So the project I'm working on involves designing an office building with the height between 6 stories ~ 10 stories, but the building right behind it is a 68m department store that has a huge operating clock on the exterior facade.
In my design process, I have this huge preference to shape my office building mass design so that it doesn't block the clock of the department store building behind it. But also part of me thinks is it really necessary? I feel like it blocks out a lot of other concept design options unnecessarily.
Do architects take things like this into account most of the time when they design the shape of buildings? I don't mean large scale things like the view of the beach or the view of the skyline. I mean something rather minor(?) things like the view of clocktowers or LED screens of the buildings next to the project.
I mean it would critically effect the surrounding buildings negatively if it blocks their major aspects... And it seems wrong to just ignore them.
Just a somewhat obvious but curious question from a bachelor student.
If it does not affect the quality and use of your own project, sure, why not, if you can make something neat. If you have to jump hurdles, even small ones, just to satisfy this clock fetish, then no.
That's trickier in my opinion. If it was across the street I wouldn't have worried about it. I'd take into account though if it's only 15m away. Sketch out some ideas and figure out a few of the best ones and talk to the professor about which option might be the one to pursue (same idea if this was a real project only change professor to client and put in more effort to figure out cost impacts, etc.). Ultimately, the decision might be to ignore it ... though probably not in academia.
Sort of strange for the existing building to have a clock on a facade facing a shared lot line though. Unless they already own the lot next door it's asking for it to get covered up in the future by new development. Exception might be if they were able to build in some restrictions into the zoning or something to limit the height of the building next door. Even that would be strange from conception. Usually that type of thing is put in place after the clock (or other item) becomes valuable as an icon or monument.
Apr 20, 21 2:18 pm ·
·
starkkitect
well the existing buildings in the site at the moment are only 3~4 stories so I think that could be a cause. though I'm curious if this were an actual project involving real clients, would the architect consider ways to preserve the clock view or ignore it?
Depends on the client and a lot of other factors. Generally speaking, unless the clock is protected or historic, or the client can make a higher return on their investment by protecting it ... it will get ignored.
Hypothetical example: Your site's zoning allows 40% lot coverage if you build as high as the clock and sets a boundary extending 2/3 of the way into your lot from the lot line that you can't build above to preserve the view. So you can build tall, but you also have to leave room for the clock. Your building might be tall, but it will be skinny on one side of the lot.
Let's say the zoning also allows for 100% lot coverage if you keep the height below a certain level in order to preserve the view of the clock. If you show the client that the math works in their favor to build low and maximize lot coverage they'll probably go for it if it can work for their program. You've preserved the views to the clock but also maximized the leasable square feet for your client. You might also be able to use a different construction type that is cheaper for them too, even if not, you've still saved them money by not making them build tall. The client doesn't care about the clock, only that they'll get a faster ROI.
Walk around the city. Look at the buildings. Imagine what the older one looked like before the newer one was built. You'll quickly find out that the ego of the client combined with the ego of the architect frequently (but not universally) makes those decisions go a particular way.
To me context is important. If the community finds the clock tower to be important then your design should take that into account. Ultimately it's your decision though.
It is an academic project indeed. I mean I doubt people would look towards that clock in particular to check the time but it leaves a strong impression to the by
passers due to it's large scale.
It is good to consider context. You should use it to question the fundamental assumptions in the project.
A bad example of deferring to context - putting a hole or cutout in your building so the clock is still visible.
A good example - re-thinking the program/ massing/ envelope of project so that the overall height could be lower without doing something kitschy to defer to the clock. Then re-thinking these basic height/ density/ building envelope constraints could cause you to have realizations about the program or better integrating the building into the context (not just visual context but cultural, programmatic, etc).
Apr 20, 21 1:54 pm ·
·
starkkitect
actually I was thinking of lowering the overall height of the office building that is in line with the clock so that it becomes a stair-shaped or a slope. Though the professor told me that it looks like I'm letting a minor aspect decide the overall shape, which blocks out other possibilities like cutting a hole in the middle of the building (which I really don't wanna do XD)
Apr 20, 21 2:12 pm ·
·
archanonymous
That's funny! Different approaches to design I suppose. I still think cutting a big hole or being too literal with deference to a piece of context like this is a mistake. Lowering the overall height of the office building IS a rather banal approach. Neither would make an interesting academic project.
Lowering the overall height of the office building, then realizing you don't have enough floor area, embarking on an epic research project to identify vacant, un-used or forgotten floor area within a 5-block radius in existing buildings, then proposing distributed for-rent office modules in these locations to make up the lost area - that's interesting and a good academic project.
You should design your building how you would want it to be within the space and within the context of the whole area. It seems to me that the clock is not that important....unless it is a national monument or on a listed building. You could design a building that enhances the 'area' instead of designing something mediocre so that you have a clear view of a clock.
If it is of any significance, ideally, city planners would have put some height restrictions in place...like in Paris one couldn't build higher than their (Neo-)Classicist monuments for example. Could take a look at the existing building height limitations from the municipality.
To limit a building solely because otherwise people can't tell time or watch adverts from a certain spot...that'd be quite gimmicky in my design rule book, if that was all. I hope you have more reasons to be creative with building heights here.
Also ask yourself why they chose this exact site for the project. Your teachers could've gone with any random site, why they opted for this one? There must be a way to connect a dry brief for any old boring office building with significant urban design principles...
In reality the developer would demand maximum FAR. This is 'Merica, where it is doG given right of every developer to fuck over everyone in any way they can imagine.
But none of that matters in the fantasyland of collegiate architectural studio where the more outrageous and ridiculous the concept, the better. I say go for it. As long as the architecture is a fantasy, make it a commentary.
Of course we would take it into consideration. The final decision is not yours to make though. Here comes your client to tell you they arent spending the money to maintain visibility to a feature of a building they dont own. Bottom line for office building developers in my experience is leasable area, tenant amenities, and exterior aesthetics. If you can create a convincing story of why you should design the building to maintain view of a clock from the street then maybe itll happen! Gotta have the RIGHT client at the end of the day.
Well, so much for the idea of moving the clock. Thanks for posting the photos. Guess in the real world a visit to the clock building's owners would be in order to get any ideas they might have.
I did an office renovation in Chicago and the floors directly across from the Clock on the Wrigley Building across the street rented for more than the floors above or below. We had to line up the conference rooms so the best view was not in someone's office and create an interoffice power dynamic problem.
So yes the architecture and other views impact office layouts in office buildings with windows.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Apr 23, 21 9:36 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Do architects take this into account when they design buildings?
So the project I'm working on involves designing an office building with the height between 6 stories ~ 10 stories, but the building right behind it is a 68m department store that has a huge operating clock on the exterior facade.
In my design process, I have this huge preference to shape my office building mass design so that it doesn't block the clock of the department store building behind it. But also part of me thinks is it really necessary? I feel like it blocks out a lot of other concept design options unnecessarily.
Do architects take things like this into account most of the time when they design the shape of buildings? I don't mean large scale things like the view of the beach or the view of the skyline. I mean something rather minor(?) things like the view of clocktowers or LED screens of the buildings next to the project.
I mean it would critically effect the surrounding buildings negatively if it blocks their major aspects... And it seems wrong to just ignore them.
Just a somewhat obvious but curious question from a bachelor student.
If it does not affect the quality and use of your own project, sure, why not, if you can make something neat. If you have to jump hurdles, even small ones, just to satisfy this clock fetish, then no.
I see. So I suppose it isn't strictly speaking necessary to take the clock into account. Thank you for the advice!
Is this clock on a shared lot line, or is it across a street?
shared lot line I guess. the department store building is literally less than 15m away from the site we've chosen. no streets in between
That's trickier in my opinion. If it was across the street I wouldn't have worried about it. I'd take into account though if it's only 15m away. Sketch out some ideas and figure out a few of the best ones and talk to the professor about which option might be the one to pursue (same idea if this was a real project only change professor to client and put in more effort to figure out cost impacts, etc.). Ultimately, the decision might be to ignore it ... though probably not in academia.
Sort of strange for the existing building to have a clock on a facade facing a shared lot line though. Unless they already own the lot next door it's asking for it to get covered up in the future by new development. Exception might be if they were able to build in some restrictions into the zoning or something to limit the height of the building next door. Even that would be strange from conception. Usually that type of thing is put in place after the clock (or other item) becomes valuable as an icon or monument.
well the existing buildings in the site at the moment are only 3~4 stories so I think that could be a cause. though I'm curious if this were an actual project involving real clients, would the architect consider ways to preserve the clock view or ignore it?
Depends on the client and a lot of other factors. Generally speaking, unless the clock is protected or historic, or the client can make a higher return on their investment by protecting it ... it will get ignored.
Hypothetical example: Your site's zoning allows 40% lot coverage if you build as high as the clock and sets a boundary extending 2/3 of the way into your lot from the lot line that you can't build above to preserve the view. So you can build tall, but you also have to leave room for the clock. Your building might be tall, but it will be skinny on one side of the lot.
Let's say the zoning also allows for 100% lot coverage if you keep the height below a certain level in order to preserve the view of the clock. If you show the client that the math works in their favor to build low and maximize lot coverage they'll probably go for it if it can work for their program. You've preserved the views to the clock but also maximized the leasable square feet for your client. You might also be able to use a different construction type that is cheaper for them too, even if not, you've still saved them money by not making them build tall. The client doesn't care about the clock, only that they'll get a faster ROI.
Walk around the city. Look at the buildings. Imagine what the older one looked like before the newer one was built. You'll quickly find out that the ego of the client combined with the ego of the architect frequently (but not universally) makes those decisions go a particular way.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/...
thank you for the reference photo!
I assume this is an academic project.
To me context is important. If the community finds the clock tower to be important then your design should take that into account. Ultimately it's your decision though.
It is an academic project indeed. I mean I doubt people would look towards that clock in particular to check the time but it leaves a strong impression to the by passers due to it's large scale.
It is good to consider context. You should use it to question the fundamental assumptions in the project.
A bad example of deferring to context - putting a hole or cutout in your building so the clock is still visible.
A good example - re-thinking the program/ massing/ envelope of project so that the overall height could be lower without doing something kitschy to defer to the clock. Then re-thinking these basic height/ density/ building envelope constraints could cause you to have realizations about the program or better integrating the building into the context (not just visual context but cultural, programmatic, etc).
actually I was thinking of lowering the overall height of the office building that is in line with the clock so that it becomes a stair-shaped or a slope. Though the professor told me that it looks like I'm letting a minor aspect decide the overall shape, which blocks out other possibilities like cutting a hole in the middle of the building (which I really don't wanna do XD)
That's funny! Different approaches to design I suppose. I still think cutting a big hole or being too literal with deference to a piece of context like this is a mistake. Lowering the overall height of the office building IS a rather banal approach. Neither would make an interesting academic project.
Lowering the overall height of the office building, then realizing you don't have enough floor area, embarking on an epic research project to identify vacant, un-used or forgotten floor area within a 5-block radius in existing buildings, then proposing distributed for-rent office modules in these locations to make up the lost area - that's interesting and a good academic project.
You should design your building how you would want it to be within the space and within the context of the whole area. It seems to me that the clock is not that important....unless it is a national monument or on a listed building. You could design a building that enhances the 'area' instead of designing something mediocre so that you have a clear view of a clock.
If it is of any significance, ideally, city planners would have put some height restrictions in place...like in Paris one couldn't build higher than their (Neo-)Classicist monuments for example. Could take a look at the existing building height limitations from the municipality.
To limit a building solely because otherwise people can't tell time or watch adverts from a certain spot...that'd be quite gimmicky in my design rule book, if that was all. I hope you have more reasons to be creative with building heights here.
Also ask yourself why they chose this exact site for the project. Your teachers could've gone with any random site, why they opted for this one? There must be a way to connect a dry brief for any old boring office building with significant urban design principles...
In reality the developer would demand maximum FAR. This is 'Merica, where it is doG given right of every developer to fuck over everyone in any way they can imagine.
But none of that matters in the fantasyland of collegiate architectural studio where the more outrageous and ridiculous the concept, the better. I say go for it. As long as the architecture is a fantasy, make it a commentary.
on a different note, is it better to have academic projects that are rather fantasy-like but interesting than boring but realistic?
Move the clock?
https://m.post.naver.com/viewer/postView.nhn?volumeNo=17538797&memberNo=36640979
literally unmovable
Well, so much for the idea of moving the clock. Thanks for posting the photos. Guess in the real world a visit to the clock building's owners would be in order to get any ideas they might have.
I did an office renovation in Chicago and the floors directly across from the Clock on the Wrigley Building across the street rented for more than the floors above or below. We had to line up the conference rooms so the best view was not in someone's office and create an interoffice power dynamic problem.
So yes the architecture and other views impact office layouts in office buildings with windows.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.