[HN Gopher] Work begins on architects' cracked Denver residentia...
___________________________________________________________________
Work begins on architects' cracked Denver residential tower
Author : geox
Score : 71 points
Date : 2021-11-11 16:53 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.globalconstructionreview.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.globalconstructionreview.com)
| dirtyid wrote:
| Concept is fine, but I can't imagine this surviving Denver
| winters.
| caseyohara wrote:
| Denver winters are not exactly harsh, there's still plenty of
| sunshine in the winter months. Flora grows back in the spring,
| every other park survives the winter.
| rwmj wrote:
| In other news, the UK government rejected the London "Tulip"
| skyscraper: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59253160
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46259419
| leoedin wrote:
| I find it hilarious how public figures criticising the tower
| talk around the fact it looks like a giant penis. I also can't
| believe it was seriously proposed. I mean, look at it!
| quantified wrote:
| Is it the tulip's fault? At least it wasn't the Mushroom
| Tower.
| vgel wrote:
| I read this, thought "It can't be that bad", clicked it, and
| burst out laughing...
| JPKab wrote:
| I live outside of Denver, and I find this concept to be extremely
| exciting at an architectural level.
|
| That being said, it will be interesting to see how well the
| greenery in the "crack" will hold up to the extremely dry
| climate, as well as the extreme temperature swings in the area.
| I'm assuming they will use native species, which are amazingly
| hardy. Ponderosa pines and other tree species (Colorado Blue
| Spruce, etc) are known world-wide in the bonsai community for
| their extreme hardiness. I can drive 5 minutes west from my house
| and find excellent yamadori without walking more than 5 minutes
| from where I parked my car. Based on my experience with the
| extreme winds we get, especially on exposed, elevated building
| facades, I don't think anything other than native species will
| survive.
|
| I'm really looking forward to seeing this, although it's not
| clear I'll be able to get into the building, lol.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| It'd be really interesting to see how they will support all of
| this.
|
| The big reason green roofs are not very common is because dirt,
| particularly wet dirt, gets really heavy, as do any sizeable
| plants.
| hannasanarion wrote:
| The finished building will look nothing like the renders. The
| "crack" that's shown in all the renders as filled with lush
| greenery faces _north_. It will be in permanent shade. If they
| actually do plant all those trees, they 'll be dead within
| months.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Plenty of plants can grow in shade. And if you look at the
| render of the facade, it's not completely opaque...
| gchadwick wrote:
| Maybe the builders are capable of doing a 10 second web search
| to discover trees that grow in shade:
| https://www.thespruce.com/twelve-trees-for-full-
| shade-326967...?
| dasil003 wrote:
| All good, they'll just put one of these across the street:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_Fenchurch_Street
| jacquesm wrote:
| Shade is more constant than sun, so effectively this makes the
| end result much more predictable and less maintenance
| intensive.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| If you hike in temperate, mountainous areas, you'll find the
| greenest areas are on the north slopes (in the northern
| hemisphere--in other words, the shady side). Maybe not with the
| plants in the renders, but making it green shouldn't be a
| problem.
| lordofgibbons wrote:
| In dry areas like Colorado, that's because snow on the north
| facing slopes melt much later and provides water later in the
| season. So while the soil on the other sides are already dry
| when the sunlight is the strongest, the north slope soil
| still has water left.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| It's also ferns and moss that can't grow in direct sunlight
| and high temperatures (120+F ground under sunlight). You'll
| see this phenomenon even in areas where there's little or
| no snowpack, e.g. the Diablo range in California.
| conductr wrote:
| This can be said for nearly every architectural rendering. They
| aren't used by architects to build/design, they are used by
| sales to sell.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| There are plenty of tree and plant choices that don't need
| direct sunlight. Denver is a sunny city, with the right choices
| it will be green and thrive.
| booi wrote:
| It looks like to the south of the building is the river. They
| probably optimized that side for residential units to increase
| profits.
|
| That being said, they could always use massive lights to keep
| the trees alive...
| hannasanarion wrote:
| Nah, the river is on the other side of the traintracks
| further to the north. To the south is the Cole and Five
| Points neighborhoods, which are in early stages of
| redevelopment
| sjdksbldb wrote:
| The HN title makes no sense. It should be either "Work begins on
| MAD Architects' cracked Denver residential tower" or "Work begins
| on cracked Denver residential tower"
| testplzignore wrote:
| My first thought upon seeing the rendering: a giant jagged gash
| in a building reminds me of September 11th. Not the kind of thing
| I would want to see every day...
| pharke wrote:
| I'm curious as to why more high rise buildings don't incorporate
| "park floors" or large balconies. The walls are non-structural
| after all so you could push them further into the building and
| have an open air space. You could add extra headroom by making
| those floor taller as well.
|
| Is it simply a cost issue? Everyone is just trying to maximize
| "livable area" at the expense of not making the structure itself
| more livable?
| jdavis703 wrote:
| My building has this, and so do two others in my neighborhood
| in the unfashionable East Bay. These are all buildings that are
| 20+ floors. There's a outdoor space on the top "parking" decks.
| Then the actual towers are set back on a smaller floor plate.
| Then there's outdoor space on the roof deck of the tower.
|
| Not sure what the value to residents in shaded mid-floor
| outdoor space, vs having sun-filled decks in places that make
| structural sense. Mid floor parks are just an aesthetic
| embellishment for people outside the building.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| Yes, just a cost issue. The park floors is a really good idea,
| especially for very high density city developments.
|
| I had some ideas in similar thrust to yours, I think it's worth
| following up on.
|
| One of the cooler things you could do is space the floor plates
| so that you give people berths in a building. They then install
| walls and possibly a subfloor and run utilities. If they want
| to leave the space open they can, if they want to cut it up
| into rooms they can.
| hannasanarion wrote:
| Cost, and also practicality. Most of the "green building" plans
| that you see come from artists with no knowledge of
| construction or engineering working in 3D programs where
| everything is weightless, and all building materials are free
| and have infinite strength.
|
| Trees are _heavy_. Assuming a fairly mature tree with a 10-inch
| diameter trunk and around 20 feet of height, the wood alone
| weighs around 800 pounds, and that 's before you consider the
| soil that the tree sits in (100 lbs per cubic foot, so at least
| a ton for the whole planter) or the water that it needs (100
| gallons per week ~800 pounds)
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| Floor plate loading is 50-250lbs/sqft over the entire area,
| with hotspots far greater. If what you _really wanted_ was
| trees you could put them in there. I think he may have meant
| more just an open green area.
| athenot wrote:
| The trees and greenery make for a beautiful render, but I'm
| reminded of this article from 2013, "Can we please stop drawing
| trees on top of skyscrapers?"
|
| https://www.archdaily.com/346374/can-we-please-stop-drawing-...
| ashtonbaker wrote:
| I'm also reminded of
| https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contempo...
| trgn wrote:
| This kind of architecture is absolutely cringe-y. The architects
| basically out themselves as detached sociopaths, and the patrons
| out themselves as gullible idiots.
|
| A building like this is a shtick. "Cool" for about 5 minutes. It
| will not age gracefully. The people behind this project confuse
| architecture with sculpture.
| colordrops wrote:
| I'm curious, what are examples of architecture you admire?
| hannasanarion wrote:
| I like architecture that isn't covered in dead trees a few
| months after completion because the idiot billionaire funder
| doesn't understand that there's no sun on the north side of a
| building in the northern hemisphere.
| WJW wrote:
| Plenty of trees grow on the north side of hills though. Not
| every tree needs full sunlight.
| trgn wrote:
| Architecture which does not fetishize the engineering
| aesthetic, which is mindful of its impact on the public
| realm, and which does not consider the building-proper as an
| artistic expression in and of itself.
|
| Basically, anything before modernism, before WW1 is generally
| good. Or really, anything before cars. The rise of car
| culture and the decline of architecture are directly
| correlated.
|
| I personally had a hard time articulating why I found
| contemporary architecture so revolting, it was just a
| feeling. Then I found videos by Leon Krier
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFiYL8AvvnY), or Nathan
| Lewis's blog series on the topic
| (https://newworldeconomics.com/category/traditional-city-
| post...), and everything suddenly just clicked.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Wow, everything you list as bad is everything I consider
| good. Nothing is worse for a neighborhood than the tyranny
| of ordinances requiring homogenized, historic designs.
|
| It's a good thing there's more than one building in the
| world. Everyone should be able to live, work, and design
| spaces they like, within the local scale (so no 80 floor
| highrises next to houses if they don't want it, but props
| to the houses if they do want the highrise). That means you
| might end up with a glass box next to a pre-WW1 stone box.
| That's a good thing -- there's no reason a long-passed
| generation should have the final say in architecture at the
| expense of the present.
| GoToRO wrote:
| yes. All "modern" buildings have this "look at me!" design, but
| they are crap for residents.
| f00zz wrote:
| Nah, personally I think MahaNakhon in Bangkok looks pretty
| cool.
| trgn wrote:
| That's exactly my point. Buildings should not look "cool",
| they should look timeless. A good building needs to last
| centuries. What looks cool now, will look stupid 5 years from
| now. It's fine if a building looks off its time, it's not
| fine if a building looks like a joke.
|
| When the only assessment we can make about a creative work,
| e.g. a building (but fine arts just as well), is that it
| looks "cool", or "interesting", or "contemporary", or
| "futuristic", what that really means is that we are hesitant
| to say it looks "beautiful", "attractive", "timeless". Strong
| assessments like the latter are axiomatic and require a
| confidence in your aesthetic sensibilities. That these
| sensibilities are globally shared, that you are empathetic
| enough to step outside of your own head and look at it as an
| older person, as a child, as somebody who won't be born until
| a century from now.
|
| Modern spectacle architecture (like that Bangkok tower) today
| does not inspire that confidence. It defies being called
| beautiful, because innately we experience it as not that. It
| might look "cool", or futuristic, but that's about it. A
| building like that is infantile branding, it looks like a
| tetris-game because the kind of people who design and finance
| this are childish, confusing technological prowess with worth
| and beauty.
| jdmichal wrote:
| Once upon a time, even having a skyscraper at was "cool"
| and stood out. Now I'm sure you laud those early buildings
| as "timeless".
|
| Once upon a time, that all-glass skyscraper was "cool" and
| stood out, even among the other skyscrapers. Now, we don't
| blink twice at such towers being stood up.
|
| My point being that architecture as a field and as an art
| form both progress forward in society. Right now buildings
| like the MahaNakhon stand out. In the future, they may just
| be the first instances of the next "timeless" trend.
|
| Also, there's plenty of beauty to find in the MahaNakhon,
| especially at night... And I'll talk for myself in saying
| that I find beauty in the execution of technological
| prowess. The same way I see beauty in well-laid masonry or
| tile design. They're just using different material.
| sigstoat wrote:
| they're going to have to pump in stupendous amounts of water to
| keep that much plant life green, 6 to 16 stories up off the
| ground, in colorado. hopefully they can at least use the
| building's own greywater or something.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I feel like this can look gorgeous and thought provoking if
| people manage to keep the greenery looking as-intended.
|
| I wonder if they do worst case renderings too or if they just
| focus entirely on their art project.
| lathyrus_long wrote:
| Here's an article on the technical challenges of a different
| treed building, Italy's Bosco Verticale:
|
| https://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/download/2099-a-ne...
|
| The weight of the soil and water isn't negligible, but it's not
| that bad. Most plants will grow happily in a tiny fraction of
| their root volume in nature, as long as precise irrigation
| delivers water (or fertilizer solution) just as it's needed. The
| practical root volume is probably chosen mostly based on the
| longest expected fault in the irrigation system.
|
| The tiny root system also provides a very weak attachment to the
| building. Bosco Verticale strapped each tree to a vertical steel
| cable, plus various additional restraints.
| jdkee wrote:
| I wonder if this building will have issues with water damage 25
| years from now.
| blakesterz wrote:
| This is not the story I thought it would be based on that title!
|
| "The "crack" in the facade, which covers 10 storeys, is a
| reference to Colorado's dramatic mountain scenery." So it's
| designed to look like it has this crazy crack in it. I wonder
| what that'll look like in real life, the renders are...
| interesting.
|
| I figured this was another building that's in danger of falling
| like San Francisco's slowly cracking up Millennium Tower.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Reading the headline and seeing the image for the first time, I
| legitimately thought the building was cracked and broken in
| real life and doomed. Looks pretty neat once I realized what it
| really was.
| tromp wrote:
| Reminds me of the Vinoly office tower in Amsterdam, although that
| has a straight crack spiraling around the building:
|
| https://www.brandveiligmetstaal.nl/upload/Image/projecten/pr...
| objclxt wrote:
| I am reminded of the BEST stores, many of which were designed to
| look like they were falling apart or unfinished:
|
| https://www.archdaily.com/778003/the-intersection-of-art-and...
| mzs wrote:
| neat:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Best_Products#More_Histor...
|
| > ... An order was written up and turned into one of the
| service desks and sent to the warehouse in a plastic tube
| "shot" through a pneumatic line. The tube was opened by an
| order picker who read the catalog numbers on the order slip
| which told the picker where the merchandise was located in the
| warehouse. It was picked, the slip was attached to the product,
| it was sent down a roller belt where a carbon copy of the order
| slip was given to a cashier who paiged the shopper to the
| register. The transaction was completed and the customer took
| the receipt to the pick up area and received their product when
| they were ready to leave the store. Seems like alot of work,
| but the entire process was done in less than five minutes time.
| ...
| owyn wrote:
| B&H photo has something like this too. When you want to buy
| something, they bring it up from the warehouse.
|
| [1] https://www.core77.com/posts/81735/BnHs-Innovative-
| Overhead-...
| jacquesm wrote:
| We had stores like that in NL, the 'Kijkshop' concept, they
| went bust a while ago. Limited selection of marginal quality
| goods. But no shoplifting and no broken stuff on display.
| the-dude wrote:
| And there was pneumatic messaging ( buizenpost ) at retail
| shops ( I only remember C&A ).
| jacquesm wrote:
| Banks as well for money, and internal mail at many large
| companies.
| Larrikin wrote:
| Disappointed that there were atleast two in Richmond and I
| never saw the interesting one.
|
| There was a Best right down the street and it was my favorite
| store as a kid to explore, but it was in a generic strip mall.
| Spent a lot of time there playing the Sega Genesis display.
| Aromasin wrote:
| I must admit, I do like the design, but why don't we get
| buildings where the crack style extends to the whole structure? I
| can think of 1000's of artist renders of what the architecture of
| the future will look like (eg.
| https://www.yankodesign.com/images/design_news/2020/04/25979...),
| but I can't think of one building when I've seen it put into
| practice. I've seen much less feasible designs engineering wise
| made into reality. Why are these "utopic" buildings left to
| fiction?
| Arainach wrote:
| Because they're dramatically more expensive than standard
| rectangular prisms for comparatively little benefit and
| significantly less usable/sellable square feet per acre.
| dymax78 wrote:
| Reminds me more of an avant garde design by BIG than MAD.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-11 23:01 UTC)