Why don't you think that Fosters and Partners are discussed or mentioned within the academic realm of architecture much? This is something I find is weird, considering they are one, if not, the most prolific architectural firm of our generation, rarely if ever involved in lawsuits or significant flaws in design, treat their employees admirably [uncommon in a profession in which we tend to undergo modern day indentured servitude], and not to mention a tremendous quality of design.
They did seem to get quite a bit of (good) attention for their "Gherkin" skyscraper in London - and I think it was well deserved. However, many the discussions on that building were of a more general nature.
I think I remember hearing of a few problems with the gherkin, such as several of it's windows continuously popping out. I've head a few floors are unusable because of this.
A bit more of a sophomore-ish mistake was the circular plan, which doesn't exactly conform to conventional office furniture. This results in a loss of useable floor space.
I've also read about a potential lawsuit regarding a master-plan that looked extremely similar to an OMA masterplan.
Other than that i think they do great work...It's not really academic though. It's more detail oriented stuff. Even the books they produce are pictures and drawings of details, not polemics.
I understand this and for my education the Hong Kong Shanghai bank was mentioned, briefly. I guess my argument or center of debate reduces to the age old discussion of theory verse practice. Commonly, those who are discussed in the realm of academia are progressives of architectural theory and written argument. These are usually the architects who have the most problems with their buildings with structure or client. Is theoretical writing the only [or most influential] way to influence contemporary design and to be noticed?
quite frankly foster does good, corporate architecture, not all that different from som or kpf. what's to talk about, outside of an et or a structures class?
stabilo: have to agree with you. if anything, all i've heard from classmates who know other classmates working there, is that's a sweatshop/ factory. haven't heard anything about them treating employees well.
One of my best friend is currently working there in the London office. According to her, working life is perfect and the office environment is very very seductive. And the salary, oh boy.
stabilo - you mentioned that the circlular plan was a sophmore-ish mistake. Aren't there some great properties to circular designs. I may be missing something here - I'm not an architect - but my background is in mathematics. A cylindrical tower has a "better" surface area to volume ratio than a box-like tower with a square base. A cylinder enclosing the same volume as the box-like tower could have up to 12% less surface area - depending on how close the plan approximates a "real circle" and other factors such as height and base area.
A box-like tower with a non-square base would have an even worse ratio. I would think that the Gherkin tower has an even better ratio than a cylindrical tower since it bulges out near the middle of the building - but without knowing the exact shape of the tower it's hard to say for sure.
Theoretically this means that less materials would be needed to enclose a cylindrical space and there would be less surface area for unwanted heat transfer to and from the outside. I know that it is probably harder to construct a building on a circular plan - So any savings in materials may be canceled out by extra construction costs. But still you're saving materials, and from an environmental standpoint that's a good thing. I would think the heating/cooling savings would be quite considerable. Wind would also have less of an effect on a cylindrical tower.
I can see what problems might arise with circular designs; they might be hard to construct, circles don't fit together well, they are hard to divide into usable parts and don't always work well in the usual rectangular city lots. From my point of view, the biggest problem with circular designs would be that it is hard to incorporate into any sort of practical grid system - they are not very modular. These are just my thoughts - from a layman's point of view. It would be interesting to here peoples' thoughts on circular designs.
when i was first introduced to the building that is exactly how my professor described it cou2. The circular plan was spoken of as an advantage because the surface area was lower compared to a rectilinear building. i can totally see how the furniture situation my eat up some space, but i don't think ALL circular buildings are sophomoric. if done purposely they can be just the opposite.
Don't get me wrong, the gherkin is a nice bldg. Some potential clients have warehouses full of rectangular desks, which don't conform to the circular plan. This leads to wasted space around the inside perimeter.
It's not my complaint, and I'm not going to do the math to find out how much space is lost. You'd think that someone there at fosters would have thought about this though...
Skyscrapers are all about finance. Read "form follows finance" its a great book. It doesn't mention the gherkin, but its great for realizing the true nature of the typology and the reasons people build upwards. Finance.
In this since a loss of interior floor space is a loss in money, and therefore not as efficient.
Commonly, those who are discussed in the realm of academia are progressives of architectural theory and written argument. These are usually the architects who have the most problems with their buildings with structure or client.
Running into problems comes with the territory of trying new things.
In a good market, Developers make tons of money off forms that maximize their rentable space, and the square is quite accomodating, yet highly conventional. Just look at the absurd economics of Dubai right now, all these planned skyscrapers are creating huge profit margins, its not just oil money, just look at what office space is renting for. Still, I'm not sure there is much of a profit loss in circular bldgs, certainly think there are quite important reasons that are not sophomoric for why you might choose a circular plan, or freeform plan. There are material and environmental conditions that in the long run may reduce costs and maximize bldg performance in quite dramatic fashion and there are structural reasons as well, take a look at the Burj Dubai. I agree with cou2, what about square buildings and they way the waste sunlight?
True, the history of the skyscraper is a vertical extrusion and capitalization of buildable land. What the gherkin was seeking to come to terms with is that there is more to high density building than simple economics, while money is the driving for behind most construction, buildings (offices) are responsible for the majority of wasted energy and pollution of our environment. The gherkin simply seeks to find a balance between passive cooling and massing strategies to generate a new typology and morphology for office structures [a way in which Foster and Partners is "trying new things"]. While agree they cannot fit orthogonal office furniture into corners, the buildings form is generated around the canyon effect caused by endless street grid [chicago and new york], stack ventilation principles, and the cooling allowed through the percentage increase in surface area to volume ratio. Lets be honest the arch of the floor plan is so broad that yes there are wierd angles in the corners but i doubt it really affects the maximization of square footage significantly. So to say that they do not push the envelope [no pun intended] is unfair and off base, but they they do so without disregarding the client, the budget, and the time schedule.
Stabilo, agreed with Form Follows Finance by Carol Willis: A fine book.
cou2, The wall:floor ratio is what you refer to when talking about the skin to gross/lettable area ratio. In the Gherkin it's compromised by the vertical atria that were to improve natural ventilation.
Unfortunately the building management that has been in place since the building opened is not as sophisticated as the design, and largely the operable windows that should be a key part of the natural ventilation system have remained firmly shut. This is in contrast to Foster's Commerzbank in Frankfurt which naturally vents for 60-80% of the year. That said, it took the Commerzbank building management several years to work out how best the system worked. This is to be expected, as real-life heat loads, wind pressures and air flows are discovered over time.
For all the increasing ubiquity (and thus declining value?) of Foster's work, Team 4 spawned both Foster & Rogers, Rogers going on to work with Piano then forming RRP, laterly Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners. Foster & Partners also spawned Make (Ken Shuttleworth, designer of the Gherkin etc.). These two associations that are pretty enviable in any career aside from the work done by oneself. I am sure there are dozens of other firms started with the knowledge gained working at Fosters.
Further, I think the last census of Arch. firms showed Atkins biggest, Nihon Sekkei second, Aedas third and Fosters 4th. The good Lord Foster has created an enormous business.
I'm not sure that the dispute about the part-sale of the firm was resolved: Much of the firm was nominally owned in trust for the employees, and when a large proportion of it was sold much of that money should have gone to the trust, making the 1000 or so employees considerably richer. From the press it sounded like what they received was more akin to an annual bonus than a lifetime sell-out...
I think that circular plans work best on larger scale buildings. It seems like there would be less of a problem fitting things into it. The curve would not seem as noticeable in any particular spot. Take an extreme example - our earth is roughly spherical, but since it is so large compared to us, it doesn't really feel round. Thus fitting rooms or furniture into the building wouldn't be such a problem. Due to it's large size it could be divided in may ways - to avoid the pie effect common in some smaller circular buildings.
However if the circular building was too large it might be very hard to get natural light into the center areas. It seems like there is always that problem of trying to fit rooms, furniture, windows, ect. into small circular buildings such as houses. I guess this problem exists when you try to squeeze a building into any predetermined shape.
I haven't seen a lot of small circular designs that really grabbed my attention. Does anyone know of any interesting, well-designed smaller circular buildings? Especially houses. Something circular, other than the typical circular/octagon/hexagon kit homes or those dome homes - I've seen plenty of them.
Apr 7, 08 11:17 am ·
·
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.
Foster and Partners
Why don't you think that Fosters and Partners are discussed or mentioned within the academic realm of architecture much? This is something I find is weird, considering they are one, if not, the most prolific architectural firm of our generation, rarely if ever involved in lawsuits or significant flaws in design, treat their employees admirably [uncommon in a profession in which we tend to undergo modern day indentured servitude], and not to mention a tremendous quality of design.
They did seem to get quite a bit of (good) attention for their "Gherkin" skyscraper in London - and I think it was well deserved. However, many the discussions on that building were of a more general nature.
I think I remember hearing of a few problems with the gherkin, such as several of it's windows continuously popping out. I've head a few floors are unusable because of this.
A bit more of a sophomore-ish mistake was the circular plan, which doesn't exactly conform to conventional office furniture. This results in a loss of useable floor space.
I've also read about a potential lawsuit regarding a master-plan that looked extremely similar to an OMA masterplan.
Other than that i think they do great work...It's not really academic though. It's more detail oriented stuff. Even the books they produce are pictures and drawings of details, not polemics.
The reasons you list are typically not a reasons to discuss a designer/firm academically. At least not where I went. The Gherkin did get some mention.
^to original poster^
I understand this and for my education the Hong Kong Shanghai bank was mentioned, briefly. I guess my argument or center of debate reduces to the age old discussion of theory verse practice. Commonly, those who are discussed in the realm of academia are progressives of architectural theory and written argument. These are usually the architects who have the most problems with their buildings with structure or client. Is theoretical writing the only [or most influential] way to influence contemporary design and to be noticed?
I also remember hearing that employees can only leave their desks twice a day. ( "treat their employees admirably")
BTW I think hong kong / Shanghai bank is a great piece of urbanism.
quite frankly foster does good, corporate architecture, not all that different from som or kpf. what's to talk about, outside of an et or a structures class?
stabilo: have to agree with you. if anything, all i've heard from classmates who know other classmates working there, is that's a sweatshop/ factory. haven't heard anything about them treating employees well.
One of my best friend is currently working there in the London office. According to her, working life is perfect and the office environment is very very seductive. And the salary, oh boy.
stabilo - you mentioned that the circlular plan was a sophmore-ish mistake. Aren't there some great properties to circular designs. I may be missing something here - I'm not an architect - but my background is in mathematics. A cylindrical tower has a "better" surface area to volume ratio than a box-like tower with a square base. A cylinder enclosing the same volume as the box-like tower could have up to 12% less surface area - depending on how close the plan approximates a "real circle" and other factors such as height and base area.
A box-like tower with a non-square base would have an even worse ratio. I would think that the Gherkin tower has an even better ratio than a cylindrical tower since it bulges out near the middle of the building - but without knowing the exact shape of the tower it's hard to say for sure.
Theoretically this means that less materials would be needed to enclose a cylindrical space and there would be less surface area for unwanted heat transfer to and from the outside. I know that it is probably harder to construct a building on a circular plan - So any savings in materials may be canceled out by extra construction costs. But still you're saving materials, and from an environmental standpoint that's a good thing. I would think the heating/cooling savings would be quite considerable. Wind would also have less of an effect on a cylindrical tower.
I can see what problems might arise with circular designs; they might be hard to construct, circles don't fit together well, they are hard to divide into usable parts and don't always work well in the usual rectangular city lots. From my point of view, the biggest problem with circular designs would be that it is hard to incorporate into any sort of practical grid system - they are not very modular. These are just my thoughts - from a layman's point of view. It would be interesting to here peoples' thoughts on circular designs.
when i was first introduced to the building that is exactly how my professor described it cou2. The circular plan was spoken of as an advantage because the surface area was lower compared to a rectilinear building. i can totally see how the furniture situation my eat up some space, but i don't think ALL circular buildings are sophomoric. if done purposely they can be just the opposite.
The circular plan of the Gherkin is supposed to have less wind resistance and leads to a more sympathetic environment for the surrounding area.
It is still a monster sized building when you get up close!!!
Don't get me wrong, the gherkin is a nice bldg. Some potential clients have warehouses full of rectangular desks, which don't conform to the circular plan. This leads to wasted space around the inside perimeter.
It's not my complaint, and I'm not going to do the math to find out how much space is lost. You'd think that someone there at fosters would have thought about this though...
Skyscrapers are all about finance. Read "form follows finance" its a great book. It doesn't mention the gherkin, but its great for realizing the true nature of the typology and the reasons people build upwards. Finance.
In this since a loss of interior floor space is a loss in money, and therefore not as efficient.
Running into problems comes with the territory of trying new things.
In a good market, Developers make tons of money off forms that maximize their rentable space, and the square is quite accomodating, yet highly conventional. Just look at the absurd economics of Dubai right now, all these planned skyscrapers are creating huge profit margins, its not just oil money, just look at what office space is renting for. Still, I'm not sure there is much of a profit loss in circular bldgs, certainly think there are quite important reasons that are not sophomoric for why you might choose a circular plan, or freeform plan. There are material and environmental conditions that in the long run may reduce costs and maximize bldg performance in quite dramatic fashion and there are structural reasons as well, take a look at the Burj Dubai. I agree with cou2, what about square buildings and they way the waste sunlight?
True, the history of the skyscraper is a vertical extrusion and capitalization of buildable land. What the gherkin was seeking to come to terms with is that there is more to high density building than simple economics, while money is the driving for behind most construction, buildings (offices) are responsible for the majority of wasted energy and pollution of our environment. The gherkin simply seeks to find a balance between passive cooling and massing strategies to generate a new typology and morphology for office structures [a way in which Foster and Partners is "trying new things"]. While agree they cannot fit orthogonal office furniture into corners, the buildings form is generated around the canyon effect caused by endless street grid [chicago and new york], stack ventilation principles, and the cooling allowed through the percentage increase in surface area to volume ratio. Lets be honest the arch of the floor plan is so broad that yes there are wierd angles in the corners but i doubt it really affects the maximization of square footage significantly. So to say that they do not push the envelope [no pun intended] is unfair and off base, but they they do so without disregarding the client, the budget, and the time schedule.
Stabilo, agreed with Form Follows Finance by Carol Willis: A fine book.
cou2, The wall:floor ratio is what you refer to when talking about the skin to gross/lettable area ratio. In the Gherkin it's compromised by the vertical atria that were to improve natural ventilation.
Unfortunately the building management that has been in place since the building opened is not as sophisticated as the design, and largely the operable windows that should be a key part of the natural ventilation system have remained firmly shut. This is in contrast to Foster's Commerzbank in Frankfurt which naturally vents for 60-80% of the year. That said, it took the Commerzbank building management several years to work out how best the system worked. This is to be expected, as real-life heat loads, wind pressures and air flows are discovered over time.
For all the increasing ubiquity (and thus declining value?) of Foster's work, Team 4 spawned both Foster & Rogers, Rogers going on to work with Piano then forming RRP, laterly Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners. Foster & Partners also spawned Make (Ken Shuttleworth, designer of the Gherkin etc.). These two associations that are pretty enviable in any career aside from the work done by oneself. I am sure there are dozens of other firms started with the knowledge gained working at Fosters.
Further, I think the last census of Arch. firms showed Atkins biggest, Nihon Sekkei second, Aedas third and Fosters 4th. The good Lord Foster has created an enormous business.
I'm not sure that the dispute about the part-sale of the firm was resolved: Much of the firm was nominally owned in trust for the employees, and when a large proportion of it was sold much of that money should have gone to the trust, making the 1000 or so employees considerably richer. From the press it sounded like what they received was more akin to an annual bonus than a lifetime sell-out...
I think that circular plans work best on larger scale buildings. It seems like there would be less of a problem fitting things into it. The curve would not seem as noticeable in any particular spot. Take an extreme example - our earth is roughly spherical, but since it is so large compared to us, it doesn't really feel round. Thus fitting rooms or furniture into the building wouldn't be such a problem. Due to it's large size it could be divided in may ways - to avoid the pie effect common in some smaller circular buildings.
However if the circular building was too large it might be very hard to get natural light into the center areas. It seems like there is always that problem of trying to fit rooms, furniture, windows, ect. into small circular buildings such as houses. I guess this problem exists when you try to squeeze a building into any predetermined shape.
I haven't seen a lot of small circular designs that really grabbed my attention. Does anyone know of any interesting, well-designed smaller circular buildings? Especially houses. Something circular, other than the typical circular/octagon/hexagon kit homes or those dome homes - I've seen plenty of them.
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.