5 ms·

The second image doesn't have anything else in the image to look at, whereas the first has multiple buildings and plenty of sky space. This article is bollocks.

The second image doesn't have anything else in the image to look at, whereas the first has multiple buildings and plenty of sky space. This article is bollocks. They've worked backwards from a conclusion to find (bad) evidence.

Reason077 7y ago
Isn’t part of the point of reflective glass cladding to reflect the sky, disguise the building’s bulk, make it less imposing, etc? If people’s eyes aren’t being drawn to it, then it seems like it’s succeeded at that aim.
- theon144 7y ago
  If people's eyes aren't being drawn to it... >Mother Nature, the architect of our perception, with a good 3.8 billion years of design experience, won’t allow it. We simply will not connect to a place she informs us isn’t there or worth looking at! And I'd tend to agree. If the purpose of the design is to act as if there is not a building, act as if it's a non-place - then what should I remember about it? Why should I want to be there, if there's "nothing"?
atoav 7y ago
As somebody who dealt with photography and cameras his whole life and took pictures as a professional for movies: this isn’t bollocks. The visual readability of an opaque non-reflective cube is always going to be higher than that of a mirror cube in a non studio environment. This is because your brain needs to do more legwork to figure out the underlying shape when you look at reflective suefaces that are mostly flat and show you parts of a sky that you may or may not see at that point. Reflectivity can also work in your favour, to highlight shapes, especially when the paint additionally has a diffuse color (think of cars) and they are in eye level (less confusing sky reflections), but highly reflective glass buildings with nothing else to gisually hold on will most of the time just reflect a random patch of the sky. What visual readability is, is the answer to the question how fast and effortless a image can be read. A certain degree of unreadability may be interesting even, but I am not sure if architects are that aware of the reflective part of their buildings. E.g. I happen to have the luck to have a second sun in the end of the day despite my east-facing windows, because one of the glas buildings opposite. I am sure they didn’t simulate that. I am also sure this increases the temperature in the city. Most architects I met just think glas looks rad and all their collegues use it and so they do too.
- arrrg 7y ago
  I think you are talking past each other. What was labelled as “bollocks” here is the scientific evidence.
  - TheRealSteel 7y ago
    Absolutely. It may be true that people look less at glass buildings than concrete ones, but the evidence they present is worthless. That doesn't mean it ISN'T true - that would be just as bad a fallacy - it just means this article isn't presenting anything compelling to back up its claim.
- fxtentacle 7y ago
  I fully agree with your observations about good or bad photography being dictated in part by its easy visual readability. But the article presented here seems unscientific and misleading to me. They say "the brain avoids looking at" and then the "evidence" that they produce is an AI prediction generated by a closed-source (meaning unverifiable) software. It would be correct if they say "3M's prediction ignores glass skyscrapers", but that might just as well be a bug in their algorithm. As a counter-example, the Keppler skyscrapers in harborfront Singapore are mostly made from glass to fight off the heat, yet they are pleasing to look at and have very interesting reflection patterns. And they are certainly remembered by locals as a great navigation landmark.
- amelius 7y ago
  Ok, but at least they could have gathered a little more evidence.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Meh, it's just a blog post with overstated claims: I'd say the amount of evidence is in line with the typical startup stories posted on HN. The thing I find most interesting is how strongly people want to defend boring glass facades.
- aasasd 7y ago
mombul 7y ago
This. Seriously. It compares a picture with a lot of other stuff than the glass building to look at and help our eyes "escape", to a picture where 97% of the space is the building itself. There's nothing else to look at so... yeah... This seems so biased. /e: words

Reason077 7y ago

Isn’t part of the point of reflective glass cladding to reflect the sky, disguise the building’s bulk, make it less imposing, etc? If people’s eyes aren’t being drawn to it, then it seems like it’s succeeded at that aim.

theon144 7y ago
If people's eyes aren't being drawn to it... >Mother Nature, the architect of our perception, with a good 3.8 billion years of design experience, won’t allow it. We simply will not connect to a place she informs us isn’t there or worth looking at! And I'd tend to agree. If the purpose of the design is to act as if there is not a building, act as if it's a non-place - then what should I remember about it? Why should I want to be there, if there's "nothing"?

atoav 7y ago

As somebody who dealt with photography and cameras his whole life and took pictures as a professional for movies: this isn’t bollocks. The visual readability of an opaque non-reflective cube is always going to be higher than that of a mirror cube in a non studio environment. This is because your brain needs to do more legwork to figure out the underlying shape when you look at reflective suefaces that are mostly flat and show you parts of a sky that you may or may not see at that point. Reflectivity can also work in your favour, to highlight shapes, especially when the paint additionally has a diffuse color (think of cars) and they are in eye level (less confusing sky reflections), but highly reflective glass buildings with nothing else to gisually hold on will most of the time just reflect a random patch of the sky. What visual readability is, is the answer to the question how fast and effortless a image can be read. A certain degree of unreadability may be interesting even, but I am not sure if architects are that aware of the reflective part of their buildings. E.g. I happen to have the luck to have a second sun in the end of the day despite my east-facing windows, because one of the glas buildings opposite. I am sure they didn’t simulate that. I am also sure this increases the temperature in the city. Most architects I met just think glas looks rad and all their collegues use it and so they do too.

arrrg 7y ago
I think you are talking past each other. What was labelled as “bollocks” here is the scientific evidence.
- TheRealSteel 7y ago
  Absolutely. It may be true that people look less at glass buildings than concrete ones, but the evidence they present is worthless. That doesn't mean it ISN'T true - that would be just as bad a fallacy - it just means this article isn't presenting anything compelling to back up its claim.
fxtentacle 7y ago
I fully agree with your observations about good or bad photography being dictated in part by its easy visual readability. But the article presented here seems unscientific and misleading to me. They say "the brain avoids looking at" and then the "evidence" that they produce is an AI prediction generated by a closed-source (meaning unverifiable) software. It would be correct if they say "3M's prediction ignores glass skyscrapers", but that might just as well be a bug in their algorithm. As a counter-example, the Keppler skyscrapers in harborfront Singapore are mostly made from glass to fight off the heat, yet they are pleasing to look at and have very interesting reflection patterns. And they are certainly remembered by locals as a great navigation landmark.
amelius 7y ago
Ok, but at least they could have gathered a little more evidence.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Meh, it's just a blog post with overstated claims: I'd say the amount of evidence is in line with the typical startup stories posted on HN. The thing I find most interesting is how strongly people want to defend boring glass facades.
aasasd 7y ago

mombul 7y ago

This. Seriously. It compares a picture with a lot of other stuff than the glass building to look at and help our eyes "escape", to a picture where 97% of the space is the building itself. There's nothing else to look at so... yeah... This seems so biased. /e: words