I know enough about aerodynamics to speak generally about typical designs. But, this isn’t a typical design. Insight needs an aero engineer with some experience.
I think the architecture is really cool because it looks like a twist at first glance, but isn’t.
Wow. I’ve never before seen a comment history so devoid of content and with so little care for presentation that it was reasonable to no longer want to see their posts.
I’m “on about” the quality of communication that defines humans from the other animals, which has been in a nosedive for a quarter century, which is now so heavily corrupted it’s leading us to our doom.
What are you on about? Minimization and what else?
The overall surface of the facade is twisting. The IGU’s and spandrel panel systems that make up the exterior facade are more than likely not twisting.
It’s very obvious you’re now trying to make a point about the support structure but the facade of a building is very much real. It looks like a twist because it does a twist. There’s no angle where you realize the windows don’t actually change planes.
No, it’s an illusion at scale. You almost say so yourself in your next sentence.
There’s no angle where you realize the windows don’t actually change planes.
Discreet flat planes constitute an illusion of a curve at scale. There are no curved components. They used offsets and angles in the outer layer. All the windows are flat planes. You can see the rectangles yourself just as you can see the triangles in a geodesic structure’s approximation of a complex curve.
A modern true curve is still often made from wood. If there’s money it’s laminated I-beam. But, curving or twisting structural steel is breaking all sorts of cardinal rules. Assuming safety is valued, cost rises exponentially from construction through build out and into maintenance and repair. An exception is large ships. That’s why they’re so expensive.
It’s very obvious you’re now trying to make a point
An artist and an engineer were given a modest budget and found a way to ask an obvious question to which the is answer is: It depends upon the perspective each of us chooses.
If you look closely you can see the flat planes and angles. There are no curves. You can see the truth of it yourself. It’s right there.
They’re obviously some intelligent people to be designing such things at all. Imagine how many times they’ve been talking about some subject or another and said, “Hey, friend, if you look more closely you can see (whatever truth) for yourself.”
Okay, so I skimmed and actually your point is that it’s a series of angular changes and not a true curve? I think you should have waited until someone claimed otherwise, but hey, that’s also a hill you can die on.
I’m an architect. We describe the macro geometry of the tower as twisting since that was most likely the original design intent. It is perfectly okay and rational to do so.
We rationalize the geometry in order to make it easier to fabricate and install, as you mention, but your pedantry isn’t the vehicle of enlightenment that you think it is.
I know enough about aerodynamics to speak generally about typical designs. But, this isn’t a typical design. Insight needs an aero engineer with some experience.
I think the architecture is really cool because it looks like a twist at first glance, but isn’t.
It’s four twists
It’s a cut into the exterior that creates an illusion, leaving the core intact. If it was anything different then it’d not be standing.
I’d say the corners are twisted but the middle part isn’t
deleted by creator
Wow. I’ve never before seen a comment history so devoid of content and with so little care for presentation that it was reasonable to no longer want to see their posts.
stop browsing your own profile bro
it’s a lemmy profile, not a youtube channel. tf are you on about
I’m “on about” the quality of communication that defines humans from the other animals, which has been in a nosedive for a quarter century, which is now so heavily corrupted it’s leading us to our doom.
What are you on about? Minimization and what else?
communication is fine actually, the reason you feel like it’s in decline is because people are likely choosing not to suffer communicating with you.
I can sense your lack of friends through my phone screen. I almost feel sorry for you.
Wow. That’s a bit harsh, mate.
It’s truthful. I cared enough to tell them.
The overall surface of the facade is twisting. The IGU’s and spandrel panel systems that make up the exterior facade are more than likely not twisting.
So, it’s an illusion made out of entirely untwisted components. Imagine that.
It’s very obvious you’re now trying to make a point about the support structure but the facade of a building is very much real. It looks like a twist because it does a twist. There’s no angle where you realize the windows don’t actually change planes.
No, it’s an illusion at scale. You almost say so yourself in your next sentence.
Discreet flat planes constitute an illusion of a curve at scale. There are no curved components. They used offsets and angles in the outer layer. All the windows are flat planes. You can see the rectangles yourself just as you can see the triangles in a geodesic structure’s approximation of a complex curve.
A modern true curve is still often made from wood. If there’s money it’s laminated I-beam. But, curving or twisting structural steel is breaking all sorts of cardinal rules. Assuming safety is valued, cost rises exponentially from construction through build out and into maintenance and repair. An exception is large ships. That’s why they’re so expensive.
An artist and an engineer were given a modest budget and found a way to ask an obvious question to which the is answer is: It depends upon the perspective each of us chooses.
If you look closely you can see the flat planes and angles. There are no curves. You can see the truth of it yourself. It’s right there.
They’re obviously some intelligent people to be designing such things at all. Imagine how many times they’ve been talking about some subject or another and said, “Hey, friend, if you look more closely you can see (whatever truth) for yourself.”
Then the other person says, “It twists.”
Amazing piece of art, huh?
You really can’t seem to grasp that a facade that seems to rotate around a central point is by definition a twist can you.
No. These are different things. One’s an illusion. One’s real.
Okay, so I skimmed and actually your point is that it’s a series of angular changes and not a true curve? I think you should have waited until someone claimed otherwise, but hey, that’s also a hill you can die on.
Okay.
I’m an architect. We describe the macro geometry of the tower as twisting since that was most likely the original design intent. It is perfectly okay and rational to do so.
We rationalize the geometry in order to make it easier to fabricate and install, as you mention, but your pedantry isn’t the vehicle of enlightenment that you think it is.
You’re right. It’s just cheap junk, boring and drab.