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."

Comments

Just look at the building

[Nimey]

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.

Re:Just look at the building

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Just look at the building

[Bender0x7D1]

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.

Re:Just look at the building

[forrestt]

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.

flakey architects

[FranTaylor]

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.

Form over Function

[Fysiks Wurks]

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.

Re:Form over Function

[A beautiful mind]

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.

Frank Gehry is not a proper architect

[krog]

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).

Re:architects vs civil engineers

[KiloByte]

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...

Hmm...

[kitsunewarlock]

"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).

Re:Hmm...

[Smidge204]

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=

Re:Construction?

[YU5333021]

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...

Oh, you want a turd? Here's a golden one!

[ashitaka]

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.