The Main Group at MIT is made up of 10 historic buildings that are all linked and interdependent. This complex serves a diverse collection of teaching, research and administration spaces that were designed almost 100 years ago, but had never been addressed in any comprehensive way since. In 2002, PAYETTE was asked to develop a plan that would help MIT rejuvenate the complex and ensure its viability into the next century. The challenge was to find a way to transform the capabilities of the structures so that they could accommodate greater densities of staff while fostering collaboration and interdisciplinary work. Due to the historic nature of MIT’s signature complex, however, it was essential that proposed improvements be hidden from sight.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Main Group Master Plan Study
Project Statistics
LOCATION
Cambridge, Massachusetts
COMPLETed
2003
TOTAL Area
1,000,000 GSF
PROGRAM COMPONENTS
Physics, Material Science, Spectroscopy, Research Labs, Teaching Labs
Team
George Marsh, FAIA
Principal-in-Charge
James H. Collins, Jr., FAIA, LEED AP
Design Principal
forensics
At the heart of the plan was a thorough investigation of the existing facilities. We needed to understand how they were used, built and operated. We needed to understand where systems were taxed, oversized or missing altogether. We also needed to study how evolutionary pressures had influenced the natural order of the original design.
Our efforts took on multiple fronts over the course of several years. We studied the rich programmatic distribution throughout the complex that is a defining characteristic of MIT. We investigated the myriad of mechanical systems that have been deployed in different areas. We documented traffic patterns in the infamous corridors. We analyzed the envelope and particularly the historic steel windows. We studied the original working drawings for various construction campaigns. This was all simply data collection. We amassed a large volume of information that came together to help us see the true essence of the problems being faced.
connectivity
A fundamental problem embedded in the architecture proved to be one of connectivity. While the corridors provided a wonderful network for students moving between classes, the double-loaded design was anathema to the creation of a collaborative think tank because the resulting space on either side is too narrow to create anything more than a linear suite of offices. Collaboration in large groups of twenty or more was essentially unthinkable. Similarly, the utilitarian corridors provided a successful route for lateral delivery of utilities, but they did nothing to help vertical distribution. As a result, renovations on a middle floor of the complex have been forced to negotiate with program areas above or below in order to gain access to rooftop air or below-grade piping.
flexible laboratories
We developed a concept of the lab as an erector set made from slotted metal channel framing that could be dismantled and reconfigured easily. We used standard, off-the-shelf products so that more material could be purchased quickly and inexpensively when needed. We provided accessible power and data distribution so new feeds could be added. We incorporated open wire management to keep the bench tops clean and organized in spite of this flexibility. Mechanical and plumbing systems were also left exposed in the room for added ceiling height and flexibility, but all of the systems were extensively coordinated to ensure that the finished product maintained a finish and coherence that fit with the rest of the project.
