In the Clouds

The Dutch Architectural Firm MVRDV, has created an extremely offensive and shall I say, idiotic and ugly, design for a Developer in South Korea. The design was created for the Yongsan Business District and according to the designers, it’s “Cloud-like” concept was designed based on parameters such as sunlight, outside spaces, living quality for inhabitants and the city.” Others say it has way to much resemblance to the Trade Center Towers as they were engulfed by smoke after the 9/11 attack.

I agree with the dissenters. Being Dutch, is no excuse for not having empathy for Americans and no person living on earth can honestly say that the FIRST image one would take when witnessing the design of the “Cloud” is that of 9/11. In fact, one MVRDV official, Jan Knikker, was quoted telling the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad, “I have to admit that we also thought of the 9/11 attacks.”

So they admit that they knew this might be a problem … but did they care?

It is typical of elitist, snob architects to ignore Louis Sullivan and put “Form” ahead of “Function”. These types work, not in the best interest of the project, but to create some grand architectural statement to puff up their own ego. Is it possible that MVRDV cared more about their design than they did about offending the American People?

Architectural snobs are easily recognized by the way that they start a project. Not with a space plan and a list of requirements – but with an elevation of some “grand vision” of what they want the finished structure to look like. Later, they will “figure out” how to stuff in all those pesky details – like spaces, rooms, structural systems, mechanical systems etc. in a way that is the least destructive to their magnificent design. I wonder how MVRDV started this project?

Let us review the ridiculously offensive “Cloud” design that is the focus of this controversy from a practical viewpoint. What happens to the “Cloud” section when wind (or seismic activity) moves one high rise tower 2 feet in one direction and the other tower 2 feet in the opposite direction?  Obviously, each structure must be able to move independently of the other. But with the “Cloud” section connecting the two towers, how is this possible?

But it is not only the Structural Elements that have to be flexible. Every single connecting element, including: water lines & fire sprinklers, sewer lines, electrical lines, floor and ceiling systems, wall finishes, flashing & waterproofing and dozens of more systems all must be flexible enough to move with the structure – in ALL directions. Furthermore, these “connections” have to be able to last through the lifecycle of the building.

It is precisely for these reasons that we don’t see too many high rise towers inter-connected. It is not that these problems are insurmountable, it can and has been done before. It is just that the cost associated with dealing with them is extraordinarily high. Too high for most developers who’s goal is always “profit”. In addition, few Architectural firms are stupid enough to accept the liability exposure associated with such a design.

Did the progressives at MVRDV consider these conditions? If they did, it is certainly not evident in the conceptual design images that I have seen. There is certainly no seismic joint visible in the renderings. Such a joint (in reality) would stick out like a sore thumb. In all likelihood, such a joint would need to be several feet wide. Which means that they either intentionally left it off (presumably because it would reveal what a crap design it really is) or they simply didn’t think that far ahead (which would be even more disturbing). Although we can’t rule out the possibility that the genius’ at NVRDV have developed some new way to handle this situation that is not evident in the renderings.

Other easily notable issues with this design:

1. Evidently the wind at 35+ stories in that part of the world is not that much of a factor, because they seem to have no problem planting 20 ft. trees in little raised planters with no worry that they will blow over and come crashing down on pedestrians in the street.
2. Drainage of the “Green Roof” (ie: Cloud) either:
1. Let it puddle up and spill over the edge. A Brilliant Design Concept.
2. Use Roof Drains (Dozens of them) with leaders back to the main towers. (Unfortunately, from the rendering it looks like there is only about 3 feet of ceiling space to hide the pipes. It appears that they would need at least half that just to account for slope of the pipe which leaves about 18” for the structure and other mechanical systems. (Damn, those are some fantastic engineers.)
3. Guardrails are usually a fairly good idea. One rendering shows a very faint (barely noticeable) line where the guardrail would be. This would seem to indicate that the guardrail is made of glass. (A metal rail would be more visible.) This is a classic design trick by designers to portray a feeling of openness and visibility, but in almost every case it is a disservice to the client; who ends up spending a fortune as well as a disservice to the occupants of the building who end up dealing with a material that can never stay clean and creates a glare that only serves to “reduce” visibility, not heighten it. It can also create a level of anxiety due to the fact that it “feels” flimsy and insecure.
4. Showing clear glass windows without blinds. I hate it when “reality” messes up a design. But hey, maybe over in South Korea they love to be exhibitionists and don’t care about energy efficiency. Sure, I know it’s only “an artistic conception”. But it is one that they wanted to convey as “photo realistic” in every single way… well, except for that.
5. Really cool how they can use the same amount of “Floor / Ceiling (Structural)” space for cantilever “cloud” as they do for the tower sections. So did they under design the structure for the cloud? Or did they overdesign structure for the Tower? Or did they just say, “To hell with it. We’ll figure that out later. It looks better this way.”
6. Window Washing? What’s that?  I guess the window washers will just pop-out of a hole in the floor of the “Cloud” to clean the windows below that section. Or maybe they could just put the 8 foot tall windows on a pivot and let the owners clean them from the inside. Or maybe they could just higher Spiderman to climb up the tower and clean the glass.
7. Sure hope that grass is artificial. Could you imagine landscapers marching through elevators, lobbies, restaurants and other spaces with mowers, edgers & trimmers? On the positive side, at least they won’t have to blow off the sidewalks; the wind should pretty much take care of that.

So this project is not only offensive, it is not very practical. Futhermore, in my opinion it is also just downright ugly and doesn’t really solve any problems that couldn’t have been solved by lowering the “cloud” down to the base.

Two Thumbs Down – For Design
One Finger Up – For insulting the People of the United States

Share this post with others.

Tweet

Posted by The Critical Architect on December 15, 2011. Filed under Breaking News, Conceptual, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry