants are hired to sort out the technical design of buildings like these. Subsequently responsabillity is moved to these consultants. Architects are only liable if they willingly and knowingly ignore the advice these consultants give. Architects get sued in order to point down the chain of consultants, most og the time to end up at the construction company. Moreover $15 million dollar is not so much money for a $300 million dollar building like that. I takes an incredible amount of time and effort to build something like that. Whether you use the most advanced software and hardware around doesn't matter, designing a building is basically manual labor, i.e. there is no software that designs a building or parts of it, it's just the drawing process that's automated by computers. I very much doubt Gehry gets rich from building stuff like this. He gets rich by giving lectures and being member of committees for competitions and stuff like that.

  2. flakey architects by FranTaylor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Frank Lloyd Wright was also plagued by leaks in the roofs of his buildings.

    Mies Van Der Rohe designed houses in Connecticut that are unlivable due to terrible cold drafts.

    I'll take a competent architect over a famous one any day.

    1. Re:flakey architects by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll take a competent architect over a famous one any day.
      Or at least one who understands the local weather. it's pretty obvious from the description of the buildings faults that Gehry never planned on it getting snowed and rained on, or that there could be temperature extremes that don't happen in Los Angeles.
      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:flakey architects by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As the famous architect Weeber once told a complaining customer: "Good architecture leaks".

      Another reason for not hiring famous architects is that they'll sue you into oblivion if you change anything about the building. Even something as silly as painting the walls in a theater's foyer a different color has resulted in a lawsuit, and the architect won.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:flakey architects by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 4, Informative

      Frank Lloyd Wright also has a college campus that's falling apart, but at least it held together for a little longer than Gehry's.

    4. Re:flakey architects by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      IANAArchitecht, and now I'm just confused.

      Wright and Van Der Rohe were supposed to be modernists, a school of architecture with an extreme emphasis on functionality, often at the expense of looks. (Wright was alleged to be the basis for ultra-principled "Everything must have a purpose" Howard Roark in The Fountainhead.)

      Wouldn't they be the *opposite* of the kind of architect who would overlook something like this?

    5. Re:flakey architects by mikael · · Score: 1

      Same with the

      The new Scottish Parliament building will be designed by a Spanish architect who says his initial inspiration was drawn from the image of upturned boats.

      6000 pounds to stop kerb falls

      Oldest part of building needs renovation

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    6. Re:flakey architects by FranTaylor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, you are not an architect. Read about FLW. A very interesting character. Sometimes brilliant with details, like his earthquake-proofing techniques, and his design for tropical hotels. He had bad problems with leaking roofs and also really horrible personal issues that kept him from achieving even more.

      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.

    7. Re:flakey architects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is easy to forget the basic functionality of a buildings when you're trying to cram as much functionality into them as possible, especially because functionality is very close to efficiency, which can easily be misinterpreted as cheapness.

    8. Re:flakey architects by truesaer · · Score: 2, Informative

      An architect could only win a lawsuit about the color of the walls if they got the owners to sign a contract saying they couldn't change the color of the walls. Don't sign dumb contracts is the lesson I suppose...

    9. Re:flakey architects by YU5333021 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for such a lovely peanut gallery Mr. Taylor. F.L Wright and Mies were incompetent architects. Good to know.

      What kind of cereal should I eat in the morning? Can you recommend something competent for my family? Dick.

    10. Re:flakey architects by dnormant · · Score: 1

      This one seems to be doing fine: http://music.asu.edu/facilities/gammage.htm

      Frank Lloyd Wright is an icon in Arizona and rightfully so.

    11. Re:flakey architects by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      You have no reason to claim this and plenty of reason not to. Local weather is a fundamental consideration in architecture.

    12. Re:flakey architects by YU5333021 · · Score: 1

      IAAArchitect, and I get confused too...

      Wright and Mies were PIONEER modernists. There was a lot of trial and error back in their day. For instance, in today's construction marketplace, we have dozens of different roofing systems that deal with flat roofs: Hot-applied fluid systems, Thermoplastics, Rolled fiberglass reinforced with welded seams, vegetation layers, etc.... When those guys were starting out, they kind of had to invent the whole thing. The industry has perfected the approach since.

      In Gehry's case, the verdict is still out. It may come down to a few really iffy details (the point where 8 different things come together is the Achilles heel of any building design), or it could come down to bad workmanship. The architect could be held liable for the both, depending on scope of responsibility. In cases where there is a Superstar Architect involved, there is typically a local architect hired to do the construction drawings. That may also be the weakest link...

      btw. The Fountainhead is universally hated by every single Architect that I know. A fun fluff read nonetheless.

    13. Re:flakey architects by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      But soon after its completion in spring 2004, the center's outdoor amphitheater began to crack due to drainage problems, the suit says. Snow and ice cascaded dangerously from window boxes and other projecting roof areas, blocking emergency exits and damaging other parts of the building, according to the suit. Mold grew on the center's brick exterior, the suit says, and there were persistent leaks throughout the building.

      You have no reason to claim this...
      Riiiiiiight
      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    14. Re:flakey architects by danlyke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just spent two days on jury duty in the Marin Civic Center, a Frank Lloyd Wright designed monstrosity built during his "Ming the Merciless" phase. It's a wonderfully dated building, you've seen it in all sorts of low budget sci-fi movie and, and from the outside it brings to mind the swingin' sixties, wide collars and hot tub parties.

      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.

    15. Re:flakey architects by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      Sure. Explain that to the thousands of Vancouver residents who have had to pay sometimes hundreds of thousands to have their leaky condos repaired.

      Hello? This is the Pacific Northwest where it is either raining, about to rain or just finished raining.

      Competence is key. In this case the architects tried to copy California condo styling without taking into account the wetness of the northern coast. Shoddy construction just made it worse.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    16. Re:flakey architects by ashitaka · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah! Maybe a fellow Vancouverite?

      Q: How can you tell summer has come to Vancouver?
      A: They take the tarp off your condo roof.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    17. Re:flakey architects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, my guess is that such a contract is not needed at all. He designed the house, so he has the copyright. You might have bought the house, but you didn't buy the copyright, so painting that wall is creating an illegal "derivative work".

    18. Re:flakey architects by LizardKing · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Local weather is a fundamental consideration in architecture.

      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.

    19. Re:flakey architects by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      You would be amazed at the details that architects overlook.

      This is the scary thing. In Quebec, where we get a lot of snow in the winter, you will be amazed at how many town houses have flat roofs, or an inappropriate slope for the amount of snow we get. I am sure this sort of stupidity is not relegated to Quebec.

      Don't get me wrong, I love some of the experimental architecture out there, but I think there should be a sign off indicating that it has taken into account the climate in which it is going to spend its life.

      Another thing that is worth noting is that some older architecture is far more effective than some of the modern architecture for the environment it was built. For example:
        - In the middle-east you have tall ceilings and wide areas which help move the warmer air to the top
        - Also in the middle-east of I have seen buildings with special chimneys that are designed to catch the slow moving air and drag the warmer air out of the building
        - Houses on stilts, which help reduce ground moisture in the building and help provide a cooling space underneath.
        - Sloping roofs, which help drain rain water and snow effectively

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    20. Re:flakey architects by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2, Informative

      NO. Architecture is "work for hire." The architect can maintain copyright on the drawings and plans, and they might even have elements in the structure trademarked. They cannot prevent an owner from changing a building, but they can prevent the owner from saying it is a _ building when making changes.

    21. Re:flakey architects by TWX · · Score: 1

      A couple of years ago I was looking around at places to live, in Phoenix, in June. One of the places that I looked at was a luxury 1 bedroom condo/townhouse with a two-car garage. The AC was off when I looked at it, but the temperature wasn't too bad inside, because it had 10' ceilings and thick insulation. If the garage had been bigger (needed to be able to work on my '78 Chrysler) I'd have rented it...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    22. Re:flakey architects by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      You, I'm afraid, are the dick.

      I know very little about Mies Van Der Rohe's body of work.

      I do have some familiarity with the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, and there are some significant problems with many of his buildings. Many of them leak or have other significant structural problems due to design flaws, not poor maintenance or construction. He designed to a human scale, and to be practical, attractive and comfortable, but he did not necessarily design buildings that were strong or reliable.

      Some of his own dwellings (such as Taliesin in WI) were built largely as ongoing experiments from stunningly cheap materials by largely unskilled laborers (students are not carpenters,) and it shows if you visit. Things don't line up, the window glass isn't sealed, etc. The ceilings are stunningly low at Taliesin - I'm 5'9" and bumped my head a few times. Our guide claimed that Mr. Wright once said that anyone over 6' tall is a waste of good material.

      It makes for a difficult conservation question - if you get the windows sealed up, the building will better survive the Wisconsin winter, but it makes it deviate from how Wright left it. The ideal answer would probably be a big invisible dome over the whole building but that clearly isn't possible.

      Some of his furniture designs were also hideously impractical. For example, he designed some 3-legged chairs for the Johnson Wax headquarters that had to be redesigned with 4 legs because they tip over easily.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    23. Re:flakey architects by drew · · Score: 1

      I don't know as much as I probably should about Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings, but I do know a bit about Mies van der Rowe, having both worked and attended school in buildings he designed. I don't know the specifics of the buildings you are talking about, but during the early part of his career he was doing things that nobody had ever done before. How many times have you tried to do something completely new and had it come out right on the first try? It's important to realize that he designed dozens (or hundreds?) of buildings that are still perfectly usable to this day, and revolutionized the entire field in the process.

      Also, temperature control problems in at least some of his buildings could also be considered to be "user error". Many of his buildings were designed to take advantage of natural air patterns, convection, etc. to keep them comfortable, something that can't always be adequately replaced with central air/heat systems. One of his buildings that my wife (who is an Architect) attended classes in was notorious among the student body for being ridiculously cold in the winter and overly hot in the summer. But if you talked to former students you found out that it hadn't always been that way. There used to be a professor who would go around every day in the morning and after lunch and open and close windows and blinds, and the building was fairly pleasant. When that professor retired, nobody else ever bothered, and the building became much less pleasant to work in.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    24. Re:flakey architects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Quebec, where we get a lot of snow in the winter, you will be amazed at how many town houses have flat roofs, or an inappropriate slope for the amount of snow we get.

      Flat roofs aren't categorically that bad, though... Here in Finland almost every flat roof from 1960s has had to be done again later -- but almost none from 1980s onwards when they learned to do them right. Proper drainage, better materials, better insulation, proper construction: problem solved.

      They have made something of a comeback actually, because people tend to like the possibility of having a roof terrace too (for our surprisingly hot summers). But yeah, you have to think about snow build-up.

      (I've actually worked roof construction and retail for roofing materials about a decade ago, and I still tend to keep a special eye on roofs where I go... funny, that.)

    25. Re:flakey architects by gsyswerda · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I work a couple of blocks from the Stata Center. I think the design is hideous, and it is hard to find the rooms where talks are being given. I'm glad I don't have an office there, and I'm really glad I can't see it from my office window.

      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.

      --
      Make a difference: move to a swing state.
    26. Re:flakey architects by Xel · · Score: 1

      Don't forget I.M. Pei.

      --
      "Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines."
    27. Re:flakey architects by HardCase · · Score: 1

      I spend weekends in a resort town in central Idaho and it's pretty easy to tell which structures are designed by architects who aren't familiar with the area. Homes with several different rooflines, wood or slate shingles or even, god forbid, flat roofs are a sure sign that the architect has no idea that the structure will be dealing with five to ten feet of snow accumulation.

      Then, when the spring thaw hits, the snow and ice catches in the valleys of the various rooflines, tears the shingles off the roof or, about every other year, collapses a roof. And it's always worth a chuckle to see a sidewalk or driveway buried in, literally, a ton of snow that slide off a roof pitched the wrong direction.

      And don't even get me started on the perils of drainage!

      It's unfortunate, but the architectural design that works best where I live is, essentially, a box with a metal roof. Of course, there's a lot that you can do with a box to make it look nice.

    28. Re:flakey architects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote Robert Heinlein:

      "'Architect' is a dirty word. Architects copy each other's mistakes and call it 'art'."

    29. Re:flakey architects by Teddy+Beartuzzi · · Score: 1

      They didn't "overlook" anything at all. Removing the overhangs was a conscious decision, motivated by greed. Removing the overhangs meant the walls were closer to the property border, which meant that the interior spaces were larger, thus more square footage and higher prices even though the lot size hadn't changed.

    30. Re:flakey architects by quizteamer · · Score: 1

      At UMass Amherst, a new library was built in the 70s. Tallest academic library in the world, not bad to look at. But when the architect was designing it, he didn't take into account the weight of the books. For awhile, you couldn't walk near it because bricks were falling down. One of the local newly built high schools near me has a second floor pool that can't be used because the weight of the water wasn't taken into account. They can't use their new, and rather nice looking, chem labs because there is no ventilation. But there are big screen tvs in each room with DVD players which, according to the contractor, is a "key to education". Though these aren't weather related examples, they still prove the point that many architects and contractors, who are more worried about design, are flakey.

      --
      Live Long and Prosper
    31. Re:flakey architects by rkanodia · · Score: 1

      Houses on stilts are also a great idea if you live in a flood zone. I have an aunt who lives by a creek in Napa, California, which causes minor flooding every few years. She and her husband spent a long time saving up to have a new house built, which was finished around 2000, I think. The new house sits 3' off the ground on pilings which are driven 12' deep. During the terrible flooding last year, the two of them just holed up in their house and they were fine. Granted, they suffered a ton of damage to their property in general, but the house itself didn't need any work done.

    32. Re:flakey architects by YU5333021 · · Score: 1

      I may be a dick, but a dick who knows too much about Wright and Mies. I don't like Mies' philosophy, and I don't care for Wright's intentional fuck ups with scale (he was a very short man). Your post contains many correct observations about Wright's shortcomings (ha!) as a eccentric designer. Pointing this out would be same as negating all of Tesla's achievements because he spent the later years of his life working on death ray guns.

      Both Mies and Wright have left (for better or worse) an architectural legacy unparalleled by any other 20th century master (maybe LeCorbusier). The grandparent post called both of them incompetent. I called the grandparent a dick. Maybe I should have used a different word then.

    33. Re:flakey architects by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Architect /= experienced builder.

      One may be an architect without ever, personally, physically building anything.
      The architect may have a grand design in mind but easily overlook details a building contractor would catch.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    34. Re:flakey architects by ChocoBean · · Score: 1

      IMPOSTOR! It does not stop raining in the summer. [drone-like voice]It never stops raining here[/drone-like voice]

    35. Re:flakey architects by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      I absolute agree that there is greatness in Wright, but there is also eccentricity and flakiness, which you seem to agree with.

      As I said before, I don't know Mies, so I'm not going to comment.

      I didn't interpret the grandparent as calling these gentlemen incompetent, but rather as having expressed a preference for the mundane and servicable over the flamboyant, spectacular and fragile. Maybe I should have, or maybe you should not have. Who knows, and really, do you care? I surely don't.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    36. Re:flakey architects by illtud · · Score: 1

      NO. Architecture is "work for hire." The architect can maintain copyright on the drawings and plans, and they might even have elements in the structure trademarked. They cannot prevent an owner from changing a building, but they can prevent the owner from saying it is a _ building when making changes.

      You'd think so wouldn't you?

      [Architect Calatrava suing city of Bilbao for allowing another architect to build a walkway off the bridge he designed]

    37. Re:flakey architects by zxnos · · Score: 1

      this was true until HVAC became widely available. there is an ad that was run in architecture magazines in the 60s. it showed an image of a couple buildings and asked where they were built. below in block text it said: cairo, new york, tokyo. it is slowly becoming a consideration again and is treated as something 'new'

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    38. Re:flakey architects by zxnos · · Score: 1

      granted i havent worked everywhere, but everywhere i have worked allows the eaves to project into that setback. often up to 3'. eave size is a funtion of regional architectural styles and now somewhat cost - it is cheaper to not build an eave on the gable end.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    39. Re:flakey architects by zxnos · · Score: 1

      i think LeCorbusier wins. can you say: object in the field office park? just check out his Plan Voisin , then look around. particularly failed public housing and office parks.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    40. Re:flakey architects by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

      When I was in college at Case Western Reserve University, they built a new Frank Gehry building for the economics department. They had rope off part of the walkway near the entrance in the winter because of the giant icicles that would form on the edge of the swooping metal overhang.

    41. Re:flakey architects by Alomex · · Score: 1

      It's so the melting snow and ice will fall away from the foundation and not cause leaks in the cellar.

      There was this interview with a big shot Canadian architect in which he asked "what's the big obsession with gabled roof houses anyhow? why not build houses with flat roofs for a change?". The most amateur builder will tell you that waterproofing "flat" roofs in a snowy climate is a major undertaking, usually only doable in commercial buildings which can take regular layerings of molten tar. Then there is the problem of the structural loads of accumulated snow on a flat building.

      The ignorance displayed by that architect would be equivalent to a surgeon saying "what is this thing called liver good for anyways?".

    42. Re:flakey architects by NotmyNick · · Score: 1

      Now you are starting to understand why we don't have a moral clause in our copyright.

      --
      Notmysig
  3. Tempting fate by telchine · · Score: 5, Funny

    So they named a building after Bill Gates.

    Now the building is full of holes and needs lots of patching up.

    Perhaps they were tempting fate there?

    1. Re:Tempting fate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it was "building following OS".

    2. Re:Tempting fate by Da+Fokka · · Score: 1

      Moving the furniture shouldn't be a problem.

    3. Re:Tempting fate by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs can buy new furniture for his building; but he has to place it exactly where the old furniture was, or else the tenants complain.

    4. Re:Tempting fate by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Better not name a building after Steve Jobs if you ever want to renovate it!

      Or just go inside.

    5. Re:Tempting fate by jabber · · Score: 1

      I wonder how hard it is to break the Windows, go inside uninvited and contaminate everything inside with all sorts of viruses.

      And how would the Administration of the building react to a giant wooden horse in the foyer?

      --

      -- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
    6. Re:Tempting fate by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My Steve Jobs building is fine! It's white and has only one door because that's all you need.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Tempting fate by Moekandu · · Score: 1

      No big deal, just wait 'til Service Pack 2. Then it'll be fine.

      Just don't burn your fingers on the new firewall. And hopefully the new blue screen in the TV studio won't kill you.

      --
      Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
  4. Form over Function by Fysiks+Wurks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want art you get art. If you want a higly functional building that will have minimal maintance and which can be expanded or repurposed as the furture dictates you can hardly beat a bix box building. MIT chose art.

    --
    P226
    1. Re:Form over Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want typos and misspellings, you go to slashdot.

    2. Re:Form over Function by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's not an exclusive-or choice. Gehry is just simply a shitty architect. He's making big sculptures instead of what a good architect should do - innovative new buildings that look good, make a statement AND make a pleasure to use the building through the master architect's good solutions.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    3. Re:Form over Function by Fysiks+Wurks · · Score: 1

      O.k. I agree it is not an either-or proposition. Gehry and the Bigbox example are on the polar extremes with respect to architecture. Gehry has a cohort of structural engineers who do computer simulations of his designs to make sure they will not fail due to stress such as high winds or occupation by humans, etc. His buildings are sculptures first then sculptures second, and if you can make use of the building that's a bonus!

      This is just my opinion....MIT wanted an architect who's design philosophy parallels MIT's institutional values, that is, very forward thinking far beyond mundane pragmatism. But the sword has two edges, they got very unique building which leaks! Cheers.

      --
      P226
    4. Re:Form over Function by lahvak · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, there are some good things about it. Their architecture (and other majors, engineering, design) students can now use the specific parts of the building as examples of a bad design.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Form over Function by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can also get a pretty standard building wrapped in a neat package that doesn't hurt the functionality.
      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).

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    6. Re:Form over Function by vertigoCiel · · Score: 1

      It's definitely not an either/or choice. You should check out the works of Shigeru Ban. He's known for creating both functional and beautiful buildings out of almost entirely recyclable materials.

      One of his most famous works is Paper Church, a church whose main structural supports are recycled paper tubes. It was intended to be an temporary emergency center, but it stayed up for ten years before taken down, and it's planned to be re-assembled in Taiwan. A favorite of mine is the Paper House, an extremely minimal house whose entire load-bearing structure is made of paper - and it passes Japan's rigorous housing standards for earthquake safe buildings! Plus, it looks fantastic.

      Architecture need not be entirely functional or entirely artistic. If you have the engineering skill and creativity, you can create buildings that are both. Gehry is primarily a sculptor, not an architect or engineer.

    7. Re:Form over Function by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      The thing that bothers me with Gehry is that all of his work looks exactly the same to me. Every building he designs is just a bunch of odd shapes and angles, and it stops being unique or creative after he's done several dozen buildings in that exact same style.

  5. architects vs civil engineers by alewar · · Score: 4, Funny

    next time they should hire a civil engineer ...

    1. Re:architects vs civil engineers by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 4, Informative

      next time they should hire a civil engineer ...

      I think the trick is to get both.

    2. Re:architects vs civil engineers by falcon5768 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It really is a trick too, because most famous architects refuse to work with them. Why? Because civil engineers typically have a clue and have no issues telling architects their wonderful crazily designed building is a engineering DISASTER.

      Thankfully for every famous architect out there, there is a good 20-30 with a clue.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    3. Re:architects vs civil engineers by neumayr · · Score: 1

      weird, i used to think architects and civil engineers are supposed to work together - basically having the architect design, and the engineer checking for feasibility.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    4. Re:architects vs civil engineers by featheredfrog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Witness:

      http://www.fishercenter.bard.edu/about/ - another Gehry monstrosity. A performing Arts Center with no shops nor dressing rooms directly accessible to backstage.

    5. Re:architects vs civil engineers by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quoting my sister (a civil engineer, so there's obvious bias...):

      "a civil engineer is someone who has to take plans produced by an architect's drug-addled mind and correct it until the building will be able to stand without collapsing". Or "an architect lures customers with pretty-looking pictures, then a civil engineer has to make it actually work".

      The article strongly suggests that she may be right...

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:architects vs civil engineers by Skater · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't forget about this prison he designed!

    7. Re:architects vs civil engineers by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here, bit stupid shiny sheets stuck all over the place. Not very impressive, not impressive at all.

    8. Re:architects vs civil engineers by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      Trouble is, architects (being, you know, creative types) don't like having their visions constrained by mundane concers such as Young's moduli or tensile strengths or gravity. Those are for square old daddies.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    9. Re:architects vs civil engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.fishercenter.bard.edu/about/ - another Gehry monstrosity. A performing Arts Center with no shops nor dressing rooms directly accessible to backstage.
      That is quite simply the ugliest building I've ever seen. That is the architectural equivalent of the World's Ugliest Dog Contest.
    10. Re:architects vs civil engineers by greed · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah. I did a high school co-op term with a structural engineering firm (which is a specialization under civil engineering).

      Some days the air would turn blue from the swearing at some architect's latest vision. "Glass walls AND no interior columns? What will hold it up?" "They want WHAT round?" "Cantilever the elevator shafts? That doesn't even make sense!"

      There was one architecture firm whose LOGO took 45 minutes for the plotter to grind out. The actual drawing could be completed in a measly 15 or 20 minutes. (This was 1988, and it was one of those plotters where the pen moves back and forth over a drum, and the drum moves the entire sheet of paper or mylar for the other axis. My job was to abort the plot when the paper skewed.... I like to think there's a building that's only standing because I was able to get the plotter to hold together long enough for the support columns to be plotted on top of their footings. Of course, the engineers would have to verify the plots and sign off before they could be used, but a boy can dream....)

      I'll stick with Donald Norman's assertion: "Something that hard to use? It must have won a design award."

    11. Re:architects vs civil engineers by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is she hot?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    12. Re:architects vs civil engineers by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Of course she is, she is an engineer! What else do you want?

      --
      AccountKiller
    13. Re:architects vs civil engineers by pcgc1xn · · Score: 1

      What, an engineer who is civil?

      Tough one!

    14. Re:architects vs civil engineers by drew · · Score: 1

      That's why you should get an architect who is also an engineer.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    15. Re:architects vs civil engineers by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      CIP: This is exactly why the Sydney Opera House ran years over schedule and millions of dollars overbudget. The committee in charge of choosing a design - picked a design represented by essentially nothing more than a few bar napkin sketches by an artist, mostly because it was 'beautiful and evocative'. No engineering, no studies, no analysis, no nothing.
       
      And, as is the way of the world, the poor saps who had to manage and carry out the construction and make the building work were/are castigated for their 'failures'... While the artist is a 'genius'.

    16. Re:architects vs civil engineers by dangitman · · Score: 1

      The committee in charge of choosing a design - picked a design represented by essentially nothing more than a few bar napkin sketches by an artist, mostly because it was 'beautiful and evocative'. No engineering, no studies, no analysis, no nothing.

      And they ended up with one of the world's great buildings and landmarks. Looks like they made the right decision, eh?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    17. Re:architects vs civil engineers by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      They did.
      The trick is to get one with enough balls, to get the necessities of the -building- across despite the -artistic vision- of the architect. The asshole outright declined and cancelled any modifications requested by firms that foreseen the problems and modified the projects to mitigate them.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    18. Re:architects vs civil engineers by danlock4 · · Score: 1

      The trick is to get one with enough balls[...] "One with at least five or six balls[...]"
      --
      To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
    19. Re:architects vs civil engineers by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Actually this is not quite true. You forgot to mention that the way the contest was run to choose a design for the SOH simply did not require engineering studies, so you can't blame architects for not providing them. Further Utzon, the Danish architect who won the contest actually moved to Sydney and supervised the construction initially. He actually is credited, together with the head construction engineer, with the reusable design of the arches that made the construction of the shells possible at low cost.

      He later resigned following a change of government and political infighting. *THEN* after he left, did the costs start ballooning. Utzon was still widely blamed for cost overrun.

      Eventually the building was finished in 1973 and had cost over A$ 100 million. This was an enormous sum for the time, 15x what was originally planned for the building, but to my knowledge, the building is used daily with separate opera, a concert hall, several theaters and restaurants. It does not leak, in fact it is a magnificent and functional building, recognized the world over as a cultural icon and has done wonders for the image of Australia abroad as a modern society. It has repaid its initial cost many many times over in tourism goodwill alone.

      In fact Utzon was offered the keys to the city of Sydney in 2003 along with the Pritzker Prize (architecture's top award) and several other Australians and international awards. I believe we can say the SOH is nothing like a failure.

      Utzon never build anything like the SOH in his life again. Far from being a failure, this is one of the finest building in the world today. Far from being treated as a genius, the political turmoil over the building broke him.

      Read this and more at Wikipedia.

    20. Re:architects vs civil engineers by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Did I say the building was a failure? No I did not. Try again. (Insofar as the Wikipedia goes, I do what many people reccomend. I ignore it and get my information from real sources.)

    21. Re:architects vs civil engineers by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      The main complaints I've heard nowdays is that the acoustics inside the concert hall aren't very good - certainly not what you'd expect in a world class opera house. I go to see the Sydney Symphony Orchestra there every now and then and it sounds good enough if you ask me, but I think the complaints are more about the sound from the stage area, and not in the actual audience hall. I agree though that it's deserving of prizes and the status it has as a landmark and cultural icon.

    22. Re:architects vs civil engineers by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      I've been in the concert hall many times, and it's OK, except from behind. They have this weird seating arrangement whereby you can sit behind the orchestra. Great for seeing the conductor and the way the orchestra reacts, but not so good for listening.

    23. Re:architects vs civil engineers by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Yes you did, you wrote about "others being blamed for the failure" talking about Utzon IIRC. What other failures would there be besides the building itself ? Who cares about the financial aspect, like I wrote it is of zero importance right now, and has been proven to have been the equivalent of an extremely sound investment. Feel free to elaborate.

      The only real failures in the SOH case are that (1) the stupid kerfufle prevented Utzon to work on other masterpieces, and (2) had Utzon been allowed to continue on the project, there is no proof that it would have been any more expensive that it turned out to be, and the *interior* of the building would probably have been much more interesting than it is now.

      Besides wikipedia is great as a jumping board for other sources than WP itself. You are free to do your own googling if you are not happy.

    24. Re:architects vs civil engineers by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      You recall incorrectly. The posts here on Slashdot have a 'parent' link for a reason, try it. And some reading comprehension while you are at it.

  6. KISS by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sigh... Keep It Simple Stupid. People want a something that looks cool. But when it interferes with function they blame the Architect...
    Kinda fitting for a building that covers Computer Science...

    There are reasons why most buildings look generally alike for a few thousand years.... Ease of building, efficiency of design. This had neither. But they went for it anyways... It is structurally sound so don't blame the atchect. You need to do more maintenance on the building because you didn't pay $300M for a building but $300M for a work of Art... Art needs to be preserved...

    If the Computer Science department learned about KISS design they wouldn't be in that problem... I don't know if I would want to hire a CS Student from MIT if they don't teach the KISS Concept...

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:KISS by thegnu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, that's sort of why you hire an engineer AND an architect. The architect gets really excited about all the awesome things he could do, and the engineer explains why it's a bad idea to have big holes in the roof of a computer science lab.

      Also, while I in no way defend doctors, I think that people have to be their own primary care physician, because NOBODY can know more about you than you can. You just delegate out technical shit to professionals, and when they tell you they need to cut off some dangly pieces of flesh, you get a second opinion. And this applies equally to hot shit architects. Get a fucking second opinion, even if it's your own.

      I guess you could sue the architect for the amount of money it'll take to fix the big goddamn mess he created, though. And generate a fair amount of bad publicity for him in the hopes that he doesn't do it to somebody else.

      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    2. Re:KISS by FranTaylor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not "Keep It Simple", it's "Sweat The Details". It's not possible to design a big building in Cambridge, MA and have it be simple. For one, there is no soil to speak of. It's all Charles River mud. Every building in that part of Cambridge is basically a concrete boat floating on the mud, sometimes supported by piles down to bedrock, sometimes not.

      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.

    3. Re:KISS by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      KISS Still applies...
      The KISS process is not about making products that are so basic that they don't function correctly. As you stated there are complex challenges to the solution. But there is a difference between say putting in a concrete pile down to the bedrock vs. say having helicopters pull on some cables every 3 months to keep it afloat, or even crazier put some Helicopter propeller blades on top of the building and keep them running to keep it afloat...

      Usually to solve most complex problems there are simple solutions to them, actually perfoming the simple solution may be difficult say drilling the piles to the bedrock. But the concept of having piles there to hold down the bedrock is a simple solution that won't tax the minds and is easy to calculate how well it will work...

      In this area there are a lot of problems and adding a building of complex design doesn't help. The KISS Process assures that functionally occurs without the overhead of extra complexity.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:KISS by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 2, Funny

      If the Computer Science department learned about KISS design they wouldn't be in that problem... I don't know if I would want to hire a CS Student from MIT if they don't teach the KISS Concept...

      Newsflash: *Most* graduates of MIT have never learned how to kiss (though why you capitalize the term, I have no idea).

    5. Re:KISS by krog · · Score: 1

      Three hundred million Ameribucks should be enough to drive some piles, hook up to the steam plant across the street, AND design and install a proper roof.

      It should be, but it is not, because Frank Fucking Gehry had a vision: yet another monstrosity that looks like a scrap heap welded together during an episode of Junkyard Wars.

    6. Re:KISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People want a something that looks cool. But when it interferes with function they blame the Architect... Well, in theory the purpose of hiring a professional architect is that they can balance between aesthetic concepts and what is functionally possible with modern building materials and techniques (in consultation with appropriate engineers, as required).

      What it comes down to is the contract between MIT and this architect. If he mentioned (preferably in writing) that there would be functional or maintenance tradeoffs in order to achieve the look shown on the sample drawings, then it's MITs fault for not budgeting for those issues. On the other hand, if the professional you are hiring doesn't mention possible drawbacks, then it is their fault. The whole point of hiring an architect (instead of trying to design it yourself) is that they are supposed to know their field, and be able to make detailed, reasonable recommendations. The architect should be helping the client make informed decisions, and balance between various desires (aesthetics vs. maintenance costs, etc.).

      As I said, none of us can know the merits of this case without seeing the contract between them, and being privy to the details of the correspondence between the architect and the client. However, if the architect never mentions the possibility of tradeoffs, then a reasonable expectation on the part of a client is that this building will be comparable to every other building. It is unreasonable to expect the client to fully predict the tradeoffs inherent between optimizing a building design for aesthetics, functionality, cost, etc. (Again, that's the whole point of hiring a professional: so that they can give you expert advice!)
    7. Re:KISS by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      That is kinda like a double insult.
      so you are implying the MIT Students don't have any social life and they don't know about computer science.... What are they paying money for?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:KISS by FranTaylor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't have anything to do with building construction, do you?

      My sister is a Civil Engineer. Her life is nothing but small details to be fixed. She tells me, for example, that building requirements change from town to town and what is perfectly acceptable in one place will not meet code at all in another. It is literally impossible to design a public rest room that meets building codes in all 50 states. It's kind of hard to develop standardized solutions when the problem is different for every building. In Cambridge, the mud changes character from one end of the building to the other, so the loading and settling, and the pile driving requirements, are different for different places in the building. In many urban areas, organized crime is a fact of life and must be factored into the construction process. My sister has many fascinating stories, some straight out of the Sopranos.

      You can say KISS all day long, but the reality is that modern building construction is a nightmare of details.

    9. Re:KISS by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      You are missing my point completely...

      It is not about the complexity of the final design it is about choosing the simples possible solution for each detail. Yes there are details a lot of details. Buildings are complex systems. Combined with zoning laws and local regulations it makes it more difficult... For example in a neighboring town all buildings need a visible slanted roof system to keep the place look more residential then commercial, that requirements confects with a design of a supermarket or a Walmart, where warehouses are best designed with a flat roof with a slight pitch. So there are 2 ways around this zoning requirement.
      1. Make the Walmart with a pitched roof.
      2. in the font of the wall mart make a tall wall that looks like a pitched roof.

      Both will satisfy the requirement for the zoning Regulations. So Walmart with with 2 because they know they will have less trouble with a wall sticking up that looks like a roof then the cost of building a pitched roof of that size.

      KISS is not make a simple product but a process of choosing a way to meet the product requirements the simplest way.

      What the MIT Building is a work of art, Part of the artistic design of that building are shapes and angles we are not use to seeing, but because of this "unneeded" requirement caused exponentially more details to figure out. Making a building is hard enough adding more complexity and allowing a building with more complexity then needed will undoubtedly cause more problems.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:KISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A three letter 'MIT' on their degree.

    11. Re:KISS by Salamander · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People want a something that looks cool. But when it interferes with function they blame the Architect...
      Looking cool could not possibly have interfered with function in this case, because there's nothing even remotely cool-looking about the Stata Center.
      --
      Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
    12. Re:KISS by Culture · · Score: 1
      It is structurally sound so don't blame the structural engineer.

      Fixed that for you. Architect design the look, structural engineers make it stand up.

      --
      ----- There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend; those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
    13. Re:KISS by tuxicle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh sure, "keep it simple" from the same place that gave us emacs...

    14. Re:KISS by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      I don't know if I would want to hire a CS Student from MIT if they don't teach the KISS Concept. I've worked a few and the common traits are workaholism, narcissism and insecurity. But that's because they're men - I also observed that they appreciate an elegant design and kissing one, even more so...
    15. Re:KISS by Aerion · · Score: 1

      If the Computer Science department learned about KISS design they wouldn't be in that problem... I don't know if I would want to hire a CS Student from MIT if they don't teach the KISS Concept...

      The CS department does teach it. In 6.001 and 6.170 and 6.034 and ...

      But you see, the CS department doesn't build buildings. It doesn't commission buildings, and it doesn't make final decisions regarding buildings. That's the Institute administration's job. CSAIL and CS students routinely make fun of the clusterfuck that is Stata, and we have done so since Day One.

      Now, Building 46, that's a good building. Damn you, Course 9!

    16. Re:KISS by himself · · Score: 1

      Having worked for some high-profile architects, all I can say is, "quelle surprise!"

      Now, FranTaylor wrote:
      >
      > 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.
      >
            In the (loony) architect's defense, the University of Minnesota does this just fine with their ass-ugly Celebrity Pile Of Library, and under what I must point out are far wider temperatiure variations than those of New England:
                http://www.weisman.umn.edu/architecture/images.html

            "That's no university library, it's a space station!"

      - Will
      (Why yes, I *am* a Minnesotan living on the East Coast, and no, I *haven't* owned proper boots in a decade!)

    17. Re:KISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Substitute "weird" for "cool" then, because it certainly looks weird. o.0

    18. Re:KISS by don.pratt · · Score: 1

      It's not "Keep It Simple", it's "Sweat The Details". I think I'd rather have a KISS than an STD.
  7. $300 million... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or 1.2 A-Rods in Standard Approximation Units.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:$300 million... by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      How many is that in Libraries of Congress sold at retail in paperback? (LoCSRiP has a nice ring to it I think...)

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    2. Re:$300 million... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you heard? His price went up... It's .8 A-Rods now.

    3. Re:$300 million... by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      True, but his price is what the market will bear. Lately, he's been unbearable.

      I would piss myself laughing if everyone just took one step back and let him drop.

    4. Re:$300 million... by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      But can you convert that to Smoots?

  8. Hmm.. Buggy Ceiling. by eniac42 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did it crash?

    --
    "A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it." - Churchill
    1. Re:Hmm.. Buggy Ceiling. by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

      Of *course* it crashed! *You* try driving a buggy on the ceiling!

  9. Didn't they read the EULA? by plopez · · Score: 2, Funny

    to qoute:
    "Not warranted to be useful for any purpose. Not intended for any critical or even any trivial functions, users assume all risks and will indemnify and hold blameless the architect and builders. User(s) also waive all right to recourse without the express written consent of the builders or architect. By reading this EULA you agree to all terms of the EULA. This EULA can be modified or revoked at anytime without notice by the builders or architect."

    OK, a bit silly. Unless of course it has to do with software.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:Didn't they read the EULA? by mariuszbi · · Score: 1

      Neah... I think it's GPL actually:
      15. Disclaimer of Warranty. THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM
      I said Program... I meant building!

    2. Re:Didn't they read the EULA? by Shteven · · Score: 0

      There's holes in your EULA. If you RTA, the builders are actually sucking up to MIT and blaming the architect. So, you wouldn't want the EULA modified by the builders OR the architect, but rather by both parties (or just the architect if you happen to be Frank Gehry).

  10. Who's Who of Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The complex, which houses a Who's Who of Computing including Tim Berners-Lee and Richard Stallman.

    Here is the link: http://www.csail.mit.edu/biographies/PI/biolist.php

    Go ahead and find Richard Stallman in that... I dare you, I double dare you!!!
    1. Re:Who's Who of Computing by hey · · Score: 4, Funny

      They have their mail address encoded as:
      mailto: webmaster@csail.mit.edu

      That's world class brains for ya!
      No way a spam harvest bot is going to decode that.
      That's why they get the big bucks.

    2. Re:Who's Who of Computing by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      rms lives in a slop-sink closet. At least he smells like he does.

    3. Re:Who's Who of Computing by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You've just found a page widening bug in slashcode! Now quick, bugreport it for credit.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    4. Re:Who's Who of Computing by dysfunct · · Score: 1
      --
      :/- spoon(_).
  11. Construction? by dal20402 · · Score: 3, Funny

    TFA says MIT also sued Skanska, the GC. I'd be curious to know how much of the fault lies with Skanska and its subcontractors.

    I live in Cambridge (actually about 4 blocks from the building in question). If there's one thing that's universally true in the Boston area, it's that the quality of construction is exceedingly shoddy. People don't know how to build things well here.

    1. Re:Construction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh Boston... too far north to have any quality mexican immigrants yet!

    2. Re:Construction? by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Who do you think picks all the apples up here in the fall? They don't pick themselves!

    3. Re:Construction? by YU5333021 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bingo! GC- general contractor. From my experience, in these kinds of lawsuit cases the plaintiff names everyone involved, down to the smallest of consultants. Let God err.. courts sort it all out. Having personally seen Gehry's office construction details for other projects, I'd definitively say that there is plenty of thought placed at avoiding the issues that are currently plaguing the project. The field execution of said details may be another issue, but there are plenty of safety measures (mock-ups, water pressure tests, etc) to ensure the quality of built components. It will ultimately come down to the front end (Conditions of The Contract) of the design manual to figure out who is in charge of quality control. In this particular case, Gehry's design is not that much unlike other projects he's previously constructed. If it was a fundamental flaw in design, then his other projects should exhibit similar problems.

      On a related subject, I am an Architect who currently works as a technical design consultant, and I am very disappointed at what I've read in this tread so far. "It's schools fault for wanting a design design"? "KISS"??? "There is a reason why buildings need to look boring"?
      Truly depressing... Some of my old school pals are slaving away in 'starchitect' offices, rarely getting a weekend off; trying to innovate; to improve on the built environment around us. I sometimes ask them do they know who they are doing this for? Have they ever seen their ultimate end user? Even your end user who may know how write perfect computer code written on just a roll of toilet paper is probably likely to dismiss years of your work in a heartbeat.

      Most people just don't care. I am amazed that buildings such as Gehry's ever get built. It's especially demoralizing here in North America... It's burger and fries baby for life...

    4. Re:Construction? by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 1

      I'd guess not much. It sounds like the GC may have actually fought Gehry on some decisions because they thought they would be problematic, and these aren't inconsistent with problem's he's had with other buildings. I suspect that if MIT wins, the GC will be held responsible a minority of the damages. The GC has done other major projects.

    5. Re:Construction? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      I am very disappointed at what I've read in this tread so far.
      Maybe if you wouldn't be walking and reading at the same time you would get better results.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    6. Re:Construction? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Great - an Architect (love the caps, BTW). Well, I worked for major general contractor, and now I work for a building owner, hiring both Architects and GC's.

      "It will ultimately come down to the front end (Conditions of The Contract) of the design manual to figure out who is in charge of quality control." You are correct. The problem is, the architect generally gets to write that document, and by and large they remove any and all liability for quality or design issues. The AIA standard 201, "Conditions of the Contract" is CYA raised to a high art - the architect is liable for nothing.

      Architects are also notorious for designing things that are impossible to build "correctly". they will either leave details out, and rely on the GC's "means and methods", or draw a detail that can't be built as-drawn.

      Even better are the ones that take a manufacturer's specification lock, stock, and barrel and change 1 detail - The GC can't buy the standard item, because it has a custom modification that the Architect MUST have. But another manufacturer isn't allowed - they don't meet the "standard" set by the basis-of-design equipment.

      I even had one guy lift a spec for a fire door, with no modifications, right from sales literature. When asked about a trivial installation detail, I was told that the whole thing was wrong, that he wanted a custom configuration, and that I should have known that the spec wasn't what he wanted, even though he "wrote" it.

      There are great architects out there, but the profession has become a bit like journalism - Every J-school grad wants to be Woodward or Bernstein, and every architecture grad wants to be Wright or Gehry. And building owners are left with monuments to an Architect's ego, and not a monument to the Owner's business.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    7. Re:Construction? by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0

      I am very disappointed at what I've read in this tread so far.
      Maybe if you wouldn't be walking and reading at the same time you would get better results.
      This is getting wheely tiresome.
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    8. Re:Construction? by YU5333021 · · Score: 1

      Great reply. I agree with everything you say. A few notes on your comments:

      -There is nothing preventing the client from writing his own front end of design manual. AIA documents are just there as a recommendation (with the protection of Architect in mind). I worked on plenty of projects where owners have their own customized "Conditions of the Contract".
      -Poorly documented buildings can be a cause for errors, delays, and cost overruns. I too have seen horrific details that made it into CD stage. This should never happen, yet it does.(see end of my post for why)
      -Most of building components are modular in nature. Custom elements are getting more rare. If a designer in your project takes a standard item and modifies it to a point of being outside of scope of original manufacturer, you should classify it as a custom fabrication, and deal with it accordingly.
      -Architects hate writing specs. In the example you use, I agree with you 100%. Luckily you read the spec and had intelligent follow up questions. Your further investigation into the matter has revealed that architects (small a) are also just ordinary people who need to take daily shits to survive (and make mistakes).

      I will disagree with your very last sentence. I don't think there are any monuments being built for either architect's egos or Owner's businesses. Forget the Gehrys of this world for a minute, and we are left with fairly mediocre structures which speak of nothing but our ability to logically compile pre-assembled elements into barely cohesive monuments to absolutely nothing. Architecture hasn't had a cohesive ideology in many decades now. Since introduction of AutoCAD. Coincidence?

      My old boss used to say: Fast, Accurate, Cheap. You can only have 2 of the 3, that's it. Perhaps majority of the issues you've had with Architectural profession stems from projects that try to achieve all 3 of those.

    9. Re:Construction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "My old boss used to say: Fast, Accurate, Cheap. You can only have 2 of the 3, that's it. Perhaps majority of the issues you've had with Architectural profession stems from projects that try to achieve all 3 of those."

      That's a variation of speed, quality, and cost. Btw, what's "accuracy" in architecture?

    10. Re:Construction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Haydon Burns Library in Jacksonville, Florida. Only replaced by a newer Main Library two years ago. The architecture is completely unique (to Jacksonville), and was a well-designed, functional building that was aesthetically attractive. It just grew old and out of room to expand.

      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)

    11. Re:Construction? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I am amazed that buildings such as Gehry's ever get built"

      I'm not. There are lots of idiots with money to blow away, especially if it isn't really their money.

      I'm fine with interesting looking buildings. But his buildings don't look that great (they probably looked dated the day they were drawn) and sure looks like many of them don't work well. They are probably the Ford Edsels of architecture.

      Anybody can make something different that's crap. And you can often get away with it if you're just making "art". Just like those "artists" throwing paint onto a canvas, or writing songs that are just silence, or just bottling their "unique" excrement in jars.

      But if you're making buildings they actually should work.

      It takes real talent to make a distinctive looking building that actually works better than other stuff before it.

      Take the Pentagon (building) for example. It was an amazing feat of design and engineering given the limitations of time and resources due to the ongoing war. It definitely looks different and it actually worked.

      --
    12. Re:Construction? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      If it was a fundamental flaw in design, then his other projects should exhibit similar problems.

      If you follow the news, many of them do.
    13. Re:Construction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not really a big secret on how to make a beautiful building, and on top of that, its not very difficult to make a beautiful box either. Non-conforming buildings that are hardly functional and sacrifice "design" over functionality deserve the ridicule and insults they receive. Being different does not necessarily mean better. I am apartment hunting in Manhattan at the moment, and am amused at these ultra modern style apartments with floor to ceiling windows and stark stone floors fetching high prices, when in late October you could already feel the drafts, not to mention the inconvenience of the rising sun on your east-facing bedroom windows.

      Also remember that one man's masterpiece is another man's eyesore. I went to the State University of New York at Albany, and some students found it beautiful, but most found it to be a hideous concrete jungle, that will forever be a "space age" inspired hangover.

      I will take a burger and fries over a beautiful plate of food that tastes like rubber, any day of the week. Burgers are sold in expensive restaurants as well as Mickey D's as well.

    14. Re:Construction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even your end user who may know how write perfect computer code written on just a roll of toilet paper is probably likely to dismiss years of your work in a heartbeat.

      Most people just don't care. I am amazed that buildings such as Gehry's ever get built. It's especially demoralizing here in North America... It's burger and fries baby for life...

      Ah, so you might understand how us IT folks feel when our jobs are given to folks across the Pacific. Especially demoralizing, since we spent years in addition to a full degree staying on top of the tech curve, only to find that big business wants cheap labor.

      I think some architects can and should learn to bite the bullet and realize that some design decisions just won't work well with the end user, or cannot reasonably be built when things like time and budget are considered. You can't brush off real life when it interferes with your artistic vision.
    15. Re:Construction? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "I will disagree with your very last sentence. I don't think there are any monuments being built for either architect's egos or Owner's businesses. Forget the Gehrys of this world for a minute, and we are left with fairly mediocre structures which speak of nothing but our ability to logically compile pre-assembled elements into barely cohesive monuments to absolutely nothing. Architecture hasn't had a cohesive ideology in many decades now. Since introduction of AutoCAD. Coincidence?"

      I have had 2 personal experiences where major elements of the structures, if not the whole building, were there solely for aesthetic effect. First was a "fin wall", which was an exterior architectural element. It was 7 stories high and contained no services or served any user need. When it was going to be VE'd out (to the tune of $1,000,000), the architect threw a fit. The fin wall was his "signature", and if it was eliminated, he would walk off the job.

      Another example was an interior detail - a monumental stairway right in the lobby of the building. It was almost 20' wide, with 3' deep stairs. It was bare concrete, with a stained finish. Again, $1,000,000, and the AE refused to take it out of the design. The results:
      a) Since the stair weren't poured contiguously, the concrete stained differently at different portions, and would up looking checkerboarded. When the conc. staning consultant (that the AE used) looked at it, he basically said "yeah, that sometimes happens."
      b) Because of the deep steps, they are very uncomfortable to walk on. The steps are visually proportional for the size, but no one uses them.
      c) The AE firm won an award for the building, and specifically for the lobby, of which the stairs is the dominant feature.

      Like I said - some AE's are great, but there are still a lot of wannabees out there.

      As for the AIA docs, I agree that they are a template and many owners modify them or write their own - that's a large portion of my current job. But I work for an organization that has millions of square feet under roof in thousands of different locations. The vast majority of owners I dealt with as a GC were clueless - building a project like a greenfield building was a once a career event, not 20x a year. They generally took the AIA's as written, much to their later dismay. It's unfortunate, but it is reality.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    16. Re:Construction? by YU5333021 · · Score: 1

      In MIT case, the dead giveaway is mold. This happens when dew point occurs on the wrong side of the air/vapor barrier within the given building envelope. Which side is the wrong side depends on climate. I have a feeling that Gehry might have recycled wall cavity details from his west coast projects. Seems like a dumb oversight, but possible. As far as water leakage, all buildings will leak eventually. There are limited warranties for waterproofing materials (5-25 years typ.). Manufacturers of such products are also supposed to approve architect's details...

      I would hardly only blame the Architect if his flawed designs are being allowed to be mindlessly copied without a rigorous technical analysis by other members of the building profession.

    17. Re:Construction? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I would hardly only blame the Architect if his flawed designs are being allowed to be mindlessly copied without a rigorous technical analysis by other members of the building profession.

      There's more than a few architect at Gehry's level that fight tooth and nail against having their building modified by 'mere' tradesmen - and more than a few oversight comittees that will side with the Famous Name. At any rate, if the design is flawed - the fault rests ultimately with the designer - the architect.
    18. Re:Construction? by rhomp2002 · · Score: 1

      I am not amazed that buildings such as Gehry's ever get build. I am depressed that someone thought something this ugly was worth investing even a thin dime in.

    19. Re:Construction? by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      On a related subject, I am an Architect who currently works as a technical design consultant, and I am very disappointed at what I've read in this tread so far...Truly depressing

      Welcome to one of the world's largest water-cooler conversations. Don't let the negativity affect you; while they may be otherwise pushing the boundary in their professional spheres, Slashdotters often lack a sense of wonder in discussions like this. It's not just buildings; look at any thread where a new product or spec was announced. People come here to escape the real world, not to change it. Only when you realize that fact would you appreciate the cognitive dissonance involved in, say, reading posts where people wish for, say, mobiles that can make and receive calls and do nothing else.

      Slashdot's politics may or may not be liberal, its outlook towards technology (and by extension, engineering) has always been whiny, negative and conservative.

  12. OOOO by dctmfoo · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is not his mistake. Maybe its USER ERROR. computer literates makes lame mistakes all the time.

  13. Frank Gehry is not a proper architect by krog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He is a self-absorbed sculptor whose favorite medium is buildings. MIT has recently made the transition into having a bullshit, weak-headed administration, capable of being held rapt by shiny objects. Throw in $300M and a few hours of hand-waving, and you got yourself one hell of an eyesore (a leaky one, at that).

    1. Re:Frank Gehry is not a proper architect by Marty200 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He is a self-absorbed sculptor whose favorite medium is buildings. MIT has recently made the transition into having a bullshit, weak-headed administration, capable of being held rapt by shiny objects.

      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

      --

      Randomly distributing Karma whenever possible.

    2. Re:Frank Gehry is not a proper architect by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      Also, California designers often design things that won't work anywhere that freezes in the winter. That building looks like something from an H.P. Lovecraft story.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    3. Re:Frank Gehry is not a proper architect by mstahl · · Score: 2, 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.

    4. Re:Frank Gehry is not a proper architect by debest · · Score: 1

      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.

      It was the Disney Concert Hall you're thinking of.
      --
      Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
    5. Re:Frank Gehry is not a proper architect by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Looking at the photos, something inside me screams "Tear it down!" because it's rather unsettling and not in the good way.

      It's not a building I'd want to work in or around.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    6. Re:Frank Gehry is not a proper architect by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      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).

      but he also was famous for letting style concerns override useability in houses resulting in features that could be tough to live with (such as low doors), and i remember hearing one owner of a FLW house saying something like "it was our fault for leaving a work of art out in the rain" to explain a leak in the roof design. the Taliesin Visitor's Guide FAQ even devotes a section to answering the question of why his roofs leak:

      Why do his roofs leak? Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings are known for their beauty, artistry, sensitivity to their surroundings, and sometimes their leaky roofs. Some of the roofs he designed leak, in part, because of the techniques and materials he used. To increase the sense of shelter, Wright extended the lines of the eaves farther away from the building, thereby lowering the pitch of the roof. Longer, lower roofs do not shed water and snow as easily as higher pitched roofs. In addition, he felt a compulsion to experiment, and felt that the work he was doing could eventually be improved as technology evolved.

      A good example of this philosophy can be seen in the Johnson Wax Administration Building in Racine, Wisconsin (1936-39). Wright employed cylindrical tubing for the windows in order to diffuse light and block the view to the outside. At the time, no adequate sealant for the glass tubes was available. S.C. Johnson Wax experimented with a variety of solutions before advances in sealant materials produced one that worked.
    7. Re:Frank Gehry is not a proper architect by Nerd4News · · Score: 1

      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.

      I wish I had mod points. I cringe every time I hear FLW & great architect in the same sentence. FLW was an asshole that couldn't keep water out of a building in Death Valley if his life depended on it.
  14. In My Asinine Opinion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't run across that acronym before...k

  15. Was it accidental? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Funny
    From wikipedia article on Gehry

    He studied city planning at the Harvard Graduate School of Design for a year, leaving before completing the program
    Y'know, just saying... maybe Gehry finally made an effort on the other side of the one-sided Harvard-MIT rivalry.
    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  16. William H. Gates Building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "640 square meters ought to be enough for everyone"

  17. Quit Complaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Case Western has had the same issues with their Gehry building since it was opened to the public. But no one has even muttered the possibility of suing Gehry. MIT needs to quit whining and just deal with it.

    Shine on Case Western,

    A proud Case alum.

    1. Re:Quit Complaining by Whalou · · Score: 1

      So proud that the post is anonymous...

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
  18. You heard it here first [nt] by Nimey · · Score: 1

    en tee

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  19. Gehry's not an engineer by duckmanduck · · Score: 1

    I saw a documentary on Gehry's work and I believe it stated that he is a designer, not an engineer. He designs with pen and paper, not a CAD system. I trust an architect to design a building to stand up under its own weight and not fall down because of the wind. The engineers are responsible for implementing the design. They are the ones who have the responsibility to keep the insides dry and choose materials that can take the stresses. Whether or not the engineers were working for the building contractors or Gehry's architecture business, I don't know.

    1. Re:Gehry's not an engineer by servognome · · Score: 1

      The architect designs something, the engineer tells the architect what theoretically can and can't be done, and the contractor tells the engineer what physically can and can't be done.
      Art->Theory->Reality

      Unfortunately like many artists architects are so full of themselves they can't take rejection of their inspirational design. I saw a documentary on the building of a stadium in Phoenix, and the architect was complaining that some support pillars weren't lined up exactly the way he wanted, and the contractor was telling him that they'd have to rip out the stadium walls and build it completely different to meet the architect's vision so the architect just walked away in a huff. Also interesting was when he was inspecting the restrooms the architect just said something to the effect, "I don't really care too much, I won't be here." What's sad is the restrooms of a stadium are one of the more important areas from a functionality standpoint. Beer consumption = major use, and it is a place where if it is poorly designed things can get messy. But for the "artist," function is something beneath them.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  20. I don't remember Building 20 leaking by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I could be viewing this through the haze of nostalgia, and I can't swear that I ever took classes in or visited labs on the top floor. But. I don't think the roof leaked.

    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.

    1. Re:I don't remember Building 20 leaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "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"

      People like you who think such a thing is "sexist" are what's wrong with the world.

      I'm going to let you in on a secret, when you say things like this, you sound ridiculous.

      The population you associate with that hasn't told you so is not representative of the rest of the population, so please don't assume that not being told you are making silly statements is the same as not making silly statements.

    2. Re:I don't remember Building 20 leaking by goodmanj · · Score: 1
      I was a grad student at MIT during construction. You say:

      "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."

      They did. Throughout the design and construction, they were *constantly* talking about "lessons learned from the old building 20", "preserving the ideals of the old building 20 in a modern space", on and on. Among other things, Building 20 was nice because it was so old that if you needed to rip out a wall, feel free. A friend of mine once needed some thick wiring for a project late at night, so he yanked a piece of unused conduit off the wall and cannibalized the building for parts. The Stata Center has some very large spaces with movable walls and flexible utilities, which can be repurposed and adapted in the same way.

      The administration and architects seriously hyped the connection to the old Building 20. The reality doesn't quite match the hype, but they did make some effort.

    3. Re:I don't remember Building 20 leaking by ColoradoAuthor · · Score: 1

      Building 20 was nice because it was so old that if you needed to rip out a wall, feel free. There's a great discussion of Building 20 in Stewart Brand's book, How Buildings Learn. This is one of those few books that I enjoy rereading every couple of years because of how it helps me see the world in a new way. Brand's ideas are simple and (in hindsight) obvious: Architects should look at how buildings are used and modified over time, and design accordingly. Unfortunately, architects tend to be rewarded more for the appearance of a building before it is occupied, than they are for the usability of the building after it is occupied.
    4. Re:I don't remember Building 20 leaking by iabervon · · Score: 1

      People in Building 20 did complain in the summer, since it didn't have central HVAC. The classrooms weren't great, because they had pilars in the middle, so not all of the space was useable. And you couldn't get to it without going outside, since it wasn't connected to anything and didn't have a basement. But those were the only flaws I remember with it.

      Of course, Stata isn't at all a replacement for Building 20. It's a replacement for NE43 and the east garage, so the lessons of Building 20 aren't particularly applicable to Stata. I think it would be worth having a new building like Building 20, but part of its magic was that it wasn't the CS building or the linguistics building or the ROTC building, but was used for whatever needed a space that the institute didn't already have, because you could do whatever you needed to do to it and have your lab space in time to do what you needed to do, without waiting for a new building to be built for you or for remodelling a more static building.

    5. Re:I don't remember Building 20 leaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn the meaning behind words, you horrible excuse for an AC. It might be a sexist remark because he said it was functional, and a good part of functionality is bathrooms. The trick was, his sex didn't give him the chance to see if it was functional for a female needing the bathroom.

    6. Re:I don't remember Building 20 leaking by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      A couple thoughts, unrelated to each other:

      Nearly all the bathrooms in MIT used to be men's rooms, then they converted half to women's rooms at some point. Which is why you don't find pairs of M/W bathrooms like in most buildings - instead, when you find a men's room, you go up or down a flight of stairs and you'll find a women's room directly above or below it (at least, in the older infinite corridor section of campus). I'm guessing bldg 20 would have had its bathrooms similarly converted, so that it was about half and half.

      Also, I've always heard that a large part of the collaborativeness found in 20 was because several disparate departments were kind of shoved in there helter-skelter - so there were linguists down the hall from music professors around the corner from the Tech Model Railroad Club. I'm not sure how much the physical layout had to do with it - I didn't go in there much (it was torn down my sophomore year), but I remember most of the layout being pretty standard hallways.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    7. Re:I don't remember Building 20 leaking by eufreka · · Score: 1

      actually, i think it gives real definition to that old brainstorming nugget: there are no stupid ideas... execution, however, that's another story, isn't it?

  21. lack of oversight at upper level of management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if i did my job like those at the top, I'd get fired

    the truth is that upper management is overpaid and irresponsible

    1. Re: lack of oversight at upper level of management by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      if i did my job like those at the top, I'd get fired

      the truth is that upper management is overpaid and irresponsible Cf. The Peter Principle.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  22. your sig by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But what caliber and action?

    1. Re:your sig by Fysiks+Wurks · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      9mm DA/SA

      --
      P226
  23. Vision over Practicality by pz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hope that people who work in the Stata Center will reply to this thread. I have many friends there, but have not, myself spent more than an occasional afternoon in the complex.

    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.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:Vision over Practicality by Otter · · Score: 1
      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.

      It's interesting that you say that -- from the day the skeleton of that building went up, it struck me that such a jumbled mess of architecture seems counterproductive to a good frame of mind for CS and math research. Just walking by it, your head starts to spin.

      The new neuroscience research building is absolutely superb, though, as is Stata's other across-the-street neighbor, Whitehead.

    2. Re:Vision over Practicality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      MIT graduate here.

      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 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.

    3. Re:Vision over Practicality by us7892 · · Score: 0

      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.

      Really? If there are some researchers blaming a building for their shortcomings...well, enough said. That is ridiculous.

    4. Re:Vision over Practicality by pz · · Score: 1

      I guess you've never lived or worked in an oppressive environment, else you might not have made such a knee-jerk reaction. I have, and it clearly affected the quality and quantity of work I produced. Is that a shortcoming, or merely human nature?

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    5. Re:Vision over Practicality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's true; the building is broken by design. I do work in the Stata Center, and it is as bad as everyone says it is.

      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.

    6. Re:Vision over Practicality by us7892 · · Score: 1

      I've worked and lived in some dismal places. That building is not a dismal place to work. And it is certainly not oppressive.

      And, indeed, it is human nature to lay blame anywhere except on oneself. I agree with you.

    7. Re:Vision over Practicality by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If there are some researchers blaming a building for their shortcomings...well, enough said. That is ridiculous.

      More than one marriage had broken up over arguments about a house. And you are telling me that where something is housed has no effect at all on those that spend a lot of time there? You are the one that is ridiculous.

    8. Re:Vision over Practicality by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I don't object to daring design-- it's just that Gehry seems to go out of his way to make things unusable.

      I was raised in Dallas and spent quite a bit of time in the Dallas Theater Center (Frank LLoyd Wright designed) and they didn't build it to design. Even the official web site for the theater lists "Circular ramps on either side were designed to move the scenery up from the basement." Yet they had "construction problems" and such that prevented the second ramp from being completed. Why? Because it was purposefully sabotaged in order to get an elevator there. Who wants to push scenery up a ramp when you could use an elevator like the rest of the world? The ramp is storage, the other ramp was replaced by an elevator. My understanding is that at his death, he was still under the impression that the ramps were both in place, yet the theater opened around the time of his death with one ramp and one elevator.

      It goes back to designers that put the design over functionality. He wasn't as bad as many of the other famous architects, but he did have some problems of his own.

    9. Re:Vision over Practicality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope that people who work in the Stata Center will reply to this thread. I have many friends there, but have not, myself spent more than an occasional afternoon in the complex.

      I work in the Stata Center and have since it opened. I'm in Stata as I type this message. I can't describe my hatred for this building, and I'm surprised it took as long as it did for the lawsuits to start.

      In fairness to the architect, though, many of the problems are not his fault. MIT really screwed up in communicating their requirements to him. Littles thing like, late in the design process, deciding that there needed to be a 700 car, two level parking garage under the building. 'Cause that won't be hard to add at the last minute, of course not! </sarcasm> Neither MIT nor Gehry really gave much consideration to the actual purpose of the building, which is to house over 1000 researchers and a significant computing infrastructure. Hell, there wasn't even a data center in the original blueprints, and even now the computer rooms are small, sub-standard, oddly shaped (this makes cooling and physical layout a real bitch), and spread across several floors. The original plan for the data network, as dreamed up by the committee responsible for communicating MIT's needs to the architect, was to have a small (think 8 port Linksys) switch mounted above the door to each office, and daisy-chain them all together. No, I'm not kidding.

      There's so much wrong with this building I can't even begin to describe it. Here's to hoping that I don't piss anybody off too much with this post!

    10. Re:Vision over Practicality by phage434 · · Score: 1

      I live in this building. There are serious problems, some with leaks, but most with the fundamental design. A good example is the placement of fire exits. In any rational building, the fire exits are near the elevators. You probably have never thought about why that is true -- it's just something that rational building designers do. Well, this building does NOT do this. Two important results. (1) No visitor can find the fire exits. (2) You can't lock the building. When the fire alarm goes off, you must be able to get to the fire exits. If you have just stepped off the elevator, the path from the elevator to the fire exit must be open, and can never be locked.

    11. Re:Vision over Practicality by dangitman · · Score: 1

      (almost everyone had at least one class in 32-123, which held around 300 people, regardless of their major)

      One would assume that the room would have the same seating capacity regardless of the occupants' major. Or are CS majors on average much larger people than other students?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    12. Re:Vision over Practicality by noahm · · Score: 1

      It's true; the building is broken by design. I do work in the Stata Center, and it is as bad as everyone says it is.

      All these wonderful posts make me want to resurrect the stata-haters mailing list that somebody set up when we first moved in. Maybe at this point we could get some of the higher up MIT executives to join, now that they've seen the light and started hating the building along with us poor souls who have to try to work in it.

      noah

    13. Re:Vision over Practicality by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      You may wish to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the comma :-P

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    14. Re:Vision over Practicality by dangitman · · Score: 1

      (almost everyone had at least one class in 32-123, which held around 300 people, regardless of their major) You may wish to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the comma :-P

      The comma's just a pause or separator, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence above. You see, "regardless of their major" comes immediately after "300 people" - when it should come after "almost everyone."

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    15. Re:Vision over Practicality by belg4mit · · Score: 1
      Actually no, that is but one use of the comma. Commas, like parentheses and em dash, may be used to set-off a clause.
      The precedeing sentence is an example of this. You can lift out everything between the commas and the sentence
      is still valid.

      Quoth Webster 1913:

      com.ma \'ka:m-*\ n [LL, fr. L, part of a sentence, fr. Gk komma segment,
            clause, fr. kopt]ein to cut 1: a punctuation mark, used esp. as a mark of
            separation within the sentence 2: PAUSE, INTERVAL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_(punctuation)
      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    16. Re:Vision over Practicality by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      To clarify, in this usage all three forms of punctuation are identical except in weight,
      which is a matter of personal style as there is no consistently assigned order of precedence.
      From most to least important clauses, I personally use comma, em dash and parentheses.
      Unfortunately, with some typefaces this does not match the visual effect since em dash
      can result in a major break of the line.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    17. Re:Vision over Practicality by pz · · Score: 1

      I live in this building.

      I've made the very same statement about the building I worked in while I was at MIT, and the slightly disturbing malapropism is one of the things I find distinctive in people who have been part of EECS at MIT. The misstatement reflects the utter devotion and passion to the subject. Of course you don't live in the building, but your life is in that building. Ahhhh, MIT!

      Unless you're actually RMS, in which case, you actually do live in the building. When the Real Time Systems group moved from the 4th floor of 545 Tech Square to the 6th, RMS moved in to my old office, Room 425. And I mean, literally, moved in. That was his domicile. Last I heard, he was similarly living in the Stata Center. Can anyone who works there confirm?

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  24. No sympathy for Ghery in Minneapolis by murderlegendre · · Score: 4, Informative

    Gehry won't be receiving much sympathy from the residents of Minneapolis, who are forced to live with the Weisman Museum. The 'tin man' as it's known is sore-thumb public eyesore #1 in the U of M campus area.

    Eyesore - figuratively and literally. Not only is this one of the ugliest, most mis-placed pieces of architecture in the metro, its reflective stainless steel skin blinds drivers crossing the Washington Avenue bridge in the late afternoon, when the sun is behind them and they're headed eastbound. Nice planning, folks.

    Oh, and about the skin.. it's badly wrinkled, due to "unforeseen" issues with thermal expansion and contraction. Basically, the building looks like a crushed aluminum take-out box, about to litter itself into the Mississippi river.

    --
    There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
    1. Re:No sympathy for Ghery in Minneapolis by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

      I always thought it looked like a baked potato wrapped in aluminum foil. Speaking of hideous Minneapolis buildings, does anyone else think the new Walker Art Center building looks like the head of a giant evil Transformer?

    2. Re:No sympathy for Ghery in Minneapolis by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Same basic idea in Seattle, with the EMP building. Looks like the remains of a large-scale industrial accident at the Boeing plant.

      At some point, you'd think people would point at Gehry and ask why he's walking around naked.

    3. Re:No sympathy for Ghery in Minneapolis by TDDeYoung · · Score: 1

      Eyesore - figuratively and literally. Not only is this one of the ugliest, most mis-placed pieces of architecture in the metro, its reflective stainless steel skin blinds drivers crossing the Washington Avenue bridge in the late afternoon, when the sun is behind them and they're headed eastbound. Nice planning, folks.

      You'd think that the U would just paint the entire thing maroon and gold to cut the reflection...couldn't be worse that what's there now.
    4. Re:No sympathy for Ghery in Minneapolis by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Why blame Gehry? Its no uglier than his other buildings and anytime you deal with creative architecture you're going to have some unique issues. How about blaming the administrators and politicians who take your hard earned tax money and throw it to a vanity architect? Gehry is an easy target, but he's the wrong target.

    5. Re:No sympathy for Ghery in Minneapolis by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      Oh, and about the skin.. it's badly wrinkled, due to "unforeseen" issues with thermal expansion and contraction.
      Hey, don't be so harsh. Aluminium's tricky stuff. Even spelling it's an effort! And who could have known that Minneapolis has temperature variations - after all, cold and really cold are both cold, aren't they?
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    6. Re:No sympathy for Ghery in Minneapolis by neccoant · · Score: 1

      There isn't any in upstate NY at Bard either. (Fisher Performing Arts Center.) The snow and ice there got heavy enough to slide off and kill people, so Bard had to put ugly orange guards around the edges.

    7. Re:No sympathy for Ghery in Minneapolis by DCheesi · · Score: 1

      We've got one of these monstrosities going up in my town, designed by a Gehry "disciple". Looks just like a typical Gehry piece, with the incongruous addition of a Louvre-style glass pyramid sticking out at a weird angle. It's being jammed into a tight space right next to the freeway (hello blinding reflections) and is just totally out of in the otherwise very traditional downtown landscape.

    8. Re:No sympathy for Ghery in Minneapolis by Gulik · · Score: 1

      Not only is this one of the ugliest, most mis-placed pieces of architecture in the metro, its reflective stainless steel skin blinds drivers crossing the Washington Avenue bridge in the late afternoon, when the sun is behind them and they're headed eastbound.

      This pinged in my head, and I went a-lookin'. Yep, it was Gehry's concert hall that accidentally implemented Archimedes' Death Ray on the unsuspecting sidewalk , nearby buildings, and the occasional passerby (where, thankfully, it only had the potential to cause sunburn, and not, you know, instantaneous firey death).

      This guy could give Bloody Stupid Johnson a run for his money.

    9. Re:No sympathy for Ghery in Minneapolis by Mortirer · · Score: 0

      I have to say i really like the look of that building. Its at least something different around the UofM.

      --
      Curiosity killed the cat, but cats have 9 lives.
    10. Re:No sympathy for Ghery in Minneapolis by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      The positive spin would be, of course, that the local transient population in Southern California now has access to a really big microwave oven.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  25. Re: Who's who? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Sorry, what's stallmans academic background again? Being a throwback hippie from the 60s? I didn't realize being nostalgic was a major. Yet you obviously know who he is.
    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  26. "Buggy"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow! You know we're geeks when we refer to a building as "buggy"! Is that the same as waiting until after a classroom session to have an "off-line" discussion?

    (Lighten up. It's a joke.)

  27. One here too. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1
    He designed this mess as well on the U of MN Campus trust me the pictures on the site can't convey the eyesore that is that building. Here is one of the breathless quotes from its site:

    "The building is a wild jumble of angular shapes, covered in shimmering brushed stainless steel - sure to brighten up those long, gray northern winters."
    Newsweek, September 20, 1993
    Sorry brushed stainless steel is not going to help our gray winters
    It sits on the bank of the Mississippi and we always wanted to build a steam cannon or something quiet to lob ball bearings at it from the far shore against its stainless steel exterior. Never quite got around to it...should have made the time.

    Sera
    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    1. Re:One here too. by murderlegendre · · Score: 1

      ..always wanted to build a steam cannon or something quiet to lob ball bearings at it from the far shore against its stainless steel exterior. Hm, artillery.. hadn't thought of that. Shoot me a mail, k?
      --
      There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
    2. Re:One here too. by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Frank Gehry is a one-trick pony. We ended up with this monstrosity, something akin to an exploded Jiffy-Pop container with a building underneath.

      See also this and this.

    3. Re:One here too. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      We actually had 2 M.E.s, an E.E., a professional welder, and a machinist talking about it a couple of times. We figured we would get in trouble for denting it - then someone said the words 'grapeshot' and 'paint balls' in the same sentence. The machinist actually had a 8" dia by 38" piece of steel, and a lathe that could turn it. :)

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    4. Re:One here too. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      Yeeeeg! That *is* ugly! The front shot makes me want to yell "Quick! Run! That building is going to collapse!" I am sorry it happened to you all as well.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  28. Same problem at Gehry's Peter B Louis Building by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the article: "Snow and ice cascaded dangerously from window boxes and other projecting roof areas, blocking emergency exits and damaging other parts of the building, according to the suit."

    This exact same problem is encountered every year at Gehry's Peter B Louis Building on the CWRU campus. We call the building the metal kleenex box, because it looks like a wavy brick building with a lot of useless big metal waves coming out in every direction from the top. The problem is that in the winter, these metal waves get covered in snow, which inevitably slides off onto the people below (Gehry strategically placed the largest such avalanche directly above one of the two main sidewalks on that corner).

    1. Re:Same problem at Gehry's Peter B Louis Building by Deewun · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, the snow and ice don't actually hit anybody, because CWRU tapes off the affected area of the sidewalk during the snowy season. (Which is fairly long in Cleveland.) But I agree that the building is an eyesore; I was there during the construction, and every year it became uglier. At least Peter B. Lewis won't be buying them any more eyesores.

    2. Re:Same problem at Gehry's Peter B Louis Building by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      I was there for all the construction too. I remember they had these blue protective plastic covers over every little metal tile, and the construction crew had to peel them off, except they wouldn't peel off, so for several weeks we had a blue metal building with little bits torn away.

  29. Gehry by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work for a fortune 500 luxury goods company that recently had Gehry design *jewelry*, of all things. Let's just say that the line is on the verge of being cancelled due to poor sales - many of the items are already discontinued. Sure, the stuff is interesting to look at, but much of it is impractical to wear. I'm not at all surprised that the guy's designed a building that's practically falling apart.

  30. Re: Who's who? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

    I know of quite a few comp.sci folk. "who's who" means people of great importance. Just because I know of RMS doesn't mean he's relevant, or that his attention whoring activities are newsworthy events.

    All thankful for the FSF movement, but nowadays it's more irrelevant than ever.

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  31. Whoa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check this guy out: http://www.csail.mit.edu/biographies/PI/bioprint.php?PeopleID=479

    He's like a mix between Steve Ballmer and Phil Harrison.

  32. Architects and Egos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disclaimer : IANAA, but I am an architectural designer / draftsman.

    Gehry is a diva.
    Despite the builder's recommendation to change the design of the ampitheatre to include drainage and jointing (to prevent cracks) he refused to compromise his "vision" and told them to go ahead with his design.

    Gehry has been around awhile, he should know better.

    If the guys in the field bring up an issue (unrelated to aesthetics) it needs to be addressed somehow, and not by saying 'Look, who's the architect here? Do it my way.'

    Too many architects draw details that don't work in the real world. This makes it the contractors job to correct those details in the field, if the architect allows it. I'm sure that Gehry, or one of his partners had oversight responsibility on the project, and with his ego, probably forbid any field modification of the details.

    Anonymous because I'm lazy

  33. Construction. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    I agree that the school should realized what they were getting into when they agreed to this design. But then it's also the responsibility of the architect to make the client aware of potential problems and do what they can in the design to avoid these problems. I suppose architect's lawyers should have put a clause in their contract absolving them from responsibility for any problems arising from this unconventional design.

    However, the question is whether the problems arose from the design itself or from shoddy construction. I'd like to see construction companies being held more responsible for the messes they create. Right near work a road in the process of being repaved is already being torn up and those holes sloppily covered up. It's insane the kind of crap these companies get away with, especially when dealing with the government.

  34. Howard Roark was sued too right? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Didn't Ellsworth Toohey sue Howard Roark? For designing a temple that did not look like a temple or what?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Howard Roark was sued too right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of the Stoddard Temple. Toohey didn't sue Roark, Stoddard did. Toohey recommended Roark to Stoddard, and told Stoddard exactly what words to say to Roark (basically, "I want a building that makes me feel ---" but giving Roark total freedom). Roark designed and built a building that made him feel those feelings, but Toohey knew that Roark and Stoddard felt those feelings over very different things. So Stoddard was quite surprised when he finally saw what Roark actually built, and that was why he sued.

      The roof of the Stoddard temple did not leak.

    2. Re:Howard Roark was sued too right? by ShatteredArm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't really see Roark as any kind of type for what Gehry is. Roark's buildings were actually uber-practical, and I guess could be said to be the utter opposite of what Gehry does. Roark made his buildings to be a part of the landscape, while Gehry makes his to stand out as much as possible. I'm sure Roark would still have the same reception from the architectural world if he did what Gehry does, though.

      I always saw Roark as more of a believer of "form follows function", while the prevailing practice in the book is to essentially implement as many of the architectural practices from the past as possible.

  35. Re:Who's who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, what's stallmans academic background again?


    • Harvard, B.A. Physics, Summa Cum Laude
    • Hero of the Hacker Revolution, perhaps the greatest programmer of all time
  36. Re:Who's who? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

    Greatest programmer of all time?

    Let's see, he doesn't maintain GCC or most GNU projects anymore. And hasn't for a long time.

    We don't run HURD last time I checked.

    He hasn't invented any new algorithms or techniques that I know of (please correct me if I'm wrong).

    Seems to me we owe a lot of the OSS scene to people OTHER THAN RMS.

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  37. Still Doesn't Beat Chicago's ... by LuxuryYacht · · Score: 1

    Millennium Park http://www.millenniumpark.org/
    Over budget by $350 million and was completed four years behind schedule.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
    1. Re:Still Doesn't Beat Chicago's ... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      That's not as bad as London's £1 billion tent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Dome !

  38. Re:Who's who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're still a nobody even if GCC is principally developed by RedHat. Maybe you should create a few more libraries with your name in it, and in 40-50 years someone might remember you.

  39. Hmm... by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Gehry is my favorite sculptor" is a phrase I love to use with my teachers. Its not that eccentric designs aren't fun and should be abolished. Its that when you use a design like this that, if this building is like the Disney concert hall at all, doesn't actually USE any of the unique curves and forms as anything more than a facade, its pointless. The buildings of Gehry I've seen are basically boxes with really really neat facades. Ugly and sometimes blinding facades; but not "accomplished" facades.

    I'm seeing a lot of posts like "hire civil engineers to make your building" or "I want a building that works, not some pretty thing". Please note first of all that you'd probably want a structural engineer. And probably wind up with a box similiar to a hospital (90% of which is designed by structural engineers). You'd probably also wind up with a box with problems like doors opening over toilets and drawers in bathrooms, shelves for various applications in labs and kitchens being spaced in a way as to not be as convenient as you'd first like them, a more expensive house as HVAC is either not minimized or not as efficiently used or as the lighting uses no outside sources...I'm not saying structural engineers break any laws; they just usually design quickly and to the code, ignoring the needs of the inhabitants which takes a trained eye and education as a designer to properly see these minute details.

    Yes, architects design. Sometimes their designs fail. But they know when they take up the pencil (or, most likely, CAD) that they are most likely to get sued or, worst of all for a designer, people will die AND they'll get sued, if they don't do their job properly.

    Finally, I agree that sculpture buildings, while pretty, are best left to case studies and studio designs in Grad schools. There's a reason minimalism, modernism and post-modernism is so popular with modern architects. But this doesn't mean that your building would be "better" if it was just designed by a structural engineer. And this doesn't mean all architect's design like Gehry, who is considered a bit of a joke in the architecture world to be honest (at least among my professors).

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    1. Re:Hmm... by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Being a commercial MEP engineer, it's tough to decide which post to reply to... but I had the strongest feeligns abotu this one.

      Of course, "engineering" is a pretty broad dicipline. There are many specific types of engineers: Civil work mostly with the people and environment - making them the obvious choice for building design since they WILL take into account the "people factor" in their design.

      Then there's structural, who will be more concerned that the building will stay standing. I would not designate a structural engineer to design the overall layout since it is outside of their specialty. (Not to say they are incapable, but part of engineering ethic is to not deliberately take on tasks you're not actually aquainted with)

      As an MEP (Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing - or simply Mechanical) engineer, my "specialty" is pipes, ducts and wires. My concern is the physical comfort and utility of the space: Temperature and humidity, lighting, noise (from my equipment), power and data systems, life safety systems. I would not consider myself to actually be qualified to design an entire building, but like other engineers I have an eye for the practical. I frequently find myself fighting with the architects for space to place equipment and rum pipe/conduit, and I DO consider aestetics in that process. I don't want the building to look like crap either...

      Fact is, though, than an architect is generally not trained in any of the concerns that engineers are. Nearly every one of the 80-something job I've seen in the past ten years have had some very drain-dead design elements. These are not even radical designs, either... I'd give examples but I don't want to get carried away right now, but the bulk of them involve not accounting for climate, weather, actual use of the space and behavioral patterns, or constructability.

      There's a reason why an Engineer can put his seal on an architectural drawing, but an architect can not put his seal on an engineering drawing.
      =Smidge=

    2. Re:Hmm... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Disney Center is nothing special, but the Guggenheim Bilbao which it bears some resemblance to is a truly beautiful building architecturally, and reasonably functional as a museum.

      When you hire Gehry, you know what you are getting.

      As for all the people focused on purely functionality, it is important for the buildings on a university campus to help create an image of the institution-- these things help bring in endowment money, as well as assist in recruiting students.

      From my college life, the one building built out of purely utilitarian desires, Wescoe Hall, was an awful place. Very functional, but nothing else. It's important to mix function and a little whimsy into a building.

      That said, it's also important to understand the key program requirements and ensure that they are met...

    3. Re:Hmm... by monopole · · Score: 1

      My preference would be to get a building designed by a structural engineer and faced w/ a 3D printer. Give me a solid well built building, but add subtle detail like when we had great tradesmen/craftsmen. A CNC/Fab can produce unique subtly varying work at much the same cost as making the same thing over and over. I want fractal ornamentation!

  40. Stata is featured on the MIT Grad Rat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I've always thought it funny that the Stata Center is featured on the MIT Grad Student Class Ring (aka "Grad Rat"), as a "pile of refuse":

    http://web.mit.edu/gsc/www/programs/ring/bezel.shtml

    My old office window looked out on the Stata Center and I frequently eat lunch there. I have always considered it a monstrous waste of money. A good building should blend form and function. The Stata Center was cleary designed with a particular form in mind, and the engineers were forced to make function follow. A nice building with few problems and more efficient use of space could have been built for much less money (like the new Brain and Cognitive Science building across the street). The money saved could have been put to better use as financial aid for students. Or for the upkeep of MIT's other building. MIT tends to sink ridiculous amounts of money into new construction projects, but seems unwilling to spend the money to properly care for the older buildings already constructed.

  41. Growing Pains by milsoRgen · · Score: 1

    As our ability to mold our creations to our whims while maintaining certain functions increases there are bound to be fuck ups along the way.

    --
    I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
  42. Re:Who's who? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

    Wow, you really hurt my feelings, oy, the pain.

    Maybe you losers can realize that the world isn't all or nothing. RMS is probably a good comp.sci fellow but he's not a fucking god. And small though my "following" may be, I don't define myself by it, heck I'm barely involved in it anymore. I'm quite content being an even LESSER KNOWN student pianist than "coding legend."

    All of the tools you take for granted today are not the product of RMS'es hard work. They just aren't. What? You think without RMS that no C compiler would have been written for the OSS community? His achievement was spearheading the FSF movement when it was still a radical idea. And for that I say kudos. But this is 2007, not 1982. Get with the times.

    Shannon might have invented information theory, but I wouldn't give him credit for the AES design [for example], nor the MPEG series of codecs.

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  43. Gehry, the Gates of Architecture. by Torontoman · · Score: 1

    "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.....includes the William H. Gates Building."

    Sort of reads like a commentary on a popular PC operating system.

    Gehry should do an upgrade of the William H. Gates building that will look 90% different, be strangely larger for no reason, have no flow to it, cost you every time you walk in the door even if you work there, the lights take 6 minutes to turn on in the morning and even then won't go on 30% of the time, and you have to hit 3 buttons to un-jam the elevator every 45 minutes.

    Hey - Gehry is the Gates of Architecture.

  44. Like they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Ph.D designs it, a certified mechanic works out the production proess, and an ex-con that just had a 24-pack for lunch builds it.

  45. Let's give a hand to.... by JavaNPerl · · Score: 1

    the esteemed graduates of MITs prestigious Architecture and Civil Engineering programs.
    A promising future lies ahead of you!

  46. Gehry Doesn't Take Real Life Into Account by CWRUisTakingMyMoney · · Score: 1

    I go to a university in Cleveland. Needless to say, we get a good amount of snow in wintertime, being on a lake as we are. Well, our business (oh, I'm sorry, management) school has a Gehry building (pictures here, look at the floor plans to get an idea of how confusing the building is) uglying up our campus, too. Problem is, the roof is so curved and twisted that once snow starts to fall, it collects on the roof until huge chunks of snow and ice fall around 15 feet off it all at once, onto a heavily-traveled sidewalk. The problem was so bad that the university used to just close that sidewalk for the winter once the first flake hit the ground.

    Now, starting for this winter, they've installed concrete planters along the building, probably (but not admittedly) to give the snow a place to land that isn't on students' heads, while still keeping the sidewalk open. Rumor is that my school wanted Gehry to pony up money to help pay for the planters, but he refused. I mean, seriously, would a competent architect fail to realize that snow falls in Cleveland? Doubtful, but Gehry did.

    --
    Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
    1. Re:Gehry Doesn't Take Real Life Into Account by TyroneShoe · · Score: 1

      I went to Case Western as well and was in the Business School so I'm very familiar with the Gehry building. Yes, there were issues with snow and ice sliding off the roof in the winter. It was an unfortunate design oversight. However, unlike most of the douches posting here, I actually went to class inside the building. The space inside was absolutely spectacular and was a great place to go to school. Every room and lobby was filled with natural light and it never felt claustrophobic. Sitting in the atrium, you could see all the comings and goings of the students... nothing like your traditional, sterile, school building. Never trust anything CWRU engineering students say, they're all goobers and can't throw a party to save their lives. Except for the BME's, they rock.

  47. Hire architect, engineer, builder, and peacemaker by davidwr · · Score: 2, Funny

    To do a project this big, you need an architect with a vision, an engineer who can see reality, a builder who can build it right, and a U.N. peacemaker to keep them from killing each other.

    Oh, and you need a customer with the balls to say "if you can't work together and give me a building that not only looks good but lasts a long time, you are all fired."

    On a related note, the building should have a functional warranty for 10-20 years with the payments for all of these guys spread over an equal period of time. Warranty claims will be deducted against these guys' remaining paychecks.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  48. Am I the only one... by maciarc · · Score: 1

    ... who read the title and thought, "MIT spent $300,000,000 on a building to play Counterstrike!?!?!?!?!"

    1. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes. We're a different kind of geek here.

  49. Architecture vs. Engineering by ShatteredArm · · Score: 5, Informative

    At the very least, a civil engineer should've been hired to do a cursory check on things that the architecture might not have considered, such as gravity. Architects are like web designers, i.e., they design pretty interfaces rather than build infrastructures. They're artists, not engineers. I'm not too familiar with how these buildings are done, but don't they have a team of engineers involved to make sure things like this don't happen?

    1. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      Your comment should be moderated way up there.

      I also think that MIT is wrong in this one. Architects have some engineering (they are required to study the basics), but in this case with things way out there the engineers should have had the final say. Of course in the heat of the moment as one other poster said, "they were more amusing with shiny things."

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    2. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by lymond01 · · Score: 4, Funny

      but don't they have a team of engineers involved to make sure things like this don't happen

      Perhaps, on the MIT campus, they couldn't find one?

    3. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by paanta · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think you understand how buildings like this are designed and constructed. Architects on projects like this always, always, always work with qualified structural engineers either on staff or from an outside consulting agency. This _isn't_ a failure of an individual architect. It's a failure of a full-service firm that coordinates activities across the full spectrum, from conceptual stuff to engineering all the way down the line to (presumably) the guys putting in the rivets. An architect can't do all the work, but neither can an engineer or a construction manager.

      Challenging buildings like this work out all the time (see Arup) and there's nothing that says you have to have a boring building in order for the roof not to leak. It just costs more. Obviously someone was cutting corners in there somewhere.

    4. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by paanta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except Skanska was the GC.

    5. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by Znork · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Architects on projects like this always, always, always work with qualified structural engineers either on staff or from an outside consulting agency."

      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.

    6. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You also seem none too familiar with how these Web pages are "done". Web designers and architects are engineers. People who aren't engineers who claim these roles are lying: they're Web artists or architectural artists, nothing more.


      Ah... no. They're not. They *might* be a "systems designer" or some other nebulous term, but unless they had diffeqs, modern physics, and other assorted problem solving fun in their education and then use something at that level in their occupation they're not engineers. And yes, I'm taking square aim at my own field: software engineering. It's a fucking joke when compared with other engineering disciplines like mechanical and electrical. In no way is a UML spouting J2EE monkey an engineer. Web people are no more engineers than are MCSEs.
    7. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by ShatteredArm · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not talking about some crappy tripod website where one guy does the whole entire site. If you've got any decent sized project, you're going to have infrastructure people who do the business logic, data access, and other technical stuff, and the design people who choose the color, build the layout, color the menus, and create the graphics. Generally if you have the design people doing the infrastructure, you end up with a bad infrastructure, and if you have the infrastructure people doing the design, you end up with a bad design. Web designers who claim they are engineers are the liars.

      The point is, a design/architectural role is completely different than an engineering role. The architect isn't hired for his engineering abilities, but for his artistic talent, whereas the engineer is hired not for artistic talent but the ability to make it actually work. Obviously you'd expect an architect to have a rudimentary understanding of civil engineering so that he can filter out impractical ideas, but you can't rely on the architect to do the real engineering work.

    8. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Perhaps, on the MIT campus, they couldn't find one?

      Don't laugh. At least in my day, MIT wasn't an accredited engineering school.

    9. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by Retric · · Score: 1

      I agree that most "Web people are no more engineers than are MCSEs." but building something like Google's search takes a lot of high end math and extremely advanced architecture. Like most forms of engineering it's the extreme cases that are hard. Any idiot can build a gazebo or static website but writing good drivers for a geforce 8800 is at least as hard as designing a good transmission.

    10. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When my cousin got her architecture degree, they required her to take mechanical engineering courses in statics: load calculations for cantilevered vs. supported beams, the like. Architects that are fresh out of school -- or at least the architecture schools I know about -- do indeed consider gravity and infrastructure. It's possible that this wasn't the case when Gehry was in school, or that he's been designing for so long he's stopped looking at the nuts-n-bolts, or that he's so famous he doesn't *have* to care about failures, but in any case, any design that's submitted for building goes straight to the local county/city building department's engineers and they go over the whole thing. Where I live, a lower-income suburb of a small city, I have to submit engineer-signed drawings to build a garage, and the city engineer then goes over those drawings briefly.
      To sum up: many competent civil and structural engineers all signed off on the plans for this building.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    11. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you:

      1. Require official certification in order to perform your job within a given jurisdiction?
      2. Belong to an official society of others within your discipline, with rigorous entry criteria?
      3. Adhere to a defined code of professional ethics, with actual repercussions should you violate them?

      If you answered no to any of these questions, you're probably not an engineer in the undiluted sense of the word. It's not that computer work is less challenging, or that engineers are somehow superior to other people working in technical fields. It's that the word "engineer" means a very specific thing.

    12. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all fields of engineering are on the same level. I like to say that if a structural engineer makes a mistake, people may have to be buried, but if an HVAC engineer makes a mistake, people may have to put on a sweater. (not completley true, but close).

      I work in a consulting engineering office; we design mechanical, electrical, and IT for buildings large and small. I can assure you that most of our engineers, unless just graduated with high grades (and recently so they haven't had the time to forget), don't know diffeq or modern physics.

      The thing about architecture and engineering is that a lot of the design assumes competence in the field by the contractors. Just as you wouldn't expect an electrical schematic to include an explanation of the physics of soldering, there' a lot of particulars left out of architecural plans and specs, or included by reference to standards. It is assumed that the contractors are familiar enough with the methods to build it correctly, ayway. Therefore innovative designs come with a risk, as familiar methods may not apply, and the onus is on the architect to do a lot more work than they're used to.

    13. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by timeOday · · Score: 1

      there's nothing that says you have to have a boring building in order for the roof not to leak. It just costs more. Obviously someone was cutting corners in there somewhere.
      It's not obvious to me. Novelty implies risk.

      Incidentally this is why analogies between software development and civil/structural engineering are normally silly. In this case the analogy is a little better... and look at the outcome.

    14. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      They *might* be a "systems designer" or some other nebulous term, but unless they had diffeqs...

      I think I'll stick to the wikipedia definition Engineering is the discipline of acquiring and applying knowledge of design, analysis, and/or construction of works for practical purposes.
      and a Engineer is "One who practices engineering" also say "those licensed to do so have formal designations"
      so just because your tool bag contains different tools than say a licensed operator of steam powered locomotive. Unless you have the licensed accreditation of say a PE, your no more or less right to use the term Engineer, than someone who picked up a ruby on rails book, and started applying it to building web sites.

      I have a Engineering degree from accredited engineering program. My dad has no college degree but a first class boiler operator license, and as such is a Licensed Engineer, able to operate steam locomotives and the like. Despite having none of the training you site, he (dad) is a Licensed Engineer, I am not.
    15. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, architects do learn some basics about mechanical engineering (actually about statics). This does not, however, by any stretch of imagination, qualify them as civil or structural engineers. The reason they learn about it is to make sure they don't TOTALLY screw it up before sending their plans to the civil engineer.

      Take that from my mouth: my wife is an architect, her brother is a civil/structural engineer. :-)

      I just talked to my wife about it, and she confirmed, that the civil engineer can overrule the architect only if the building in question is actually a bridge. In case of buildings like this one, the architect can basically tell the civil engineer to shove it and carry on with implementation of his idea. Except if there are some SERIOUS structural problems with the building, making it not safe, in which case the civil engineer does have the means to stop the raging architect from killing innocent bystanders.

      HOWEVER, the part where you said "many competent civil and structural engineers all signed off on the plans for that building" is also correct! No building is built without a permission from the city engineering office (or whatever you call it), and those guys can NOT be overruled by an architect. They can be bribed, but not overruled :-). Only filing a suit against the architect does not show a real understanding of the house building process.

      DISCLAIMER: what I wrote above holds for the large parts of (western) Europe. In the USA, the things might be different.

    16. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the dictionary disagrees with your usage of the term.

      engineer:
            1. One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering.
            2. One who operates an engine.
            3. One who skillfully or shrewdly manages an enterprise.

      engineering:
            1.
                        a. The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.
                        b. The profession of or the work performed by an engineer.
            2. Skillful maneuvering or direction: geopolitical engineering; social engineering.

      PS: None of your limitations apply to CPU designers yet few people debate the term electrical engineer.

    17. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Dammit, it's art! Gehry doesn't concern himself with such petty things as structural integrity or physics. Now begone you Philistine.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    18. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Either changing designs or refusing to in the face of legit objections (in this case) without double checking things almosts guarantees problems later.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    19. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Basically the same thing here: my cousin didn't have to take anywhere near what a civil/structural engineer has to take. It was statics, not dynamics or fluid dynamics or the like, and even then it was sort of Statics For Poets. Their expectation was that architects should be designing stuff that could be built safely, and subsequent engineers would figure out how to implement it.

      What you describe is the case here in the USA, as well: the local building code office professional engineers analyze it not only to make sure it's not obviously unsafe, but also in light of local hazards an architect from somewhere else might not have considered. An architect from the Midwest might not think about earthquakes, while one from California might not think about tornado or snow load. That's what the local city/county engineers do.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    20. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Gehry doesn't touch the computer himself - he makes a physical scale model of what he wants the surfaces to look like, and they then use lasers to scan the geometry into various CAD programs.

      Also, Gehry, like most "starchitects" will hire another, typically local firm to handle the nuts and bolts architecture...within his grand vision of course. Problems with leaks, etc., would likely be their responsibility.

    21. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The typically in the US, architects design a building and hire consulting engineers for more specialized tasks.

      Architects as the prime or lead design consultant are then responsible for everything, but their focus of work is typically the building concept, layout, appearance, facade, waterproofing, fire protection and disability access.

      Consultants are hired for specific tasks to help the architect, some of these are:
      Landscape architects and civil engineers are hired to help on site design. (Planting, grading, and delivering building utilities)
      Structural Engineers will design the structure or bare skeleton of the building, (Steel, Concrete, Wood or Masonry frames/walls and foundation systems).
      Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical engineers will design the building services, (HVAC, Plumbing and power)

      Sometimes the architects core responsibilities will also be split between many Architectural consultants such as facade consultants, waterproofing consultants, design and production architects, fire protection consultants...)

      Ultimately in the end, when lawsuits start, everyone on the design team and construction team is sued together and the settlements will result in the party with the largest insurance policy paying the most on the claim, regardless of design responsibility and guilt.

    22. Re:Architecture vs. Engineering by umghhh · · Score: 1
      from TFA:

      • "Gehry breached its duties by providing deficient design services and drawings," says the suit
      • "An executive at Skanska's Boston office yesterday blamed Gehry for problems with the project and said Gehry ignored warnings from Skanska and a consulting company prior to construction that there were flaws in his design of the amphitheater."

      In other words - he screwed it up which is not that bad but he refused to face the reality and possibly instead of watching out he was counting money and that is worse. Or maybe he outsourced the project to china? Considering their building practices like this one:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/asia-pacific/6945301.stm this may explain the failure.

  50. Wow by aquatone282 · · Score: 0

    I see what you mean. . .

    --
    What?
  51. "like curvilinear forms much?" by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

    Gehry won't be receiving much sympathy from the residents of Minneapolis, who are forced to live with the Weisman Museum.

    Nor from the residents of Brooklyn, New York, who will soon be forced to live with his Barclays Center at Atlantic Yards; a twisty clump of glass skyscrapers jutting out in the middle of a thousand century-old brownstones.

    I like Gehry's interior design work -- his cafeteria design for Condé Nast is great, even if the floors did have to be replaced after only a couple of years due to intended warping -- but he seems entirely incapable of creating a building exterior that's compatible with its surroundings in any way. He's all sore thumbs.

  52. And for this the razed building 20... by hey! · · Score: 1

    the birthplace of radar, and beloved of researchers because it was pretty much a huge project box that could be altered (internally) at will to suit their needs? Building twenty was basically a big old shed, and a place like MIT needs buildings like that, unglamorous shells that keep the rain off of people while they let their creativity run riot.

    That said I think the Stata center is cool in many ways; it's probably the right kind of idea for housing computer geeks who aren't interested in knocking down walls and hauling in a huge surplus milling machine weighing a couple of thousand pounds.

    But they sure lost something when they knocked down building 20, rather than another, less distinguished building that was little more than a monument to a forgotten architect's ego. Of course, at this rate it doesn't look like Mr. Gehry is going to be forgotten, at least by the Institute's lawyers.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  53. IBM's design for a programming building by Animats · · Score: 1

    IBM's great adventure in architecture for programmers was IBM Santa Teresa, opened in 1977. They really tried to build a building optimized for programming work. The first priority was "a private, personal work area that permits intense concentration, screens distractions, and discourages interruptions, with connections for a computer terminal and adequate space to lay out and store large quantities of paper goods".

    Sounds like MIT's architect blew it there.

    1. Re:IBM's design for a programming building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging from the (1977) photos of the IBM Santa Teresa site, they sent their office furniture to the Tucson site. Seriously, my office furniture is ancient and won't be upgraded yet I was told NOT to bring in my own decent office furniture. At least the depressing burnt orange credenza fabric was covered by pretty fabric I bought.

  54. Insurance by Nedward · · Score: 1

    I heard from the grapevine that the lawsuit is just a necessary step in making a claim on the insurance policy that was taken out just for this type of 'repair'. Not sure if that is true.

    As for the building. The first floor is great, it is huge and provides plenty of space for eating lunch, having a chat, or just sitting (which is in short supply elsewhere on campus). There are some funny things about the construction that I've noticed, for instance, there is a lot of bare concrete (which would be covered in a 'normal' building) so the construction crews have written specs, measurements, etc on them and in a few places there are soda cans and chip bags exposed in the concrete.

    take it or leave it? i'd leave it and opt for a more functional building at a fraction of the cost (like the brain and cog. science building across the street)

  55. What probably happened by EmagGeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    Architect Dude: Here is the model for your building of the future! It has all of these cool features, and looks pretty damn schnazzy to boot

    Bean Counter Dude: How much does it cost?

    Architect Dude: This baby will cost you about $350 million to build

    Bean Counter Dude: Whoa nellie, that's way too freakin much! Let's see, we don't need this here, or that there

    Architect Dude: But those are needed for good drainage. Without them, you'll get mold

    Bean Counter: That fine - we'll buy dehumidifiers.. either way, I'll be long gone to my next corporate scam by the time that happens

    Architect Dude: m'kay

    Bean Counter: Let's see, we also don't need this here, or that there

    Architect Dude: But those support structures aren't just visual. They keep the Left Wing from sagging under its own weight

    Bean Counter: Well, we'll just put less furniture in there. How long would it take to be a problem?

    Architect Dude: I dunno, 2 years, maybe 3?

    Bean Counter: Cool, I'll have my bonus before then and will be retired, living in Costa Rica. Perfect. Take it out!

    and so on...

    Too often, brilliant technological works are crippled by bean counters with too much throw, to save a small percentage of cost..

    1. Re:What probably happened by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Um... no. You might want to work in the business a bit before trying to make a joke like that. The total budget ceiling is usually set before the client even solicits design ideas from architects.

      =Smidge=

    2. Re:What probably happened by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Correct, and more often than not that budget ceiling is completely unrealistic, and/or the contractor/architects have massive budget overruns, or for whatever reason, things are sacrificed. This is usually because architects and engineers are horrible at estimation and usually think things can be done for half of what they actually cost.

    3. Re:What probably happened by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Yes, more often than not that budget ceiling is completely unrealistic.

      More often than not the budget overruns are the result of at least one of two things (usually both): One: The budget was created by someone trying to "sell" the project, and tried to shrink the number to make it more appealing to the client. Two: The client sat on the project for several years and nearly everything doubled in price (or, if we're talking copper, quadrupled). Usually the two work hand-in-hand as the salesman guy will completely fail to account for continually rising costs of labor, fuel and materials for when construction actually starts half a decade later. God forbid he adds a few percent to those "per-square-foot" numbers he pulls out of a decade old estimating book.

      I've been involved in a few projects where they don't even go that far. The client just says "Hey, let's expand our facilities... $25M should be enough, right?" and ask for everything under the sun.

      The guys who generate the estimates that sell the project and the guys who actually design the project are practically never the same. The only estimates I've ever seen leave my office were on our own fees.
      =Smidge=

  56. come on by catmistake · · Score: 1

    He caused mold to grow?

  57. And it looks so pretty by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 1

    The Borg just aren't building like they used to. Maybe they should replace the colorful paint with the standard black sealant layer.

  58. No sympathy for Gehry in Seattle either by BearRanger · · Score: 2, Informative
    Where Gehry's building houses Paul Allen's Experience Music Project and Science Fiction museum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_Music_Project

    The pictures here don't show the true horror. The television news reporters across the street refer to this building as "the technicolor hemorrhoid."

  59. It's not buggy, it's mousy by Aerion · · Score: 3, Funny

    As an occupant of the building, I have to say that it's not really buggy at all. There are very few bugs, in fact. The bigger problem is with the fucking mice. The building is so full of holes that mice (and pigeons, sometimes!) wander in.

    1. Re:It's not buggy, it's mousy by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      wouldn't that make it not buggy or mousy, but holey? : )

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  60. along those lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it really true that the new Seattle public library is sinking? When I was there it was like the Taj Majal, except for the thousands of Windows PC's and a network which would routinely crash.

  61. Oh, you want a turd? Here's a golden one! by ashitaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Asahi beer hall in Asakusa, Tokyo. Designed by Philippe Starck, it's meant to be a cloud.

    "Hi kids!, Today's Japanese phrase is 'Kin no unchi', which means 'The golden poop'." Since this is how the Japanese refer to the building, you can tell they see it the same way.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    1. Re:Oh, you want a turd? Here's a golden one! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      What a wonderful building.

      Starck has brought together the people all around the world in their appreciation of poop jokes.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    2. Re:Oh, you want a turd? Here's a golden one! by uhmmmm · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's meant to be a flame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asahi_Beer_Hall

    3. Re:Oh, you want a turd? Here's a golden one! by mattr · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The building on the right is an Olympic torch. Some people have joked about poop but it is actually nice looking. The building on the left is the company's headquarters. It looks much like a frothing glass of beer. It is also extremely beautiful, either close up or from Asakusa across the Sumida River. Its gold tinted windows are gorgeous and the top floor has restaurants and a cafe with a magnificent view of the area.

  62. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  63. Re:Who's who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Summa Cum Laude

    I really didn't want to know what RMS sounds like when hes fapping.

  64. Re:Hire architect, engineer, builder, and peacemak by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Funny

    To do a project this big, you need an architect with a vision, an engineer who can see reality, a builder who can build it right, and a U.N. peacemaker to keep them from killing each other.


    So you need three imaginary people and an engineer?
    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  65. What do they expect, bill gates + building = ? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    The William Gates building...

    I think I know who is really to blame for the cracked leaky building of death

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  66. frank gehry is a nigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    &#119;&#101;&#98;&#109;&#97;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#64;&#99;&#115;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#109;&#105;&#116;&#46;&#101;&#100;&#117;&#119;&#101;&#98;&#109;&#97;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#64;&#99;&#115;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#109;&#105;&#116;&#46;&#101;&#100;&#117;
    Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!
  67. I'm sure nobody thought of that! by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, well said! You rock! I'm sure nobody's thought of that! ... ....

    Just kidding, who do you think you are? Do you think architects do the welding and cement mixing themselves? Do you realize that buildings have been built for, oh, I don't know, thousands of years, and that maybe, just maybe, people thought of this before you?

    The reason why MIT is suing the *architect* is, I believe, because he's responsible for choosing and hiring those engineering firms which were derelict in their duty, and failed to supervise them. Those firms are most likely not contracted directly by MIT, therefore have no direct contractual obligation to them. The architect will, in turn, sue the contractors, or his insurers will.

    I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a civil engineer, I'm just a guy one of whose friends had to sue a real estate developer for the same kind of shit, and who used to have a civil engineer as a neighbor.

    1. Re:I'm sure nobody thought of that! by flappinbooger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The customer hires the architect, and pays the architect. The architect FIRM has unlicensed architects do the real drawings. The architect hires the engineers (Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Fire Protection, Structural, Civil, Environment, Landscape, on and on) who have unlicensed engineers in the FIRM do the real drawings. Someone hires the general contractor, probably the architect or recommended by the architect, who, in the GC firm have unlicensed engineers do the project management.

      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.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    2. Re:I'm sure nobody thought of that! by Upphew · · Score: 0

      According to TFA fongerpointing has already begun: "Gehry rejected Skanska's formal request to create a design that included soft joints and a drainage system in the amphitheater, and "we were told to proceed with the original design."" :)

  68. Mechanical Engineers design bombs... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    ...Civil Engineers design targets.

    Seriously, though, I've been aerospace, mechanical (widgets), and structural (architectural)...keeping buildings up is very simple, really. Keeping them watertight (the architect's job, btw) is a real pain in the ass.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Mechanical Engineers design bombs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't heard that one. How about "Civil Engineers have the biggest erections"?

  69. eat my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    &#115;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#109;&#105;&#119;&#101;&#98;&#109;&#97;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#64;&#99;&#115;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#109;&#105;&#116;&#46;&#101;&#100;&#117;&#119;&#101;&#98;&#109;&#97;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#64;&#99;&#115;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#109;&#105;&#116;&#46;&#101;&#100;&#117;&#116;&#46;&#101;&#100;&#117;&#119;&#101;&#98;&#109;&#97;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#64;&#99;&#115;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#109;&#105;&#116;&#46;&#101;&#100;&#117;&#119;&#101;&#98;&#109;&#97;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#64;&#99;&#115;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#109;&#105;&#116;&#46;&#101;&#100;&#117;&#119;&#101;&#98;&#109;&#97;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#64;&#99;&#115;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#109;&#105;&#116;&#46;&#101;&#100;&#117;&#119;&#101;&#98;&#109;&#97;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#64;&#99;&#115;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#109;&#105;&#116;&#46;&#101;&#100;&#117;&#119;&#101;&#98;&#109;&#97;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#64;&#99;&#115;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#109;&#105;&#116;&#46;&#101;&#100;&#117;&#119;&#101;&#98;&#109;&#97;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#64;&#99;&#115;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#109;&#105;&#116;&#46;&#101;&#100;&#117;&#119;&#101;&#98;&#109;&#97;&#115;&#116;&#101;&#114;&#64;&#99;&#115;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#109;&#105;&#116;&#46;&#101;&#100;&#117;
    * Please try to keep posts on topic.
            * Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
            * Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
            * Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
            * Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
  70. What was academic background of edison ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Or stevenson ? james watt ? or many other prominent names who did great additions to human civilization ? come again ?

    being a throwback hippie would be a spectacular record in 'academic' humanism and rational thought compared to the actual political/life views of many such prominent historical names.

  71. Who else misses Building 20? by belmolis · · Score: 1

    I bet I'm not the only person here who misses Building 20. (For those who don't know, it was the last of the buildings thrown together during WWII for the Rad Lab. Even at the end, parts of it (like my grad student office) didn't have light switches. Who needs light switches if there's a break panel down the hall? But great things were done there. Among other things, it housed Linguistics and Philosophy, the Model Railway Club, the Piano Lab, ROTC, and Jerry Letvin.)

    1. Re:Who else misses Building 20? by LionMage · · Score: 1

      Count me in. Building 20 was the beloved eyesore that was a part of the Institute's lore. Everybody would always be sure to tell the incoming freshmen that the buildings were saved from being razed because they were deemed historical landmarks (because that's where RADAR was invented).

      Along comes Bill Gates (who never made a single academic contribution to computer science) waving around some money, and now it's suddenly OK to raze these buildings. And he gets a building named after him, not to mention all the Microsoft software that gets crammed down students' throats now. Brilliant.

      I do wonder where the ROTC students are "doing their thing" now. When I was an undergrad at MIT, there was a movement to kick ROTC off campus because of their discriminatory policies toward gay students (which contravened MIT's anti-discrimination policies). But I never personally had it in for ROTC, and other nearby colleges (e.g., Harvard) had to send their ROTC students to MIT because they were unable or unwilling to accommodate ROTC themselves.

      I do think it's cool that LCS and the AI Lab got consolidated into CSAIL, but these buildings are eyesores. Even the "Pei toilet" looks better. (For those who don't know, one of the buildings on campus was designed by I.M. Pei, and is covered by what appear to be bathroom tiles on the outside. IIRC, that's the building where the Media Lab is housed.)

    2. Re:Who else misses Building 20? by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      You forgot ISP and MITERS.
      Building 20 is dead. Long live Building 20.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    3. Re:Who else misses Building 20? by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      ROTC is on West Vassar Street over where the Alumni Association once was: Building 58.
      They also lost the field house between the razed orchard and Straton when the Zesiger Center was built.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    4. Re:Who else misses Building 20? by belmolis · · Score: 1

      There was also some kind of materials science lab used by the archaeologists. I forget what it was called.

    5. Re:Who else misses Building 20? by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      CMRAE? They're high up in 16 near the other anthropologists who got booted from 20.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    6. Re:Who else misses Building 20? by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      The language lab (also formerly in 20 IIRC) is in 16 too.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
  72. MIT deserves it for buying into the B.S Gehry hype by carn1fex · · Score: 1
    Frank Gehry sucks. Why he is perpetuated as some sort of amazing artist only speaks volumes to the total crap fest that is the institutional art scene. Some high-priests walk out of the cathedral and say "this is art!" and everyone down below is so clueless as to what that even means they just lap it up. In fact, I'm going to write a nice little 3d java app to autogenerate a Frank Gehry building whenever anyone needs one and save a few bucks. Spin the wheel!! Will it be a crumpled piece of paper??! How visionary! Will it be a cylinder with a brilliant squish into the side!? OMFG, clone Ayn Rand so she may hump it!

    rant complete. :P

    --

    ---------

    No matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.

  73. Rule #1: NEVER live in a Frank Lloyd Wright bldg by gelfling · · Score: 1

    They are beautiful to look at but they

    Leak
    Rattle
    Have doorways that are too low (FLW was short & made his doors an evil joke on the world)
    Are Hard to heat and cool.

  74. stanford bio-x building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds extremely similar to the bio-x building at stanford:

    world renouned architect
    awards for "building of the year"
    amazing new design, new system for workspaces

    complete and total nightmare to maintain
    a full time staff of 4 people just to fix problems, leaks, repairs
    built over budget, original designs never finished
    significant noise problems
    tremendous ongoing costs to keep it operational

    But you ask anyone above the institutional power-face water line in the system and they all say the same thing: "It's amazing, so great, best thing ever" and you talk to people who work in the building, the grad students, same thing "I hate it here - noisy, expensive, poorly deisgned to get anything done"

  75. Taliesin West's ceilings are way too low by billstewart · · Score: 1
    I really like some of Wright's prairie architecture stuff. But one thing that struck me very rapidly (and almost literally) about Taliesin West was that the dude was obviously *short*, and didn't mind forcing taller people to duck when they enter his buildings. There's an auditorium there where the entrance doorways are scarcely over 5 feet high; I'm only 6', and that's not the only place in the complex I had trouble. It's as annoying as having to use showers designed by short people.


    Fallingwater has unfortunately turned out to be the correct name for that building, but it's such a stunning place that it was worth building anyway, as long as the owners knew to think of it as a temporary art project rather than a centuries-of-use edifice. On the other hand, even a lot of his prairie-style stuff fails really badly in a few years if you don't do good maintenance on it, making sure all the windows and flashings stay watertight.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  76. Well there's your problem by BubbaFett · · Score: 1

    It was built a bit crooked.

  77. The building must be a dungeon by us7892 · · Score: 1

    I can't concentrate. Must be the bad acoustics in my cubicle area. My nearby window is very chilly in the wintertime, it has very bad insulation. In big rainstorms, the ceiling leaks onto the nearby whiteboard. It's been repaired a few times, but new leaks appear. The server room often overheats, bringing down my connection to the internet. I have a long walk to the bathroom, there just aren't enough toilets in this place. And they clog at least twice a month! And the walk to the cafeteria takes 8 turns and 2 flights of stairs. Visitors have a hard time finding it! Damn, I can't work in this environment! My work is suffering. Damn all these problems. This building sucks.

    Where's the "Feng Shui"?

    There must be some good tips in this Feng Shui tips page for all those working within this horrible, dismal, oppressive, new building at MIT. http://iccsg.wordpress.com/2006/08/12/feng-sui-tips-for-you/

    1. Re:The building must be a dungeon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, for someone who has such a thick skin, you sure go out of your way to beat down those who disagree.

    2. Re:The building must be a dungeon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to slashdot. You must be a first timer.

  78. In 100 yrs... by holywarrior21c · · Score: 1

    this building will produce 10 different Eiffel tower like lopsided buildings coincidentally leaning toward at different angle that no lopsided part overlays the other. good investment for future tourism? sorry. having look at that pic of building inspired me.

  79. Build another, put MIT museum in Strata by us7892 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps MIT should build another building, this time with proper intrastructure planning and design. And then house current Strata research in the new building.

    MIT certainly has the cash, and they could certainly find some others to occupy what would then be the "old Strata." Maybe the MIT museum could move and expand into old Strata...

    1. Re:Build another, put MIT museum in Strata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will do that with the money they win from the suit.

    2. Re:Build another, put MIT museum in Strata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll take 20 years to see any $$$ from this. This sorta thing will be feading a bunch of lawyers for years to come.

  80. Breach of contract, not negligence by unassimilatible · · Score: 1
    This is a breach of contract suit, not negligence.

    IAALBNYL (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer).

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  81. Re:Who's who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most of the work that was done on pulling emacs together was done by rms.

    i'm pretty sure i'd die without emacs.

  82. guess what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Siebel Center is better.

  83. Re:Hire architect, engineer, builder, and peacemak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHA!

    C'mon, mod it up.

  84. Rob Liefeld of Architecture? by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 1

    So wait, judging from the comments here, Frank Gehry is the Rob Liefeld of architecture?

    --
    I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
  85. MIT sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole lot, nothing but a bunch of rich-assed idiotic bastards who've spent their whole lives on daddy's dime. Worse than Harvard, because Harvard doesn't pretend to be obsessed with merit.

  86. Re:MIT deserves it for buying into the B.S Gehry h by brantondaveperson · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well that little 3D app of yours sounds great! I can't wait to see it!

    Look for god's sake you people can just spend your lives avoiding buildings like these pretty easily I should have thought, there certainly aren't many of them around.

    The world is full of ordinary buildings. Just as the world is full of ordinary paintings, ordinary books, ordinary music. Ordinary everything. It is important for iconoclasts such as Gehry to produce their work, just as it is important for the likes of Cy Twombly, Thomas Pynchon, William Burroughs etc to produce theirs. I won't name any musicians since it always seems to start an argument when I do :)

    So, in short, you guys are bunch of dull, unimaginative.... well it would be trollish to continue in that vein, so I shan't. But you get the idea.

    Personally, when I look at things like that I think to myself "well if we can spend our efforts as a species producing astonishing looking things like that perhaps we're not so fucked after all"

  87. I Almost Hate to Defend It But... by RenderSeven · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Has anyone actually been in it? Probably not many of you that are slamming it. When all I saw was the photo's of the outside, I just laughed. Pretentious crap I thought. But I go there every month or two now for MIT functions, and the place is pretty neat inside. Its interesting, its fun, its surprising, and best of all it always makes you think. "How the hell did they build that?", "Is that an inside wall or outside wall?", "What do you call that shape?", or, like everyone else, "Can I find my way back from the men's room if I have another martini?" You can look at something 20 feet away and have no idea how to get there.

    Flaws aside, I really enjoy going there, and for no other reason than its a fun building. If you cant have fun with a building at MIT than where else? If a cube farm at Lockheed is your idea if Utopia, then hey, the Stata Center isnt your kind of place. Then again if you think New York City streets are great because they're so practical and symmetrical, then Boston streets will have you gnawing on your own nose after a few hours. Maybe the Stata Center reflects the city its in just fine.

    And as for MIT 'deciding' on it, I'm pretty sure Ray Stata had something to say about what kind of building they built with his money in his name. Ray usually has some pretty strong sentiments about stuff. And seeing as one of his wafer fabs is half a block from there Im guessing he was pretty active in the planning stages.

    1. Re:I Almost Hate to Defend It But... by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      I have been inside it and it's awful. It's unfortunate, but he succeeded in bringing a (cavernous) alley indoors,
      nevermind the asinine door placements, floor interconnections, and "you can't get there from here."

      As for Stata, no, I would suspect that it was not until they got a big name architect that people were willing to
      plunk down their fat wallets. You should consider that Stata was built during a major capital campaign where the
      emphasis was on feature architecture and not practicality, else they would have maintained Building 20.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    2. Re:I Almost Hate to Defend It But... by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      Stata was built during a major capital campaign where the emphasis was on feature architecture and not practicality
      When was the last time people expected 'practical' from MIT? I thought you went to Rensselaer for that!
  88. Stata Center off the tracks by gsyswerda · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a nice day, so I went and took a picture regardless. Here it is.

    --
    Make a difference: move to a swing state.
    1. Re:Stata Center off the tracks by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's really cool, it hardly looks real. Thanks for putting it online.

  89. Frank Gehry is so over. Should have hired Hadid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frank Gehry is so over. MIT should have hired Zaha Hadid:

    Hadid's Performing Arts Center, Abu Dhabi, UAE

    Hadid's Herault Culture Sport Building, Montpellier, France

    Rising star Hadid (a Rem Koolhaas protege) is turning science fiction dreams into real buildings. Tell me you wouldn't want to see one of her biomorphic, otherworldly sci-fi spaceships land on the boring campus of MIT. Instead they spent $300 million on some cartoon prisons that leak.

    Takeaway point: Stop letting computer scientists choose architects.

  90. Re:aerospace engineers vs civil engineers by CompMD · · Score: 1

    An aerospace professor told me how aerospace engineers had to do the jobs of all sorts of other engineers. Electrical, computer, chemical, mechanical, and architectural. Why? Because all of those disciplines were involved in building aircraft. One student asked why he didn't include civil engineers.

    "Oh, because civil engineers don't have anything to do with building aircraft. Civil engineers build targets."

  91. oh...my head... by mathfeel · · Score: 1

    MIT is housing RMS in the WG building??? Has the planetary alignment gone completely out of whack??

    --
    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
  92. Oscar Niemeyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The works or Oscar Niemeyer in Brazil have similar issues. They are beautiful to look at from a distance, but they are a bitch to use.

  93. HAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I get a haha tag people? This is SO funny to me and I just think we should be consistent when laughing at the misfortune of others. Wouldn't want that liberal bias to show...

  94. Re:300M$ by dotancohen · · Score: 1

    That's why his company is called micro-soft. Which 5¼-incher did you think that he was playing with when he came up with that name?

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  95. Don't Rip Boston Construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to be a contractor, and I can attest that the overall level of building quality in Boston is very high. You'd be right to say that NEW construction tends to be shoddy, but this is true all over. A lot of the old construction we've got lying around here is well-to-overbuilt. Shoddy work doesn't tend to stay up.

    The newer the building, though, the worse it generally tends to be. Postwar structures are always a crapshoot. A lot of the newer styles of homes and office buildings weren't really designed to last, and either have design flaws or were built with non-"archival" materials. Even our newer buildings follow fairly strict building code compared with many parts of the country, however.

    The crappiest buildings in the Boston area tend to be new McMansions built out in the suburbs- even if an architect approved the plan, they tend to be built as cheaply as possible, with Home Depot parts. Cambridgeport does have some seriously creaky old worker housing, it's true, but there are plenty of well built structures there, too. Think about how many of the old triple deckers are still around.

    1. Re:Don't Rip Boston Construction by dal20402 · · Score: 1

      Interesting you say that. My observation is based on the state of the older buildings, including all those ugly three-deckers. I've lived in a couple myself and have friends who live in quite a few more. We have all run into problems with failing structures and systems, to a much greater degree than I have in other places I've lived (Washington D.C., Virginia, Seattle, Portland, and a couple cities in Europe). Now I live in a converted prewar factory, which is the first place I've lived in Boston that didn't have extensive problems. (And even here, I've had wall water damage related to improper installation of a central air conditioning unit.)

      And it's not just building construction. The T is a disaster compared with other subway systems all over the world. Yes, it's old, but so are others, and it's in worse shape than any of them. Drive in the brand-new Big Dig tunnels, or on any freshly redone Boston street, and then go drive in the relatively new I-90 tunnels in Seattle (to choose but one example). The workmanship is not even in the same league. My theory is that people in Boston just haven't been exposed to good workmanship and don't value it that highly.

  96. Mod parent up a lot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, he's already at +5, so since he can't get modded any higher, I'll put a comment below his to draw more attention to it.

    The entire parent post is dead on! The architectural firm would've had engineers involved throughout. The contractor that built it even objected to some of the design features they saw leading to the problems MIT is experiencing now, but was overruled by the designers. Odd building designs are not impossible to make work...heck even Frank Lloyd Wright's eyesores hold together for the most part.

    And while I'm at it...holy crap that thing is ugly! Maybe Gehry et al figured anybody gullible enough to buy a building that takes all of the worst design cues from the 1960's and combines that with the appearance of being in the act of falling down would be an easy target to screw over.

    1. Re:Mod parent up a lot! by Nerd4News · · Score: 1

      And while I'm at it...holy crap that thing is ugly! Maybe Gehry et al figured anybody gullible enough to buy a building that takes all of the worst design cues from the 1960's and combines that with the appearance of being in the act of falling down would be an easy target to screw over.

      Speaking of ugly buildings, here in Minneapolis we have the Weisman Art Museum designed by this same guy. Ugliest damned thing you ever saw. Looks like a sheetmetal dome that has been ravaged by a hailstorm. Everytime I drive by it I wonder when they're going to file the insurance claim.
  97. Sweet by patio11 · · Score: 1

    I'm now a one-man architectural services firm. Three imaginary people? Hah, I have twelve. Two of them just have to stand there and look pretty all day. Union rules, don't you know.

  98. Re:MIT deserves it for buying into the B.S Gehry h by TheGeneration · · Score: 2, Funny

    I look at them and think "what I wouldn't give for some stone columns."

    --


    The Generation
    I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
  99. heh by rlbond86 · · Score: 1

    More like GNU/Stata center. Richard Stallman sucks.

  100. Gates BUGS! by inKubus · · Score: 1

    "..includes the William H. Gates Building..."

    I think we found the source of the bugs. Nothing to see here.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
  101. Falling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    temporary

    I'll say. Falling Water started falling apart before it was even finished.

  102. U of Iowa has had it's problems too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the subject says, the U of Iowa has had it's share of problems too. I don't know a lot about each one, but clearly architects, builders, and the U did not communicate properly.

              The College of Pharmacy, looks OK but has this big lump on the end with an elevator in it. I have heard that the foundation was laid with accomodations for an elevator on one end, then the whole building was built backwards on top of that. So, one end has an area where an elevator would go, but can't, and the other has this bulge added on the to accomodate an elevator. (This is a farly conventional building, although it's large; so it's possible the architect(s) would not have been supervising building, making it a contractor & University problem...)

              The Bowen Science Building has these huge concrete tubes inside it. The building was designed without ventilation in the entire building! From what I have heard, essentially the official response was that the U signed off on the design, and really should have made sure it had ventilation first (!!). So, these slabby concrete tubes were thrown in after the fact to allow for airflow. I'm also surprised this building was built for fire-code type reasons; it's not that old a building, but large portions of the building have a single, one-person wide walkway as their sole exits.. although, the building is concrete so I guess it wouldn't burn so easily 8-).

              The laser center (which I think is now called the "center for excellence" or some such crap.) I don't know how it is structurally, but the roof is copper. The intention was apparently for it to be a nice shiny copper color, then gradually get a nice greenish patina to it. The reality, the copper runs off in the rain, causes gross green streaks to run down all along the building, and indeed to color the surrounding concrete a sort of moldy green. The grass and landscaping has looked a bit less healthy of late as well.