Here in america, we like things big-- 115' to even 130' wide buildings and often wonder how these skinny, often european, buildings are financed. The idea of a skinny spec office building to our friendly neighborhood developers causes enough financial stress to make them sell their children. We know they like a wide plate so they can stuff in as many cubicals and window offices as possible, but there has to be a tipping point. Anyone have luck convincing their client on designing a thin, light filled office building?
I heard microsoft, the tenant every NorthWest developer seems to want, is going to start building a few 60' wide plates. This could be quite good for developer inspiration.
This is more a tenant argument than a spec developer argument - but give them the quality of life schpiel: daylight and operable windows lead to lower absenteeism rates and higher return on salary costs, not to mention lower energy costs. There's also a lot of LEED credits that are easier to get with a skinny plan.
^^possibly, we heard microsoft and redmond but this exemplifies the type of development needed. That'll be great once the rest of that is built- the area is parking lot wasteland.
i think the nbbj designed telecom hq (nortel?) at the former airport near oslo, norway also fits the skinny profile.
in fact, norway probably has many recent buildings that meet the "skinny" criteria as they have building law that stipulate employees must be within a certain proximity (4m perhaps?) of natural daylight else they're not to work more than thirty hours/week...or something like that.
The German rule is (again correct me if I'm wrong) a maximum of 8m from core to wall. This is not a buidling regulation, but employment law. Thus the small floorplate and often ovoid towers (effectively a circumference drawn around the core on teh end of an 8m piece of string) that are found in Germany.
The small floorplate does compromise the economic argument for building taller, as the net:gross efficiency, and the wall:floor efficiency is always going to be crap.
Often, regulating building aesthetics is significantly less productive than regulations that deal directly with what constitutes "basic needs" for human beings...here in NYC, there are pretty strict building codes over the ratio of light&ventilation area over floor plate area, (though more stringent for resdiential than commercial ), but people are still working out of windowless basements... Actually the FAR rules that consider height factor encourrages skinnier buildings. I think architecture is often a reflection of our value system. I work for a developer and when we consider marketability of a plan, we ask: Is there a large blank wall to hang one's 60" plasma TV ? and Is this floor plan "convertible" so that when times are tough, you can buy some drywall and rent out a room ?
Oct 29, 08 7:14 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.
The Skinny Office
Here in america, we like things big-- 115' to even 130' wide buildings and often wonder how these skinny, often european, buildings are financed. The idea of a skinny spec office building to our friendly neighborhood developers causes enough financial stress to make them sell their children. We know they like a wide plate so they can stuff in as many cubicals and window offices as possible, but there has to be a tipping point. Anyone have luck convincing their client on designing a thin, light filled office building?
I heard microsoft, the tenant every NorthWest developer seems to want, is going to start building a few 60' wide plates. This could be quite good for developer inspiration.
This is more a tenant argument than a spec developer argument - but give them the quality of life schpiel: daylight and operable windows lead to lower absenteeism rates and higher return on salary costs, not to mention lower energy costs. There's also a lot of LEED credits that are easier to get with a skinny plan.
are you referring to the bill and melinda gates foundation hq by nbbj?
the argument is definitely about quality of space. you can charge x for shitty boxy lightless soulless development.
you can charge x+y for well lit, airy development with views, natural ventilation, and at least the semblance of a soul...
heneghan.peng's Aras Chill Dara has <40' floor plates
^^possibly, we heard microsoft and redmond but this exemplifies the type of development needed. That'll be great once the rest of that is built- the area is parking lot wasteland.
im printing that one out.
yam, a bunch here
damn germans. thanks
i think the nbbj designed telecom hq (nortel?) at the former airport near oslo, norway also fits the skinny profile.
in fact, norway probably has many recent buildings that meet the "skinny" criteria as they have building law that stipulate employees must be within a certain proximity (4m perhaps?) of natural daylight else they're not to work more than thirty hours/week...or something like that.
World Lines!
The German rule is (again correct me if I'm wrong) a maximum of 8m from core to wall. This is not a buidling regulation, but employment law. Thus the small floorplate and often ovoid towers (effectively a circumference drawn around the core on teh end of an 8m piece of string) that are found in Germany.
The small floorplate does compromise the economic argument for building taller, as the net:gross efficiency, and the wall:floor efficiency is always going to be crap.
Often, regulating building aesthetics is significantly less productive than regulations that deal directly with what constitutes "basic needs" for human beings...here in NYC, there are pretty strict building codes over the ratio of light&ventilation area over floor plate area, (though more stringent for resdiential than commercial ), but people are still working out of windowless basements... Actually the FAR rules that consider height factor encourrages skinnier buildings. I think architecture is often a reflection of our value system. I work for a developer and when we consider marketability of a plan, we ask: Is there a large blank wall to hang one's 60" plasma TV ? and Is this floor plan "convertible" so that when times are tough, you can buy some drywall and rent out a room ?
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.