MIT’s Stata Center is really, well, let’s just say “Something.” I once heard some one say “The building went up looking like it had just been knocked down.” I’ve always seen the Stata Center as a gross excess of labor, time and materials that culminated in a layout so awkward it’s hard to find the bathrooms. The building is unfriendly, at best, and I won’t lie that there’s some small part of me that is glad it’s causing so much trouble.

Fast Company has a brilliant article, “Lost in the Funhouse” detailing the efforts by the MIT community to sue revered architect Frank Gehry (who is now even designing for Tiffany’s, go figure) and The Stata Center’s construction firm, Skanska U.S.A. An important question raised early in the article (and is, sadly, never properly developed) asks:

But what about the “construction” piece of the lawsuit? What if the Stata Center’s woes are really about the growing gulf between computer-aided design and literal bricks and mortar?

I recall stating in class the highly unpopular theory that the building simply wasn’t as remarkable architecturally as it would have been 20 years ago. Back in the day any subtle shift in the design meant hundreds - if not thousands - of clearly documented recalculations, all now done in nanoseconds using sophisticated CAD. Though not quite “drag and drop,” much of today’s conceptual architecture is designed by dragging a point on a line, releasing the mouse button, and watching it snap back to its most extreme–yet structurally sound–angle.

So if math isn’t part of an architect’s job anymore, surely understanding materials is. When you’re dragging that point you need to know if you’re moving wall that will be made out of steel or putty. Interestingly, that is where the “fault” lies, according to the article.

So who is to blame? Lstiburek posits that the architects should have done a better job of specifying materials and techniques. [...] In other words, Gehry’s billowing sheets of metal and unexpected angles aren’t at fault: It’s how they were specced out and implemented.

It’s a mistake Ghery has made before:

True, some of Gehry’s other buildings have been tweaked after opening their doors, as when the steel-sided Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles had to be sanded to remove a glare that could practically cook eggs on the sidewalk.

There seems to be sympathy in the article at the end, that Gehry’s reputation may be tarnished as a result of the lawsuit. But doesn’t that make sense? Or has not having to do the math relieved architects of carefully considering how the “structurally sound” 30 degree corner, where glass meets brick, is going to respond to New England weather. If anything, it seems like they would have more time to investigate such things.

MIT is on the job, and has already spent millions of dollars “fixing” the three year old building, with “tens of millions” still to go. If awarded, the funds from the lawsuit will go toward making the Stata Center leak and crumble less. One wonders if they might address the other stark architectural issue while they’re at it, and make it look, well… finished.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 31st, 2008 at 6:58 pm and is filed under Personal Rants, Urban Life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.