This is infuriating. A certain small studio posts a (crude) render of flowers on a tower and starts sending out press releases about a "prototype". The likes of Dezeen, Domus and other publications - traditional and social media based - start disseminating it for clicks. Now it's doing the rounds in the press circuit.
"Studio Vural developed a prototype of skyscraper based on geo-thermal technology, natural ventilation and carbon absorption."
There is no design detail, no preliminary specs, and just the bare bones of plans. It appears the architect has no idea how to design green walls at all. (https://www.studiovural.com/li...)
But hey, why bother with the grunt work when you can get headlines by making statements like:
"In fact, Lilly eliminates conventional heating and cooling thanks to a geo-thermal system boosted by natural ventilation and, through rainwater, it irrigates a natural insulating blanket of a lily field, able to absorb carbon."
The word "prototype" gets thrown around way too easily in the architecture business. This is a set of images plus a statement with zero evidence to back any of its claims, not a prototype in any sane sense of the word. No attempt was made at even designing a proper green wall. And for a totally non-prototype, it's barely even imaginative - my man simply had his intern Photoshop flowers on a baseline greyscale model.
Every once a month or so, some random render shows up of a generic tower covered in plants and claiming to be some kind of ground breaking carbon-removing magic box. All the while actual advancements in material science and building envelope technology proceeds silently in the background while these click-chasing clowns send PR blasts.
I do appreciate the hustle. This dude is trying to win the attention of developers and to that end, he has to walk the fine line of making statements bold enough to get attention but not detailed enough to be held accountable to (Such as stating that this flower-clad tower meets Zone Green, for instance). But the word "prototype" is especially galling, given the rigor expected in other industries.
Is this like the one a few years back that proposed twisting skyscrapers where each floor could rotate independently to suit the owner's desired views?
Feb 22, 22 8:51 am ·
·
citizen
That sounds rad. Just make sure those plumbing stacks align and seal each time or, hoo-boy!
Hard disagree from me on this one tduds. Yes, a lot of sustainably-minded decisions can be contained in the specs, but it's only a piece near the end of the project's design. Much more sustainability is stored in the early project decisions that get made before specs are even started. This is the type of thinking that gets us LEED-certified gas stations.
Put another way, no amount of greenifying the specs will make up for carbon-intensive, poorly-detailed, inefficient designs.
"Sustainability is stored in the design decisions whether documented on the drawings or in the specs"
It's both, you're right. I made this as a response to the proliferation of greenwashed renderings with pretty trees on top.
Feb 22, 22 2:15 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
It's definitely both. Embodied carbon, aka upfront carbon emissions, are critically important right now and the materials that have low levels of embodied carbon are often swapped out for high-carbon materials. In the past we have focused more on operational carbon emissions, which dwarf up-front emissions over a 100-year span. But we don't have 100 years to deal with the climate crisis; we have a decade or so, and since embodied carbon happens before occupancy, the specs matter--a lot.
I agree WG, but only think the specs get you so far. There are materials where the specs can matter a lot ... concrete for example. Even then the ability to substitute pozzolans (which require a longer cure to achieve equivalent strength) for CO2-intensive Portland cement may not be feasible due to the schedule that was established before the specs even got started. I've also seen it on insulation materials that would require more thickness to achieve the same R-value because they can't change the depth of the wall assemblies without encroaching on the leasable space inside because they are already up to the lot line on the exterior.
Additionally, I've seen situations where the material choices are baked in because of design sensibilities even if they wouldn't really change the look and feel. Here's a perfect example of a typical stud backup wall with brick being able to save some embodied carbon by changing to thin brick (The usual around here would be the middle option changing to the thin brick on metal studs which could be something like a 30% reduction). I've suggested this to teams before and it's like I asked them to sacrifice their first born to the sustainability gods.
I even got the response once that they wouldn't be able to get their regional materials credit for LEED if they changed to thin brick because they wouldn't have enough percentage of the project cost tied up in local brick. The specs can easily contain the requirement for local material, but they can't make the design use a different assembly if the design isn't changed. This is why I push back on the specs being the place where sustainability is made to happen.
Vural suspects that lilies would thrive in this context. In other news, parents suspect that teenagers will be orderly and punctual.
This whole thing must be an Onion item. Those renderings and captions are hilarious and can't be serious... right?
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the grass-covered, water-slide, mid-air-finale appearance. Once the Wessel is finally closed to the despondent across town, might The Lilly be their next and final destination? Maybe add a hedge/guardrail at the edges?
Yet Another Architecture Prototype
This is infuriating. A certain small studio posts a (crude) render of flowers on a tower and starts sending out press releases about a "prototype". The likes of Dezeen, Domus and other publications - traditional and social media based - start disseminating it for clicks. Now it's doing the rounds in the press circuit.
"Studio Vural developed a prototype of skyscraper based on geo-thermal technology, natural ventilation and carbon absorption."
(https://www.dezeen.com/2022/02...)
There is no design detail, no preliminary specs, and just the bare bones of plans. It appears the architect has no idea how to design green walls at all. (https://www.studiovural.com/li...)
But hey, why bother with the grunt work when you can get headlines by making statements like:
"In fact, Lilly eliminates conventional heating and cooling thanks to a geo-thermal system boosted by natural ventilation and, through rainwater, it irrigates a natural insulating blanket of a lily field, able to absorb carbon."
(https://www.domusweb.it/en/new...)
The word "prototype" gets thrown around way too easily in the architecture business. This is a set of images plus a statement with zero evidence to back any of its claims, not a prototype in any sane sense of the word. No attempt was made at even designing a proper green wall. And for a totally non-prototype, it's barely even imaginative - my man simply had his intern Photoshop flowers on a baseline greyscale model.
Every once a month or so, some random render shows up of a generic tower covered in plants and claiming to be some kind of ground breaking carbon-removing magic box. All the while actual advancements in material science and building envelope technology proceeds silently in the background while these click-chasing clowns send PR blasts.
I do appreciate the hustle. This dude is trying to win the attention of developers and to that end, he has to walk the fine line of making statements bold enough to get attention but not detailed enough to be held accountable to (Such as stating that this flower-clad tower meets Zone Green, for instance). But the word "prototype" is especially galling, given the rigor expected in other industries.
Congrats--by sharing links you have helped raise their profile.
I know, now I'm helping them with their hustle :(
Is this like the one a few years back that proposed twisting skyscrapers where each floor could rotate independently to suit the owner's desired views?
That sounds rad. Just make sure those plumbing stacks align and seal each time or, hoo-boy!
"Studio Vural suspects that lilies would thrive in this context."
I posted this on twitter a couple days ago and I'm considering making it into a poster for my desk.
Replace the words sustainability and specs with numbered keynote tags that are defined on an 8.5x11 on the tabletop which refer to the spec binder.
Hard disagree from me on this one tduds. Yes, a lot of sustainably-minded decisions can be contained in the specs, but it's only a piece near the end of the project's design. Much more sustainability is stored in the early project decisions that get made before specs are even started. This is the type of thinking that gets us LEED-certified gas stations.
Put another way, no amount of greenifying the specs will make up for carbon-intensive, poorly-detailed, inefficient designs.
"Sustainability is stored in the design decisions whether documented on the drawings or in the specs"
It's both, you're right. I made this as a response to the proliferation of greenwashed renderings with pretty trees on top.
It's definitely both. Embodied carbon, aka upfront carbon emissions, are critically important right now and the materials that have low levels of embodied carbon are often swapped out for high-carbon materials. In the past we have focused more on operational carbon emissions, which dwarf up-front emissions over a 100-year span. But we don't have 100 years to deal with the climate crisis; we have a decade or so, and since embodied carbon happens before occupancy, the specs matter--a lot.
I agree WG, but only think the specs get you so far. There are materials where the specs can matter a lot ... concrete for example. Even then the ability to substitute pozzolans (which require a longer cure to achieve equivalent strength) for CO2-intensive Portland cement may not be feasible due to the schedule that was established before the specs even got started. I've also seen it on insulation materials that would require more thickness to achieve the same R-value because they can't change the depth of the wall assemblies without encroaching on the leasable space inside because they are already up to the lot line on the exterior.
Additionally, I've seen situations where the material choices are baked in because of design sensibilities even if they wouldn't really change the look and feel. Here's a perfect example of a typical stud backup wall with brick being able to save some embodied carbon by changing to thin brick (The usual around here would be the middle option changing to the thin brick on metal studs which could be something like a 30% reduction). I've suggested this to teams before and it's like I asked them to sacrifice their first born to the sustainability gods.
I even got the response once that they wouldn't be able to get their regional materials credit for LEED if they changed to thin brick because they wouldn't have enough percentage of the project cost tied up in local brick. The specs can easily contain the requirement for local material, but they can't make the design use a different assembly if the design isn't changed. This is why I push back on the specs being the place where sustainability is made to happen.
P.s. the source of the infographic for the bricks is from this Building Green article: https://www.buildinggreen.com/...
OP is just upset that they aren't creative enough to come up with this and talented enough to produce the renderings.
Vural suspects that lilies would thrive in this context. In other news, parents suspect that teenagers will be orderly and punctual.
This whole thing must be an Onion item. Those renderings and captions are hilarious and can't be serious... right?
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the grass-covered, water-slide, mid-air-finale appearance. Once the Wessel is finally closed to the despondent across town, might The Lilly be their next and final destination? Maybe add a hedge/guardrail at the edges?
I think it's real, though they seem to have no actual built work. Other than that, it looks less like a lilly and more like a weeny. Boring.
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.