Dubai On The Road to Ecological Disaster

I know that Dubai and the Middle East has dominated my recent posts, but I felt that in touching on the senseless extravagance with which buildings are put up there, I would also touch up on some of the consequences of Dubai's current urban planning system or lack there of.

Many experts, one of whom is Thom Mayne, winner of the 2005 Pritzker Award warns that Dubai will become an ecological disaster if development continues in it's current direction. The speed of construction and apparent destruction of ecosystems in turning land to sea, sea to land and desert to a habitable mainland has not been something that building developers in Dubai have concerned themselves with in recent years and many indigenous species have been endangered because of this.
Also, the urban development of Dubai has not done much to accommodate for public transportation making it much worse than cities like Los Angeles for the commuters. This means more cars on the road for longer hours and a higher release of Carbon IV Oxide (Carbon Monoxide) into the atmosphere.

Another aspect that has been overlooked is the fact that in the heat of Dubai, having buildings with so much exposed fenestration puts a huge load on the HVAC system and negates the "green" claims of the architects because there aren't any energy savings as units have to work at double capacity. Having towers with different micro-climates within the same building doesn't help matters either.

The study was done specifically for Dubai but I think that this is true for most of the emirates, Saudi Arabia especially. Not much though is being given to the impact of this rapid ,"over-the-top" construction on the environment because they have enough money to build whatever they want. Now I'm not hating really. Just pointing out that they are destroying their respective environments.

Image obtained from www.mennobars.com
For more info, check www.bdonline.co.uk

World's Tallest Building. Another One?

Actually, two more! Hot on the heels of the Burg Dubai is a proposal, revealed 4 days ago, for a 3,280 ft high tower again in Dubai. Local city developer Nakheel, the company responsible for the famous man-made islands off the coast of Dubai reported that the tower will be the center piece of the new inner city harbor, new Dubai, that is to become the emirate's new capital. Though specifics of the building and estimated budget were not given, Nakheel executive Christopher O'Donnell stated that this would be a multi-billion pound undertaking that is projected to topout in late 2018.

The Nakheel tower, as it has now come to be known, will stretch for about 200 floors, need over 150 lifts and be built of 700,000 pounds of concrete but specific solutions for many challenges have not been outlined in the proposal. Some of these are the fact that due to the height of the tower, it will experience more than 5 different micro climate conditions throughout its floors. As the temperature at the top could be as much as 10 degrees cooler than the ground floor.

As impressive or ambitious as this might be, the Nakheel tower will eventually be over taken by the "Mile-High" Tower, already commissioned by Saudi prince Al-Walid Bin Talal, one of the richest men on earth I might add. The tower gets its name from its height. That's right! It will be exactly 1 mile high, approximately 5,280 feet, have an estimated budget of $20 Billion and is to be located in the Northern Obhur district of Jeddah in Saudi Arabia.

The tower has been designed to contain it all, from residences, office and commercial spaces and a few 5 star hotels but as to be expected, the technical challenges are enormous! For example, much of the lifting will have to be carried out by specialized helicopters which will also be used as commuter transportation for the builders. Also, like the Nakheel tower, there will be a number of micro-climates within the building which will need to be addressed as well as the fact that the temperature in the area drops from about 120 degrees during the day to below freezing at night. But the most important of all is the building's resistance to strong prevalent winds to stop it from swaying. To address this last concern, Betchel engineering, responsible for the tower construction, is specifying a giant computer-operated damper with wind detecting sensors to control resonant motion and building drift.

Well, I really don't have much to say except that this is ridiculous! Just to compete and say "mine is bigger than yours?" How silly! I'm sure there are many poor children in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and all over the world that could have benefited better from all the billions that will be spent on these two buildings. I am a big fan of seeing great strides taken in building technology and ground breaking designs setting precedents for us to follow but this one is way too extravagant.

Images obtained from www.dailynews.com

Burg Dubai: World's Tallest Building!

I think we have all gotten used to the extravagance with which buildings are erected in Dubai and the Burg Dubai (which simply means Dubai Tower in Arabic) with its initial $4 billion budget embodies that perfectly. Though still under construction, with its topout set for September of 2009, the tower is already the tallest structure in the world standing (as of Sept 26th of this year) at 2,320 ft or 707m. To give you an idea of how tall it is, the Petronas Towers are 1,482 ft; spire and all. Though the final height is still being kept a secrete, from the planned 162 floors, the completed height is being projected at about 2,297 ft.

The tower's architect Adrian Smith, formerly of SOM, explains that he derived his design from patterning systems found in much of Islamic architecture, with the triple lobed footprint of the building based on an abstracted version of the flower hymenocallis and gives a Y-shaped floorplan which helps maximize views. The Burg Dubai, which is part of the 0.8 sq mi development called "Downtown Dubai," is located along Sheikh Zayed road at Doha Street and like most highrises is composed of a central core but this will eventually emerge from the rooftop to be tapered and sculpted into a spire. As the tower rises back from its base, staggered setbacks at each element occur in an upward spiralling pattern thereby decreasing the tower's cross-section.

The structural materials used are primarily reinforced concrete and steel which created challenges on how to pump more than 110,000 tonnes of concrete vertically as the building progressed and also have the mix withstand the Gulf temperatures which can reach 122 degrees during the day. The South Korean construction company, Samsung Engineering and Construction (the same responsible for the Petronas Towers and the Taipei 101) combated these problems by pouring the concrete at night and adding ice thereby cooling the mixture and allowing it cure evenly and prevent possible cracks.

I have spoken with many of my peers about the Burg Dubai, some love it and some hate it with a passion but I think it is an amazing feat of architectural technology. Now, I don't think any country needs a tower that high until we come to the point where we have used up all our land resources and can only go upwards. I am never a fan of buildings that are tall just for the sake of being tall because they never relate to their surroundings. But you cannot evaluate buildings in Dubai with the same standards one would use elsewhere. Dubai sets its own standards in design and we can only marvel at the outcome every time. The only issue I have with this tower is the fact that at its tallest levels, it currently sways with a maximum displacement of all of 4 ft. I don't know what they have done to address how occupants would feel or maybe one requirement to leasing any top level space, which by the way are already going for $4,500 per sq ft, is being impervious to sea sickness.

Images obtained from www.madarchitect.org/super-structures

Spotlight On England's Biggest C02 Offenders

In the United Kingdom, a test done to determine the level of C02 emissions from many of the prominent buildings in the country yielding astounding results with many of the so called green buildings receiving failing grades. This test, which came about as a direct result from the new national law to curb carbon emissions and improve energy efficiency in the country, sought to measure emissions from buildings to determine which needed to be redesigned and upgraded to be more efficient.

Approximately 18,000 buildings, including town halls, schools, museums and banks have now been tested by the National Department for the Environment to discover their level of energy efficiency and assign a grade, where an "A" is the highest obtainable and a "G" is a failing grade. From the bottom up, both the Palace of Westminster and the Bank of England scored a G consuming enough energy to pump out 21,356 tonnes of C02 a year.

Many newer buildings, initially marketed as green also fared badly calling into question many of the sustainable claims made by architects and developers. For example, London's city hall scored an abysmal E despite Foster & Partners initially describing it as "a virtually non-polluting public building." The building for the Treasury Headquarters in Whitehall and Libeskind's Imperial War Museum shared a similar grade even though the former had received a complete refurbishment six years ago and both projects were supposed to set "new environmental standards in their respective counties."

Many of the other evaluated buildings in the country received an average grade of a D with only 22 buildings scoring an A (less than 1%) also showing that almost a fifth of all carbon dioxide emissions in the U.K are caused by non-residential buildings. Matt Bell, director of public affairs at the commission for Architecture and the Built Environment stated, "We review about 350 significant new build projects a year at design phase and hear a lot of 'greenwash.' The knowledge that from now on, this performance will be objectively measured should put an end to all those baseless claims."

All these results have made the government pledge to make all new public buildings zero emission by the year 2018 but it looks like they'll have to start in their own backyard as the Department of Environment's main office received an E. So now we have to wonder if "Green" has just become a label slapped on to projects to make them more salable and again ask the question, "who really designs green?"

Image (Imperial War Museum, Manchester) obtained from www.guardian.co.uk

Software! Which is better for what?

The specific roles of the the draftsman and architect have changed over the years as have the media used to communicate their ideas. From primarily graphite on vellum to the host of software programs we use today, we have given a great deal of life to presentation drawings. When I talk about programs for architectural drawings and modeling, I don't mean those things you can find at Costco and Office Depot for kitchen remodeling that make lay people like Brad Pitt think that he is an architect. I mean detailed and professional programs architects use to communicate ideas and create the masterpieces of design construction we see today.

Though older architects don't have much good to say about computer generated drawings, citing how it has made us all lazy and imprecise, I think they have all helped us achieve more; not only in making pretty drawings but also in understanding what we are putting up and how each component will fit in with each other. It is also easier for architects to coordinate with consultants by just xreffing files. God knows what they did back in the day of just hand drawings.

Still, with different software to chose from, which is better overall? I learned to use a couple of programs well and still don't think there is any one generally better than the other. Instead, I have developed certain preferences that have allowed me to use almost every program I know for some specific aspect of any project I'm working on.

Autocad is till the preferred program because everyone has got it and that makes it easier to speedily share information with all consultants especially engineers so I tend to use cad for all details; floor plans, sections, call outs, etc.

Archicad is one program that I have come to love because it saves me so much time. As you complete the floor plans, it generates elevations and the 3d model for you. For sections, all you have to do is select the cut line on the floor plan and it will develop the section. So as long as your floor plans are accurate, that's the only drawing you really have to do yourself. Unfortunately, very few professionals in the United States use archicad. It is bigger in Europe especially in the U.K so you really can't send a consultant an archicad file and expect that they will be able to open or know how to use it. So I tend to just use archicad for interior perspectives. It does the best interior renderings I seen from most software!

Google sketch up is one that seems to be very commonly used and I use it solely to generate forms and building massing. You can't particularly use it for any details and it renders horribly if you don't have any of the new plug-ins for sketch up like podium and turbosketch. These help make the renderings more realistic and take away that cartoony look sketch up images tend to have. They also allow you to add crisp artificial lighting to your model. Still, images always print a little too dark so I would suggest touching them up in photoshop first.

Autodesk Revit has been catching on in the design industry lately and seems to be only a few years away from replacing autocad. For users of cad, this program might be quite complicated as there are a lot of tools to master. Though it also works like archicad in generating elevations and the 3d model as you draw the floorplans, I'm not impressed with the renderings at all. They are almost as bad as sketch up though it seems the Revit 2009 version might have addressed that issue. The two things that I really like about it is that it generates a schedule as you design the model and you can import your sketch up model, interject floor levels and foundations and begin to add interior details. This is really great if you are designing a highrise. You can create your massing in sketch up and import it into revit. Design a floor and multiply it vertically as many times as you need to. You can always go into each floor plan and customize it if you don't want all to be too similar. You can set it to replicate every other floor, every 5, 6 or whatever you need. Imagine having to do all that in cad!

One software that is great but not too common is Bryce. Bryce 6.1 is great for creating really stunning landscapes! Mountain ranges, realistic skies, ice caps, whatever you need. I tend to use this for the sky lab and just import a jpeg of my model into it. So if you have a project out in the boonies and going out there and taking a picture is not too feasible, then you might want to use bryce but that is all you can do with it though. You really can't design realistic buildings. I've been able to make little ships and huts but buildings; not so much.

Form-Z and 3D studio max are great for importing images and rendering them realistically. I've never really used studio max much so I don't have too much to say about it. Form-z I have used for rendering images I did in sketch up and 3d models from cad (this was before I began to use archicad and revit and before podium and turbosketch were created). So in the light of the other options today and considering how long it takes to really master Form-z, I would say that the end does not really justify the means. Some people really good with form-z might disagree with me on that but all in all, time is essential in architecture. Anything that allows you complete a project faster is always better and worth investing in but form-z is not.

Maya and Rhino are two programs that I haven't used much personally because they don't seem to be for anything strictly architectural. They are more for video games and other fancy types of computer modelling. I haven't seen anything relating to building design. If there are any maya or rhino experts out there that disagree, please educate me.

So what was the point in all this? Well, I think that the more programs you can use, the better but it is really about what you are comfortable with and I also wanted to let you know whats out there. The more familiar you are with one program, the better and faster you will be with it and like I said, speed is good but instead of trying to do everything with one program, decide what aspect of it works best for you as no program will work well for everything you want to do. I think a project comes out better when you can combine the best of all programs in your arsenal than trying to use just one.

All images from IDesigners. All rights reserved.

The Shadowless Pyramid Of Paris

A historical breakthrough this summer in the French capital's strict planning regulations has galvanized the design for a series of new and exciting towers to be built within the city. For over thirty years, Paris' building industry has literally laid low with a ban on buildings over 120ft in height instated by Jacques Chirac during his term as mayor of Paris in 1977.

City officials unanimously voted off the ban this July to combat the city's current housing shortage and invigorate the economy. This spurred the generation of 20 new highrise designs for the city, the first of which is Herzog & de Meuron’s Le Projet Triangle to be located at Porte de Versailles in Southern Paris. The tower is a giant high glass pyramid set to revamp the city's skyline. Standing at 590 feet or 50 stories, upon its topout in 2014 it will be the third tallest building in Paris. It is designed to house offices, a conference center, a 400 bedroom hotel, restaurants and cafes all to be powered by wind and solar energy.

Though the Le Projet Triangle is an Eco-friendly structure filled with many green features and facets, what seems most impressive of all is that, according to the architects, it wont cast shadows on adjacent buildings. The trick seems to be the orientation and shape of the structure: while it look like a massive pyramid from some elevations, other perspectives show it as an ultra thin structure.

The architects have no doubt that the building will successfully integrate itself into the city's landscape and evoke the urban fabric which is one the one hand classic (echoed by the pyramidic Northern facade) and ultra-modern, shown by the thin Southern facade. The actual location of the building links what is known as "petit" and "grand parcs," the two parts of the Parc de Expositions.

I would like to start of by just saying "WOW." I love the look of the Pyramid and am impressed with the concept of not casting any shadows on the surroundings. Still, there are a few things I am concerned about. There has not been any budget set for this project yet because many of the planned green aspects of the project are still undefined as are specifics on how it will generate its own energy showing that it has not quite transitioned out of the conceptual phase. Also, I wonder how the average Parisian will take this design. The Eiffel tower and the Pyramid of the Louvre were not received well though the rest of the world praised them for being forward thinking and revolutionary, particularly as it still does not blend well with its environment.

All in all, I think that this is a very exciting project and am happy that officials in the city planning department were smart enough to realize that lifting the ban would not only help with the housing situation but enable Paris to take its place alongside other cities today showcasing their advances in architectural technology and construction.


Images obtained from www.ecofriend.org
For more info, check http://gizmodo.com/5056228/new-paris-building-casts-no-shadows-generates-electricity

Out With The Old, In With The New

Usually, most cities look to revitalize their blighted down towns with new development but the city of Las Vegas has chosen a new approach. To build a new downtown right next to the decaying one creating a new "center city" that underscores the extravagance that Las Vegas is known for.

In April, the city formally inaugurated a new urban core on a 61-acre undeveloped parcel of land (a portion of which was formerly occupied by the Boardwalk Hotel and Casino, the Bellagio hotel employee parking lot and other stand alone commercial structures) for the new city center which is to be a 16,797,000 square foot mixed use project currently under construction by MGM Mirage on the Las Vegas strip. Though much of this land was fallow brownfield, its acquisition entailed numerous legal fights over the years and use of eminent domain.

Unlike most other themed resorts along the strip, the city center has been designed to include multiple highrise structures incorporated with contemporary urban design. The master plan designed by Ehrenkrantz Eckstut and Kuhn Architects, seeks to make this a pretty self sufficient mini city composed of its own fire station, an on-site power plant for reclaiming water, approximately 2, 670 condo and condo-hotel units and almost 5,000 hotel rooms distributed over several highrise and mid rise towers, a 400 room hotel and casino, two 400 room hotel boutiques (whatever those are) a 500,000 square foot retail and entertainment district which will house the first grocery store on the strip and an Alzheimer's research center, designed by Frank Gehry.

With a total cost of approximately $11billion, this is the largest privately funded project in the history of the United States and with its focus on art, center city will be host to some of the world's most renowned sculpture artists including Maya Lin, Jenny Holzer, Coosje Van Bruggen and many others.

Now I know that Las Vegas likes to do everything on a grand and ridiculous scale but I think some aspects of this project are unnecessary. Does Vegas need More hotels, condo units and casinos? No they don't. With the economy being what it is now, how many of us will be vacationing in any of those planned units in the near future? Many of the other projects for the city center I think will be more beneficial to the city, like Gehry's proposed Alzheimer's center (hopefully this time he tries to design something that looks like it belongs on earth) but all the highrise hotels are not needed in a city that is already saturated with them. I don't think projects should be proposed on a whim but only if they would be significantly beneficial to its surroundings and the city as a whole. So I would say scrap most of those condo and hotel-condo units, the city doesn't need that many and scrap the casinos cause I don't think they need more in Vegas. Everything else can stay.

Image obtained from www.nytimes.com
For more info, check www.vegastodayandtomorrow.com/citycenter.htm

Post 9/11 Building Codes part II

After much evaluation, the General Service Administration (GSA) has redefined its position on specific issues under consideration by the International Code Council.

The GSA has redrawn its proposal to reduce the requirements for fireproofing steel members in highrise buildings over 42 stories. Reports from the NIST has shown that the primary reason for the collapse of the World trade Center towers was the fact that the fireproofing on the steel members was blown off in the explosion caused by the jet fuel. This caused the members to be exposed to extreme heat which weakened their strength.

Still, the GSA viewed the more stringent requirements as unneccessary, and way too expensive. After much criticism from numerous fronts including a scalding letter from Senator Hillary Clinton, the GSA has softened its stance on this issue and is now supporting the International Code Council's position.

Also, there seems to have been a compromize regarding the proposed third egress stairwell required in all towers overs 420 feet. This compromize will be a third elevator capable of functioning even in the event of power failure in the building and the widening of the two required stairwells which will facilitate occupancy evacuation.

I would like to start off by appologising to my readers for not having any new posts for so long. I had a project that took up way too much of my time the past few weeks. Anyway, I am happy that the GSA has finally been made to see past their greed and realize that occupant safety is a higher priority than lining their pockets and would like to thank senator Clinton for helping lean on them.


Image obtained from www.nytimes.com
For more info, go to www.csemag.com/article/CA6593763.html

Controversy Over Designs for Cologne's New Mosque

Earlier this month, despite tremendous opposition, Cologne's City Council approved designs to allow construction of what will be Germany's largest mosque within Ehrenfeld, an industrialized district of Cologne.

The structure is estimated to cost between 15 and 20 billion euros and will be financed by over 800 private groups in Germany. Construction will be completed in 2010 by the locally based Turkish Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB) which has close ties to Ankara. The mosque designed by German architects Paul and Gottfried Bohm will be a domed building with glass walls and two 180 foot minarets, one-third the height of the towers of the Cologne Cathedral. The building will be flanked by highrise office complexes so the DITIB has agreed no to broadcast the daily prayers over loudspeakers.

Though the architects initially saw their design as being welcomed by all Cologne residents and viewed as "an architectural masterpiece that tour buses will take people to see after they visit the Cologne Cathedral," the building as met with heavy opposition from numerous parties including the Conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), Cologne's Roman Catholic Bishop and extreme right activist who have drummed up support from as far as Austria and Belgium.

Indeed, the opposition has triggered anger in the middle east with the Iranian Foreign Ministry urging France, as the current European Union President, to block the protests in Cologne by far-right activist from all around Europe. The IFM also expressed their fears that the protests over the approved mosque designs are increasing "anti-Islamic sentiments in Europe." Pro-Cologne leaders who head the protests, say that they support Muslims' rights to live in Germany provided they learn the language and "actively demonstrate" a willingness to integrate but they say that such a large mosque has "no place in traditionally Roman Catholic Cologne."

When I first heard of the protest, I initially thought it had something to do with the designs themselves or some component of it but the protests seem to be more about the symbolism of the mosque and the not so warm feelings Germans have of Islam. I think that the designs are pretty intriguing but outside of that, I'm not touching this one people! It was just an interesting issue going on right now that I thought you all would like to know. But I would like to ask; in situations like this, how can architecture separate itself from the controversy of religion and be just about the building and all issues that follow building design?


Images obtained from www.spiegel.de/international
For more information, check www.salon.com/wires/ap/world/2008/09/12/D9358V980_germany_mosque_protest

Post 9/11 Building Codes too Stringent?

The General Services Administration (GSA), a federal agency which serves as the government's property manager within the United States has joined some of the nation's biggest landlords in trying to repeal stronger safety requirements for new skyscrapers, that were added to the UBC and IBC last year arguing that they would be too expensive to implement.

The new provisions are based on a report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which issue safety standard recommendations after building catastrophes, and now requires all non-residential buildings over 420 feet or about 40 stories to have more robust fireproofing and a third stairwell for emergency egress. Also, the new codes would require all buildings taller than 75 feet to have "glow in the dark" markings on stairwells as a back-up in case the power goes out. The fireproofing in itself must be capable of withstanding an impact of 1,000 pounds per square foot and could cost real estate developers $13million for a 42 story building as well as $600,000 a year in lost rent due to decreased rentable floor space.

David Frable, a GSA fire safety engineer argued that, "It does not take a NIST report or a rocket scientist to figure out that requiring extra stairs will increase general occupant evacuation times but the question that needs to be answered is at what economic cost to society?" Frable and many others from the GSA have written petitions to the International Code Council to rescind the changes this week at the Minneapolis Code Council meeting.

As the debate rages on, one consideration that might be made is to replace the third stairwell with specially designed elevators that can reliably operate during a fire or any event of power outage. The GSA are hoping that this will help recover lost building space and money to what they describe as "an emotional reaction to the 2001 attacks that has led to unrealistic and unnecessary new building standards."

Well, I am not surprised that the GSA, who are really developers are more interested in overall profit above the occupant's safety. I know that the Sept 11 attacks were isolated cases and there is a very slim chance that another plane could come crashing into another highrise but as long as there is that likelihood of occurrence, everything should be done to prepare for it. I do understand the concern about reduced square footage within the building but safety is a higher priority. That is what architecture is about! Not just pretty building to fatten a landlord's purse but a place of refuge and safety for the tenants.

This new standard is no different from designing for earthquakes which definitely requires more money for something that might never happen but still we ensure that the building is ready to withstand the strongest tremors specific to the site. That being said, the General Services Administrations should stop worrying about the money being taken from their already bulging pockets and get with the program.


Images obtained from The New York Times.
For more information check www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/washington/08codes

Another Gehry Monstrocity

Princeton University's science majors started classes on Thursday the 11th of September but they also got a tutorial on how Frank Gehry seems to always throw up all over a site, totally disregard budgets and still wins acclaim and gratitude for it.
The $76 million dollar (and counting), 87,000 square foot project houses the University's collections for astrophysics, biology, Geo-science, chemistry, math, physics and statistics, student classrooms and lecture halls.

Taking slightly over four years from ground breaking to top-out, this building required 90,000 pounds of embossed stainless steel and 620 pounds of clay brick which were combined with glass, steel and stucco to "attempt" to reflect the design of surrounding buildings. The atrium, just inside the front door expands into a wide open space, giving the visitor views of all parts of the building with walls painted all sorts of colors from tangerine to blueberry. The group study room on the top level looks out onto the building's roofs and the rest of the campus through a prism like array of windows.

In putting up its new Gehry designed "Lewis Library," Princeton endured its share of challenges. It paid to construct models of the building to give the subcontractors a chance to practice, it fired a contractor halfway through the project when the building was already past due and recently learned that some contractors bribed their way onto the job site.

But the project has finally been completed and Princeton is very satisfied though I can't imagine why. This building looks like it was thrown together to see just how many completely different materials could be connected together without having the entire ensemble come crashing down. The concept of using glass, steel and stucco was to have the building relate with those surrounding it but when did you ever see a Gehry design blend in with its surroundings? You would have a better chance of seeing Ray Lewis participating in the cirque de soleil, than a Gehry design that didn't look like it was just dropped there from outer space.

The main questions I want to ask are, how energy efficient is this building and will it withstand the weather? I think these are very relevant questions for Mr. Gehry especially in the aftermath of his designs for the Ray and Maria Stata Center at MIT that leaked once the rains began.
Well, Gehry has done it again and I guess I shouldn't be whining about it. That's his trademark design and if Princeton got it then they specifically asked for it.


Images obtained from arcspace.com, chronicle.com/blogs/architecture

Construction Boom In China Slowing Down?

As growth in Europe and the United States seems to be grinding to a halt, China may also be facing an economic slowdown and consequently, a decrease in construction projects.

In recent years, we have seen a lot of "throw-up" development that revealed China's insatiable desire to emulate architecture of the West, such as Thamestown, which is a copycat slice of England outside Shanghai. It seems that now they're construction sector is also being hit with a slow market as residential values have dropped by 15% in Beijing and Shanghai since the Olympics. One reason for this is the fact that money supply for developers has tightened in the past few months leaving commercial and residential projects to languish.

Callum MacBean, managing director of Gensler's Shanghai office confirmed in a company Newsletter that many of the firm's projects have been put on hold with many foreign investors suddenly very cautious preferring to venture to India and Vietnam instead.
U.K based firms report that this has been caused by the Chinese government itself who have made it more difficult for smaller scale Architecture and engineering firms to secure projects, by demanding astronomical insurance deposits. Also, the Chinese government has decided to limit the number of residential and commercial landmark projects and emphasize more on infrastructure, education and health care and have also created larger land parcels thereby making them increasingly more difficult for smaller developers to purchase.

I don't know what may have caused this state-driven shift in the last few months. Maybe the government felt that there was overbuilding in the housing sector to the detriment of infrastructure and health care but who can explain why a communist government does what it does. Still, for all those seeking investment and building projects in China, this trend seems to be predominantly restricted to Beijing and Shanghai; at least for now. There is still plenty of work to be had in the cities of Chengdu and Chongqing.


Image obtained from the Architectsjournal.com

Transforming The Sahara Landscape

Last week, a trio of visionaries, Charlies Patton, Bill Watts and Micheal Pawlyn unveiled their ambitious plan for the Sahara Desert. The project seeks to produce enough water to grow crops, produce a sustainable bio-fuel that does not negatively impact world food supplies and harness enough solar power to supply electricity to cities in Africa and Europe by redefining some of the desert landscape.

As we know, no one solution will successfully address global warming and all the numerous issues that go with it such as shortage in water supply and increasing food prices. The Sahara Forest Project seeks to combine technologies by marrying greenhouses with concentrated solar power (CSP) which uses mirrors to focus the sun's rays and generate heat and electricity. The installations would transform patches of the vast desert into lush vegetation without the traditional system of digging wells for fresh water, which has depleted many aquifers around the world.

Plants cannot naturally grow in arid climates so the greenhouses work by using the solar farm to power seawater evaporators and then pump the cool damp air throughout the greenhouse. This reduces the temperature within by about 20 deg Celsius compared to that outside and at the other end of the greenhouse, the water vapor is condensed creating situations of high humidity and lower temperature.

According to the designers, virtually any vegetable could be grown here, depending on the specific conditions at which it is maintained as demonstrations have already produced lettuce, cucumbers, tomatoes and peppers with the necessary nutrients for the plants coming from the seawater itself.

Charles Patton reports that the greenhouse would produce more than five times the fresh water needed for the plants so the rest could be utilized by the local environment and the same goes for the excess solar power generated.

The cost of the Sahara Forest Project will be relatively cheap as both CSP and seawater greenhouses are already proven technologies so estimates for a 20 hecter greenhouse combined with a 10MW CSP scheme would come to about $130 million or 80 million euros.

This sounds like a good idea but I'm not sure just how much food or electricity could be produced on a 20 hecter greenhouse to really counterbalance the high cost of food or equally high demand for energy around the world as the designers claim. Will the 20 hecters be enough or will the entire face of the Sahara have to be similarly changed eventually and what will that do to the ecosystem and environment?


Image obtained from www.Guardian.co.uk

The Olympics and Urban Planning

Now that the Beijing Olympics are over, future host nations especially England, which will host the 2012 games are faced with the task of how to compete with the grandiose scale of what we saw in China especially in terms of stadium design. If hosting the games was a way for China to shore up its strength on a visible international stage, then the architecture was the component that brought together politics and aesthetics into a seemingly cohesive whole.

The organizers of the London 2012 Olympics would like to duplicate such accomplishments but for many such cities who lack the adequate space for expansion or the necessary funds, this could be a tall order. HOK sports has unveiled a temporary solution for the 2012 games by creating a "convertible" structure in the London arena(top left) which would increase the seats from 25,000 to 80,000 for the games' commencements and back down to 25,000 seats when the games are concluded(left). Also, these expansion components will have the ability to be dismantled, boxed up and shipped to another country needing an expansion to their main stadium.

This tactic of "recycling" the Olympic stadium has been lauded as a first step in a new approach to preparations for the games which could become more like a traveling circus to keep costs down and allow poorer countries to play host for the Olympics. A spokesman for London's Olympic Delivery Authority stated that the plan would also help to offset the rising cost of the London games which now stand at 9.3 billion pounds. The cost of the main stadium has already risen from 280 million pounds to 496 million pounds. Taking these costs into consideration, the ODA spokesman went on to say: "it is right that we should explore any opportunities that would recoup some of the costs incurred by the lottery and the public purse."

David Higgins, the CEO of the London ODA began talks with officials in Chicago (bidding for the 2016 games alongside Tokyo, Madrid, Prague and Rio de Janeiro) in June for a deal that would see the shipping of the London stadium's expansions (55,000 seats) to Chicago's Washington Park expanding a planned 7,500 capacity community arena into the city's main stadium.

I don't know, this might be a good way to keep costs down in times when the economy is struggling as it is today but I love to see "permanent" landmark stadiums that are not only aesthetically appealing, but add to the overall infrastructure of the city and enrich its architecture. The convenience of the "travelling" stadium will see a drop in stadium construction.

Images obtained from www.guardian.co.uk

The New LEED v3

With its initial introduction in 2000, the LEED green building rating system has helped change the way we approach the design, construction and operation of our buildings and infrastructure. The new and updated version is soon to be unveiled by the U.S. Green building Council and is scheduled to go into effect by January of 2009 featuring 3 major changes: 1. Customized regional credits, 2. New weighing of certification criteria and 3. Greater consistency between different types of construction.

The regionalization seeks to allow specific regions to place more emphasis on certain design criteria. For example, water conservation will be more important and worth more points in Nevada or Arizona than Florida. According to officials of the USGBC, the system of awarding points has evolved over the past eight years without any type of overall strategy and at times, without much consistency so the LEED v3 seeks to look at all categories and set them based on strategies taken to "really making the building have a significant impact on being more green." Also, the new version will provide more consistency in point allotment across different construction sites (for example, new construction Vs existing buildings, commercial sites Vs homes).

Although these changes are to standardize LEED across the country, numerous complaints have been made about it from professionals in the building industry but more especially from contractors who claim that it would eliminate the innovation credits that would be available to them. Bruce Offner, chief estimator of Springhouse based Henderson Corp. complains that the new version is still a design tool for architecture and engineering without any consideration for the job site type of work.

I say "boo-hoo" to all whinny contractors and if I had my way, there wouldn't be any credits given to them at all. The construction process for buildings seldom go smoothly all thanks to the contractor, building things you never specified, looking for that one inconsistency in the construction specifications and using that one, making me submit change order upon change order, wasting time and money and you want credit for that?

That being said, I think that the new LEED v3 will go a long way in addressing the issues not covered by the current version and hopefully help us all see the benefits of green design as energy doesn't seem like it will be any cheaper for some time to come, offshore drilling or not.

Zaha's Designs For Singapore

Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) recently unveiled proposed designs for the new Farrer Road residential complex in Singapore composed of seven 36 story residential towers, each rising to a height about 510ft, and 12 villas on an 838,488 sq ft site. The $3 billion project is reminiscent of her dancing tower in Dubai and upon completion, will be the largest residential complex in Singapore's history.
Hadid wished to redefine urban space with this project, as she shows intricate landscaping for the towers' outdoor communal spaces on grade and uses some of the country's unique vegetation as form generators as each tower is subdivided into petal patterns according to the floor plan of each story. The petals are expressed in three dimension giving the overall form the look and feel of petals blossoming (or at least, that was her goal).

I think Zaha really does give her very best effort to her designs and shows a certain level of commitment that is lacking in many "star architects" but I always find something lacking in some of her work. This project though very revolutionary in form ( I would love to see diagrams depicting the proposed structural bracing for these "petals"), seems to be too much of a site intervention. I know that Farrer Court on Farrer Road is the Bohemian sector of the neighborhood and Zaha wanted to do something lavish for them but this project does not relate to anything around it. I know that I have spoken about this before and just want to say here that when I talk about a building relating to its surroundings, I don't necessarily mean that it has to mimic the buildings around it, but it should at least look like it belongs there and can't be "transplanted" somewhere else and still fit in with the context. Come to think of it, it looks like she used much of her prior designs from her "dancing tower" for this one and it does look like it would be more at home in Dubai than Singapore.

Another thing that made me cringe when I saw this project was not the design per say, which I really do think is quite impressive, but the density of these massings all lumped together. If the communal outdoor gardens are not maintained well with the proper amenities, these buildings could slowly degenerate into slum dwellings. I have seen his trend with many towers in the United States that initially preached "community interaction" in their mission statements but somehow became ghettos where everyone was stacked deep from floor to floor. The Pruitt-Igoe in Missouri is a perfect example.

As I said earlier, I think generally this is a great design and I hope that Zaha will be able to see this project through to its completion and I mean to the last detail to be sure that the gardens look as she intended them.


Images obtained from www.worldarchitecturenews.com
For more info check http://www.tuvie.com/farrer-road-in-singapore-by-zaha-hadid-architects

HKS Selected for New Liverpool FC Stadium

After battling with Manchester based AFL, HKS has finally been chosen to design the new Liverpool FC soccer stadium in Liverpool, England set to open in time for the 2011 Premier League season. The two firms' original proposals were rejected by the American owners, Tom Hicks (also owner of the Texas Rangers) and George Gillett as they felt that AFL's design was outdated and HKS' way too expensive. The cost had risen from $600 million when it was announced in the summer of 2007 to almost $900 million by the end of the year.

The new design by HKS which increases the current seating capacity from 42,000 to 60,000 will feature a stone base on the north, west and east exposures with glass facades above. The south will be metal clad with south east and south west corners open but the main selling point of the design is the world famous "Kop" (similar to the Oakland Raider's "Black Hole" but filled with fewer Hooligans) behind the home goal. This all-seater stand will be set at the higher point of the site and will contain over 20,000 seats and was designed very expressively to intensify the setting and sense of drama. The asymmetrical building as a whole was designed to break from the bowl-like shapes of most soccer stadiums and announce itself as Liverpool FC's stadium only and none other.

I think that there were some good intentions with this design especially with the "KOP" but HKS has created quite an ugly project but I guess that's what one could expect if the design team came up with their proposal after attending only one game in the original stadium. That's just like the Manchester based AFL proposing a design for say the Pittsburgh Steelers after attending one regular season game. I think that a lot more time should have been spent trying to get a feel for the culture of the club, the game of soccer and the fans.

Also, the street level view is not as interesting as aerial perspectives, just like the SF Transbay Terminal and this leads me to think that many firms seem to fall in love with how their projects look in aerial perspective and overlook how most people will view it-from the street level. Another thing that seems odd to me is that the images of the stadium are shown without a scrap of context around them so one doesn't even get a sense of how it will fit in with it's surrounding environment. I remember doing something like that with one of my fourth year school projects and was ripped into cause my building was "floating in space" but I guess when you become successful in this field you can do whatever you want with your renderings.

Well, the design has been selected already and the only people I feel for are the Liverpool fans cause they have joined the list of franchises that have been screwed by American owners cause we don't understand the culture of soccer in Europe even though we like to pretend we do.


Images obtained from www.liverpoolft.tv/news

The Manhattanization of San Francisco Part II

It seems that the umbrige felt by some San Franciscans about their city's apparent urban xeroxing of New York is not limited to the Rincon Towers but also extends to the proposal for the new Transbay terminal which will be slated to break ground sometime this fall and top out in 2014.

The original terminal located roughly in the center of the rectangle bounded north-south by Mission and Howard Street and east-west by Beale and Second street currently serves long distance and local transbay buses such as the Muni and SamTrans. The new proposal seeks to replace the current terminal with a new one including a tunnel that would extend the Caltrian commuter rail and a heavy rail portion designed to accomodate the planned high speed line from Los Angeles. This project, designed by Pelli Clark Pelli Architects will consist of a 1,200ft tall tower paired with organic undulations of the transit center toped with a 5.4 acre green roof that will be freely accessible to the public and will host a variety of cultural activities.

The new Transbay terminal will seek to incorporate as it's theme, "transit & sustainability" with the tower's apex crowned with wind turbines and each floor being able to draw fresh air from outside directly through the building's "porous" facade. Geothermal heating has also been incorporated to regulate room temperature and both tower and transit park will benefit from a rain and gray water recycling center that can provide water to neighboring buildings as well.
Even though mayor Gavin Newsom has lauded this project as "forward thinking," many residents again feel that an elevated 5.4 acre park does not compliment its surroundings nor does the 1,200 ft high tower which will again redefine the city's skyline. I agree, even though I really like the look of the roof park but one will only see it like that from the window of a taller surrounding building. What I feel is pretty awful is the structural undulation of the park from street level. The height of the building will only set a new height for new projects to contend with but that structural pattern on the terminal is just horrid and will continue to stick out for a very long time to come.

This is a very innovative design and I think is the better proposal of all submitted to the city of San Francisco. It does a good job of making public transportation a bit easier and convenient which is a necessary component for cities in America today as we are continually faced with ridiculous gas prices but the terminal's street level facade...Its just bad!



Images obtained from: http://lifewithoutbuilings.net

More Credentials, more money?

A recent study of the 2008-2009 compensation and benefits survey produced by DesignIntelligence and the Greenway group found that Architects who pursue their Masters degree and those who become licensed see about 10% higher earnings than their counterparts with a Bachelor of Architecture degree.
The B.Arch holders statistically make an average of $39,000 at the start of their careers while M.Arch graduates earn a median salary of $43,000. Also, architects who obtain licensure see a typical increase in base compensation of 5-10% and as a further incentive, 81% of firms pay for some or all expenses of their staff to take the ARE.
Now, while I think its common sense for a licensed architect to make more money than an architect without one, because they are more valuable, I don't think that there's much difference between a B.Arch and an M.Arch holder. That extra year of studio isn't going to help much without any real work experience. Besides, I remember when I was in school and would often see some of the graduate presentation panels and wonder why many of them looked like they were second year undergraduate presentations. Doors measuring less than 6ft in height, all glass fenestration intended to also function as load bearing walls (I'm not kidding!) because many of them received a bachelors degree in some unrelated field and now come into the M.Arch program without any of the basic knowledge needed. And three years isn't enough to teach them what the B.Arch holder learned in 5!
But despite my gripes, the statistics aren't lying so I would advice any architecture student going for the B.Arch to try to secure a job while in school and begin working on the IDP, Intern Development Program, get as much work experience as possible and take the LEED exam. Hopefully, this will help raise you to a higher salary bracket because in this economy, that $39,000 isn't going to do a thing for you especially when you have the bogeymen at Salliemae calling for you to repay your student loans.

Candy Spelling's Record Breaking Condo

Carole Gene "Candy" Spelling, the widow of Aron Spelling and a well known civic leader in Los Angeles paid a whopping $47 million for a two story condo unit above the Century City tower still under construction.
The price for this unit comes to an amazing $2,850 per square foot, a record price for any condo unit in Los Angeles. Spelling's new abode will include a dining room for 25 guests, a 4,000 square foot master bedroom, a conservatory with a rose garden with an adjacent swimming pool.
According to Spelling's attorney, she is moving to this new unit in order to "downsize" her living space after her husbands death. It is difficult to imagine how this can possibly be a downscaling of any sort until you consider that Spelling currently resides in a 57,000 square foot 112 room mansion, the largest home in Los Angeles which she will be auctioning off within the next year after she moves into the completed condo.
This seems to be a new trend with many parents moving out of large suburban homes and into more expensive and smaller condo units within the city especially after the kids go off to college. The higher mortgage now proceeds to eat into college funds leaving young Bobby and Britney no other option than entanglement with Salliemae.
That being said, this new trend in housing has led to the continued boom in residential highrise construction and just might result in less of a demand for suburban sprawl which has been the American dream for many years.


Image obtained from www.LaTimes.com

Mandarin Oriental Groundbreaking Yet to Occur

The $550,000,000 Mandarin Oriental Tower is a 74 story proposed mixed use project targeted to be the 9th tallest building in Chicago (assuming the Trump and Waterview Towers, both under construction get completed first). The tower is being built by the Hong Kong based Mandarin hotel group, currently operating over 30 hotel groups around the world and are partnering with Solomon Cordwell Buenz as their design consultants.

The proposed design is to be 1.2million sq feet and will include 300 condos and 250 hotel-condo units with the unit mix concept defining these hotel-condos as rooms sold as condominiums to private buyers who now allow the hotel to rent out these units when the owners are not using them.

Despite the initial excitement over the addition this building would make to the design infrastructure of the city of Chicago, a Dec 2, 07 article in Crains Chicago Business stated that various parties involved with this project are facing financial issues and construction loans have not been forthcoming. This is in part due to the current real estate slump in the Country and some inside sources have expressed their apprehension that this project might never be built as the groundbreaking initially set for January 08 is still yet to occur.

Unfortunately, this is the same for numerous other projects around the country; the building industry is slowing down and if the situation does not improve soon, many of us in the field of architecture and other related disciplines might not have much work to do.

Image obtained from condohotelcenter.com

Big Fish in the Pond

The merger of HKS architects with Hill glazier, becoming HKS Hill Glazier Studio has made the new firm arguably the largest hospitality design group in the world. Before the merger, both companies enjoyed wide acclaim and recognition, ranking in the top ten nationally and grossing almost $3 billion in anual work making them leaders in the hospitality design sector.
The merger, which occured in June of 2007 had me wondering how strong the new collaboration would be as many successful and strong willed architects have a hard time working symbiotically with each other, especially when it comes to? Yep, design concepts. I expected that there would also be some cut backs in the firm size in terms of staff and offices but that has not been the case. In the past year, HKS Hill Glazier has not only doubled its workload but also introduced 23 new offices around the world, hired over 100 hospitality design staff members and have more than $14 billion in construction underway in California alone.
One reason for this seamless transition is the fact that before the merger, the two firms had worked together for more than 10 years on projects such as the One&Only Palmila in Los Cabos, Mexico, the Ocean Club in Paradise Island, Bahamas and the Rosewood Resort in Telluride, Colorado. This helped foster a strong relationship of professional trust and familiarity and confidence in each of their respective design strengths.
I am happy to see that HKS Hill Grazier is a true partnership and I think that the firm is only going to get stronger in the coming years establishing themselves as the big fish in the small pond of the hospitality design industry but I think that they are beginning to set a precedent for large company monopolization in the field of architecture.

The Manhattanization of San Francisco

This seems to go a long way in summing up the concerns of many Bay Area residents about the effects of the One Rincon Towers on Rincon Hill right next to the Western approach of the Bay bridge. This project is a residential complex designed by Solomon, Cordwell, Buenz and associates and is to consist of two towers, 45 and 60 stories respectively, sharing a common podium base with a combined count of 709 units. The latter tower (Rincon south tower) has been completed and currently stands at 641 feet but Rincon north tower just broke ground in january of this year.

Though the towers are considered not only the most significant additions to the San Francisco skyline in over 30 years and one of the tallest all-residential towers west of the Mississippi, it has sparked a lot of criticism from residents. Some of this criticism has stemmed from its design which has been ridicled to resemble the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze air purifyer. Other residents living east to north east of Twin Peaks are enraged at the height and placement of the towers as they block views from Delores park and Hillside neighborhoods to the Bay bridge but the general concern is about the price of the units within the towers which have been rated to be too expensive for most San Franciscans selling at $600,000 to $2,000,000 on average. This they feel is about to set the preceedent for outrageously priced condo units making San Francisco as expensive to live in as Manhattan. This is an interesting concept to note as most of the units within the South tower have sold already.

This building though still under construction has become the most controversial landmark in San Francisco since the Transamerica Pyramid. One website, curbsf, has nominated the Rincon towers as the ugliest buildings in the city beating the Marriot on Fourth St, which is saying a lot.

I know that I slammed the Al Hamara tower for not relating to it's site better and though the Rincon towers seem to do much of the same, I think that they enhance the skyline and add to the dramatic effect of the city view when coming down the Bay bridge from Oaklnad. Yes, I like the towers and I think that they have a certain elegance and sleekness to them that is lacking in most residential highrises today. Am I "flip-floping?" Maybe but Rincon affects my perception differently. After all, architecture in a sense is subjective.

Image obtained from www.sfnewdevelopments.com

Tannerhecht's Icon Receives Awards.

Tannerhecht architecture is an award wining California based firm with offices in San Francisco and San Diego and have successfully completed a wide variety of projects from large scale historic renovations to multi-family residential developments.

In the summer of 2004, Tannerhecht broke ground on the "Icon," a 542,000 sq ft building located on the block bound by 10th and 11th avenues and J and K streets(actually next door to the Padre's Petco Park). The project offers 327 residences in four buildings of varying heights with a diverse unit mix of town houses, conventional flats and live/work lofts with median prices starting at the mid $300,000's. The key attraction of the design is the "Sky box" located atop the tallest tower, 24 stories high and 800ft from petco park with a maximum occupancy of 50 giving a clear view into the baseball park.

This project which was completed in april of 2007 with a grand opening on april 15th of the same year has just received the Smart Growth Award, for smart urban excellence by the urban land institute of San Diego/Tijuana and the Gold Nugget Award for Merit for the best attached for sale, high-rise by the pacific Coast builder's Conference.

Tannerhecht's Icon is a welcomed addition to San Diego's urban grid and successfully preserves and integrates the historic facade of the "Carnation building" it replaced.


Image obtained from Tannerhecht Architecture.com

Which firms really design green?

In today's building designs, sustainability and green architecture has become a key aspect that can't be overlooked with the global population climbing towards 7 billion and with constant carbon emissions and degradation of ecosystems but what constitutes a green or sustainable project? Roof top solar panels but 80% glass on the building facade? And who really designs green?

I ask myself this sometimes when I look at a completed project that has been marketed as green but then find aspects of the building that go contrary to what a green project should be. Many firms do design green and sustainable but I have found that EHDD Architecture is one of the few that does this on a constant basis and consideres this challenge as an inspiration for their designs (I don't work there nor am I related to anyone that does).

The Oxford Dictionary of Architetcture defines green architecture as: Buildings designed according to energy saving criteria and the reduction of pollution and I think that EHDD's projects embody this definition with four LEED platinum projects, one of which is the Betty Irene Moore natural sciences building at Mills College in Oakland, numerous other LEED accreditations and two AIA top ten buildings.

Scott Shell, a senior project manager at EHDD, San Francisco has worked on many LEED certified projects and has also given presentations on Design for Deconstruction (DfD), a radical movement that calls for a shift to true closed loop material cycles. This is the design of buildings and systems that can easily be upgraded or reconfigured and eventually disassembled an reused becoming truly green.

With diminishing land resources, the environment needs more conscientious design firms like EHDD to ensure that architecture is not detrimental to our ecosystems and surroundings.

Image obtained from EHDD.com

S.O.M's Al Hamara Tower nears completion

The project which broke ground in 2004 has reached 600 of its proposed 1,352 feet and is calculated to be on track for its 2009 topout and 2010 opening. The tower is to be a significant landmark in the skyline of Kuwait city and upon completion will become one of the top 25 tallest buildings in the world.

I had seen this monstrosity on youtube but had no idea SOM was responsible for the design. Yes, as someone in the architectural field I must admit that it is quite an extraordinary building and underscores just how far we've come in terms of building technology but I must ask; does Kuwait really need this 950 million dollar tower which, if the construction process has been any similar to projects of identical typology, must have already gone over budget by now?

75,900 sq feet of its entire 1,067,220 sq feet is to be retail space with an integrated theater complex to boost commercial output and become a gravitational niche but what percentage of Kuwait's population would be able to shop here?

I know the original plan was to define Kuwait city's skyline, but this tower stands so far out of its surroundings, it seems to be more of a "site intervention" than a component of the entire site.

I think SOM has put together a great building design but have ignored some urban and economical issues. Does anyone share this view point?

Images provided by flickr.com