5 ms·

There are two lines that summarize the article for me: > Why developers chose glass curtain walls - So why did developers embrace the glass box aesthetic? Unsu

There are two lines that summarize the article for me: > Why developers chose glass curtain walls - So why did developers embrace the glass box aesthetic? Unsurprisingly, it comes down to economics. > Ornamentation and glass curtain wall aren’t mutually exclusive. And while I agree that ornamentation is very likely lost to cost savings, the switch to glass walls is also just a huge improvement for people inside the building. Having worked in an all-glass tower and also a "normal" office building, my personal experience is that the natural light that giant windows let in and the external views that they afford are both phenomenal improvements to the atmosphere. It's really a much more pleasant environment to work in. The only catch is that the interior or window treatment design needs to consider glare from sunlight directly hitting computer screens and/or eyes. So, sure, maybe something something costs, but people also pay attention to environmental ergonomics now in ways that they never used to.

jchw 2y ago
This is a major annoyance for me with Apple laptops for work: I don't think they typically offer anti-glare screens. The glossy screens obviously look pretty, but an uglier display with anti-glare coating can be a lot better in some conditions even with a less bright screen. At least it's fairly easy to solve at a desk, since you can just use an external monitor.
- LordDragonfang 2y ago
  Apple historically have not offered anti-glare, but the most recent macbook pros now offer a "nano-texture" display, which is their marketing term for anti-glare.
  - szundi 2y ago
    Only reason is an other chunk of money they charge for it. But I am sure that they measured it’ll make profits. We’ll see next year wether it stays or not
    - Analemma_ 2y ago
      It seems to be getting rave reviews based on what I've seen, and it has steadily rolled out over more of the product line and moved down in price (first it was only a $1,000 option on their 6K display, now it's a $100 option on the iPads and MacBooks). I suspect it will stay.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Only reason is an other chunk of money they charge for it Developing and adding the nano-texture isn't exactly free. There's also downsides to using the "regular" anti-glare technology that most other displays use, so it's not exactly a clear case of apple intentionally nerfing a product just so they can sell an upgrade for it.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    To be fair, it's actually different from the more traditional take on anti-glare (usually a separate film) in that Apple physically alters the glass surface directly instead, which affects the colors less, so it's not just a pointless marketing distinction. Whether the benefit justifies the price tag is another matter...
    - cma 2y ago
      Isn't altering the texture essentially just 'matte' like most LCD displays used to be, just through something like etched glass like steamdeck had as an option?
      - int_19h 2y ago
        It is exactly what it is, and describing it as "anti-glare" or "matte" is reasonable and accurate. I'm just saying that I see why Apple uses a distinctive term instead to highlight the difference in their approach and its purported advantages.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- r00fus 2y ago
  The only problems I've ever had with glare are when I use my home laptop for FaceTime with family/friends. The lack of options from Apple may be a reaction to the market's general indifference.
ricardonunez 2y ago
The nano texture in my new macbook pro is game changer for these specific situation. It came out a few years back but I only got to replace my laptop recently and it works great. That said, it only works that don't mind the black contrast change.
Arn_Thor 2y ago
Another catch is heat management in summer (and much of spring and autumn). The problem gets dramatically worse closer to the equator, of course. I love the natural light of a glass structure, but with the abundance of high-quality LED light (for a price, naturally) and ways of channeling natural light I wonder how modern architects would reimagine more traditional closed-in highrises.
- yannis 2y ago
  >I wonder how modern architects would reimagine more traditional closed-in highrises. They normally set the glass a bit away from the exterior. For a good example see 4-seasons hotel Doha. LED lighting in any modern air-conditioned building is a must, also from the POV of electrical equipment, transformers cabling etc.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Arn_Thor 2y ago
    It's funny how we're going back to centuries-old architectural practices. In the before times we didn't have climate control. In the middle times we had climate control and didn't have to worry about the energy usage. And now we have to return to natural ways of controlling temperatures so we don't spend too much energy on heating and cooling. But my curiosity is directed at even more extreme examples. How bright and livable could one make a big box with almost no windows these days, if one really tried? (As I'm typing this out the counter-question is of course: why bother?)
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  > Another catch is heat management in summer Possibly, but I have not noticed temperature to be an issue in modern buildings anywhere in the United States, so it seems at least for this climate band to be a known quantity and handily managed.
  - badpun 2y ago
yannis 2y ago
On a high rise office, the glare problem you mentioned is normally solved by the Interior Designers, curtains blinds, desk design and the like.
- earnestinger 2y ago
  > is normally solved by … It is normally pretended to be solved. Which is good enough.
  - jerlam 2y ago
    I had a cubicle setup next to a set of west-facing windows with no blinds. My first day working there, in the afternoon, I couldn't read my monitors (old office monitors that probably peaked at 200 nits) and I promptly took the moving boxes and used the cardboard to block off the window so I could get some work done. Someone promptly told me to take down my unsightly cardboard, and promised to install window blinds. In a month, blinds were installed, but they were the perforated blinds which did not cut the glare to an acceptable level. More complaints were raised, and then window film was installed. These half-measures didn't work when faced with the direct view of the sun, and I would receive no more special treatment. I basically abandoned my desk in the afternoons, working in an empty desk in the interior of the office. It was also more than ten degrees cooler; the temperature at my desk would routinely reach 78 degrees.
    - earnestinger 2y ago
      I feel your pain (but in Celsius)
Analemma_ 2y ago
Yeah, when I was working in Boston my company once moved from an early-20th-century masonry building to a late-20th-century glass box, and in terms of office quality-of-life it was a colossal upgrade: more light, the space was more open, the temperature was more comfortable, etc. No way would I go back. I do sympathize with all the griping about contemporary architecture (especially as a former Boston resident, where the local city offices are an architectural crime against humanity), but buildings need to be lived and worked in, not just admired from the outside for nostalgia's sake.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > especially as a former Boston resident, where the local city offices are an architectural crime against humanity If anyone does not understand this reference, the city hall is brutalist style from the 1960s. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall
WillPostForFood 2y ago
I worked in a 1920's Beaux-Arts office building. The windows were maybe 2/3rds the height of the walls, but they opened! It was awesome to swing them out and hear the city and get some fresh air.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  You also get car and truck exhaust, insects, dust....
indrora 2y ago
> Having worked in an all-glass tower and also a "normal" office building, my personal experience is that the natural light that giant windows let in and the external views that they afford are both phenomenal improvements to the atmosphere. It's really a much more pleasant environment to work in. The only catch is that the interior or window treatment design needs to consider glare from sunlight directly hitting computer screens and/or eyes. having worked in both well designed and poorly designed glass towers, I can say this: I personally appreciate a well-designed not-glass-waterfall. Being in Seattle, a lot of new towers have gone up that are just sheet glass panels. I've worked in various towers in Seattle and I've come to prefer some of the older style ones. The oldest of them do have issues with light, I'll fully agree with that. There is a difference between that and the absolutely insane floor to ceiling glass panels that make up some of these offices. Glass towers just... They make monkey brain go scream on the inside and they're just aesthetically displeasing on the outside. They all look alike at one level and become hard to distinguish from one another. I hate walking through Downtown Seattle trying to remember which of the badjillion glass monoliths is the one I want -- unless I'm looking for one of the more unique buildings that is steepled brick and granite.
- coddingtonbear 2y ago
  I'm a little surprised to hear that some folks hate being inside such buildings -- my apartment is in one, and I specifically selected it for its floor-to-ceiling windows in every room. My brain is apparently a little different from yours.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  > Being in Seattle Seattle is covered by oppressive gray wetness blotting out the sun 80% of the year. Looking at the sky there is just depressing, which isn't the case basically anywhere else in the US. Like, when we talk about getting natural light, the Seattle response is "what's that?" I don't think Seattle should really be held as a meaningful baseline here. :) Maybe in Seattle they can instead replace all the windows with video displays of sunshine.
  - marssaxman 2y ago
ge96 2y ago
Side note, it would be interesting to work somewhere where you had to go up 50/100 floors before you got to your place. Maybe some floors are food and you just live in this building for the day till you go home. I used to work in a 10 story building and remember cramming in that elevator every morning.
- bombcar 2y ago
  You can get something quite similar in some colleges/universities, where you can effectively avoid going outside for days/weeks at a time.

jchw 2y ago

This is a major annoyance for me with Apple laptops for work: I don't think they typically offer anti-glare screens. The glossy screens obviously look pretty, but an uglier display with anti-glare coating can be a lot better in some conditions even with a less bright screen. At least it's fairly easy to solve at a desk, since you can just use an external monitor.

LordDragonfang 2y ago
Apple historically have not offered anti-glare, but the most recent macbook pros now offer a "nano-texture" display, which is their marketing term for anti-glare.
- szundi 2y ago
  Only reason is an other chunk of money they charge for it. But I am sure that they measured it’ll make profits. We’ll see next year wether it stays or not
  - Analemma_ 2y ago
    It seems to be getting rave reviews based on what I've seen, and it has steadily rolled out over more of the product line and moved down in price (first it was only a $1,000 option on their 6K display, now it's a $100 option on the iPads and MacBooks). I suspect it will stay.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Only reason is an other chunk of money they charge for it Developing and adding the nano-texture isn't exactly free. There's also downsides to using the "regular" anti-glare technology that most other displays use, so it's not exactly a clear case of apple intentionally nerfing a product just so they can sell an upgrade for it.
- int_19h 2y ago
  To be fair, it's actually different from the more traditional take on anti-glare (usually a separate film) in that Apple physically alters the glass surface directly instead, which affects the colors less, so it's not just a pointless marketing distinction. Whether the benefit justifies the price tag is another matter...
  - cma 2y ago
    Isn't altering the texture essentially just 'matte' like most LCD displays used to be, just through something like etched glass like steamdeck had as an option?
    - int_19h 2y ago
      It is exactly what it is, and describing it as "anti-glare" or "matte" is reasonable and accurate. I'm just saying that I see why Apple uses a distinctive term instead to highlight the difference in their approach and its purported advantages.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 2y ago
The only problems I've ever had with glare are when I use my home laptop for FaceTime with family/friends. The lack of options from Apple may be a reaction to the market's general indifference.

ricardonunez 2y ago

The nano texture in my new macbook pro is game changer for these specific situation. It came out a few years back but I only got to replace my laptop recently and it works great. That said, it only works that don't mind the black contrast change.

Arn_Thor 2y ago

Another catch is heat management in summer (and much of spring and autumn). The problem gets dramatically worse closer to the equator, of course. I love the natural light of a glass structure, but with the abundance of high-quality LED light (for a price, naturally) and ways of channeling natural light I wonder how modern architects would reimagine more traditional closed-in highrises.

yannis 2y ago
>I wonder how modern architects would reimagine more traditional closed-in highrises. They normally set the glass a bit away from the exterior. For a good example see 4-seasons hotel Doha. LED lighting in any modern air-conditioned building is a must, also from the POV of electrical equipment, transformers cabling etc.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Arn_Thor 2y ago
  It's funny how we're going back to centuries-old architectural practices. In the before times we didn't have climate control. In the middle times we had climate control and didn't have to worry about the energy usage. And now we have to return to natural ways of controlling temperatures so we don't spend too much energy on heating and cooling. But my curiosity is directed at even more extreme examples. How bright and livable could one make a big box with almost no windows these days, if one really tried? (As I'm typing this out the counter-question is of course: why bother?)
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> Another catch is heat management in summer Possibly, but I have not noticed temperature to be an issue in modern buildings anywhere in the United States, so it seems at least for this climate band to be a known quantity and handily managed.
- badpun 2y ago

yannis 2y ago

On a high rise office, the glare problem you mentioned is normally solved by the Interior Designers, curtains blinds, desk design and the like.

earnestinger 2y ago
> is normally solved by … It is normally pretended to be solved. Which is good enough.
- jerlam 2y ago
  I had a cubicle setup next to a set of west-facing windows with no blinds. My first day working there, in the afternoon, I couldn't read my monitors (old office monitors that probably peaked at 200 nits) and I promptly took the moving boxes and used the cardboard to block off the window so I could get some work done. Someone promptly told me to take down my unsightly cardboard, and promised to install window blinds. In a month, blinds were installed, but they were the perforated blinds which did not cut the glare to an acceptable level. More complaints were raised, and then window film was installed. These half-measures didn't work when faced with the direct view of the sun, and I would receive no more special treatment. I basically abandoned my desk in the afternoons, working in an empty desk in the interior of the office. It was also more than ten degrees cooler; the temperature at my desk would routinely reach 78 degrees.
  - earnestinger 2y ago
    I feel your pain (but in Celsius)

Analemma_ 2y ago

Yeah, when I was working in Boston my company once moved from an early-20th-century masonry building to a late-20th-century glass box, and in terms of office quality-of-life it was a colossal upgrade: more light, the space was more open, the temperature was more comfortable, etc. No way would I go back. I do sympathize with all the griping about contemporary architecture (especially as a former Boston resident, where the local city offices are an architectural crime against humanity), but buildings need to be lived and worked in, not just admired from the outside for nostalgia's sake.

throwaway2037 2y ago
> especially as a former Boston resident, where the local city offices are an architectural crime against humanity If anyone does not understand this reference, the city hall is brutalist style from the 1960s. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall

WillPostForFood 2y ago

I worked in a 1920's Beaux-Arts office building. The windows were maybe 2/3rds the height of the walls, but they opened! It was awesome to swing them out and hear the city and get some fresh air.

SoftTalker 2y ago
You also get car and truck exhaust, insects, dust....

indrora 2y ago

> Having worked in an all-glass tower and also a "normal" office building, my personal experience is that the natural light that giant windows let in and the external views that they afford are both phenomenal improvements to the atmosphere. It's really a much more pleasant environment to work in. The only catch is that the interior or window treatment design needs to consider glare from sunlight directly hitting computer screens and/or eyes. having worked in both well designed and poorly designed glass towers, I can say this: I personally appreciate a well-designed not-glass-waterfall. Being in Seattle, a lot of new towers have gone up that are just sheet glass panels. I've worked in various towers in Seattle and I've come to prefer some of the older style ones. The oldest of them do have issues with light, I'll fully agree with that. There is a difference between that and the absolutely insane floor to ceiling glass panels that make up some of these offices. Glass towers just... They make monkey brain go scream on the inside and they're just aesthetically displeasing on the outside. They all look alike at one level and become hard to distinguish from one another. I hate walking through Downtown Seattle trying to remember which of the badjillion glass monoliths is the one I want -- unless I'm looking for one of the more unique buildings that is steepled brick and granite.

coddingtonbear 2y ago
I'm a little surprised to hear that some folks hate being inside such buildings -- my apartment is in one, and I specifically selected it for its floor-to-ceiling windows in every room. My brain is apparently a little different from yours.
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> Being in Seattle Seattle is covered by oppressive gray wetness blotting out the sun 80% of the year. Looking at the sky there is just depressing, which isn't the case basically anywhere else in the US. Like, when we talk about getting natural light, the Seattle response is "what's that?" I don't think Seattle should really be held as a meaningful baseline here. :) Maybe in Seattle they can instead replace all the windows with video displays of sunshine.
- marssaxman 2y ago

ge96 2y ago

Side note, it would be interesting to work somewhere where you had to go up 50/100 floors before you got to your place. Maybe some floors are food and you just live in this building for the day till you go home. I used to work in a 10 story building and remember cramming in that elevator every morning.

bombcar 2y ago
You can get something quite similar in some colleges/universities, where you can effectively avoid going outside for days/weeks at a time.