Quote:
Originally Posted by bhawk66
Mistake? So how could it have otherwise been avoided considering the overall design? Do you know something they don't? There was a problem and they addressed it. The "originally intended design" was flawed. They fixed it. And well done, imo.
(name me five buildings in the US that looks like Vista)
|
The simplest explanation always points to 432 park. If you understand the constraints well, elements like a blow through are purposefully incorporated into the design. The design reflects that understanding. It is an actual example of form following function. The design, after all, isn't just aesthetics. Vista has been a running exercise of fairly dramatic amendments to work function into a form.
I look at the gradient glass treatment and see a good solution to a change from the original intent. That also strikes me as the kind of thing the design team may typically have to do during any normal VE process. (I suspect angled glass would have been much better at reinforcing the shape, but the end result is still interesting)
But then you look at the blow through, the vents, the way the angled shear walls deeply encroach into the floor plans and they all look like a different kind of problem—things that are much easier to interpret as 'mistakes.' They have engineered outcomes, but I can't shake the thought that more experienced architecture firm would have better understood, or at least anticipated some of these constraints.
Personally, I would really love to see what kind of alternative solutions were offered to all of these big decisions. Like, why are the permitter shear walls angled, but then the perimeter columns are vertical and staggered? Was that really the best way to do it or is it a cost consideration? Would more frustums have been more structurally rigid, fewer? What if the vents were distributed up and down the whole building, but only in the waists where they would reinforce the "shadow" of the gradients?
Prev
Linear Mode
