"The developers said the phenomenon was caused by 'the current elevation of the sun in the sky', and that as Britain heads into autumn the problem should disappear."
Typical corporate response: its not our fault its the elevation of the sun. Once the sun decides to move it will not be a problem.
How about they design a building right. If the 4 story condos I lived in previously were designed to be facing North and South so the sun didnt heat them up as much during the day. I would think a massive 37 floor building project in London would have taken into account the position of the sun as well.
"In addition, we are consulting with local businesses and the City to address the issue in the short-term, while also evaluating longer-term solutions to ensure the issue cannot recur in future."
What I find the most amazing about this whole thing is that it was designed by the same architect as the "death ray" building in Las Vegas. You would think they would have learned from their mistake.
I went over there with the kids this lunchtime - pretty amazing heat focused into the street. Lots of journalists and TV news crews around, including one frying an egg. My youngest son found the heat too much, and ran down the street screaming "I'm burning, I'm burning!", so naturally the press then converged on us...
The funny thing is that the focal point is literally just round the corner from the Monument which indicates where the great fire of London started.
What they really need now is a roof of photovoltaic panels along the pavement, and they can really cash in on it.
For Bay Areans who would like to experience this phenomenon for yourselves, head on down to Lake Merrit. At the right time of day, the Cathedral of Sauron[1] will send blinding beams of light right into traffic. Fun times.
I'm an Architect and I have worked on large projects in London, although not this one thankfully[0], so I thought people might like to know how the process of designing a building like this works.
A developer hires an international 'starchitect' like Viñoly to design them an office block because the architects reputation for design helps them to get away with a larger building on the site and therefore get more net lettable area for their investment in land.
I don't know anyone who works for Vinoly, I've no idea what it's like to work for him, but I know other people who have worked in similar 'gesture architecture' practices and this is how it usually plays out:
The big boss will do a nice sketch of how he thinks a walkie talkie shaped skyscraper (or whatever shape is in fashion in the office) will fit on the site and then hand it off to a more junior member of staff to solve all the real problems. Meanwhile, he will have to go back to the international lecture/meet/greet circuit that pulls in the jobs and maintains their reputation for world class architecture.
The project team will then usually have a very tight deadline to produce the initial design, probably mostly drawn up by a team of recent architecture graduates who would be pretty low paid[1], and who will almost always end up working very long hours and weekends unpaid overtime to meet the deadline. Where the lead architectural practice is not based in the UK there will also be a local architect who will advise on local regulations, prepare the submissions for planning permission and generally deal with other regulatory authorities.
There will also be a large consultant team on a project of this scale. Probably consisting of two teams of civil engineers; one for superstructure and one for substructure. A geotechnical expert for the foundation design. A whole spread of HVAC engineers, probably separate mechanical, electrical, drainage and ventilation specialists. A facade engineer who specialises in problems specifically to do with the design of the glass cladding system. A fire engineer to design the fire escape strategy and help negotiate the fire fighting strategy with the local fire brigade. A vertical circulation engineer to design the lift and escalator strategy. A bomb blast engineer to model the effects of various bomb attack scenarios on the cladding and structure. A security consultant to advise on how defendable the building is and to design the cctv, active tramp deterrent systems :-( etc. Finally a quantity surveyor will advise on how much this will all cost.
All of these people will have been consulted briefly, probably mostly by video conference, across a couple of time zones, before the planning permission submission[2]. All their requirements have to be juggled between the different disciplines by the architect. As an architect who has done services coordination on skyscrapers and international airports, I can tell you it's not easy. One of the most frustrating things is that engineers from different disciplines don't talk to each other, even if they are working for the same firm. On top of this, the time allowed to prepare the planning submission will be a few months at most, and a lot of the effort will be spent on optimising the design and more importantly the presentation strategy to get through the planning permission process.
Once the planning permission submission has been approved, the overall shape of the scheme is fixed and hence the parabola shape can no longer be designed out. Therefore, if no-one notices a problem like this until after the planning submission, or perhaps fails to get someone higher up to take it seriously enough to change the concept design, then they will have to remedy it by using special anti glare coatings or just plain hoping it wont be too bad. This is for a couple of reasons: because the developer will be exerting large pressure to speed up construction as they will be paying a large amount of interest on the loan for the cost of the land, because consultancy fees to redo the design would be in the order of millions at this point and because getting planning permission for a scheme like this is very politically controversial so you don't risk doing it twice if you can avoid it.
So, you can probably see how something like this could easily have happened.
[0] Because it's pug ugly, not because of the solar death ray thing, that's quite amusing really.
[1] Something like £20k per year in London, which is a crap salary after 6 years in University.
[2] In the UK this is a semi-democratic consultation process which occurs at local government level and involves publicly presenting the designs to local councillors to give residents of the area a chance to raise a formal objection.
> A developer hires an international 'starchitect' like Viñoly to design them an office block because the architects reputation for design helps them to get away with a larger building on the site and therefore get more net lettable area for their investment in land.
Ah. I've always wondered why people pay "starchitects" to design horrible, hideous, poorly designed buildings. I've always figured that they were paying more to get something of worse quality, but figured that people were paying the premium just to be in vogue.
The reputation allowing them to get away with a bigger building on the same plot of land is a new explanation to me, and makes lots of sense.
I'm an ex-architect -- or, more accurately, a recovering architect: it's like an addiction in that way -- and I have to say that you really do know what you are talking about here. My sympathies!
(Although I'm far from enthralled by this building, I have to say that it actually looks better than I expected it to based on the utterly fugly renderings from a while ago. I can't imagine how it got through planning consent based on those.)
It's funny, but that sounds EXACTLY like a high profile research lab! The more I look, the more different professions seem to be the same in terms of principles of work.
I did a short bit of contract work for Viñoly some years ago... and while I can't attest to the entire process you've outlined (I wasn't involved in the architecture stuff), I can attest to the bit about working conditions. The long hours, deep stress, harsh deadlines -- all spot on from what I'd observed.
Thanks for the insight! In retrospect, it certainly has the feel of a project that was too expensive to fix, so we'll patch/deal with it if it comes up. It certainly happens - high quality is time consuming and expensive, and it's easy to forget how risks allow us to do more for less (with a chance of occasional death-ray).
That said, what is the likelihood the form will be held to pay out in some way for this (say, either in replacing the glass wall or installing retractable shade awnings across the neighborhood)?
Tone edit: I certainly don't mean the project looks poorly done. Just that a fix would have required such a substantial redesign as to be prohibitively expensive compared to just hoping for the best.
I always wondered how buildings avoided becoming homes and sleeping areas. Can you give some insight into what is done? I'd assumed it was passive and all about locking every service entrance.
I used to work next to where this was built and the site was empty for ages. I imagine it got delayed due to money trouble at the time. They would have had a lot longer than usual to think about potential problems.
It's not just sunlight. A building that widens as it goes up will also focus wind. The effects are a bit more 'wave' than 'particle' - no beams, just constructive interference - but the principle is the same.
This reminds me so much of University of Illinois at Chicago. Most of the humanities are housed in this gigantic concrete monolith that widens as it went up, supposedly to represent the 'city of broad shoulders'. But ironically, it better captured the 'windy city' -- we'd fight yard-long patches of gale-force wind that would appear out of nowhere and steal your papers. "The architecture ate my homework" was a not unheard-of excuse -- and one that as a TA I actually honored on one occasion.
Did none of the architects, or even construction people, ever stop to consider that they're essentially building two giant, parabolic, solar death rays?
This ties into another pet peeve I have; bloody trees and grass in architectural drawings. It's nice to think you can grow anything at that height and wind, but physics has a tendency not to cooperate with idealized visions.
55 S. Almaden Blvd in San Jose used to have some nice scorch marks in the grass you could easily see in aerial imagery. Now, you have to get clever with the "45 degree" angle stuff, and swing around to a non-default view, but it looks like you can still see it.
Obviously the designer hasn't read Arthur C. Clarke's "Stroke of the Sun" short story (also known as "A Slight Case of Sunstroke"). It's well worth the five minute read:
Although originally envisioned in a naval-defence role, I could see it serving as a powerful weapon indeed in the hands of the buccaneers of The Crimson Permanent Assurance[1]
This is bad architecture, plain and simple. They are paid to account for everything because buildings can't be moved or updated easily without major headaches and expense. The idea that it was an oversight is ridiculous. Not accounting for sunlight in architecture? Unbelievable.
People get so incensed that they can't see the silver-lining: build some solar panel covering on the side walk, with a charging station where people can charge up their mobile devices. Alternatively, some enterprising street vendor (do they have those in london?) can focus the light further and sell people solar cooked food.
This is your reminder that buildings and software are not that dissimilar. Remember this news article whenever you hear someone blathering about how building software should be more like civil engineering.
As a former Civil Engineer, I can say that software is not anything like Civil Engineering. The consequences of software failure are (usually) significantly less and oddly you can't practice Civil Engineering in the US without a license.
There are some similarities as they both are designing a building stuff.
Software is significantly easier to test however.
Seems to me, if you're building a building primarily out of glass, you'd want to study the impact of the glare. There is a hotel in Las Vegas that has a similar problem. How can these building projects get approved, through so many people, and nobody once stops to think about the glare problem?
This principle is being used to generate power in Souther Spain. The system is described as a Concentrated Solar Thermal Power plus Molten Salt Storage (CSP+)
My favorite part of these things is that they highlight the odd things that can go wrong, even when they are considered and planned for. I haven't read this book yet, but the NYT summary makes me feel it would have a lot of info about the crazy things that happen with some engineering and unforeseen issues:
One fix would be to replace some of the building's windows with a less-reflective material. That means that they'll absorb more light, which would probably mean higher air conditioning costs inside the building.
Another possible fix would be to keep the same windows but to change their normal vectors into a different pattern (random or artistic). This might even look neat, if they do it right.
They could have an extra layer. The outside layer would absorb light, heating the air between in the middle, causing a chimney effect. Put turbines in and they're generating some energy.
[+] [-] aqme28|12 years ago|reply
Thus solving the problem once and for all.
[+] [-] MattBearman|12 years ago|reply
"ONCE AND FOR ALL!"
[+] [-] wil421|12 years ago|reply
How about they design a building right. If the 4 story condos I lived in previously were designed to be facing North and South so the sun didnt heat them up as much during the day. I would think a massive 37 floor building project in London would have taken into account the position of the sun as well.
[+] [-] dasil003|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swang|12 years ago|reply
"In addition, we are consulting with local businesses and the City to address the issue in the short-term, while also evaluating longer-term solutions to ensure the issue cannot recur in future."
[+] [-] arscan|12 years ago|reply
http://www.businessinsider.com/architect-behind-the-walkie-t...
[+] [-] moomin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessaustin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Roboprog|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ohwp|12 years ago|reply
But the Vegas one even has a curve. So there is a potential lethal focal point.
Sensational news item: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-hV_AawLSE
[+] [-] VladRussian2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shawn-furyan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iMark|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Irishsteve|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhandley|12 years ago|reply
The funny thing is that the focal point is literally just round the corner from the Monument which indicates where the great fire of London started. What they really need now is a roof of photovoltaic panels along the pavement, and they can really cash in on it.
Here's what it looked like today: https://twitter.com/MarkJHandley/status/375265729060163584/p...
[+] [-] toyg|12 years ago|reply
But then again, in two weeks we'll be back to grey skies, and we only get a real summer once every decade, so...
[+] [-] awhitty|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samatman|12 years ago|reply
Also known as the Cathedral of "Christ, my eyes!"
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Light
[+] [-] adrow|12 years ago|reply
http://www.dezeen.com/2013/09/04/cgi-artist-predicted-walkie...
[+] [-] willyt|12 years ago|reply
A developer hires an international 'starchitect' like Viñoly to design them an office block because the architects reputation for design helps them to get away with a larger building on the site and therefore get more net lettable area for their investment in land.
I don't know anyone who works for Vinoly, I've no idea what it's like to work for him, but I know other people who have worked in similar 'gesture architecture' practices and this is how it usually plays out:
The big boss will do a nice sketch of how he thinks a walkie talkie shaped skyscraper (or whatever shape is in fashion in the office) will fit on the site and then hand it off to a more junior member of staff to solve all the real problems. Meanwhile, he will have to go back to the international lecture/meet/greet circuit that pulls in the jobs and maintains their reputation for world class architecture.
The project team will then usually have a very tight deadline to produce the initial design, probably mostly drawn up by a team of recent architecture graduates who would be pretty low paid[1], and who will almost always end up working very long hours and weekends unpaid overtime to meet the deadline. Where the lead architectural practice is not based in the UK there will also be a local architect who will advise on local regulations, prepare the submissions for planning permission and generally deal with other regulatory authorities.
There will also be a large consultant team on a project of this scale. Probably consisting of two teams of civil engineers; one for superstructure and one for substructure. A geotechnical expert for the foundation design. A whole spread of HVAC engineers, probably separate mechanical, electrical, drainage and ventilation specialists. A facade engineer who specialises in problems specifically to do with the design of the glass cladding system. A fire engineer to design the fire escape strategy and help negotiate the fire fighting strategy with the local fire brigade. A vertical circulation engineer to design the lift and escalator strategy. A bomb blast engineer to model the effects of various bomb attack scenarios on the cladding and structure. A security consultant to advise on how defendable the building is and to design the cctv, active tramp deterrent systems :-( etc. Finally a quantity surveyor will advise on how much this will all cost.
All of these people will have been consulted briefly, probably mostly by video conference, across a couple of time zones, before the planning permission submission[2]. All their requirements have to be juggled between the different disciplines by the architect. As an architect who has done services coordination on skyscrapers and international airports, I can tell you it's not easy. One of the most frustrating things is that engineers from different disciplines don't talk to each other, even if they are working for the same firm. On top of this, the time allowed to prepare the planning submission will be a few months at most, and a lot of the effort will be spent on optimising the design and more importantly the presentation strategy to get through the planning permission process.
Once the planning permission submission has been approved, the overall shape of the scheme is fixed and hence the parabola shape can no longer be designed out. Therefore, if no-one notices a problem like this until after the planning submission, or perhaps fails to get someone higher up to take it seriously enough to change the concept design, then they will have to remedy it by using special anti glare coatings or just plain hoping it wont be too bad. This is for a couple of reasons: because the developer will be exerting large pressure to speed up construction as they will be paying a large amount of interest on the loan for the cost of the land, because consultancy fees to redo the design would be in the order of millions at this point and because getting planning permission for a scheme like this is very politically controversial so you don't risk doing it twice if you can avoid it.
So, you can probably see how something like this could easily have happened.
[0] Because it's pug ugly, not because of the solar death ray thing, that's quite amusing really. [1] Something like £20k per year in London, which is a crap salary after 6 years in University. [2] In the UK this is a semi-democratic consultation process which occurs at local government level and involves publicly presenting the designs to local councillors to give residents of the area a chance to raise a formal objection.
[+] [-] lambda|12 years ago|reply
Ah. I've always wondered why people pay "starchitects" to design horrible, hideous, poorly designed buildings. I've always figured that they were paying more to get something of worse quality, but figured that people were paying the premium just to be in vogue.
The reputation allowing them to get away with a bigger building on the same plot of land is a new explanation to me, and makes lots of sense.
[+] [-] nkoren|12 years ago|reply
(Although I'm far from enthralled by this building, I have to say that it actually looks better than I expected it to based on the utterly fugly renderings from a while ago. I can't imagine how it got through planning consent based on those.)
[+] [-] kghose|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ziel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HCIdivision17|12 years ago|reply
That said, what is the likelihood the form will be held to pay out in some way for this (say, either in replacing the glass wall or installing retractable shade awnings across the neighborhood)?
Tone edit: I certainly don't mean the project looks poorly done. Just that a fix would have required such a substantial redesign as to be prohibitively expensive compared to just hoping for the best.
[+] [-] porker|12 years ago|reply
I always wondered how buildings avoided becoming homes and sleeping areas. Can you give some insight into what is done? I'd assumed it was passive and all about locking every service entrance.
Great original post btw!
[+] [-] jsingleton|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8ig8|12 years ago|reply
BTW, thank you for the behind the scenes detail. I love learning how sausage is made.
[+] [-] coldarchon|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] undoware|12 years ago|reply
This reminds me so much of University of Illinois at Chicago. Most of the humanities are housed in this gigantic concrete monolith that widens as it went up, supposedly to represent the 'city of broad shoulders'. But ironically, it better captured the 'windy city' -- we'd fight yard-long patches of gale-force wind that would appear out of nowhere and steal your papers. "The architecture ate my homework" was a not unheard-of excuse -- and one that as a TA I actually honored on one occasion.
[+] [-] eksith|12 years ago|reply
This ties into another pet peeve I have; bloody trees and grass in architectural drawings. It's nice to think you can grow anything at that height and wind, but physics has a tendency not to cooperate with idealized visions.
[+] [-] scott_s|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rachelbythebay|12 years ago|reply
Edit: found the original pic: http://blog.collins.net.pr/2007_08_01_archive.html
[+] [-] biot|12 years ago|reply
http://www.archive.org/stream/Galaxy_Magazine_Volume_16_Numb...
[+] [-] tallpapab|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belorn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shabble|12 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crimson_Permanent_Assuranc...
[+] [-] ianstallings|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corobo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TomGullen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javajosh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pnathan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acomjean|12 years ago|reply
There are some similarities as they both are designing a building stuff. Software is significantly easier to test however.
[+] [-] moron4hire|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhartl|12 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Concert_Hall#Reflec...
They fixed it by lightly sanding the reflective surfaces in question.
[+] [-] tarice|12 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_Tower_%28Dallas%29#Confl...
Has yet to be fixed.
[+] [-] yaw|12 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasolar
[+] [-] mrcharles|12 years ago|reply
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jun/20/design-...
[+] [-] troymc|12 years ago|reply
Another possible fix would be to keep the same windows but to change their normal vectors into a different pattern (random or artistic). This might even look neat, if they do it right.
[+] [-] DanBC|12 years ago|reply
This might be stupid, but I'm off-the-cuffing after hearing about seawater greenhouses. (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/02/alternati...)