Gehry being Sued!!!!
-
hmmmm.....
caught this piece off from PPB..
http://www.boston.com/news/education/hi ... m_complex/ -
i can hardly refrain from saying: "i told you so, frankie! stop playing around and go back to designing real architecture". but, no, i am not going to say so. hehe...
-
ur wicked Edson!!!! -
Edson, when I saw this you were the first person I thought about.
-
Guys,
Before we all jump to any conclusions, I'd suggest you wait until all the facts are in. There are two side to all stories and we've only read some of one side.
In todays NY Times there were some more insights. Gehry did provide some comments, which also need to be established that:
a. MIT rejected some assemblies he wanted during VE efforts that he warned would lead to problems.
b. He feels the amount of the suit is simply a negotiating position of the school to get before his insurance company.
c. Several educators interviewed at the school were surprised by the suit since they love the building and feel Gehry delivered on their program and then some.
His buildings are unique, signature pieces that patrons want and understand the exposure they have to be able to say they have a Gehry building (or other signature architect you care to insert). That's why they call it the bleeeding edge. Read some of the issues associated with Wright's Falling Water project about how the Kauffman family had to learn to live with (and eventually come to love) some of the design elements of their masterpiece. In case you want one example, the stairs that lead down to the water above the falls are not enclosed or seperated from the house and in mosquito season.....
My two cents,
Allen
-
I dont see Wright's family being sued over certain well known issues that cause boatloads of money to be spent every year on maintenance and repairs.
Honestly it does look great (the building) but I'm sure it could have been done while resolving all the issues that are now present. Then again im no architect, and as was said already there is always two sides to an issue.
Are there any other examples of his buildings having these issues? If this is a one time thing then it might be that it wasnt his fault. Arent all buildings supposed to be put in with proper drainage and such anyways? I thought that was part of prepping the site to be built on or whatever it would be called.
-
apart from my dislike of gehry's work, one must always consider the possibility of sloppy or faulty construction, meaning the suppression of elements indicated by the architect or their substitution for cheaper equivalents.
the problems with FLW's buildings are well known but they happened in a time when the "suing industry" was not as well established as it is today. you can be sued for anything these days, let alone a leaking roof.
-
That must go down as the most impracticle and ugliest building on earth! I didn't think that any contractor in his right mind would contemplate putting his companys reputation at risk by tendering for the job of constructing it, it's bloody ugly! I now understand your point of view Edson when you say a buildings design must cater for it's use. All of those stupid sharp angles are just inviting problems, I bet their problems will carry on into the future and then it will be demolished and maybe a more suitable building will replace it. At what cost? There appear to be a lot of fools in this world holding control of public purse strings whose only purpose in life is to have their name on a bronze plate in the foyer of some outlandish building built with other peoples money. The Otago University Campusin Dunedin is a prime example of of how so many designers appear to be on an ego trip with no thought for the future or respect for the past.A lot of building has gone on there over the past decade or so, many different buildings some very good and some that are absolutly horrendous. One days walkabout in that area would be a treat for any of you designers and Architects, no matter what your taste you will find buildings that please you and buildings that appall you.
Well, that's my tupence worth on a subject that I had not given much thought about before, and of course, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'
Cheers all,
Bill. -
hi bill,
to me this is a problem with many causes.
on the architects' side (not all of course, but a large number) architecture became a means of self-expression (an ego trip, as you say), of achieving fame and, if possible, a lot of money. creativity has become associated with overcoming self-imposed design difficulties instead of a superior way of solving a specific problem, with its own limitations.
on the client's side, hiring media stars ads to the value of their initiatives (or so they think). they want to cause immediate impact so they want the architects who are capable of creating the strangest of objects. but, as it is becoming clear as time goes by, the Famous are almost never the real Good ones.
as we live in a period in which it is more import what you appear to be than what you are, buildings are just foloowing suit.
cheers.
-
As an architect i've always felt that there are 3 types of people that we cater to:
- customers
- clients
- patrons
The Customer is someone who pays our bread and butter, we're not looking to create the next best thing, rather we're providing a solution that works best for their budget and their needs.
The Client is someone who wants something more customized and is willing to pay a little extra for that and know that there will be issues that will comeup but is willing to work with us and come to the best conclusion for the project. Cost and durability is an issue but they want something that defines their lifestyle.
The Patron is someone who appreciates architecture as an art form and is willling to concede that with unique design comes unique problems, we're not working on an assembly line of drawings that has the benefit of having all the kinks worked out rather the understand that problems will arise and that the design is an ever evolving object that will have both problems and solutions associated with it.
All 3 of these types of people help keep me passionate about my profession and it too bad that the MIT building is going through the problems, but the building is a prototype and with all prototypes there will be problems, they knew that going into the process and now are complaining that the design is flawed.
-
I too, have never been a great fan of FG. However I visited the Stata Center last fall and was won over by the experience of the design. The myriad of complex spaces, one leading into another, the interior "street" was delightful, with views into labs, to the exterior thru interestingly placed/shaped windows and virtually continuous natural light streaming from above makes the building wonderful to move thru. The roof terrace at the top of a ramp that winds up from one end of the "street" is a great space, nestled in amongst the tors of stainless and polished metal.
My least favorite aspect of the building is the street facade, which varies in form and character along the block. I never have believed in Gehry design as an integrated form of architecture; it does not necessarily contribute to the urban fabric. I have viewed his buildings as sculptural object pieces, best for civic cultural landmarks such as art museums and concert halls, therefore not contributing to the advancement of architecture as a practical art. Strata has come as close as I have seen to being contextural, not in the sense of expressive form, but in scale and interpretation of the urban street-wall. I do not think FG will ever be considered to reside in the practical realm, hence the issues with the performance of his buildings. MIT should have known better, being a campus of engineers, that to think that they would not have issues with the building as it was designed.
Advertisement