×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Correcting Killer Architecture

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the built-to-kill dept.

United Kingdom 98

minstrelmike writes In Leeds, England, architects are adding a plethora of baffles and other structures to prevent the channeling of winds from a skyscraper that have pushed baby carriages into the street and caused one pedestrian death by blowing over a truck. Other architectural mistakes listed in the article include death ray buildings that can melt car bumpers and landscape ponds that blind tenants.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hipsters. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676193)

The last hurrah of a dead empire is always stupid architecture [the-shard.com] . These useless leeches on the festering asshole of a barely coherent society reshape the diarrhoetic effluent of wilted creativity.

Re:Hipsters. (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 3 months ago | (#47676259)

Whatever about hipsters I'm certainly no fan of modern glass, concrete and steel spiderweb homogeneity. I mean you could take a building off the streets of just about any modern city and transplant it into another without anyone raising an eyebrow. Even the iconic ones are rarely that interesting, just more elaborate variations on the theme. Go back in time a little and enormous cultural variations can be found in architectural design, producing some marvellous and unique urbanscapes.

Still I suppose, at least it's not brutalism. *shudders*

Re:Hipsters. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676305)

I used to think brutalism was shorthand for ugly and horrible - but there was an excellent two part docuentary I can only find the first part of that changed my mind. I like all the TV I have seen that Jonathan Meades has done, anyway the first part: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1zbn6f_bunkers-brutalism-bloodymindedness-bbc-documentary_tech

Re:Hipsters. (1)

Bazman (4849) | about 3 months ago | (#47676409)

The problem with concrete is that it doesn't get enough love and attention, and dirty concrete does look terrible. Maybe in countries with less grime and rain its less of a problem than in the UK. Good clean concrete architecture is amazing though. Why do so many modern buildings hide their concrete and steel behind a skin of brick?

Anyway, get a load of F**k Yeah Brutalism [tumblr.com] for the best of it. Although a lot of it doesn't exist any more.

 

Re:Hipsters. (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | about 3 months ago | (#47681453)

Thanks for that link. While the majority of the images depict monstrously ugly buildings, there is no doubt I think, that some of them are very striking and effective. Not many unfortunately. As you say, there is nothing inherently wrong with buildings made of exposed concrete, it is the design decisions made by architects and engineers with little aesthetic sense that results in the brutal mountains of concrete we love to hate.

Seems to me that there is no reason to eschew buildings with exposed concrete just because many of them are butt ugly. One would think that by now past mistakes would have paved the way for better and more elegant designs. Perhaps not.

Re:Hipsters. (1)

TWX (665546) | about 3 months ago | (#47677521)

Still I suppose, at least it's not brutalism. *shudders*

I actually like the look of the AT&T Long Lines Building. I think the term is too all-encompassing, and that there needs to be more than one category when structures identified as Brutalist vary so significantly. Hell, even older Romanesque buildings could qualify based on the use of hard materials with few windows, but either way, comparing the Boston City Hall with the AT&T Long Lines Building one sees quite a difference.

Re:Hipsters. (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 3 months ago | (#47677743)

If it makes me feel like I should be turning in my neighbours to earn extra food stamps or favours from the local Kommissar, maybe even the use of a People's Trabant to impress the other comrades, it's brutalism to me.

Re:Hipsters. (2)

njnnja (2833511) | about 3 months ago | (#47677987)

Go back in time a little and enormous cultural variations can be found in architectural design

Perhaps that says more about the reduction in cultural variances than changes in architectural design. Huge commercial skyscrapers dominate the skyline of globalized commercial centers around the world because globalized commercial centers share the same culture.

Re:Hipsters. (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | about 3 months ago | (#47681481)

Yes, and much of the most beautiful architecture that we revere so much was built with a lot of manual work by men (mostly) who were underpaid (if at all) and pretty much slaves to the monarchs who desired sumptuous palaces. Can't say I'd like for us to go back to that way of building. Certainly much of modern architecture is unforgivable, but that is not to say that all of it is.

Re:Hipsters. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676513)

Stupid architecture is the fault of the developers not the architects. The developers have the money so they make they final desicions.

So the last hurrah of a dead empire is "money still makes the rules" just like the first signs of a dying empire is "money makes the rules"

But I do agree with you that "These useless leeches on the festering asshole of a barely coherent society reshape the diarrhoetic effluent of wilted creativity." I just think you have missed the mark on who the leeches really are ;-)

The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676209)

Scaling up is hard,

Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Agai (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676221)

Not to suggest that we shouldn't scale up or research new areas. Just that R&D entails SHTF. Usually sooner than later. Sometimes much sooner than you're ready to deal with it. Some of our amazing discoveries were nasty accidents on the part of people trying out other things. Small price to pay.

Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Agai (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 months ago | (#47676275)

In the case of the 'death-ray' building they don't even have that excuse. The one in the UK was put up by the same architect who had already learned (by experience, not with 'math') that "Build a 50ish-story parabolic reflector in Las Vegas" might not be the best plan.

Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Agai (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676363)

First time is a mistake, shit happens. The second one is criminal negligence and he should be sued for any damage that is caused by it.

Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Agai (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676457)

If you had RTFA you would see that he specifically put sun sheilds in his design. They were "value engineered" out. Which means, as ever, it's the accountants and senior managers that deserve to die.

Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Agai (2)

TWX (665546) | about 3 months ago | (#47677557)

If your building can hurt people because non-architects can take away some nonstructural bolt-ons, then your building has a design fault.

Buildings are often modified as tastes change, if something is as simple to remove as these sun shields proved to be, then it's not unreasonable to assume that in the future, after the building is older and the purpose of the shields long-since forgotten, that someone would restyle the exterior and remove them, creating this problem again.

Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Agai (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47679645)

If the non-architects write out the HVAC or fire suppression systems (definitely nonstructural bolt-ons) I sure as hell wouldn't blame the architects involved when people die.

Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Agai (2)

WheezyJoe (1168567) | about 3 months ago | (#47680101)

Been watching old movies [imdb.com] lately?

Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Agai (1)

Orestesx (629343) | about 3 months ago | (#47681765)

Exactly. It's not like it takes special engineering to make sure your building is not a deathray. All you have to do is make it not a parabola.

Don't forget buildings in context (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about 3 months ago | (#47676727)

Then there is the converse of a single building reflecting light. A lot of places fail to look at how many buildings work together to form dark urban canyons where light is blocked because of over building or bad planning. And canyons can turn into wind tunnels themselves. Granted this idea as a whole falls partially or mostly on urban planning, but still should be thought of when planning new individual buildings. Downtown Vancouver seems to be seeing some of this lack of meta planning in their Yaletown/West End neighbourhoods with their high rise condo boom [fortpark.ca] . It might even be too late in places.

Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Agai (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 3 months ago | (#47676581)

Don't anthropomorphize The Law, otherwise those killer inanimate constructions will rise out of their foundations and smack you silly.

Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Agai (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47679213)

Bring it! You do realize that English was being used casually there, right? Not formally?

Really there's no excuse (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 3 months ago | (#47676229)

For any building of that size and cost, putting a model in a wind-tunnel should be compulsory.

Wind tunnel test (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 3 months ago | (#47676257)

Where I live, the absolute reverse is true. If any child can see that a storm will suck out the windows and smash them (just imagine what happens if you happen to be at or downwind of the landing spot), and you protest against the plans pointing that out, that protest is "not receivable".

Re:Really there's no excuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676273)

You'd be amazed (or appalled) at how many places no longer require a Civil or Structural Engineering degree to become a licensed architect.

Re:Really there's no excuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676561)

Around here Architecture is a field of it's own. Architects don't have civil engineering degree, they have architech degree. Granted, the faculties are right next to eachothers, and the students share many classes.

Re:Really there's no excuse (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#47679171)

Old joke:

A building designed by an architect might fall down, but a building designed by an engineer should be torn down.

Re:Really there's no excuse (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 months ago | (#47676287)

What surprises me is that the insurance people involved in these projects don't play hardass more effectively. The structure is going to have some trouble being built and leased/rented/sold if nobody is willing to cover it; and no insurance outfit would want some zesty wrongful death claims showing up because somebody is too cool for fluid mechanics.

Re:Really there's no excuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47678455)

It's cheaper to buy legislators to rewrite the Tort laws.

Re:Really there's no excuse (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 3 months ago | (#47676475)

RE: Wind Tunnel Testing

I'm not sure that would pay off. You'd need to model the nearby city-scape for a wind tunnel as well, since its not just one building but a combination of buildings that typically cause problems. Also, it is very hard to reproduce the variations in wind that we see in nature. Wind tunnels generally have a steady flow in one direction.

Re:Really there's no excuse (1)

onepoint (301486) | about 3 months ago | (#47676571)

I am not sure of this, but about 10 years ago I saw a show about Toronto, all buildings over 100 feet tall have to have some sort of wind test on a scale model showing what happens to the surrounding area.

Not to mention falling ice from skyscrapers (1)

knorthern knight (513660) | about 3 months ago | (#47681679)

Speaking of Toronto, here in Canada we have this thing called "winter". Snow falls, sticks to buildings, turns to ice, and eventually falls off. This can be dangerous... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ame... [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Really there's no excuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676851)

Wind tunnel testing of large new buildings, using models that include the nearby city-scape is common practice, at least for large cities in the US.

Re:Really there's no excuse (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 3 months ago | (#47681789)

Not true here. This tall building stands pretty much alone amongst low buildings. It's an effect of the building itself, not of a group of buildings.

Re:Really there's no excuse (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676859)

I live in Leeds and know the building mentioned in the article. In this case it's not just the building itself but the shape of the building combined with neighboring buildings which produces the wind tunnel effect. While this certainly should have been caught it's not as simple as putting a model in a wind tunnel, you'd have to model the surrounding area and prevailing winds in detail to predict the result.

Re:Really there's no excuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47677417)

True, but sticking the flat face of the building facing the prevailing winds was a stupid idea for a building so large. They should have stuck the rounded end into the prevailing wind, allowing the wind to break around the building. Certainly would've been easier on the windows to say the least.

Re:Really there's no excuse (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 months ago | (#47676889)

There is the State University of New York at Albany example.

The design for the campus was designed by an architect to be used in a Desert location rumors have it in Saudi Arabia or Phoenix Arizona. It was designed to Chanel the winds to keep the campus cool for those hot Desert days.

However SUNY Albany to save tax payer money out and bought those designs, and put them in Upstate NY. Where the bulk of the school year is during the Cold winter months, thus giving the campus a bitter cold windchill in winter.

The Architect did a fine job, it was the stupid politicians who just cheap out and put a good design in a bad location.

Re:Really there's no excuse (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#47680133)

One day an architectural genius will come form there and fix it.

Campuses should be a collection of problems for the students to think about. Not some idealized place where students can think all the problems are solved and all that's left is navel gazing.

The Death Ray Hotel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676247)

I still cannot understand why anyone let that moron build another building, more to the point of it being a curved one.
What I don't understand is why didn't they place solar panels there instead of silly wasteful shields?

Another, it mentioned a nice flat seamless surface that had to have hand-rails and such added because of how dangerous it was, I was witness to some retarded architects (more like "artchitect", worst architects ever) idea of a beach-front that followed these ideas.
However, he took it a step further. Oh, seamless? Pfft, hell naw, he went full jagged, cobbled paths with pretty high inclines. IN ENGLAND.
We are speaking a place that would regularly get covered in ice, not a single hand rail, jagged rocks. Never mind the rain still making it slippery as hell.
Needless to say, the entire thing was ripped out and replaced with a considerably nicer place, nice steps, hand rails, no inclines, seats, plants. It looks wonderful.

SAY NO TO ARTCHITECTS!

Re:The Death Ray Hotel (3, Informative)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 3 months ago | (#47676375)

The architect designed in a solution to the death ray before the 'walkie talkie' was built.

The builders cut costs and didn't add the sunshades, so blame the builders and planning authority.

Re:The Death Ray Hotel (1)

TWX (665546) | about 3 months ago | (#47677603)

If omitting something that's largely cosmetic turns the building in to a death-ray, then the design of the building is fundamentally flawed. Someone down the road migth decide to revitalize the building by removing the sun shields, which would spawn the problem all over again.

Re:The Death Ray Hotel (1)

Flummox (145590) | about 3 months ago | (#47677989)

If omitting something that's largely cosmetic turns the building in to a death-ray, then the design of the building is fundamentally flawed.

By definition, the sunshades can not be largely cosmetic if they have this impact. It's like blaming building heat loss in winter after removing the largely cosmetic facade.

Re:The Death Ray Hotel (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 3 months ago | (#47679093)

If it's not structural, it's cosmetic. As long as you adhere to weight and attachment limitations, the facade can be changed on a whim.

Re:The Death Ray Hotel (1)

nanoflower (1077145) | about 3 months ago | (#47679865)

So we can remove all windows because they clearly aren't structural since the building will remain standing without any windows. Oh, the doors can go too since they clearly aren't structural.

Re:The Death Ray Hotel (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#47680165)

The only really structural part is the tenants belief in the building.

"Architectural mistakes" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676249)

...or a passive-aggressive architect?

How about preventing KA? (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 3 months ago | (#47676271)

What kind of modeling software do these guys use? On any high dollar project, I can't believe there isn't some serious CAD going on. The CAD programs should have packages that address these issues. Some of them will be unusual and it'll be a learning process; but nobody should build a car-melting building the second time.

Re:How about preventing KA? (2)

oneandoneis2 (777721) | about 3 months ago | (#47676389)

RTFA - the architect behind the "Death Ray" building designed in measures to prevent the problem. Idiot cost-cutters removed them during the build.

Re:How about preventing KA? (4, Insightful)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 3 months ago | (#47676499)

Sunshields would be a workaround and not a PREVENTION.

Prevention starts at the problem source, which is a curved, reflective surface. Making the curve non-parabolic or pointing the aperture north would have been prevention. But sunshades are rather acknowleding the problem and working around it. (Usually adding more complexity and points of failure, but that's another story)

Yes, sometimes you have to use workarounds, maybe the source of the problem might be the solution to an even bigger problem, or the new problem isn't big enough to warrant fundamental design changes, but still that's not prevention.

Re:How about preventing KA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676579)

Sunshields would be a workaround and not a PREVENTION.

Prevention starts at the problem source, which is a curved, reflective surface. Making the curve non-parabolic or pointing the aperture north would have been prevention. But sunshades are rather acknowleding the problem and working around it. (Usually adding more complexity and points of failure, but that's another story)

Yes, sometimes you have to use workarounds, maybe the source of the problem might be the solution to an even bigger problem, or the new problem isn't big enough to warrant fundamental design changes, but still that's not prevention.

Does it matter if you put in sun shield or rotate the building? They are both workarounds. So is making flat surface instead of curved one. The realy reason is the sun, so just remove the sun and there won't be death rays. Black matte surface might also have worked, or any other thing. If the builders decide to build something else the architect is not the one to blame. Who knows, maybe the orientation of the building got changed also?

Re:How about preventing KA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47679535)

Changing the curve or facing is just another work around. The real source of the problem is really the sun, so I suppose the real solution would be to simply put it out.

Yes, I guess that sometimes you do have to use workarounds.

Re:How about preventing KA? (1)

u38cg (607297) | about 3 months ago | (#47676521)

Sort of. He did agree to their removal, though.

Re:How about preventing KA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676429)

Does it occur to you that software isn't the answer to everything? That's why professional engineers have this thing called "due diligence", which this bozo obviously didn't do.

Re:How about preventing KA? (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 3 months ago | (#47679333)

Does it occur to you that software isn't the answer to everything?

Yes.

Re:How about preventing KA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676875)

Architectural/Structural CAD software would not directly address these wind issues. CFD software might and physical testing would.

Use the force (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676277)

Maybe they can add on wind turbine to harvest this free energy?

Re:Use the force (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | about 3 months ago | (#47679775)

Why don't they just put another building in the way? Maybe one designed to channel the wind up?

Re:Use the force (1)

sysrammer (446839) | about 3 months ago | (#47683787)

Why don't they just put another building in the way? Maybe one designed to channel the wind up?

For the daily mini-tornado.

Re:Use the force (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47686253)

The movie "Divergent" shows wind turbines on the sides of buildings to harvest the wind.

Similar (2, Interesting)

hooiberg (1789158) | about 3 months ago | (#47676285)

This article reminds me of another English building with a concave mirror in it, that actually melted plastic parts of cars parked on the wrong spot at the wrong time by concentrating sunlight on it. http://geekologie.com/2013/09/... [geekologie.com]

Re:Similar (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 months ago | (#47676343)

The 'Walkie Talkie' AKA 'Solar Death Ray' was mentioned in the article as another example of an unanticipated danger in architecture.

Re:Similar (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 3 months ago | (#47676385)

It was anticipated by the architect, but the builders decided to skip the 'death-ray-stopper' addition to the building to save money.

Raises an interesting question - should planning authorities be partly responsible for allowing dangerous buildings of this nature?

Re:Similar (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 3 months ago | (#47676401)

This article reminds me of another English building with a concave mirror in it, that actually melted plastic parts of cars parked on the wrong spot at the wrong time by concentrating sunlight on it. http://geekologie.com/2013/09/ [geekologie.com] ...

I think it's fine. Just put a "no parking" sign in the affected spots. Only entitled wankers in BMWs would use the spot and then they get their cars melted.

I'm OK with that.

Re:Similar (4, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | about 3 months ago | (#47676497)

They did put a sign there. It melted.

Re:Similar (1)

mowbray (1060104) | about 3 months ago | (#47679475)

At Bridgewater Place they put up signs when it's windy. Unsurprisingly, they tend to blow over..

Re:Similar (1)

eric_harris_76 (861235) | about 3 months ago | (#47688355)

Chanting crowd: WHAT DO WE WANT?

Chanting crowd: TIME TRAVEL!

Chanting crowd: WHEN DO WE WANT IT?

Chanting crowd: THAT'S IRRELEVANT!

Re:Similar (1)

u38cg (607297) | about 3 months ago | (#47676655)

It would certainly make the Bank of England's regulation more effective if it became known they had a death ray and were willing to use it.

Re:Similar (1)

c (8461) | about 3 months ago | (#47676665)

Just put a "no parking" sign in the affected spots.

I was thinking "pick up and deliveries only". It takes more than a few minutes to melt a car, so might as well get some use out of the spot.

Re:Similar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676507)

Does the description, which explicitly mentions the same thing, also remind you of it?

Re:Similar (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 3 months ago | (#47676735)

Not similar. The SAME.

It reminds you of that building because that's the building the summary is referring to.

Re:Similar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47677691)

The article should not just remind you. It explicitly refers to that building and several other fiascoes associated with when architects get too architecty. It is worth reading.

Wind turbine array (3, Interesting)

Alioth (221270) | about 3 months ago | (#47676293)

Why not instead of baffles construct an array of wind turbines to take the energy out the wind? Fix the deadly gales problem and power the building at the same time.

Re:Wind turbine array (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676517)

1) very dangerous
2) very noisy
3) extremely expensive
4) unbelievably inefficient
5) plain stupid

Re:Wind turbine array (1)

vlad30 (44644) | about 3 months ago | (#47681753)

1) very dangerous 2) very noisy 3) extremely expensive 4) unbelievably inefficient 5) plain stupid

6)enviromentalist think its a great idea

Local politicians just found their perfect solution

Re:Wind turbine array (3, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 months ago | (#47676533)

Because it's gusty, and wind turbines need steady wind.

Re:Wind turbine array (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47679367)

YES! Please! Attach as many of these [youtube.com] to your death ray as possible! Muahahaha...

Re:Wind turbine array (1)

Forever Wondering (2506940) | about 3 months ago | (#47681163)

Why not instead of baffles construct an array of wind turbines to take the energy out the wind? Fix the deadly gales problem and power the building at the same time.

Yes, you could provide power for the death ray when the sun isn't shining.

Tear It Down (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about 3 months ago | (#47676335)

Other incidents have left a person with a torn liver and internal bleeding, and cuts requiring 11 stitches, as well as a buggy containing a three-month-old child being whisked out into the road by a sharp gust. Last year the council ruled that the surrounding roads must be closed when the wind reaches speeds of 45mph, but problems have continued.

The problem is that the government is not attaching enough cost to these kinds of mistakes, so they happen over and over again. If the building had to be torn down then the cost / loss would be so high that developers would never make mistakes like this again and start testing their designs better in advance. As it is right now, the only people paying the cost are the citizens while the developers laugh all the way to the bank.

Re:Tear It Down (2)

oneandoneis2 (777721) | about 3 months ago | (#47676391)

> If the building had to be torn down then the cost / loss would be so high that developers would never make mistakes like this again

Yes, and if we had the death penalty for theft, there'd be no more mugging!

Re:Tear It Down (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 3 months ago | (#47676461)

If the building had to be torn down then the cost / loss would be so high that developers would never make mistakes like this again

Yes, and if we had the death penalty for theft, there'd be no more mugging!

Nah - Everybody knows that petty theft should be punished by cutting the thief's hand off. What kind of crazy extremist are you?!

Re:Tear It Down (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 3 months ago | (#47676641)

Well I hate to play devil's advocate for the law but, there is a major difference between duhvelopers and muggers.

Muggers tend to work alone or with an accomplice with little whereas Duhvelopers are actually organized groups with policies, rules, and procedures. Muggers don't sit down before they go out for the evening and come up with a business plan; they don't tend to get anyone to insure their project either.

You don't even need to make duhvelopers care. You need to make insurance companies care, then they will make the duhvelopers care by refusing to insure projects.

Re:Tear It Down (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 3 months ago | (#47682939)

You mean tort law alone doesn't solve all of the worlds problems?

Flying cars (2)

advantis (622471) | about 3 months ago | (#47676361)

Well, people keep asking for their flying cars, and now that they got them, thanks to that building in Leeds, they're upset?

Knock it down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676365)

The worry thing is he CPS reluctance to press corporate manslaughter charges over the death. There's a clear link connecting it with the building design so there's a public interest in assigning responsibility. It's fairly obvious why they've demurred. The precedent would make the building's owners/designers culpable for any future incidents. There'd be no alternative to demolition. But isn't that rather what we want? As a deterrent to other poor design.

The Very Anonymous Coward

Re:Knock it down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47677139)

The worry thing is he CPS reluctance to press corporate manslaughter charges over the death. There's a clear link connecting it with the building design so there's a public interest in assigning responsibility.

Especially as they knew about the problem, and had at least one near miss, long before any actual fatalities occurred.

beware falling gargoyles!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47676373)

in creation there are no 'straight' lines or 'right' angles,,, just a never ending expanding collection of more than everything we need to take care of one another without any personal gain (greed fear ego etc..) etc... motives

Re:beware falling gargoyles!!! (1)

TWX (665546) | about 3 months ago | (#47677639)

Someone never studied how shale and other rocks cleave...

Mind you, it's certainly desirable to stuy other forms of cleavage...

Re:beware falling gargoyles!!! (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#47679739)

The horizon on water isn't actually straight. But you can bet it's where the idea came from.

Architects. (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 3 months ago | (#47676383)

Architects. Pfft.* Can modern architects stop inflicting ugly buildings on us, even if they didn't kill people? No one cares about your "theories". They look shit and often function shit. * Whoops, blew down my apartment building.

Re:Architects. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47678919)

define Not Ugly..

Obligatory Monty Python Sketch (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | about 3 months ago | (#47676427)

Monty Python predicted this, they also predicted how to fix this problem, that video is left as an exercise for the reader to find.

The Architect [youtube.com]

Re:Obligatory Monty Python Sketch (1)

sysrammer (446839) | about 3 months ago | (#47683799)

Hah. Crazy chit, mon.

better idea (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 3 months ago | (#47676837)

1. fire artists
2. hire engineers

Architecture kills Art at Dallas Nasher (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47677251)

The Real Story Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47677973)

The real story here is that England gets sunlight.

Re:The Real Story Here (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#47680201)

Holding an architect responsible for such an unforeseeable event is unfair.

Plenty of other examples - my favourite (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about 3 months ago | (#47678147)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]

Inwards-facing ramps turned the 100M-square arch into a massive venturi, sweeping people off their feet, off the top of the plaza and then flinging therm down a conveniently-placed steep flight of hard stone stairs.

Genius.

Cue hastly rethink with a nasty plastic "roof" inside the arch to slow the wind...a little.

Works with sound, too. (2)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 3 months ago | (#47680587)

I heard a story about another "killer building" near Chicago. (Haven't checked the claims for truth - just repeating it as I heard it.)

Seems there was this nice commercial builing next to O'Hare Airport. Curved walls, lots of lawn, nice walkway up to the door in the middle. Great view through the space over the airport runways.

There was this one spot on the walkway where more than one person was found unconscious or dead of apparent heart failure. There were enough that somebody looked into the coincidences.

Turns out the building's curve was parabolic and it faced a runway. If you happened to be at the focus when a jet taking off crossed the axis, the building concentrated the sound of the engines on you...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?