5 ms·

Regardless of the vibrancy of the colors, one trend I really like that I hope doesn’t reverse any time soon is how bright and sunny many new buildings are nowad

Regardless of the vibrancy of the colors, one trend I really like that I hope doesn’t reverse any time soon is how bright and sunny many new buildings are nowadays. I immediately notice the difference in my mood walking into a modern office where the walls are essentially giant glass windows vs a building in an office park built over the last few decades. Old brick buildings with tiny windows on college campuses feel claustrophobic compared to the newer ones. Modern coffee shops are airier and cheerier compared to the dark caves of yore. Even homes are being built with larger windows now. Not everyone likes this trend (and many people who code still prefer dark rooms), but for me I think it’s great. I thrive on a lot of sunlight. Perhaps the bright and varied colors of the past were more so a counterbalance to the lack of sunlight? With more natural light available, muted color schemes feel more appropriate.

lupusreal 2y ago
As a society we need to do whatever it takes to keep architects happy. Whenever they get depressed they have a tendency to take it out on the rest of us. If they despair, they want everybody else to suffer too and design inhuman monstrosities that beat down the spirit. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Penn_Station_concourse.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Penn_Station_conco...
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I mean, that's like that because they wanted to build Madison Square Garden on top of it; any architects involved were working under impossible constraints.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Just because the plan requires a low ceiling doesn't mean the end result needs to look like a dead midwest shopping mall. It doesn't have to be like this specifically, but it demonstrates the point: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=moscow+subway&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=moscow+subway&iax=images&ia=images
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      A space that wide with a ceiling that low is always going to look a bit shit, unfortunately. The impressive subway stations linked are a combo of quite high spaces, and narrower spaces with lower ceilings, which can look good. But "broad wide space, low ceiling", there's really not a lot you can do. A common approach for this sort of big low-ish train station is a partially or completely glass roof, ideally not flat, and that can look okay, but obviously not an option in this case.
rsynnott 2y ago
There's _some_ tension with insulation there, though really at this point it's largely surmountable with triple-glazing etc. Small windows in older buildings are to some extent a legacy of that; when you were working with single glazing it was really a very big problem. But big windows are technology-driven rather than fashion-driven to an extent; most people like them, so they'll probably stick around.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > There's _some_ tension with insulation there, though really at this point it's largely surmountable with triple-glazing etc. A typical triple-glazed window can maybe hit R-8 (U 0.125). A typical wall can be R-20 (or greater). There is no surmounting, relative to other assemblies, the suckiness of glass as an insulator. But few people want to live/work in an bunker with no windows if they had a choice, so we accept the compromise. But make no mistake it is a compromise when it comes to energy efficiency.
apothegm 2y ago
New buildings are meant for the floor to ceiling windows to look good to the people who will have them in their corner offices, but the floor plans are too deep to save the peons from overhead tube fluorescents. What are really awesome are office buildings constructed before electric lighting was ubiquitous. They’re designed with shallow floor plates or inner open spaces so that (unless you break them up too much with cubicle walls) every desk can be fully illuminated with natural light.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  Plus, when I last checked they are very inefficient in terms of heat isolation. The energy required to keep them at comfortable temperatures are way higher when compared to traditional building techniques. I recently saw a special glass which is warmer to touch and has way less thermal conductivity, but even with that, the savings are ~20% at most. A brick wall with isolation adds minimum of 25% savings when compared to the same wall provides without isolation, which is way better than the glass to begin with.
  - throw0101a 2y ago
    > Plus, when I last checked they are very inefficient in terms of heat isolation. The energy required to keep them at comfortable temperatures are way higher when compared to traditional building techniques. There are two things in play here: the first is, as you mention, the insulation quality (R-value / U-factor) of windows is abysmal, both in absolute terms and relative to other wall assemblies. Heat leaks out of windows in winter in high amounts (and then you also have to deal with unwanted thermal gain in summer, raising AC costs). The other thing is mean radiant temperature: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_radiant_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_radiant_temperature Many folks think that if the thermostat reads the correct temperature in a room, you're done: that is not the case. The thermostat reads the air temperature, and air temperature is often only half of what you feel in a room: the other half is what is radiated from all the surfaces around you. A camp fire, fireplace, or radiator feels warm because it is at a temperature higher than your skin, and so the energy goes from it to you. But if there is something that is lower than your skin temperature, the energy will go from you to it and you will feel cold—regardless of what the air temperature is. This is why in offices, even though a thermometer / thermostat reads 20C/70F in both summer and winter, people feel cold: the giant office windows work as "anti-radiators", where energy wants to move from your body/skin to them.
throw0101a 2y ago
> I immediately notice the difference in my mood walking into a modern office where the walls are essentially giant glass windows […] What's the R-value [1] / U-factor on all of those windows? In offices, even though a thermometer / thermostat reads 20C/70F in both summer and winter, people feel cold: the giant office windows work as "anti-radiators", where energy wants to move from your body/skin to them. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_radiant_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_radiant_temperature I also find the first thing that what many folks do is pull down the blinds on windows in offices so they can actually see their screens. :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_(insulation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_(insulation)
GuB-42 2y ago
The reason for tiny windows is more technical. Windows are weak, expensive, offer poor insulation, privacy and security. Modern techniques mitigate this problem: better structure allows for less reliance on walls for support and therefore more room for windows, mass production make them cheaper, double pane glass improve insulation, security and privacy can be dealt with large motorized rolling shutters. I don't believe the lack of sunlight is the reason for vivid colors of the past. If anything, the colors were darker, though more saturated. Also, while tiny windows did not allow for a lot of sunlight, it is the opposite at night, where modern lighting is much brighter thanks to cheap, powerful and efficient LEDs. Here, I think it is just fashion, nothing technical.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Windows are […] expensive […] I think it's the opposite: glass is really cheap, which makes up most of the window. Less expensive than rebar and concrete and the labour for the form work and such. Certainly the frame can be pricey, but most of the surface area is glass. So glass is a popular facade because it saves the builder money: CapEx. But of course glass sucks an insulation the other side of the equation is heating/cooling: OpEx, which the builder may not care about.)

lupusreal 2y ago

As a society we need to do whatever it takes to keep architects happy. Whenever they get depressed they have a tendency to take it out on the rest of us. If they despair, they want everybody else to suffer too and design inhuman monstrosities that beat down the spirit. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Penn_Station_concourse.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Penn_Station_conco...

rsynnott 2y ago
I mean, that's like that because they wanted to build Madison Square Garden on top of it; any architects involved were working under impossible constraints.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Just because the plan requires a low ceiling doesn't mean the end result needs to look like a dead midwest shopping mall. It doesn't have to be like this specifically, but it demonstrates the point: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=moscow+subway&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=moscow+subway&iax=images&ia=images
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    A space that wide with a ceiling that low is always going to look a bit shit, unfortunately. The impressive subway stations linked are a combo of quite high spaces, and narrower spaces with lower ceilings, which can look good. But "broad wide space, low ceiling", there's really not a lot you can do. A common approach for this sort of big low-ish train station is a partially or completely glass roof, ideally not flat, and that can look okay, but obviously not an option in this case.

rsynnott 2y ago

There's _some_ tension with insulation there, though really at this point it's largely surmountable with triple-glazing etc. Small windows in older buildings are to some extent a legacy of that; when you were working with single glazing it was really a very big problem. But big windows are technology-driven rather than fashion-driven to an extent; most people like them, so they'll probably stick around.

throw0101c 2y ago
> There's _some_ tension with insulation there, though really at this point it's largely surmountable with triple-glazing etc. A typical triple-glazed window can maybe hit R-8 (U 0.125). A typical wall can be R-20 (or greater). There is no surmounting, relative to other assemblies, the suckiness of glass as an insulator. But few people want to live/work in an bunker with no windows if they had a choice, so we accept the compromise. But make no mistake it is a compromise when it comes to energy efficiency.

apothegm 2y ago

New buildings are meant for the floor to ceiling windows to look good to the people who will have them in their corner offices, but the floor plans are too deep to save the peons from overhead tube fluorescents. What are really awesome are office buildings constructed before electric lighting was ubiquitous. They’re designed with shallow floor plates or inner open spaces so that (unless you break them up too much with cubicle walls) every desk can be fully illuminated with natural light.

bayindirh 2y ago
Plus, when I last checked they are very inefficient in terms of heat isolation. The energy required to keep them at comfortable temperatures are way higher when compared to traditional building techniques. I recently saw a special glass which is warmer to touch and has way less thermal conductivity, but even with that, the savings are ~20% at most. A brick wall with isolation adds minimum of 25% savings when compared to the same wall provides without isolation, which is way better than the glass to begin with.
- throw0101a 2y ago
  > Plus, when I last checked they are very inefficient in terms of heat isolation. The energy required to keep them at comfortable temperatures are way higher when compared to traditional building techniques. There are two things in play here: the first is, as you mention, the insulation quality (R-value / U-factor) of windows is abysmal, both in absolute terms and relative to other wall assemblies. Heat leaks out of windows in winter in high amounts (and then you also have to deal with unwanted thermal gain in summer, raising AC costs). The other thing is mean radiant temperature: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_radiant_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_radiant_temperature Many folks think that if the thermostat reads the correct temperature in a room, you're done: that is not the case. The thermostat reads the air temperature, and air temperature is often only half of what you feel in a room: the other half is what is radiated from all the surfaces around you. A camp fire, fireplace, or radiator feels warm because it is at a temperature higher than your skin, and so the energy goes from it to you. But if there is something that is lower than your skin temperature, the energy will go from you to it and you will feel cold—regardless of what the air temperature is. This is why in offices, even though a thermometer / thermostat reads 20C/70F in both summer and winter, people feel cold: the giant office windows work as "anti-radiators", where energy wants to move from your body/skin to them.

throw0101a 2y ago

> I immediately notice the difference in my mood walking into a modern office where the walls are essentially giant glass windows […] What's the R-value [1] / U-factor on all of those windows? In offices, even though a thermometer / thermostat reads 20C/70F in both summer and winter, people feel cold: the giant office windows work as "anti-radiators", where energy wants to move from your body/skin to them. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_radiant_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_radiant_temperature I also find the first thing that what many folks do is pull down the blinds on windows in offices so they can actually see their screens. :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_(insulation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_(insulation)

GuB-42 2y ago

The reason for tiny windows is more technical. Windows are weak, expensive, offer poor insulation, privacy and security. Modern techniques mitigate this problem: better structure allows for less reliance on walls for support and therefore more room for windows, mass production make them cheaper, double pane glass improve insulation, security and privacy can be dealt with large motorized rolling shutters. I don't believe the lack of sunlight is the reason for vivid colors of the past. If anything, the colors were darker, though more saturated. Also, while tiny windows did not allow for a lot of sunlight, it is the opposite at night, where modern lighting is much brighter thanks to cheap, powerful and efficient LEDs. Here, I think it is just fashion, nothing technical.

throw0101c 2y ago
> Windows are […] expensive […] I think it's the opposite: glass is really cheap, which makes up most of the window. Less expensive than rebar and concrete and the labour for the form work and such. Certainly the frame can be pricey, but most of the surface area is glass. So glass is a popular facade because it saves the builder money: CapEx. But of course glass sucks an insulation the other side of the equation is heating/cooling: OpEx, which the builder may not care about.)