Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange
On this forum it's an informal 'slang' word for panels that span an area of the facade (spanning panel = spandrel). It has become so prevalent because these metal/glass panels are often ugly/bland vast areas of new buildings that define 'cheap and quick architecture' that will inevitably become problematic as they age. We needed a word to quickly refer to this issue.
Shrinking seals and corrosion of screws, rivets and brackets will inevitably mean these vast areas will be replaced in 20-40 years at great expense.
I will be around then and shaking my head, remembering the previous leaky condo debacle.  |
Yes, like I said, I understand how and why you all use it the way you do . . . so thanks for explaining it yet again.
But, the rest of your statement is simply wrong. There is nothing cheap about them
per se.
Architect's note: In the 'old days' architects would have simply used (without questioning + it was the only option) glass everywhere, except for the bands of true spandrel, and the occupants would have to deal with how to 'occupy' those walls on the inside - piling stuff against them, applying opaque panels in front of them (inside), pushing furniture up against them . . . all of which worked poorly and was an incredible mess from the outside. Fortunately, back then, such buildings were built with large unit floor areas (for wealthy occupants) and wall space was not at a premium. The buildings we are referring to house small units in which wall space is at a very high premium and the system manufacturers reacted to fill a void in the market: solid panels that can be made, like the glass ones, into a range of sizes and shapes. Architects have latched onto them because they offer a lot of flexibility in making small unit layouts possible while maximizing their occupiability. Full on glass exteriors do the opposite within this market framework.
In technical terms, these panels are part of the curtain system, and are detailed and function in the exact same manner as the glass panels. They share the same profiles, gaskets and frame; the same thermal breaks, the same water drainage routing, and the same air equalization profiles. They will last as long as the glass. I have no idea where the stupid idea that they are some cheap afterthought came from.
There is nothing in this sentance that is true: "Shrinking seals and corrosion of screws, rivets and brackets will inevitably mean these vast areas will be replaced in 20-40 years at great expense." The seals and fasteners have been developed over decades and are the same as for the glass panels; there are no rivets, or brackets (unless you mean the framework, which again is the same as for the glass, and the same type as has been sitting on downtown towers for decades, and there is no threat of early replacement: for the durations we accept with modern structures, these systems are bombproof.
So, like I said, I'm not expecting to change how people use the term. But, you use it incorrectly nonetheless. And the myths about it that you are propagating are just ill-informed and wrong. Why do you put them forward when you don't know for sure what you are claiming?
Lastly: yes, yes, yes, the vast majority of the current applications have yeilded ugly weak designs. The panels work for the interiors, for livability, but architects are being incredibly lazy in how they translate these interior based issues to the exterior design, which of course, requires a larger scale to its order and appearance.
Threaded Mode