The
NY Times is bemoaning classic architecture. The above is the Gehry fiasco called the Stat building at MIT, site of one of my offices, and the basis of a law suit between MIT and Gehry. It leaks, it is a design mess, one cannot get from point A to pint B readily, it is energy inefficient, the rest rooms are such that there is a women's on one floor and a men's on the other, albeit with a small commode adjacent for the opposite sexes, that is when such was accepted as the norm. Perhaps Gehry was a leader in same sex rest rooms since that is what he achieved.
So the Times wants these to be the norm. Look at the Boston Federal Building. Pretty, but the glass opens to the North Atlantic, and what genius did that for energy efficiency! Ever hear of a Nor-easter?
The above is the Federal Courthouse in Alexandria. Somewhat classic in design. It fits in with all the other offices housing Government employees and those feeding off the Government.
Actually classic buildings are more energy efficient, easy to maintain etc. Brick is a nightmare. The grout decays, the bricks dissolve, and the maintenance is mind blowing. Massive stone is not bad. It does not require paint, is energy efficient, can be pressure washed and the windows can be washed.
It appears that the writers in the Times have never had to was windows on these buildings. It is difficult and costs a fortune. But alas it is just part of the Federal debt load so why worry?
Posts
