|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:55 am Post subject: |
    |
|
"but to humor the thought...imagine if the columns of the WTC had been filled with water that day... many of them would have been severed allowing their soon to be scalding hot contents to leak or spray out...even if that had only happened on the floors directly around the impact zone it would amount to thousands of gallons of water...which would then no longer be protecting the steel it was intended to protect... "
Yes yes yes --- but why is it you think I would emagine a better structure, as the one that was but fiddled with radiators ? Realy I am not talking about fiddeling the known technikes I am talking about starting from scratch and ask the questions that need to be asked, I am talking about why we can only emagine what we already know further weighted with gqdgeds and fiddeling so we still can use the Brick ---
If you read , and I think you have , the article in architectureweek that start with ;
"""The sky is hardly the limit -- high-rise architecture in America is entering a bold, imaginative era. Everything's different after 9/11.""""
And if you go down the text and realise ;
"Then there's computer technology, which lets architects turn doodles into construction diagrams. This makes it possible to craft buildings with fluid shapes that, a decade ago, simply couldn't be done. By 2001 that technology was making its mark in America on cultural buildings, such as Frank Gehry's Disney Hall in Los Angeles, but it barely left a trace on our skylines."
Then maby you see what I mean ; how can we proceed with outdated structural concepts and still think we can achive the security and trend shift , the quality that by it's core would have prevented, the promises that an conservative industrie realy ifthey had a choice gladly would be without , as "we can not emagine what we don't know".
See -- there are some real barrier ; but it is in our minds not in the actural new technikes , but the problem proberly is that when emagine new way's to build, the pictures we see are what already is, as our emagination are restricted to that , nomatter how promising the future are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Architectoture when I talk about different way's to build I am not talking about for any price build towers again like this ;
Anyone who realised the size of the emty arear would know that a new architecture--- the obvious "answer" -- the potential in architecture with today's new technikes , would not yield towers --- it proberly would suggest to build somthing quite different but with the arear avaible ,also somthing very different and with much more quality detail such as ;
Why Towers when there are so much that talk for new-thinking, innovation ,and a real new architecture . --- then that could be secured instead of fiddeling the known concepts into uselessness and boring box thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Again from the architectureweek article ;
"Never mind that we still don't know what actually will rise at ground zero (the towers unveiled last week are elegant but tame). The competition turned the spotlight on brash new ways of thinking about urban life. On the nightly news and on the front page of newspapers, we saw that buildings could embody vibrant excitement about times to come."
NO IT DID NOT --- No new thinking, came out of this, NO Innovation, NO GUTS , NO Visions , Nothing for the future. Not "The answer" everyone would be the phoenix rising from the ashes transformed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1095
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Per, please be more specific about what source you are quoting from. Neither Google nor I are aware of an ArchitectureWeek article with the words you say come from there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
PC- i think you are now heading more toward the 'new structures forum' type of talk...
my point ultimately is that you really don't want water in constant contact with ferrous metal structure... that no matter how it is arranged will be threatened by a fast moving object being crashed into the structure...
i won't even get into all the very good reasons for building towers as opposed to structures that i would probably describe as
"superstudio-esque" running horizontally throughout all of our cities... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are both right --- ofcaurse I id any, shuld live by the rule of credits. Still these words was so sweet I guess the author could be found easy with a simple Google search, but true ; I shuld know shuldn't I ?
I do and exchouse but still there are a lot of truth in those words, guess you want them in Bricks ?
Also ofcaurse the could be bad side effects, of fiddeling the nowbeing type of building structures , --- ofcaurse I don't mean to do that , the ground floors in highrises anyway are already cramped , with unnessery auxilery so why limit the actural fotteage with radiators , guess that's all that would be avaible, within current steel lattrice framework -- my point ; You Romans want strong houses, you want them cheap and projected with digital manufactoring capasity , you want to build the unemagined you want no limits ; and still you refuse to reach for the sky, Gee they will _never_ send bricklayers there Kill The Brick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Copyright or just an honest credit to the author ,is as you know, my own commitment ; I do not expect any credit in academics anyway ,the 42 acers are from my point of view better engaged in the world's future, as an architectural Succes, --- a quality answer to what happened happen, a promise, that skills and visions will alway's save the world. Atleast build a Wonder , If it happened with new jobs and a spendid Design it would be great , but my point still is, that the arear are better used for a building structure as I humbly suggest, than for any odd number of Towers.
Much could be projected a better way --- for the town for the people in the town -- without Towers, and still produce somthing better than Towers.
Kill The Tower. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"my point ultimately is that you really don't want water in constant contact with ferrous metal structure... that no matter how it is arranged will be threatened by a fast moving object being crashed into the structure..."
No ofcaurse not, why plan for a failour when you can plan for succes ; not what would that ask , very few elements but while never avaible with the old crafts without the digital capasity, it is here among all the tools for projecting a house ; and it is still your choice if you want to build with an adge or a digitizer . My point still is, don't judge the new just surfacing technikes from how things are made in bricks. Projecting building elements for a structure is ofcaurse also a choice ; by all means new and digital projected manufactoring are way more efficient than the old way's AND, you can acturly build nice ,cheap strong houses, provided 3D-H .
Now I never said 3D-H shuld be the only possible structural method 3D-H patterns , providing square 3D-H shapen tubework is just round the corner and could build at a tenth the cost , if you Romans realy wanted your Pheonix restored , sad that what you are missing are the Guts.
So ofcaurse I do not suggest the worse thinkable assembly of salt water and corroded bad steel ; did I say that ??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
