"You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much" (youcantellafinn)
03/20/2015 at 11:19 • Filed to: architectlopnik
0
4|
"You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much" (youcantellafinn)
03/20/2015 at 11:19 • Filed to: architectlopnik | 0
| 4 |
Apparently London architects haven't learned their lesson after the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . They are designing two buildings to reflect the suns rays and cook unsuspecting bystanders eliminate shadows. The theory is that the concave shape and reflective glass of the building will microwave tourists eliminate the shadow caused by the other building. The design has been optimized to maximize the death ray effect minimize the shadow throughout the day. When asked about the design lead architect Dr. Edward Ville simply put his pinkie to his mouth and laughed. (I can't back that [last part] up.)
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Manic Otti
> You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
03/20/2015 at 16:52 |
|
I'm not sure why it's so important that it not have a shadow. Seems like alot of trouble for little payback.
Architect
> Manic Otti
03/21/2015 at 15:32 |
|
Some of the reasoning is to create less of a shadow over neighboring streets and buildings. In some cities, air rights include sunlight availability. This was the reason cities like NYC instituted regulations for setbacks (like how most tall buildings step in and get narrower as they get taller - this is not for any structural reason, it's so sunlight can penetrate to the street level). I'm guessing the anti-shadow feature allowed the developer more floors (revenue) or better Floor Area Ratio (revenue). So the payback might be there, maybe.
With the Walkie-Talkie, the architect (Rafael Viñoly) had specified sun-shading fins on the glass facade that eventually did the death-raying, but those fins were eliminated (at the insistence of the construction firm) due to cost. This was after Viñoly had explicitly warned that the fins were there in order to reduce sunlight reflection. Regardless, the fins got nixed by the owner. Then, after the car melting incident, the owner recanted and payed to have the fins installed, after unsuccessfully trying to sue the architect...
The bigger problem I have with this whole shadow-canceling concept, is that it doesn't seem to take into consideration the ACTUAL neighbors... The animations only show the pair of buildings without any demonstration that the reflected shadow-canceling light won't negatively effect the surrounding businesses/apartments/etc. Plus, the larger of the two towers STILL MAKES A SHADOW, WHICH IS LARGER THAN THE SHADOW IT'S CANCELING OUT.
Sometimes I think this kind of design is just technological exhibitionism. "We did it just because we our software enabled us"
|
Manic Otti
> Architect
03/23/2015 at 12:56 |
|
So, did the fins stop it from melting cars?
|
Architect
> Manic Otti
03/23/2015 at 21:43 |
|
To be honest, I stopped following the story a while ago. I had to go check in to get the latest scoop:
http://www.archdaily.com/507359/work-on…
Apparently they started working on it a year ago. I'm guessing since we haven't heard any more about it since then, it's been an effective fix. The funny thing is, this same architect was embroiled in another death-ray fiasco a few years back in Las Vegas, and again it was not 100% his fault. In that case, the masterplan for the hotel complex called for hotel towers with arc-shaped footprints, and evidently he protested the developer. Viñoly's office attempted to make changes to the floor plans that would eliminate focused sun rays, but it seems his negotiating skills are lacking
Poor guy can't catch a break... (or he can't spot trouble when it's smacking him in the face, maybe)