Everyone seems to have dropped their critical judgement and jumped on the Frank Gehry bandwagon. It's nothing more than novelty for the sake of novelty. In years to come his work will be seen as the silliest excesses of our time the way we see those ridiculous finned cars of the 1950s. And unfortunately people are hoodwinked into buying into such inappropriate developments as the Atlantic Yards project by the parading of the Gehry brand-name.

Sent by kevin beers | 8:26 AM ET | 11-08-2007

Just before this story came out, we watched the PBS documentary in the American Masters series, 'Sketches of Frank Gehry' (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/gehry_f.html) -- an utterly fascinating story recounting the evolution of a true artist. I encourage readers & listeners to look for the DVD to learn more about the man and his work. There can be no doubt that function is not the primary driving force in his designs. He is not commissioned for that reason. It is the sense of wonder and awe that his buildings engender in those who see them, and live, work, or move in them, that creates the demand. If all his buildings failed in the ways that this one has, his critics' condemnations would be justified. There is no doubt that wherever the faults in this design lie, there has to be accountability. There certainly are plenty of strange buildings that fit the description of 'novelty for the sake of novelty'. Like all art, tastes will vary. However, I believe that there has to be a place in the world for wonders and marvels that break out of the box, and fill us with awe.

Sent by Marti de Alva | 10:00 AM ET | 11-08-2007

If you have a building full of swooping curves, you can expect to lose functionality in the sense of efficient use of the space. However, there's no excuse for a building that leaks, cracks, or doesn't drain properly. Occupied sculptures are all well and good, but they can't endanger the health or safety of the people living or working within.

Sent by Eric Blumhagen | 10:22 AM ET | 11-08-2007

Did the university approve the design before construction began? That is the normal process. If the university did not complete the due diligence of reviewing the design prior to the construction, then the onus is on them. If they did reveiw and approve the design, then again the responsibility (and liability) lies with them. If they wish to sue it should only be on the basis of the structural deficencies of the building and not based on the aethetic appeal.

Sent by brandi | 11:17 AM ET | 11-08-2007

I think it is dangerous for the field of architecture in general when a leading architect of this era uses the excuse of being a sculptor to not take responsibility for practical design flaws. Yes, the university should review the design and it is their responsibility to speak up if they are not confortable with it, but I think that when a professional architect and his team are hired to take on a project of this nature and scale that it should be their responsibility as architects and as engineers to design a building that will at the very least will stand up to the normal weather conditions it is meant to be a barrier to. After all, just because MIT happens to be the client here, doesnt mean that the onus is on the individual or organization that is commissioning the building to understand and analyze its structural flaws.

Sent by Christina | 12:12 PM ET | 11-08-2007

Personally I'm a very big fan of Gehry's work and have been for as long as I can remember. All throughout history people have been criticised if they are even remotely different than the norm, but go on to be remembered in history which I think Gehry will be. I agree with others here that MIT holds responsibility and is liable.

Sent by Marcia | 12:54 PM ET | 11-08-2007

I believe the same criticisms are made about buildings designed by Frank Lloyd Wright such as "Falling Waters", the buildings at Florida Southern University, etc.. Despite this, he is still considered the premiere architect of the 20th century. Sometimes artistic genius while eye-catching is not practical.

Sent by Allyn | 1:59 PM ET | 11-08-2007

As I work in Architecture, and know that the design flaws where pointed out to Gehry, by both MIT and the contractor. The Architect is the first and last one responsible for the weather tightness of the building. The Arch. is responsible for the design, and inspection of items such as this. If he can prove it was installed wrong, the contractor will be held responsible, with Gehry being partly responsible for failure to properly inspect the install.

Sent by Brian | 2:55 PM ET | 11-08-2007

Regardless of where one stands on Gehry's work, a $300 million building shoud not leak or create mold.
While MIT commissioned the building, i'm fairly sure there wasn't a clause in the contract that allowed for faulty design or faulty construction.

Sent by John | 7:56 AM ET | 11-09-2007

I want a great building with a great form. An architect should never sacrifice one for the other. When you do that you are not serving your client...

Sent by Timeser | 12:39 PM ET | 12-05-2007

does anyone happen to know whether the case is still before the courts or has it resolved?

Sent by sarah maddox | 7:22 PM ET | 02-10-2008

As of this month, I believe it has not been settled Sarah. There is an article about the ongoing dispute, and the effect it is having on the architectural design world in this month's Fast Company.

Tom Regan
Newsblog host

Sent by Tom Regan | 10:25 AM ET | 02-11-2008

Listening to today???s commentary on Gehry made me laugh out loud. I have always marveled at people???s lemming like adoration for architects in the same way they show brand loyalty when purchasing consumer goods.

My visit to the Denver Art Museum a year ago and the adjoining residential apartment structure really had me feeling sorry for those who bought into the hype of Libeskind and were sold a disaster not unlike the MIT structure. The Denver Museum wing designed by Libeskind has huge flaws. When I visited the museum, they were putting up velvet ropes to keep people from hitting their heads on low eaves that jutted into gallery spaces. Many small and narrow gallery rooms came to dead end forcing one to back track seeing all the same art but feeling as if one was spawning upstream against the flow of all the other visitors. Traffic and flow of visitors clearly was forgotten when designing the spaces as was perspective needed for viewing artworks at a distance. The main entrance gave me a disoriented feeling or vertigo. I initially attributed the feeling to altitude. My flight from sea level had landed that day and I rushed off immediately to see the museum. However, my friend a resident of Denver says she has that feeling or sensation every time she enters the building. She has visited several times only to have to leave feeling sick and dizzy. Needless to say the description of the ???vomitoriam??? in the MIT buildings brought all the similarities to mind.

Then there is another acquaintance, poor soul, whom I believe was duped into buying a quite plain and rather unimaginative and generic looking apartment simply because Leibskind???s name was attached as the designer. The interior of his apartment had many design flaws most memorable was an odd trapezoidal shaped closet in the entry all that the contractors tried to fit a hanging bar for coats and it wouldn???t fit. To do so it would need to be custom made so they simply bent the rod end to try to approximate the fit leaving the screws partially exposed on one side and the sense that any weigh on the bar would surely pull it from the wall.

The buildings in Denver have Gehry like angles wrapped in metal and this apartment I visited faced west and in the summer the wall cascading to the right of his terrace becomes hot enough to grill a steak on and in the summer. I imagine it will also make using the terrace on summer days unbearable. I see it as collector of ice and snow in the winter a scoop like shape that swoops down toward his terrace. Once the afternoon sun hits the winter snow collected in the scoop of this building fa??ade the melting menace will slide and fall on the poor museum visitors in the plaza below. My favorite is the dressing room area on the upper level of his duplex with a floor to ceiling full wall window. The window let???s in so much natural light and so much eastern exposure???not to mention your own indecent exposure as you dress for work! Ikept marveling that all the mistakes would surely get one thrown out of architecture school or a firm.

Sustainable architecture or responsible design should become a concern for the future not just art and sculptural details. I love the look of Bilbao but wonder what it will become as pollution and weather begin to eat away at it???s metal skin.

We should hold architects accountable for producing future waste! Bravo MIT!

Sent by K. D. Scott | 12:12 PM ET | 03-08-2008