lahti_propracticeessay_310311

8/7/2019 lahti_propracticeessay_310311

1/7

Starchitecture the stratification of architecture

Kevin Lahti

The design trend of starchitecture, coupled with wow-factor architecture often results in poor design and a

stratification of the design community.


2/7

Lahti 2

Architecture is an essential art. Its uses have fulfilled a basic human need: the need for

shelter. With its simple and crude beginnings architecture has advanced over millennia to what

it is today. Many architects today will point to three things that make a successful building:

commodity, firmness, and delight. However more recently, architecture has been undergoing a

paradigm shift in terms of trend. More and more architecture chooses to focus on the wow-

factor. This has resulted in what could be described as an indulgence in delight of architecture.

The inevitable result of which was, of course, the rise of the star architect, or starchitect. The

ungainly fusion of star and architect.i This design trend tends to be seen as a great thing by

critics and the public but within the community it has formed a steep divide. Wow-factor

architecture certainly allows for a great deal of personal style to develop on a subject everyone

interacts with daily and allows for more expression as a designer. However, if it produces

buildings that do not function or are not appropriate for the clientele they were made for, they

are not really fulfilling the tenants of architecture, which is expected. Examples for and against

this can be seen in buildings by architects like Frank Ghery, Daniel Liebskind, Tadao Ando, and

Sir Norman Foster. The idea of a starchitecture has almost certainly fractured the community

into two much more apparent groups: the starchitects and everyone else, and regardless of the

position of architects, everyone in the field has an opinion on whether or not this is a good thing.

Starchitects, who seem to prefer not being known as such, will occasionally argue that in

some cases, the wow-factor has improved the economic situations of the areas they go into.

Lessons from Bilbao, however, tells another story. In the article it is revealed that while the

Guggenheim Museum Bilbaos distinctive shape has certainly brought a draw to the area, it is

also shown that in addition to this, the whole area was undergoing a huge amount of

development in infrastructure. A 1.45 Billion dollar underground system was built, as well as

atramway, several pedestrian bridges, and an international airport. Which will long be relevant

after the Bilbaos wow-factor has diminished. All of these things have undoubtedly contributed

just as much as the Bilbao to improving this city in Spain.ii Of course, the draw of the effect a

famous architects style has on opinion has not gone unnoticed by the local government.

Transport link buildings have been contracted to designers like Sir Foster, Sir James Striling,

and Calatrava. All in the hopes of as Siemiatycki put it elevating public transit to a thing of beauty,

not just efficiency.2But Siemiatycki points out that there is more to the Bilbao effect than simply

building a wow-factor building: not just a building that is aesthetically pleasing, but also a

building that is quality and worth noting.

The rise of the starchitect and the over indulgence of delight in architecture has resulted,

in some cases, in neglect of the two other important principles: commodity and firmness. Often


3/7

Lahti 3

times buildings designed by starchitects are non functional or inappropriate for those who will be

using them. It has even resulted in litigation of architects for failing to create buildings that work

mechanically or tactilely.

One such example of this would be the Ray

and Maria Stata Centre at Massachusetts Institute of

Technology in Cambridge. A building designed and

built by Frank Gehry beginning in 1998.

The building opened in 2004 with acclaim

from architectural critics and the community of MIT.

This was, however, short lived, as simply three years

later, MIT sued Gehry due to critical flaws within the

buildings design, which, stated in the law suit filed by MIT in the Sufflok Superior Court, included

cracked masonry, flawed drainage in an outdoor amphitheatre, leaks in ceilings, ice blocking

emergency exits and even mould.iii The issues stemmed from a focus on creating a visually

striking building, and as a result,the usefulness of the building and the functionality became

neglected to a critical point, leaving no alternative for the University but to perform the

necessary repairs and maintenance, which should have been handled by the designer.

Ultimately, the two parties settled out of court but the issue still stands. If the design focuses

solely on creating something visually exciting, but fails to plan accordingly for all of the other

aspects of a buildings design, by ignoring it Gehry has, in turn, perpetuated an idea that

architecture need not concern itself with function if it creates

a visually striking form. In this case though, the design not

only created structural problems, but its design could have

resulted in severe hazards to life if not treated, due not only

to the prospect of falling ice blocking emergency exits, but

also the presence of the mould. The designer should have

examined the area and considered his approach more

carefully. The multiple and highly irregularly angled facades

of the exterior should have been more carefully considered

when designing for an area which is likely to receive

significant snowfall in winter months.

Another flaw cited was drainage of an amphitheatre, which

had to have all of its bricks replaced at a cost of 1.5 Million

Image 2: Stata Centre, MIT. Designed inGehry's distinct style

Image 1: angular construction makesfor an interesting style but a hazardoussituation with ice.

4


4/7

Lahti 4

dollars for MIT, due to the designers failing to require a drainage mat under the brick (which is

standard in North east construction because of climate impacts). 3 Following the settlement a

better critical examination of the building was published in the architectural record, where in

Robert Campbell, who had previously given thebuilding a glowing review said,

Does the Stata work? Or is it merely an act of self-expression? Is it architectural sculpture? Or is

itto use a word that now sounds quaintfunctional? What were its purposes, anyway?

The biggest goal for the project was to get MIT scientistsand that includes studentsto

meet one anotheriv

He ultimately concludes that the occupants of the building have made it work and that

they really desire to solve the problems of the lack of an organizing structure to the building.This logic seems flawed, as even if the argument is made that problem solvers will enjoy a

challenge, architecture is not meant to create a challenge. Its meant to help people live and

work. Not to mention that anyone new to the building is almost certainly assumed to get lost by

the authors own argument.

Even with the flaws of this building, the distinctive style and wow-factor created has

resulted in other businesses opting for a famous designer over perhaps a better design that may

appear. This has the detrimental effect of cutting competition. Businesses thrive under

competition and encourage new and creative ideas. Howevercreative ideas to functionality have stagnated over time due to

the monopolization of large projects by starchitects, which are

instead focusing on an aesthetic. The massive profit margins

allow for them to spend more and put greater expense into

producing publicity, and slowly, smaller practices become

phased out or attempt to pastiche a starchitects designs.

Meanwhile, the larger practice can only compete with larger

practices on huge expensive projects. Most of which seem toroutinely go over budget and almost invariably are opened later

than the projected deadlines.

Wow-factor architecture is certainly not always bad; it is

possible to create a striking building shell without necessarily

Image 3 The Art Gallery ofOntario's glass front facade givesthe building a distinct aesthetic thatdoes not interfere with the functionof the interior.

5


5/7

Lahti 5

neglecting the functionality of a building. One such example is, curiously enough, another

Gehry building. The Art Gallery of Ontario was designed in 2004. It was his first work in

Canadav. Its design was part renovation and part new structure. On the exterior, a long and

winding glass curtain wall system was installed giving the building a whole new look

aesthetically. Tom Freundenheim put it best when he said,

The block-long entrance arcade is surmounted by a strange, Gehry- esque, glass upper storey

with matching glass The transitions within the museum have obliterated most of the previous

awkwardness I experienced when traversing from an old piece of architecture to anothervi

The design works, and thus far, no major faults have been reported since it opened in

2008. Its clear from the design, additionally, that all aspects were considered tastefully and as

a representative idea of what a starchitect can achieve when considering not just the aesthetics

of a building, but also the function it will serve. The project is widely regarded as havingbreathed new life into the Gallery and helped to alleviate what was before seen as only a

hodgepodge of spaces.5 Gehrys redesign also reorganised spaces for an improvement,

specifically centring the main court making it a hive of the structure, a centralised place to

gather, marking it with a giant staircase that bends wildly similar to the front faade. This

graceful consideration of the building and its function resulted in a successful design, however

the usual result of a starchitect building is rather more hit and miss. Each time,a unique shape

is certainly guaranteed, but its success is really much more dependent than architecture of

previous eras which had other priorities beyond the final form.

4

Starchitects have long been associated with striking facades that tend to go over well

from an artists community, but from a practical loving society its a mixed bag. The general

public usually prefer subtlety to the ostentatious and often radical forms employed by

starchitects. A short distance away from the Art Gallery of Ontario is the Royal Ontario

Museum, designed by Daniel Libeskind. Libeskind is regarded as being trapped in a single

style of architecture which particularly limits the flexibility of his work.5 Freudenheim described

approaching the museum,

The ROMs new wing juts out into the streetscape to make certain its noticedwhich is

especially funny considering that it appears to be crudely attached to the old red brick Canadian

Victorian museum building like some sort of carbuncle.5

Critics could easily construe such a grotesque impact upon the surface, as some sort of

reaction to the elegant grace regarded of a Victorian building; however, to a general populace it


6/7

Lahti 6

can appear threatening and intimidating. And is certainly not indicative of an art gallery.

Despite this, the Royal Ontario Museum opted to green light the project at great expense and

for ultimately what does not feel like an appropriate building not only for the site but also for its

function. There are more subtle examples of starchitect refurbishments of buildings. I.M Peis

redesign of the Louvre gallery features glass pyramids which contrast the beaux-arts style of the

Louvre and create contemporary spaces beneath, and yet the character of the new spaces

compliment the predecessors features.5Additionally, the glass pyramids give a characteristic

aesthetic desired with out necessarily a negative effect. In fact, having moved the entrance to

one of the pyramids it begins the celebration of not just art but of architecture with its material

choices and exposed materials.

So why has the trend for a wow-factor starchitect-backed building risen so high in recent

years? In his journal article The rise of the starchitect, Michael Lewis would argue that the first

signs of the starchitect can be seen in Frank Lloyd Wright.

As prodigious as his architectural achievement was, he also permanently changed the American

conception of an architect. With him begins the modern image of the architect as free-spirited

genius, a part Wright played with relish: decked out in a long cape and cane, and topped by a

magnificent mane of flowing white hair, he made his own physical appearance a declaration of

imperious authority.1

As Lewis also states, Wright is not the first famous architect. There is a long line of

famous architects working backwards through time. Famous for his architectural genius and

even more so for his sharp personality, Wright set into motion the idea of the individual

designer. It is only later with architects like Gehry, Ando, Foster, and Liebskind that the idea of

a brand of style of architecture emerges. These styles, which become exclusive to the

designer, have resulted in an almost Hollywood like following of architects within the field.

Everyone wants to see the modern marvel Fosters and Partners have produced or explore the

voluminous light filled spaces of concrete and wood created by Ando.

There is an impact not really considered by those in practice presently: the effect

starchitecture has had on students. Students in architecture programs today seem to be taught

how to create a building to some degree, but often times in student work, fantasy and a striking

form win out over functionality and core principles. Complex shapes are virtually impossible to

build without massive expense. The unrealistic expectations of students are almost seemingly

validated by the projects they see produced by famous architects who spare no expense and

seem to only build what they want. A tragic result is that it seems to under prepare students for


7/7

Lahti 7

the real world, where architecture is namely a business and understanding more conservative

design principles and design skills have been overwritten by big dreams and a limited

knowledge. These young professionals then enter professional practice expecting to be

producing a wild landscape of unique and individual styled buildings in a proverbial architectural

utopia. The reality of which is that most architects are as Lewis puts it competent professionals

whose highest duty is to their clients.1 This reality may come across as unfair to some and a

deceitful outlook from what they were expecting. But students become aware of this fact of life

early into their educations, even those taught by prestigious architects are warned that the

reality of what they expect is not always the case with architects. This, however, may in fact be

a good thing, as it will encourage new thought into what is good architecture, and where the

field can go from here. Starchitecture has lent itself as an excellent tool for the new possibilities

of materials and technology, and as these materials and technologies become more practical

designers will be able to use them and thrive.

Ultimately the reign of the starchitect will likely give way to a new trend, which will likely

be a globalised style of architecture that any designer can do. There are only so many times a

designer can use a motif before it begins to look like every thing else. This can already be seen

in architecture today. Styles of building are becoming more interchangeable, and as this occurs

architecture can expect to undergo a new paradigm shift, hopefully in favour of some kind of

commonality and a return to considering the function in addition to aesthetics. Even the praised

starchitects will be forced to adjust their design to meet a new demand. The starchitects of the

world have created a marvellous aesthetic but lost sight of good design at times. By reclaiming

it, new designers have an opportunity to improve a field, which has lost its way; returning to a

well-rounded focus will create more functional spaces while incorporating aesthetic lessons

taught from starchitect material experimentation. The days of the trend of starchitecture are

numbered, and likely, future examination of it will not be the critical acclaim it commands today.

iFreudenheim, TL 2010, ''Starchitecture' and its Drawbacks', CURATOR, 53, 4, pp. 411-420, British LibraryDocument Supply Centre Inside Serials & Conference Proceedings, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 March 2011. iiMatti, S 2004, 'Lessons from the 'Bilbao effect'', Toronto Star, The (Ontario, Canada), 2 February, NewsBank -Archives, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 March 2011.iii

Suffolk Superior Court 2007,M

assachu

setts Institute of

Tec

hnology vs. Frank O. Ge

hry & Associates, Inc. n/k/aGehry Partners, LLP and Beacon Skanska Construction Company, n/k/a Skanska USA Building, Inc. Mintz Levin,

Boston.iv

Campbell, Robert, 2007, Does Gehrys Stata Centre Really Work? Three years after it opened to much fanfare,how is the infamous MIT building holding up?, Architectural Record.Avaliable:http://archrecord.construction.com/features/critique/0705critique-1.aspv

2008. The Art Gallery of Ontario. Designboom. Avaliable:http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/art_gallery_of_ontario.htmlviFreudenheim, TL 2010, ''Starchitecture' and its Drawbacks', CURATOR, 53, 4, pp. 411-420, British Library

Document Supply Centre Inside Serials & Conference Proceedings, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 March 2011.

Documents

lahti_propracticeessay_310311