Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
What is it about Frank Gehry? When The Boston Globe reported this week that the architect (and a construction firm) is being sued by MIT, news organizations from Kansas City to Dublin reported the story. Does Gehry have a building in KC, too? Apparently, not, but he raised controversy there over an arena bid. Sound familiar?!
The university filed a negligence and breach of contract suit, alleging design flaws in the $300 million Stata Center that caused leaks, cracked masonry, mold and backed-up drainage. Yuck! Gehry was paid $15 million to design the building, which was partly funded by Bill Gates. Boston Globe architecture critic Robert Campbell wrote in 2004 that the building "is always going to look unfinished. It also looks as if it's about to collapse." He also wrote this:
In architecture, you don't get to test a prototype to work out the bugs, the way you do with a new car design. The prototype is the final building. For that reason, new ideas are always a risk. We should come back in a year or two and see how the Stata is actually working.How prescient! Gehry is no stranger to lawsuits: Last spring he was sued over the jewelry line he designed for Tiffany & Co. Will Gehry suffer the same fate over Miss Brooklyn? And we'll wait for Barry Diller to decide what he wants to do about the IAC Building.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
It's about time this guy got some well deserved bad press. Almost every one of his acclaimed works are hideous eyesores. This MIT monstrosity is totally disgusting.
But compared to the rest of the MIT campus and surrounding area that building is a gem.
Other than the Guggenheim in Bilbao and the "Fred a& Ginger" building in Prague, Gehry's buildings are a joke. He pretty much designs the same thing, or rather should I say his assistants do it.
They should sue themselves for being dumb enough to have him bild that monster in the first place
The surrounding area of Cambridge may not be that great but the original main MIT buildings are masterpieces of Neoclassicism.
The original concept was done by a professor who revolutionized campus architecture treating it like a problem in industrial design seeking the most efficient way to create movement for the students and light for the lecture halls. The architect, an alumni who had already designed the AT&T building in New York, took the professors ideas and created an impressive inspiring and clean facade that would seem right at home in Imperial Rome. I think it is the only campus in the US with such a solid clean look.
I have always maintained that Frank Gehry was a hack. This proves it.
His buildings always look dinner napkins accidentally dropped on the floor.
I can only imagine the types of problems they had sealing/running plumbing for a place like that.
I'm not surprised this is happening.
Had they not seen his previous work?
JMS, Did you go to MIT? What you're describing are the views from outside the campus looking inward. If you get behind that it looks eerily similar to an airforce or naval base i.e. thrown together on the cheap by the government in the 1960s.
Is he on crack?
Sorry, MIT, but anyone dumb enough to hire Gehry in the first place deserves what they get. I've seen plenty of drawings that rival Gehry's "visionary" designs. Most of them are posted on refrigerators.
CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING
Mistakes were made--like leaks and cracks--
Frank Gehry acknowledges about
A suit that MIT has brought
For a building it could do MITout.