I recently had a conversation with an histo presto structural engineer,
whose name will remain protected for the time being, who had returned
from Balboa. We discussed the maintenance nightmares and the shoddy
workmanship of the titanium Guggenheim. Oil canning of the panels, holes
in the skin that could be design or technique driven, odd facade frills
that serve no function other than ornament but present maintenance
nightmares, and areas of the building design that restrict maintenance
access. We then went in to give a talk to a group of 5th year
architecture students at which I stressed that they should consider to
not design buildings that cannot be maintained.

Consider that between the maintenance staff, the owners and the
architect that the architect usually spends the least time living with
the building that they design. Considering the relationship between ego
and architectural plumage, I wonder if it has anything to do with the
stereotype of the male quickie?

I also find it interesting that the FLW Guggenheim shares in real-world
flaws, though technically different ones, with the FG Guggenheim.

As to the Summit Town Hall, FG would have designed a building that would
have been demolished by maintenance default.

][<en

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>