The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has filed a negligence suit against world-renowned architect Frank Gehry, charging that flaws in his design of the $300 million Stata Center in Cambridge, 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. Boston.com
As previously featured on Archinect
Architecture of the Absurd
18 Comments
right?! what timing! nice Paul.
@ Steven...
Come come that isn't fair...
It is sculptural...
well, that is interesting...
WHAAAAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhhhhhhhwhhooooooohahwhwhwhwahaaahahahahahahaha!!!!
i'm looking up my posts where i could say i toldjaso
wow... if Skanska is right, Gehry is in for a world of hurt (although the models may be worth enough to pay the 15 mill)
I hate to defend Gehry, but don't you think the client knew what they wee getting? I mean, they have an auditorium in the middle of the building they cannot use because you literally get sea-sick, there is an elevator that goes up and down ONLY about 6 steps, are they shocked that it leaks?
personally tilting walls jagged edges blobs are interesting for about five minutes and not worth the effort because the result of the effort is negligible except for photographers and lawyers.
i see what you're saying q, but you really can't compare the discomfort (sea-sick in a space) or oddity (short stop elevator) of a spatial experience with the satisfaction of a basic function (keeping water out). i don't blame this on the client whatsoever. it seems like the water-leakage detailing issue was raised by Skanska early enough to mitigate it, but Gehry directed them to build as designed. that seems to make it his liability...
leaking is so last year
But seriously, AP I think you're right, it does seem like FOG's liability...and, Vado, do you really need use this news to try and discredit all of experimentation in architecture? With that attitude, most of Schindler, Wright, Scharoun and many others' work wouldn't have been built.
In the long run, many would agree that Gehry is likely to go down as having changed the way architecture is practiced and produced, more than anyone else of his time.
first, i said personally. as in for me that jagged edges, blobs, and tilted walls don't mean very much. experimentation is one thing jackin off is another.
guys - gehry is going to be holding an insurance policy of at least 50mil aggregate (for the size of work he's doing all over) and probably has at least 30mil for that individual project. so, i'm not sure he's going to be 'in a world of hurt'
and, really, so many other no-name architects have been sued for much worse over the years, does this really rate an 'i told you so'?
it's just the normal course of business...
if all buildings leaked and such, then yes it would be the normal course of business. but this is supposed to be the best of the best, and it leaks. so, a little schadenfreude is not totally uncalled for.
i agree. when you get a star architect to do a deliberately unconventional and fantastic building you are presumably paying for name, image, boasting rights, and also the testing/research/consultants/mock-ups to *at least* make it perform as well as a normal building where someone recycled some cad details. not to mention anything about heightened environmental performance, civic consciousness etc etc etc...
"we were told to proceed with the original design." - Skanska
What a terribly dangerous statement... Contractors have the responsibility to build a functioning safe project, if they had such strong doubts on the design they should not have proceeded. If arguments like this become successful we are all in trouble.
Architects are contractually liable to the weakness in performance of buildings designed under contract. There is no question here, the law doesn't care for sculpture.
The only case gehry has is if he contested that he is a sculptor, not an architect, and therefore not an expert in the field of "architecture".
It's interesting to note, if architects are getting sued for so called "faulty designs" or "cost overruns" and are liable for millions due to this, as claimed by the plaintiff. Shouldn't architects be equally compensated for generating undisclosed amount of profits due to its "success"? I.e. Richard Meier's Charles Street condo that up charged the buyer; Vinoly's convention centers that drew unconvetional number of exhibitors? In Gehry's case, should he have been given a part of the profit by Guggenhiem, or the city of Bilbao due to its increased tourism and revenue?
We architects need to stick together, anyone who has been involved in a complex building during the CA process in north America knows, it is a difficult battle. Contractors spent time and effort trying to cheat their way out of their responsiblity. Often time mis-bid the project for hope of excessive change orders. How many architects in this country have worked on a large scale project where the GMP price remained unchanged when the job is complete? Or have they escalated beyond the word "guarantee" maximum price? With the way this trend is going, we architects will be going back to designing pitched roof buildings and boxes again.
In law practice, it's all about precedence, one of the first major suit that happened recently was Vinoly's Boston convention center, and now not surprisingly MIT, which is just across the river. What will be next? Maybe it will be the building you are working on or mine? What I like to know is where is AIA? What that hell are they doing when the profession is under this kind of unfair treatment?
Cat Power: We need more people like you that will fight for our profession. This is a self-critical profession, with its worth constantly being bullied by contractors, engineers and clients.
Gehry, no matter how you do not agree with his theories, is helping all of us in expanding the realms of what is acceptable to be built.
And his office is an exciting la-la land a lot of architects would love to work in.
no - anything of gehry's sculptures is not considered "normal course of business"
nothing of architects being sued is considered "normal course of business". if you have come to find that this is the case in your end of the profession, call toll free number 1-888-takemylicenceplease. theyll help.
and hurtin? well if clemens was found to use 'roids, and his attny's get him out - his image is still totally damaged. imagine a "starchitect" that cant deliver a functional building. and one "leak" leads to the exploitation of other miscues and fkups in the building.
boom
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.