4 ms·
> 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 acce
by 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 agoMake 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 agoMost skyscrapers have build-in cranes for the platforms for window cleaners. What you need here wouldn't even be that different.