4 ms·
That's because this is, like a commentator below said, a mix of aesthetics, politics, and technique. As an architect and software developer I will bet my hat
by brenschluss 9y ago
That's because this is, like a commentator below said, a mix of aesthetics, politics, and technique.
As an architect and software developer I will bet my hat that the architects knew exactly what was going on, but said that it was based on the GoL precisely because it would pass the budget.
I wouldn't be surprised if it started out with the GoL, but, thanks to budget reasons, they were forced to fabricate multiple identical panels rather than a total unique facade, and switched to a CA.
Fabricating/plasma cutting such a facade would be hugely pricey and the only thing that would let it survive against a bottom line budget is a political reason - aka a talking point.
- chris_va 9y agowaterjet, probably, and I don't think it would be too pricey since you can stack many sheets.
- brenschluss 9y agoGood call, But pricey than the alternative, which is to not cut a pattern at all, or to cut a unique pattern. Also, at this kind of scale, people easily balk at a reasonable sum; if it costs, say, $100 to waterjet one 4'x8' sheet, then a facade at 20'x40' on 4 sides of a building is all of a sudden a $320k budget.