Not that they don’t make a convincing case, but if anything we have entered an accelerated period of tower construction since 9/11. Even in LA, home of the earthquake, we’re racing up as fast as we can. An example of the wonderful city of [...]]]> From the Bad Futurist Pantheon: The End of Tall Buildings

Not that they don’t make a convincing case, but if anything we have entered an accelerated period of tower construction since 9/11. Even in LA, home of the earthquake, we’re racing up as fast as we can. An example of the wonderful city of tomorrow, being brought to you today: the Staples Center expansion. Which completes our development cycle:

• Expired — suburbs
• Tired — exurbs
• Wired — downtown.

Repeat as necessary.

Mostly this Flickr group is definitive proof that no matter how garish the building, it will look cool as a 3-point perspective. I mean, check this out:

Photo by syd delicious. Thanks!

A pretty boring box made compelling and dramatic by perspective (though that column capital is sweet detailing). Which is [...]]]> Ohhhh, pretty shiny things!

Mostly this Flickr group is definitive proof that no matter how garish the building, it will look cool as a 3-point perspective. I mean, check this out:

Photo by syd delicious. Thanks!

A pretty boring box made compelling and dramatic by perspective (though that column capital is sweet detailing). Which is why, in architectural drawing class I was forbidden from drawing buildings this way; It’s tantamount to propaganda. Not that one has much choice when it comes to individual photography; aerial views are hard to come by.

Another prominent group member is the Hancock Center, which is the cliche building for engineers to favorite (we love visible lateral braces!), but I like it anyway. I’ve been told that offices with a restricted view are more prestigious, though I don’t quite believe it; sounds like a slick engineer’s sale pitch. Anyway, the vertical truss archetype:

Photo by GatoGaroto. Thanks!

It’s like the gods could tell I was looking for content and sent Pax Corey, prophet that he is, along to proclaim the wonder attrocity that is this planned Dublin development.  Of course it’s not so much phallic as cheese-grater-ish, but regardless represents a huge departure (at least in this rendering) [...]]]> …except, possibly “U2 Tower.”  <Cringe>

It’s like the gods could tell I was looking for content and sent Pax Corey, prophet that he is, along to proclaim the wonder attrocity that is this planned Dublin development.  Of course it’s not so much phallic as cheese-grater-ish, but regardless represents a huge departure (at least in this rendering) from Foster’s normally wonderful work.  I mean, yes, his London Gherkin is also an elongated protrusion:

But it has some neat features: the diagonal grid is the whole structural system (though there may be some interior columns as well) and consists of a single repeating joint and link (with slight variation to give a curved facade), which is pretty elegant.  Atriums intersect every level and follow the diagonal grid up, creating these beautiful sloping green spaces, hundreds of feet in the air.

So, the “U2 Tower” (the name requires quotation marks), will possibly have some redeemable features, but these are not immediately evident.  The apparent triangular grid on one side of the building doesn’t count, as this has become a Foster cliche.  Not that it’s a bad thing; just no longer original.  As for the suspended, egg shaped recording studio: WTF?  I have no idea.

The worst part is, as always, the lack of respect for context — and I don’t mean because the building is ‘modern’ in style.  That’s fine.  I mean that it’s ten times taller than any other building, dominating it’s neighborhood.  Randomly located skyscrapers is part of what I like to call the Los Angeles school of urban planning.  And what is LA most often used for in urban planning circles?  That’s right, a counterexample.  So don’t do it, Dublin.

Sometimes saying no is truly the Sweetest Thing.

The facility is being design by Norman Foster to be built in New Mexico, and according to Good:

Flights would (will?) begin in 2009 and cost somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. Just to be clear, the ships will take “travelers” [...]]]> I know I see body parts everywhere in buildings, but tell me this doesn’t look like labia:

The facility is being design by Norman Foster to be built in New Mexico, and according to Good:

Flights would (will?) begin in 2009 and cost somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. Just to be clear, the ships will take “travelers” up beyond the official boundary of space, give them six minutes of weightlessness, and return to the same spot on earth.

I’m all for space travel, but I think this group may be taking the “leaving the womb” thing to far.

This is the CCTV Tower by OMA and is currently under construction in Beijing. This is one of my favorite new projects, not because of its anatomical references, but because the density of the diagonal [...]]]> I’d like to take a break from my phallic series to bring you the cutting edge of skyscraper design: Vaginas.

This is the CCTV Tower by OMA and is currently under construction in Beijing. This is one of my favorite new projects, not because of its anatomical references, but because the density of the diagonal steel lattice was determined by the stresses experienced by the various regions of the structure. So the pattern of the building directly expressed what’s going on structurally. Plus it’s shaped like a mobius strip, and that’s just cool.

Then we have the Opus by Zaha Hadid, to be built in — wait for it — Dubai. I hope it’s sited so you can see the Borj Dubai threw the void, though I’m not sure humanity could survive symbolism on that scale. Anyway, this building’s less cool from an expressing structural engineering standpoint, but making it work will certainly be challenging. And I’m very much a fan of the free-form void; very sculptural.

(Update: Sorry for messing up Hadid’s name, though I do wish she were named Zaza.)

*Until they build Next Big Thing next year.

Above is the Burj Dubai, the biggest building in the world.  I’m glad the profits of petroleum resource exploitation are being well spent.  I mean, the tower’s obviously a bargain at $800 billion.

Of interest to me (if no one else), it appears to use a bundled tube structural [...]]]>

*Until they build Next Big Thing next year.

Above is the Burj Dubai, the biggest building in the world.  I’m glad the profits of petroleum resource exploitation are being well spent.  I mean, the tower’s obviously a bargain at $800 billion.

Of interest to me (if no one else), it appears to use a bundled tube structural system (think Sears tower), and they’re getting impressive mileage out of that old standby.  There are newer systems (such as the Mega-Structure system used in the Shanghai World Financial Center (pdf link)), that many professionals believe will produce the biggest buildings in the next few decades.  So, we’ll see what happens, maybe skyhooks aren’t that far off…

Anyway, your new headquarters for Gazprom, Russia’s [...]]]> I’m not sure what the right word is for how I feel about unfortunate towers. Part horrified, part impressed…I mean, it’s a giant train wreck suspended in midair! People watch Nascar for hours waiting for a crash, and here’s one continuously displayed for the joy of all.

Anyway, your new headquarters for Gazprom, Russia’s national gas company, to be built in St. Petersburg:

Unfortunately for the residents of San Diego, I doubt the project will be built as long as Shapery offers this defense of his [...]]]> Is that a banana in your skyline…or are you just happ—no, no. It’s definatly a banana. Hopefully, allegations that the tower is a to scale version of developer Sandor Shapery’s anatomy are unfounded.

Unfortunately for the residents of San Diego, I doubt the project will be built as long as Shapery offers this defense of his design:

“The whole concept is it’s really an organic form with no angles. Everything is flowing and rounded,” Shapery said. “People aren’t really looking at what the building is really about.”

Riiiiight….last time I checked penises (at least the organic ones) were carbon-based. And regardless of the internal functions, there’s no reason the building facade must feature an engorged top.

Plus the project architect, C.W. Kim, chips in with some arrogance:

Kim said the goal was to create a unique building. “You know, it’s the mediocre buildings that anyone can do. Anyone can do a square building,” Kim said.

Way to embrace the stereotype dude.

Of course, I may be wrong about the project’s prospects. Several of the commenters on this article at Treehugger think phallic buildings are super. Now, I mostly agree that the tower is just a shape and there’s nothing inherently wrong with a shape. (I say “mostly” since the enlarged tip of Shapery’s building goes too far in my opinion.)

However, their arguments are phallacious (ha ha) because height is imbued with meaning. This is why the CEO’s office is always depicted as the penthouse. As a building becomes more linear, it can represent greater extremes and a finer gradient of power within an organization — saying you worked your way to the top from the mailroom is a lot less meaningful if the “top” is actually down the hall. Similarly, knowing you’re one of 30 middle-managers is different than knowing there’s 23 middle-managers between you and the boss. Power inevitably has a spatial dimension, but skyscrapers exaggerate it.

Beyond the symbolism, it’s also true that people are less likely to communicate as often if they have to traverse stairs or elevators to do so — the office 10 feet above yours is much, much further away that the one 10 feet to the right. To the degree that your organization is a network that relies on communication, the skyscraper is not an asset.

Note that while the problem with phallic buildings is they promote hierarchy, this is not because building = penis = man = hierarchal social relations. It’s just a bad shape for a building without even getting into the politics of representation of penises.