London now features a building with a curved glass wall that acts as a solar lens strong enough to melt plastic on parked cars.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Does anyone else get the sense that a goodly number of architects never played with mirrors and lenses when they were young(er)? If memory serves, the Disney Performing Arts Center in LA had to be modified after the shiny facade began toasting the apartments across the street.
You are correct, the Disney Concert Hall by Frank Gehry had a portion that was finished to a polish to distinguish that it had a separate function. Concave surfaces concentrated light into apartments (condos?) across the street, sometimes raising temps over 20 degrees in them. They ended up buffing them down to a satin finish to solve the problem.
Apparently, the City Center complex in Las Vegas also has issues with the Aria towers and the Vdara tower reflecting concentrated light into the Vdara pool area at times. What? I need to think about the heat of the sun in Las Vegas?
I think it reflects a horrid general knowledge of science by people outside scientific fields. Architects are even worse because they think they do know something about it.
Oh, and let us not allow to pass without comment the observation that the building in London is horrible- not just for the solar effects, but having a building loom like that over the surrounding neighborhood is, in my opinion, not only ugly, but unethical.
Douglas, I'm inclined to agree with you. There's a lot to be said for blending new construction into the older surroundings, perhaps adding a floor or two, but not plunking a skyscraper into a seemingly-random neighborhood just to have a skyscraper on one's resume.
I have the same thought as I go past a nearby house. The remodel turned one of many attractive ranch-style homes into a neo-Tudor two-and-a-half story folly.
LR, I'm not averse to contrasts to the surroundings- it can work magnificently to have something stand out from the surrounding civic fabric, but this thing and the way it's top heavy- designed as such with the intent to have more upper floor space where the rents are higher, though they did put a public garden at the top three floors- it just looms over the neighborhood. It's the architectural equivalent of someone standing behind you and peering over your shoulder into your business without invitation.
That London neighborhood is a financial district, and has seen several high rises constructed in recent years, though this one seems a little further out from the others, so it's not that it's tall and the neighbors aren't- development happens, and you shouldn't be able to stop it outright.
As for the Neo-Tudor in your neck of the woods- well, it may be in bad taste, but it would have to be really bad before I tagged it as unethical!
Well, architects know as much about science as any other engineer, of course. Now, a REAL scientist (like a true Scotsman) will tell you that's nothing, but anyway.
6 comments:
Does anyone else get the sense that a goodly number of architects never played with mirrors and lenses when they were young(er)? If memory serves, the Disney Performing Arts Center in LA had to be modified after the shiny facade began toasting the apartments across the street.
LittleRed1
You are correct, the Disney Concert Hall by Frank Gehry had a portion that was finished to a polish to distinguish that it had a separate function. Concave surfaces concentrated light into apartments (condos?) across the street, sometimes raising temps over 20 degrees in them. They ended up buffing them down to a satin finish to solve the problem.
Apparently, the City Center complex in Las Vegas also has issues with the Aria towers and the Vdara tower reflecting concentrated light into the Vdara pool area at times. What? I need to think about the heat of the sun in Las Vegas?
I think it reflects a horrid general knowledge of science by people outside scientific fields. Architects are even worse because they think they do know something about it.
Oh, and let us not allow to pass without comment the observation that the building in London is horrible- not just for the solar effects, but having a building loom like that over the surrounding neighborhood is, in my opinion, not only ugly, but unethical.
Douglas, I'm inclined to agree with you. There's a lot to be said for blending new construction into the older surroundings, perhaps adding a floor or two, but not plunking a skyscraper into a seemingly-random neighborhood just to have a skyscraper on one's resume.
I have the same thought as I go past a nearby house. The remodel turned one of many attractive ranch-style homes into a neo-Tudor two-and-a-half story folly.
LittleRed1
LR, I'm not averse to contrasts to the surroundings- it can work magnificently to have something stand out from the surrounding civic fabric, but this thing and the way it's top heavy- designed as such with the intent to have more upper floor space where the rents are higher, though they did put a public garden at the top three floors- it just looms over the neighborhood. It's the architectural equivalent of someone standing behind you and peering over your shoulder into your business without invitation.
That London neighborhood is a financial district, and has seen several high rises constructed in recent years, though this one seems a little further out from the others, so it's not that it's tall and the neighbors aren't- development happens, and you shouldn't be able to stop it outright.
As for the Neo-Tudor in your neck of the woods- well, it may be in bad taste, but it would have to be really bad before I tagged it as unethical!
Well, architects know as much about science as any other engineer, of course. Now, a REAL scientist (like a true Scotsman) will tell you that's nothing, but anyway.
Sometimes people just forget the obvious.
Post a Comment