U/C 96 University Avenue West | 18 m | 6 fl

[luckee]

These buildings are all ugly ...very few have any saving graces...too many colours, too many textures, too many busy details which signify nothing...the carnage of the green canopy continues as more and more ugly structures are built....

[metropolis]

I paid attention as I drove past it today, and I think with a sidewalk cafe it would be a contender for best building in Waterloo. However this would be a violation of city zoning regulations, since it would break the peace and quiet of University Av.

These buildings are all ugly ...very few have any saving graces...too many colours, too many textures, too many busy details which signify nothing...the carnage of the green canopy continues as more and more ugly structures are built....

I disagree. With minor tweaks like walk up store fronts and small patios this could be a winner. Canopy removal for intensification along a major corridor is acceptable too, in my mind as long as it is replaced with young trees that can take its place in a decade. If not here then where, on the periphery of the city?

[luckee]

...excuse me but these structures as ugly as they are, will be even uglier if "store fronts and small patios" are added...the idea is so hilarious it doesn't deserve comment...
...as for the green canopy...those young trees are dwarf trees...they will never replace the majestic trees which lined King and Regina...
...we pay taxes, and big ones at that, we have every right to expect our city to be green, we are tired of the shitty developments, the chopping down of heritage trees, the desecration of the landscape and for what, so developers can make money at our expense, so university students who think their shit don't stink can have a place to stay, so city council can screw up again, so any and every development, no matter how bad or ill conceived, will be approved because council has to pay bills for their screw ups!
ENOUGH!!!!

[bcwessel]

...excuse me but these structures as ugly as they are, will be even uglier if "store fronts and small patios" are added...the idea is so hilarious it doesn't deserve comment...

No, it really does deserve comment. Comment which explains your position clearly, and possibly including visual evidence to support your conclusions, as well. Right now you've demonstrated an opinion, which is a fine thing to have, but it's not particularly persuasive.

For instance, this is what many would consider an ugly, uninspiring building in Kensington Market:



If its base were impermeable, and devoid of life, it would compose part of a fairly terrible place. However, all of those people sitting outside, enjoying that wonderful patio give the building a certain charm, I think. Those people, the interest they create, and the foot traffic that results also make it a very valuable, very loved part of one of Toronto's greatest assets. I suppose the real point is this: it doesn't matter if it's beautiful or ugly, and determining which it is is next to impossible owing to the fact that that is a subjective value judgement.

The real question we ought to be asking is, Will this work properly, given its context? It does a lot of things right. It frames the street, and provides a strong example of how this urban corridor ought to be spatially defined. It has a mix of unit types, meaning that it may not attract one specific type of person. The one thing it doesn't do right is, in fact, its lack of street-life producing amenities. If you don't think that "store fronts and small patios" make a crucial difference, go to any main street that doesn't have them, and see just how long you care to stay there.

[metropolis]

...excuse me but these structures as ugly as they are, will be even uglier if "store fronts and small patios" are added...the idea is so hilarious it doesn't deserve comment...
...as for the green canopy...those young trees are dwarf trees...they will never replace the majestic trees which lined King and Regina...
...we pay taxes, and big ones at that, we have every right to expect our city to be green, we are tired of the shitty developments, the chopping down of heritage trees, the desecration of the landscape and for what, so developers can make money at our expense, so university students who think their shit don't stink can have a place to stay, so city council can screw up again, so any and every development, no matter how bad or ill conceived, will be approved because council has to pay bills for their screw ups!
ENOUGH!!!!

I will ignore the first comment as I think bcwessel has done a great job addressing it one post above.

As to the green canopy rant, my original question from the previous comment stands. Our urban growth needs to happen to contribute to the growth of our universities, economy and long term prosperity. A major thoroughfare seems like the best choice for intensification as I feel this is preferred over both residential subdivision intensification and sprawl. The architectural value of this and many other structures of its type is questionable at best and this has been well established on this forum, I am not arguing that. However, what better place to see this urban intensification than the intersection of two major roads?

[plam]

Waterloo buildings are particularly unsuited for interaction. You are the first person who I hear speak positively of the Stata center, starting from the fact that there are no walls against which can you place a bookcase.

Yes, I can't think of any campus building which is actually good for interaction. Some are just less bad than others, but it's all just hallways of offices. Even the newest buildings are like that.

The Stata Center was a great improvement over the previous building, 545 Technology Square. 545 Tech Square was actually also really good for interaction; every floor had two large common spaces where one could hang out. This is greatly lacking at Waterloo; DC could sort of be like that, but the spaces are a bit too open and also lack whiteboards. They're actually much better than E2, though. To my mind, there were two disadvantages to 545 Tech Square: the walls were thin, so they ran HVAC at high volume so that you wouldn't always hear the next office; and they got rid of the natural light by building more stuff immediately next door. Stata fixed both of those bugs.

Bookcases? Very few faculty in DC have bookcases, since we have those terrible wall-mounted shelves (I've removed as many as I could). Students do have bookcases but I also see very few books on them. Stata did have wall-mounted shelves as well.

I paid attention as I drove past it today, and I think with a sidewalk cafe it would be a contender for best building in Waterloo. However this would be a violation of city zoning regulations, since it would break the peace and quiet of University Av.

[bcwessel]

The Stata Center was a great improvement over the previous building, 545 Technology Square. 545 Tech Square was actually also really good for interaction; every floor had two large common spaces where one could hang out. This is greatly lacking at Waterloo; DC could sort of be like that, but the spaces are a bit too open and also lack whiteboards. They're actually much better than E2, though. To my mind, there were two disadvantages to 545 Tech Square: the walls were thin, so they ran HVAC at high volume so that you wouldn't always hear the next office; and they got rid of the natural light by building more stuff immediately next door. Stata fixed both of those bugs.

John Silber, past-President and Chancellor and current President Emeritus of Boston University discusses the replacement of 545 TS with Strata in Architecture of the Absurd. He is, let's say, less than enthusiastic about Strata (and Gehry in general). The entire book is worth a look, as I feel it does a good job of reaffirming the position of architecture as first-and-foremost a practical art. Silber provides a unique (and uniquely informed) critique of this issue, having presided over the development of a major North American university for several decades.

[eizenstriet]

Some years ago, my wife and I took the kids to Boston. Other sights were of more universal family interest, but I persuaded them to let me make a quick side trip to see the Stata Center on the MIT campus.

Just as we entered through the main doors, a rather unkempt gentleman accosted us and said: “You forgot!” Somewhat taken aback, I asked: “Forgot what?” “To give Bill Gates the finger”, he replied, indicating a plaque just outside the main doors which acknowledged Mr. Gates for a substantial donation, I think, towards construction of the building.

So in a spirit of solidarity with who-knows-what, we exited, gave Bill’s plaque the finger, and re-entered. Our mysterious advisor thanked us, and departed.

Seeing our puzzlement, a nearby student said: ”Do you know who that was?” He identified the Gates foe as Richard Stallman, one of the founders of the open-source software movement.

So it isn’t just architecture critics who don’t like the Stata Center.

[plam]

John Silber, past-President and Chancellor and current President Emeritus of Boston University discusses the replacement of 545 TS with Strata in Architecture of the Absurd. He is, let's say, less than enthusiastic about Strata (and Gehry in general). The entire book is worth a look, as I feel it does a good job of reaffirming the position of architecture as first-and-foremost a practical art. Silber provides a unique (and uniquely informed) critique of this issue, having presided over the development of a major North American university for several decades.

Yes, he should know about this sort of thing. I've requested the book and will look at what he has to say about Stata. But I can definitely say that moving to Stata improved my personal quality of life---I hate white noise and I like natural light. More broadly, the comments I saw in the snippets weren't convincing. Many new buildings do leak, and budget overruns happen fairly often, especially when the requirements change to include an underground parking lot. Also, the pedestrian street seemed well-used to me. More so than the Waterloo Public Square, probably. (There was a concert there this evening though).

[plam]

Some years ago, my wife and I took the kids to Boston. Other sights were of more universal family interest, but I persuaded them to let me make a quick side trip to see the Stata Center on the MIT campus.

Just as we entered through the main doors, a rather unkempt gentleman accosted us and said: “You forgot!” Somewhat taken aback, I asked: “Forgot what?” “To give Bill Gates the finger”, he replied, indicating a plaque just outside the main doors which acknowledged Mr. Gates for a substantial donation, I think, towards construction of the building.

So in a spirit of solidarity with who-knows-what, we exited, gave Bill’s plaque the finger, and re-entered. Our mysterious advisor thanked us, and departed.

I think this is the primary source. (Thanks. I just went through a bunch of old mail archives. There was a lot more discussion around that time about access control to the building and the evils of proximity cards than about the architectural merits of Stata, although on a related note, there was concern about disappearing laptops.)

From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: ...@ai.mit.edu 
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 13:45:59 -0400
Cc: csail-discuss@csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: sunlight and talks

    I attended the talk in Gates 7 today.

I would like to suggest that we minimize use of the name "Gates" in
reference to part of the Stata center.  Gates paid a lot of money to
MIT, but that is no obligation on us.  If we refer to it as "Stata G7"
instead, we will be of less help to Microsoft in its battle against
the GNU/Linux system.

We could also follow some Stanford students, and adopt the custom of
giving Mr Bill the finger while going up the elevator into that tower,
as a way of influencing our own thoughts.

[BuildingScout]

But I can definitely say that moving to Stata improved my personal quality of life---I hate white noise and I like natural light.

I wonder how much of that had more to do with the contents than with the exterior skin.

For example if one has a conversation in certain corridors one disturbs the open air grad cubicles a floor below. I fail to see how that could be considered a paragon of architecture in any shape or form.

[BuildingScout]

From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>

Classless and unprincipled. If you so dislike him then do not take his money.

Once you take the money out of your own will, yes you do have the obligation to use the name.

[BuildingScout]

The entire book is worth a look, as I feel it does a good job of reaffirming the position of architecture as first-and-foremost a practical art.

He also reaffirms something that I've heard from various users (including my own personal experience): Calatrava's buildings are not only nice, but also eminently functional.

[eizenstriet]

Great research, plam! If you have a few minutes, could you find me the explanation for why there is quantum entanglement?

[plam]

I wonder how much of that had more to do with the contents than with the exterior skin.

For example if one has a conversation in certain corridors one disturbs the open air grad cubicles a floor below. I fail to see how that could be considered a paragon of architecture in any shape or form.

You definitely don't see the exterior of a building from the inside (for the most part). The non-vertical walls are a bit strange, though.

There's noise problems with open plan space in general. Note that the lab I was visiting in Berkeley was 90% open plan space, even for faculty, with on-demand meeting rooms. Specifically in the case of Stata, though, the obvious gathering areas on my floor (G7) did not propagate too much noise to the open plan space. This may not be the case on other floors. There was no obvious gathering space on G8 which propagated noise to G7 open plan space.

As for RMS: well, no one asked him whether MIT should take Bill Gates's money, and it's totally OK to protest against the actions of some larger entity you're affiliated with. It is a bit bizarre to call it the Gates tower too, since one generally does not use building names at MIT, but building numbers. So 32G would be the logical thing to call it.

Great research, plam! If you have a few minutes, could you find me the explanation for why there is quantum entanglement?

Sorry, that's not in my email archives. Try a physicist!

[bcwessel]

Many new buildings do leak, and budget overruns happen fairly often, especially when the requirements change to include an underground parking lot.

If I remember correctly, Silber's had two main arguments against Stata:

One, that the structural deficiencies of Gehry's design demonstrated a lack of sound architectural intent, resulting in excessive structural failings (at a significant added cost to the University). There were even reports that, despite warnings from the construction companies involved in the project that the design was deficient, Gehry refused to alter his plans to address their concerns. These allegations led to the University eventually filing a lawsuit against Gehry's firm, a matter which was eventually settled out of court.

Two, that Gehry's design was (even before calculating the added cost of repairing/upgrading the work after initial construction was complete) excessively expensive. Gehry, Silber argues, was (and still is) able to produce incredibly expensive designs, not because they provide incredible utility for his clients, but because a Gehry is a Gehry (and he is a star). I believe this both a critique of Gehry personally, and of the current state of architecture being primarily seen as fine art by media, the general public, and by many practitioners of the discourse.

[bcwessel]

He also reaffirms something that I've heard from various users (including my own personal experience): Calatrava's buildings are not only nice, but also eminently functional.

Right, this is a very important point: absurdity is not merely the result of unconventional forms and techniques, but rather the result of architecture which prides experimentation over all else, and thus fails to produce sound, functional buildings.

[plam]

If I remember correctly, Silber's had two main arguments against Stata:

One, that the structural deficiencies of Gehry's design demonstrated a lack of sound architectural intent, resulting in excessive structural failings (at a significant added cost to the University). There were even reports that, despite warnings from the construction companies involved in the project that the design was deficient, Gehry refused to alter his plans to address their concerns. These allegations led to the University eventually filing a lawsuit against Gehry's firm, a matter which was eventually settled out of court.

Two, that Gehry's design was (even before calculating the added cost of repairing/upgrading the work after initial construction was complete) excessively expensive. Gehry, Silber argues, was (and still is) able to produce incredibly expensive designs, not because they provide incredible utility for his clients, but because a Gehry is a Gehry (and he is a star). I believe this both a critique of Gehry personally, and of the current state of architecture being primarily seen as fine art by media, the general public, and by many practitioners of the discourse.

These arguments are not unreasonable. But I object to many of the specific points that he makes about the Stata Center, because they are factually incorrect. I also cross-checked with a colleague here at Waterloo who used to be in Stata as well. He compared Silber's argumentation to something that might appear in a gossip column, not serious and well-reasoned argumentation.

1. Silber's first argument is about what Stata replaced, Building 20. Part of the stated argument for Stata is that it would unify the residents of Building 20. Silber says that this is silly, because Building 20 is an "obviously unified structure". That's true, but what's also true is that Building 20 is 250,000sqft, while Stata is 750,000sqft.

Building 20 was much-loved but it also seems to be rather ugly. I never saw it in person.

2. Over-budget and over-time. Yes, that does tend to happen with building construction. I heard that the lower floors and underground stuff were much more well-constructed than the upper floors, where schedule pressure was starting to be a problem.

3. Silber says that signature buildings aren't worth it (in terms of bang for the buck). Sure, that's a reasonable argument to make.

He also talks about how MIT had a cash crunch in 2003-2004, and acknowledges that Stata didn't singlehandedly cause it. But everyone did during that time. Also, operating and capital budgets are different things, and Silber ought to be painfully aware of that.

4. Next, the part of the argument that I really don't buy: he criticizes the function of Stata, which I think was just fine. He talks about the presence of open-plan space. I'd say that Stata is not even completely committed to open-plan space; there are no faculty in open-plan space, only students. Berkeley has labs which are more committed to open-plan space (ie profs in open-plan space). Also, my colleague was in open-plan space at MIT, and said that it worked fine if you had headphones. Note that this is replacing Tech Square, where noise protection was provided by a tiresome HVAC system. I hated that.

There's something about glass walls, e.g. "The glass may reduce some of the building's noise, but the visual distractions of foot traffic outside are hardly conducive to sustained concentation." Well, that's not quite true; the research spaces are not through-spaces and people do not generally walk in them unless they're trying to see someone in particular. Kind of like suburban cul-de-sacs, although stuff is of course much closer.

"In this sense, Gehry's design has given the Stata Center the worst aspects of small town life. Talk to a colleague about a work issue or personal problem and the whole 'town' knows with whom you are speaking". Well, sure, but you can always go for a walk. This is a common thing in open-plan space, and there are well-known workarounds.

"... stakes are pretty minor. Not so at the Stata Center, where important secret military and industrial research is carried out. The center is home, for example, to MIT's Cryptography and Information Sharing Group, charged with designing 'the practical engineering of secure information systems.'" a) it's Information Security; b) they develop algorithms and systems, they don't handle the information itself. Also, MIT research is typically not secret. Secret work is at the national labs. Silber really ought to know that.

5. complaints about the pedestrian corridor on the ground floor; it seemed to work fine to me, and is very consistent with MIT's corridors and spaces elsewhere, like the Infinite Corridor. Definitely very MIT.

6. comments about keeping out the rain; ok, sure. But we have rainbuckets at Waterloo as well.

[plam]

ps thanks for the reference. Despite disagreeing with what he has to say, I think it's useful to read, and will do so over the next few days.

[BuildingScout]

6. comments about keeping out the rain; ok, sure. But we have rainbuckets at Waterloo as well.

Not in brand new buildings.

Whatever you might think about the Stata center, that part is indefensible. That you cannot even admit that really weakens your arguments.