Walkie Talkie architect 'didn't realise it was going to be so hot' (2013)
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Note this impressive quote from the Architect, Rafael Viñoly:
> "When it was spotted on a second design iteration, we judged the temperature was going to be about 36 degrees," he said. "But it's turned out to be more like 72 degrees. They are calling it the 'death ray', because if you go there you might die. It is phenomenal, this thing."
This is such an obscure word that your comment is already in the Google results for it. Kudos: https://i.imgur.com/tGgrIaZ.png
So, a nuance intended was: that building would normally had been planned as a war machine...
Another use! But yes, if you kill off the many, many dictionary results that HN comment is first page. E.g.:
> "ustorious" -definition -dictionary -pronounce -spelling -rhyme
The problem? The beautiful terraced glass surfaces had a tendency to pick up snow and ice in the winter, which as it melted would then tend to slide off the building and crash into the sidewalk below. After heavy snow storms they had to cordone off the sidewalks so pedestrians weren’t speared to by giant icicles falling from the sky.
Lesson: environmental context matters in building design. But even big time architects can goof in big ways (see also the Citibank building debacle).
Tastefully intermingling the old with the new is difficult to do at times but the results are magnificent. See The Louvre for example.
Worse, these buildings are going to have a very limited working life compared to the older architecture around them. A century is optimistic.
- Are well insulated,
- Are nice to live in,
- Take into account orientation (sun and stuff),
- Are a lot better looking than the previous mid-rise buildings, with maybe the exception of old 19th century construction (this is a taste thing, i personnally dislike Haussman and Victorian style, but i like Le Baron Jenney).
Which make "great" architects designs worse i think (by comparison).
> "That was a completely different problem," said Viñoly, insisting he was following a masterplan that specified arc-shaped towers. "We pointed out that would be an issue too, but who cares if you fry somebody in Las Vegas, right?"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2786723/London-skys...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309136628_Avoiding_...
Big if true.
Workers in those buildings are fired and fried in the same step it seems
On the other hand, this system could be handy to clean ice and snow in particular points on the roads. Hum... Chicago should build a lot of those and uncover it in winter
Fun fact: cost-cutting in architecture is called "value engineering," a sinister euphemism if I've ever heard one.
The building is also lovingly called the "Fryscraper" by the locals.
Combining glass and curves has been rare because it's technically difficult to build large curved glass. They were hardly ever combined until 1850, and it's still difficult today, 170 years after Crystal Palace. It's done though.
Buildings go through review, which is rather like code review, and the review finds problems, and some slip through. In the case of this building the architect ordered a second review, where the bug was spotted and its consequences computed and found to be acceptable. (This is something engineers do all the time. When I had a hole made in a wall at home, a structural engineer computed how much the floor would sag and found it to be acceptable.)
I'm guessing that the second review was carried out precisely because the architect wanted to be careful about those curved surfaces.
Of course you can pretend that the curves were built in order to focus light and blame people for it. In that case you should accept that people blame you, too.
No one said anything of the sort and I cannot conceive how anyone could possible think that they did.
The original article chose wording that distinguished between the design goal, the computed side effect and the actual side effect. 4RealFreedom chose wording that commingled the three.
Do you concatenate strings to generate SQL queries from user input? Of course you don't, that's just asking for a SQL injection attack, everyone knows that.
Similarly, if you make a concave shiny thing and face it south (at least in the northern hemisphere), it'll focus the sun's rays. I find it hard to believe that the architect didn't know about focusing light, given that they'd have to have at least passed high school and this is the sort of thing you do in 1st year Physics. Any 12-year-old *at the oldest* knows this.
That one person does intent and another computes effect is deliberate. A kind of four-eyes principle. Then more eyes look at it when the plans are submitted to the city's authority, but that isn't usually as thorough as the review cycle between architect and hired engineers.
In this case they computed that the peak heat would be 36°C, the actual peak afterwards is given as 72°C. Those are very different temperatures.
FWIW, based on my somewhat primitive knowledge of this (I didn't finish that school) the most likely cause for the difference is imperfect modelling of the wind. How buildings affect wind is still an active area of research. Both this building and its neighbour affect air circulation in ways that couldn't be modelled using the current state of the art. When focused sunlight works on calm air, it can raise the temperature a great deal. Warm air staying calm instead of rising is a surprise, of course.
(The poor modelling is common BTW, although usually not that serious. In my native Norway snow drifts often collect in surprising spots around new buildings, because the building produces calm air here, wind there.)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309136628_Avoiding_...
And a link to a few simpler pictures - scroll through them to the right. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/walkie-scorchie-sol...
Laughed out loud at this one
It makes me think of ray-tracing. You would think an architect would already have a ray-tracer with accurate materials set up for rendering visualizations which could show the issue.
> "When I first came to London years ago, it wasn't like this," he said. "Now you have all these sunny days. So you should blame this thing on global warming too, right?"
This really is turning obsessive-compulsive responsibility avoidance into a form of performance art.
And if the building collapsed due to defective design & construction, they'd be blaming the "who could have imagined?" gravity, right?
There's a point of irresponsibility where I really wish that the courts would open inquiries into the mental competence of the reality-deniers. With "you could be legally declared mentally incompetent, and committed to an institution for life" at stake.
https://www.ft.com/content/82196b28-13ec-11e3-9289-00144feab...