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.”
The facade is actually changing positions though. It’s not an illusion. It’s an actual twist. There’s no perspective exploits here. There is a central point and the facade twists around it.
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.
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.
The facade is actually changing positions though. It’s not an illusion. It’s an actual twist. There’s no perspective exploits here. There is a central point and the facade twists around it.
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.
Sorry, but imagine meeting someone new and trying to discuss your feelings on this tower in real life and coming on the way you did. Lol
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.