3 ms·

> It was the first major example of an 'inside-out' building with its structural system, mechanical systems, and circulation exposed on the exterior of the buil

> It was the first major example of an 'inside-out' building with its structural system, mechanical systems, and circulation exposed on the exterior of the building. Initially, all of the functional structural elements of the building were colour-coded: green pipes are plumbing, blue ducts are for climate control, electrical wires are encased in yellow, and circulation elements and devices for safety (e.g., fire extinguishers) are red. Was it because of this? I can see that causing some issues.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dmurray 3y ago
Having all these easily accessible on the outside of the building (instead of having to open up walls or floors) sounds like it should make maintenance easier, not harder. Although the "structural system" certainly sounds like something that should be weatherproofed. Perhaps it was complicated by aesthetic concerns: when you put these internals on the outside, there's some pressure to arrange them in a nice- looking way rather than in the most functional configuration.
- colechristensen 3y ago
  It’s a lot more difficult to have a thing exposed to wind rain sun and snow that it is to expose it to… the inside of a wall.
- jack_riminton 3y ago
  Indeed, I learned during my degree that this building was designed so that maintenance and refitting would be easier. Turns out it was just an Architectural excuse for the aesthetics of it
- jxf 3y ago
  > Having all these easily accessible on the outside of the building (instead of having to open up walls or floors) sounds like it should make maintenance easier, not harder. Accessibility is improved, but lifespan is sacrificed. When the systems are on the outside they're subjected to much greater swings in environment (humidity, pressure, temperature, thermal expansion, and so on) that don't happen when they're inside the climate-control envelope of the building.
- Swizec 3y ago
  > Having all these easily accessible on the outside of the building (instead of having to open up walls or floors) Don’t buildings like these usually have access panels for maintenance? Plus a lot of “fake” paneling, especially on ceilings, that’s easy to remove to access all the piping it hides? But when these things are outside, now you need a crane instead of just ladders. Even without access panels, opening and replacing some segments of drywall sounds pretty easy compared to working on a building’s facade.
  - usrusr 3y ago
    Make the crane part of the building. In this case it would not even be an awkward necessity you try to make as invisible a possible, it could be a proud highlight integral to the the design language. Or rather could have been, if it's added now it would be a highlight extension to the design language. Would that approach change the original design? Absolutely. But I'd see that as a positive. Not because I don't like the original design (I do) but because it would make a nice teaching example: if architects don't want their designs to be messed with, they'd better start making "how will it look and perform after x decades of use and weather" much more a factor in their decisions than they do now. I'm so tired of seeing new architecture that makes pristineness (while new) it's central design statement and has absolutely nothing to show for once that new car smell is gone.
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      Most skyscrapers have build-in cranes for the platforms for window cleaners. What you need here wouldn't even be that different.
eternalban 3y ago
"The architects believe in buildings, which are able to change and adapt in answer to technical and/or client needs, not only in plan but in section and elevation. They believe in a framework which allows people freedom to do their own thing, the order, scale and ‘grain’ coming from a clear understanding and expression of the process of building; in the optimization of each individual element, its system of manufacture, storage, transportation, erection and connection, all within a clearly defined and rational framework; in a giant meccano set rather than a traditional static transparent or solid doll’s house." https://www.architectural-review.com/buildings/pompidou-cannot-be-perceived-as-anything-but-a-monument https://www.architectural-review.com/buildings/pompidou-cann... Does that all sound familiar to folks building backend systems? That is 'microservices' for architecture, a counter to 'monolithic' structures, using almost precisely the same motivations, and, running into the same exact problems: operational complexity.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  It is the standard post-modern circle jerk where mundane things have to be cast in exalted grandiosity so that pseudo-intellectuals can feel important.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dmurray 3y ago

Having all these easily accessible on the outside of the building (instead of having to open up walls or floors) sounds like it should make maintenance easier, not harder. Although the "structural system" certainly sounds like something that should be weatherproofed. Perhaps it was complicated by aesthetic concerns: when you put these internals on the outside, there's some pressure to arrange them in a nice- looking way rather than in the most functional configuration.

colechristensen 3y ago
It’s a lot more difficult to have a thing exposed to wind rain sun and snow that it is to expose it to… the inside of a wall.
jack_riminton 3y ago
Indeed, I learned during my degree that this building was designed so that maintenance and refitting would be easier. Turns out it was just an Architectural excuse for the aesthetics of it
jxf 3y ago
> Having all these easily accessible on the outside of the building (instead of having to open up walls or floors) sounds like it should make maintenance easier, not harder. Accessibility is improved, but lifespan is sacrificed. When the systems are on the outside they're subjected to much greater swings in environment (humidity, pressure, temperature, thermal expansion, and so on) that don't happen when they're inside the climate-control envelope of the building.
Swizec 3y ago
> Having all these easily accessible on the outside of the building (instead of having to open up walls or floors) Don’t buildings like these usually have access panels for maintenance? Plus a lot of “fake” paneling, especially on ceilings, that’s easy to remove to access all the piping it hides? But when these things are outside, now you need a crane instead of just ladders. Even without access panels, opening and replacing some segments of drywall sounds pretty easy compared to working on a building’s facade.
- usrusr 3y ago
  Make the crane part of the building. In this case it would not even be an awkward necessity you try to make as invisible a possible, it could be a proud highlight integral to the the design language. Or rather could have been, if it's added now it would be a highlight extension to the design language. Would that approach change the original design? Absolutely. But I'd see that as a positive. Not because I don't like the original design (I do) but because it would make a nice teaching example: if architects don't want their designs to be messed with, they'd better start making "how will it look and perform after x decades of use and weather" much more a factor in their decisions than they do now. I'm so tired of seeing new architecture that makes pristineness (while new) it's central design statement and has absolutely nothing to show for once that new car smell is gone.
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    Most skyscrapers have build-in cranes for the platforms for window cleaners. What you need here wouldn't even be that different.

eternalban 3y ago

"The architects believe in buildings, which are able to change and adapt in answer to technical and/or client needs, not only in plan but in section and elevation. They believe in a framework which allows people freedom to do their own thing, the order, scale and ‘grain’ coming from a clear understanding and expression of the process of building; in the optimization of each individual element, its system of manufacture, storage, transportation, erection and connection, all within a clearly defined and rational framework; in a giant meccano set rather than a traditional static transparent or solid doll’s house." https://www.architectural-review.com/buildings/pompidou-cannot-be-perceived-as-anything-but-a-monument https://www.architectural-review.com/buildings/pompidou-cann... Does that all sound familiar to folks building backend systems? That is 'microservices' for architecture, a counter to 'monolithic' structures, using almost precisely the same motivations, and, running into the same exact problems: operational complexity.

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
It is the standard post-modern circle jerk where mundane things have to be cast in exalted grandiosity so that pseudo-intellectuals can feel important.