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