London's Death Ray Skyscraper To Get Protective Screen
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
What's wrong with good old-fashioned straight lines and 90 degree angles? Having curved and angled surfaces is entirely impractical. First, they look like something a 3-year-old would design while trying to draw a regular skyscraper. Second, they're a pain to engineer for no real benefit. Third, they're nearly impossible to clean, and since they insist on shiny surfaces, they need to be cleaned often. Which means they have to engineer a window-cleaning method that is specific to that building. It's just a whole lot cheaper and easier to build with right angles and straight lines. Depending on how creative you get, you can build something that looks ridiculously complex, and yet easy to maintain.
After all, which one looks like some thought went into its design?
or...
After all, which one looks like some thought went into its design?
or...
I think your forgetting one thing, is that modern construction tech, can let us build similar looking structure without actually using their material and technique for the whole structure. Basically the masonry would simply be decorative cover over a modern infrastructure, or could build a similar looking architecture but out of modern material, I wouldn't mind aluminum gargoyle on building.Morti said:
Not sure between the Gherkin in the background of the first picture and the Chrysler Building. But yes the one in forefront of the first picture is a freaking stupid design.AdmiralCheez said:What's wrong with good old-fashioned straight lines and 90 degree angles? Having curved and angled surfaces is entirely impractical. First, they look like something a 3-year-old would design while trying to draw a regular skyscraper. Second, they're a pain to engineer for no real benefit. Third, they're nearly impossible to clean, and since they insist on shiny surfaces, they need to be cleaned often. Which means they have to engineer a window-cleaning method that is specific to that building. It's just a whole lot cheaper and easier to build with right angles and straight lines. Depending on how creative you get, you can build something that looks ridiculously complex, and yet easy to maintain.
After all, which one looks like some thought went into its design?
or...
Oh wow, I'm sorry but that is a fucking ugly building design. Surely the architect had better looking designs? Designs that were not filled with highly reflective glass and in a concave shape.AdmiralCheez said:What's wrong with good old-fashioned straight lines and 90 degree angles? Having curved and angled surfaces is entirely impractical. First, they look like something a 3-year-old would design while trying to draw a regular skyscraper. Second, they're a pain to engineer for no real benefit. Third, they're nearly impossible to clean, and since they insist on shiny surfaces, they need to be cleaned often. Which means they have to engineer a window-cleaning method that is specific to that building. It's just a whole lot cheaper and easier to build with right angles and straight lines. Depending on how creative you get, you can build something that looks ridiculously complex, and yet easy to maintain.
After all, which one looks like some thought went into its design?
That might hold water, if he hadn't already made the same mistake in Vegas. I mean ok not anticipating that much direct sunlight in London? It could be an error. But he built one of these giant death rays in Vegas first! I mean really, Vegas! What was he doing, perfecting the technology before he unleashed it on the world like a James Bond villain?The Artificially Prolonged said:To be fair to the architect he probably wasn't expecting much if any sunlight in London that would turn the building into a giant heat ray. But that's architects for you, design a building to look nice then worry if it's practical
Seeing as his first prototype was in the economic power house that Sin City can be, I'd have to say he probably is a Bond Villain.faefrost said:That might hold water, if he hadn't already made the same mistake in Vegas. I mean ok not anticipating that much direct sunlight in London? It could be an error. But he built one of these giant death rays in Vegas first! I mean really, Vegas! What was he doing, perfecting the technology before he unleashed it on the world like a James Bond villain?The Artificially Prolonged said:To be fair to the architect he probably wasn't expecting much if any sunlight in London that would turn the building into a giant heat ray. But that's architects for you, design a building to look nice then worry if it's practical
man, now architects dont't only build scrapers that look like erected cocks, now they build reflecting cocks in frozen full swing motion!
I'd just love to see that building in Dubai - what could it do with proper sunshine. Oh wait he did it already in Vegas...
PS:
For Akay too, it hasn't all been bad news. "It's nice to have some sun for a change," he says. "It's brought loads of sexy girls out to sunbathe in front of the shop."
So it's not all bad...
I'd just love to see that building in Dubai - what could it do with proper sunshine. Oh wait he did it already in Vegas...
PS:
For Akay too, it hasn't all been bad news. "It's nice to have some sun for a change," he says. "It's brought loads of sexy girls out to sunbathe in front of the shop."
So it's not all bad...
This reminds of me of a time I talked to a fellow tradesman about, why don't architects have to spend time building before they start designing. He offered some interesting insight as he was a former architect. He told me people with practice experience aren't welcome as they lack the imagination to see new designs.
called it.
Saw this in london a few months back and was like, really? they're making a curved building? Which way is sunrise? Oh you are kidding! *gets popcorn* this gona be good! ^_^
OT: Physics is a compulsory subject for engineers, right? Like please tell me they cover optics? Not just material stricture. I only know whats covered in first year (had a friend in halls that did it, i did a 3 year Astrophysics course). Same with architecture, surely they should understand the repercussions of their designs in the real world? even on the small scale of their interaction with nearby buildings.
Whelp, won't be a problem for another 5 years or so. that's generally how long it takes for Britain to get a good summer!
Saw this in london a few months back and was like, really? they're making a curved building? Which way is sunrise? Oh you are kidding! *gets popcorn* this gona be good! ^_^
OT: Physics is a compulsory subject for engineers, right? Like please tell me they cover optics? Not just material stricture. I only know whats covered in first year (had a friend in halls that did it, i did a 3 year Astrophysics course). Same with architecture, surely they should understand the repercussions of their designs in the real world? even on the small scale of their interaction with nearby buildings.
Whelp, won't be a problem for another 5 years or so. that's generally how long it takes for Britain to get a good summer!
Of course its the suns fault. how dare it come to London and shine at this angle. Lets tell it to go away!
Its really a space problem. to build a square skyscraper takes as much space as its ground - not much. to build a gothic design skyscraper woudl take way more land area at its footing. also it would be much more expensive.Dr.Awkward said:
Problem is that gothic or classical design is a lot more difficult to sculpt in 3D rendering programs and a lot less impressive in screenshots than large boxy sweeping shapes, because the intricate details gets all pixelly. Large shiny glass and steel surfaces and minimal detail sweeping surfaces look really good, and simple curves or protruding regular shapes are easy to create in 3D software, which perfectly describes a depressingly large amount of our modern architecture.Dr.Awkward said:
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the sole reason for the convex shape of the building was the architect just dicking about in Autocad and wonder what would happen if he used the bending tool on the front of the building.
Well, the first one. It's a far more impressive feat of engineering and design, and the interior will be far superior as well. It's also a far more efficient building. However, most importantly, there are a range of laws in the City (a specific part of London) that buildings of a certain height must adhere to - they most not obscure views of notable historical buildings, and must be of architectural significance. You couldn't just throw up an American art deco skyscraper in London, you wouldn't get permission.AdmiralCheez said:What's wrong with good old-fashioned straight lines and 90 degree angles? Having curved and angled surfaces is entirely impractical. First, they look like something a 3-year-old would design while trying to draw a regular skyscraper. Second, they're a pain to engineer for no real benefit. Third, they're nearly impossible to clean, and since they insist on shiny surfaces, they need to be cleaned often. Which means they have to engineer a window-cleaning method that is specific to that building. It's just a whole lot cheaper and easier to build with right angles and straight lines. Depending on how creative you get, you can build something that looks ridiculously complex, and yet easy to maintain.
After all, which one looks like some thought went into its design?
or...
OT: I live about 10 minutes walk away from this - the architect has done this in the past, it's clearly his fault. When there are a few projects like this in the area, this is the only one which is burning stuff. There was only one Jaguar though. In true London fashion, we shrugged and got on with it. Definitely seems to be a bigger deal in US and International news than it was over here.
It's not that bad, I walk past it every day. London already has some of (if not THE) best examples of architecture throughout the ages, in better condition than any other European city. The above is one of many new developments going up that will eventually look like this:schrodinger said:
The skyscraper we're talking about is the one of the left near the river. These are all in varying levels of completion right now.
Well I don't know about other choices with 20 Fenchurch St, but what really worries me is that he has done the exact same thing before, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vdara for his last "death ray" project.Skeleon said:
