Boston Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham had an
yesterday contrasting the bold architecture on MIT’s campus with Harvard’s many
recent architectural blunders. I think
you’ll find an explanation for the difference between Harvard and MIT
architecture by examining the cultures of the two schools.
Harvard has become completely corporatized. Education means
little, especially the education of undergraduates. What’s important is
Harvard, Inc. – its wealth, its power, its influence, its world-wide reach, its bottom line. Its recent leadership is risk-averse, instead focusing on
appealing donors and maintaining its image.
MIT, on the other hand, takes seriously its mission of
turning out students who are tops in science and technology, and doesn’t let
fundraising and image-control take priority. MIT is the real thing, although
how long it can resist the increasing corporatization of higher education
remains to be seen.
And so MIT is capable of building innovative buildings, even
at the risk of criticism, while Harvard and its PR people play it safe. It’s a matter of culture.