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.
 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 Bilbao’s 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 a
tramway, several pedestrian bridges, and an international airport. Which will long be relevant
after the Bilbao’s 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 architect’s 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.’2 But 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
 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
Image 1: Stata Centre, MIT. Designed in
later, MIT sued Gehry due to critical flaws within the Gehry's distinct style
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.
Image 2: angular construction makes
for an interesting style but a hazardous
Another flaw cited was drainage of an amphitheatre, which
situation with ice.4
had to have all of its bricks replaced at a cost of 1.5 Million
 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 the building a glowing review said,

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

it—to use a word that now sounds quaint—functional? What were its purposes, anyway?

The biggest goal for the project was to get MIT scientists—and that includes students—to
meet one another’iv

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. It’s 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. However
creative 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 starchitect’s designs.
Meanwhile, the larger practice can only compete with larger
practices on huge expensive projects. Most of which seem to
routinely go over budget and almost invariably are opened later
than the projected deadlines.

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

Image 3 The Art Gallery of
Ontario's glass front facade gives possible to create a striking building shell without necessarily
the building a distinct aesthetic that
does not interfere with the function
of the interior. 5
 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 another’ vi

The design works, and thus far, no major faults have been reported since it opened in
2008. It’s 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 having
breathed new life into the Gallery and helped to alleviate what was before seen as only a
hodgepodge of spaces.5 Gehry’s 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 façade. 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 it’s 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 ROM’s new wing juts out into the streetscape to make certain it’s noticed—which 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
 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 Pei’s
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.5 Additionally, 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
 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.
i
Freudenheim, 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.
ii
Matti, 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, Massachusetts Institute of Technology vs. Frank O. Gehry & Associates, Inc. n/k/a Gehry
Partners, LLP and Beacon Skanska Construction Company, n/k/a Skanska USA Building, Inc. Mintz Levin, Boston.
iv
Campbell, Robert, 2007, ‘Does Gehry’s 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.asp
v
2008. ‘The Art Gallery of Ontario’. Designboom. Avaliable:
http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/art_gallery_of_ontario.html
vi
Freudenheim, 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.