"PerCorell, as I mentioned before, the envision of this profession matters. You seek the building as forms, while we believe buildings are way beyond forms."
eCoDe, it is not to offend you -- but where on earth has you got that idea about what I think ? What you say I think is the exact opposite of whar I do, and realy I am offended now, when you public shout out your emagination about me, an emagination I simply don't understand where you found.
I been saying exactly the opposite of what you claim I say, -- are you planning a charecter murder ? --- Go uoy and say "per think like this" when that i a lie, but only fir with your wish to put smeone in your Hippie box.
I exactly point to structure as the important issue, I even suggest new better systems, -- when I do that, you burst out , throw various sorts of dirt -- first you insinuate I know nothing, then to confuse what general argument you just been using you say : "And you could have hundreds of concepts how the building works or looks."
I don't think you even read my note, maybe halve a sentense, -- and that seem enough for me to fit into some box you has ready, and now you pour all the mud you mean for those in that box, over me to, --- withour reading what I say. Sorry but I did my time at the acadamy, and beside you did not comment on one single issue, -- there were several. --- in my post, only the one where you mislead your glasses so you read it wrong, the other issues were of no interest for you to comment ; how fire protection realy can be projected ( offcaurse you need to be able to use th computer in the projecting, but others than I am application develobers on the hardest platforms, many young people are very very good with it, -- another issue "I see regression happening", -- Na yu couldn't use that for a comment.
In fact all you said, was "you shal not think you know more than we"
--- and did not ansver one single of the relevant suggestions I just mentioned, a bit over agressive and quite arogant, arogant based on what, --- can you use a computer yourself, one of those nice 3D programs and do you understand what direct-link-production will mean, when it replace that old attitude towerds structure I point to ?
And eCoDe --- when you from the start force a lie into my mouth ;
"You seek the building as forms, while we believe buildings are way beyond forms."
Then you are not just not interested in what I am saying in the rest of the mail, where I say the opposite of what you claim, but you also invent an oppoment where if enough belive what words you put in my mouth, and ideology you at the same time throw mud after, -- without knowing if these are my belives.
my contribution:
don't worry anymore about OMA and Koolhaas. he is, from what i know hear around here in rotterdam, not likable at all, and he is surely not as interesting as (f.e.) le corbusier and john hejduk.
and rather worry about you own work and personality. that matters much more.
"my ire ... is toward the mentality that allows such trophy structures to be built in the first place."
- in which case, where would you place the Sydney Opera House? given that it was more than 10 times over budget, and caused the NSW government to have to deal with a huge loss of public revenues that might have gone to schools, hospitals, housing, care for the indigenous population...
"Whether it's the fault of OMA, the contractor, or the Chinese government (or some combination thereof) remains to be seen, but somebody should hang for this."
- am i the only one who finds a deeply troubling irony in this statement?? after having condemned the Chinese government as repressive, dictatorial, brutal, committing countless human rights abuses, you are now demanding capital punishment. perhaps it is only fitting that it is China and the USA that have the highest rate of capital punishment as a state sponsored criminal deterrent.
"Unlike some celebrity architects, Foster seems to have a genuine interest in detailing and construction, and an overriding concern for the broader social implications for what he's designing."
-have you seen any recent Foster bldgs? the refined 'hi-tech detailing' that may have marked some of his early projects is largely absent now. but the point is that the Foster office is so large, that Norman works on less than 15% of the projects that bear his name. but why does he have so much work? because he is a name - more fashionable in the corporate and monied world than Rem, Zaha, Ben, or HdM put together.
-as for his "overriding concern for the broader social implications..." i would dearly love to see the bibliography that lists his articles, texts, books on this subject. other than some recent musings about city planning (master plans being his latest interest) there have been few concerns ever expressed by Norman - other than concerns for delivering expensive, corporate architecture, anywhere in the world.
"It sounds like the contractor fucked up on the Vegas project..."
- interesting that you are so ready to give the contractor the chop on the Vegas project, and yet continued to blame Rem's office for the TVCC fire, and their lack of 'due diligence'. exactly why that hypocracy?
"when architects – especially those who are in the fortunate position of being able to pick and choose their clients – accept commissions from oppressive institutions, my respect for them will typically drop by a notch or two."
- so exactly to what level has your respect dropped for Norman, given that he has designed or is currently designing, projects in:
China - you know, that repressive, anti-human rights regime, spending money on grandiose projects at the expense of the peasants - sorta like the world's largest airport bldg.
Saudi Arabia - you know, those Muslim fanatics who don't let their women drive.
Malaysia - ever seen how they treat their ethnic or Chinese minorities?
UAE - same as Saudi, but even more profligate.
Kazakhstan - not exactly the land of human rights and democracy, with a 'president' granted "lifetime powers and privilege". Foster's "Palace of Peace and Reconciliation" has just that nice tinge of Orwellian double-speak.
which category do you put the Hearst Corp into? oppressive institution or just good ol' capitalist corporation.
You guys are obviously having fun beating up on LiG's every statement, humorous hyperbole* or not - but he's one of few here stating what to me is the obvious issue:
No 40 story tower's exterior cladding should go up in flames in 20 minutes. That this happened is indefensible.
Something was clearly wrong here, be it in the design, the construction, or the fire suppression system. Somebody fucked up.
And given China's control of information, are we really likely to ever find out what the mistake was? No. So as a community engaged in the building arts, we don't stand to learn anything from this colossal mistake. Which makes me furious.
i'm not sure that many people are beating up on LiG, lb. Frankly I think its his way of putting things that inspires arguments.
It is very obvious someone fucked up and of course no tower should go up in 20 minutes but immediately blaming the architect seems to me to be jumping the gun, that's all. Of the thousands of people who worked on this job, how did no one see this coming or did they see it but couldn't say anything?
- in which case, where would you place the Sydney Opera House? given that it was more than 10 times over budget, and caused the NSW government to have to deal with a huge loss of public revenues that might have gone to schools, hospitals, housing, care for the indigenous population...
And yet they chose to build it anyway. Was it worth it? I don’t presume to have an answer in that particular case, but it’s a debate worth having.
- am i the only one who finds a deeply troubling irony in this statement?? after having condemned the Chinese government as repressive, dictatorial, brutal, committing countless human rights abuses, you are now demanding capital punishment. perhaps it is only fitting that it is China and the USA that have the highest rate of capital punishment as a state sponsored criminal deterrent.
God forbid anybody use a bit of hyperbole to make a rhetorical point. Do I think the at-fault party should literally be hanged in the town square? Of course not, but they certainly need to be held accountable.
-have you seen any recent Foster bldgs? the refined 'hi-tech detailing' that may have marked some of his early projects is largely absent now. but the point is that the Foster office is so large, that Norman works on less than 15% of the projects that bear his name. but why does he have so much work? because he is a name - more fashionable in the corporate and monied world than Rem, Zaha, Ben, or HdM put together.
-as for his "overriding concern for the broader social implications..." i would dearly love to see the bibliography that lists his articles, texts, books on this subject. other than some recent musings about city planning (master plans being his latest interest) there have been few concerns ever expressed by Norman - other than concerns for delivering expensive, corporate architecture, anywhere in the world.
I never claimed Foster was a saint, and I do think his firm’s more recent work has unfortunately fallen into some predictable patterns. But in his earlier work such as the HSBC tower in Hong Kong and the Commerzbank Building in Frankfurt, a great deal of care was put into addressing concerns about daylighting, natural ventilation, the buildings’ relationships to their respective contexts, energy efficiency, and the comfort and well-being of the end users. Is it really so outrageous to argue that such design considerations should be the norm, and not the exception, in every project (not just the ones that grace the pages of Architectural Record)?
- interesting that you are so ready to give the contractor the chop on the Vegas project, and yet continued to blame Rem's office for the TVCC fire, and their lack of 'due diligence'. exactly why that hypocracy?
Because Foster’s office most likely wasn’t responsible for laying out every bit of rebar, and I think it’s pretty unlikely (but not inconceivable) that the structural engineer would screw up something so fundamental. That pretty much makes it an installation error. An argument could be made that the structural engineer could have done a better job monitoring construction, but that doesn’t absolve the contractor. (Again, that assumes the article can be taken at face value… I still suspect there may have been economic factors in the decision to shorten the building.)
Once again, I never blamed Rem’s office directly for the TVCC fire. But the fact of the matter is that a 40-story building was totally engulfed in flames in less than 20 minutes. It’s possible that OMA designed the building with every modern safeguard in mind and the contractor completely fucked it up, and not a single person on the job site noticed during the entire time the building was under construction. It seems more likely, though, based on what’s been posted elsewhere in this thread, that there was a serious design flaw with the exterior cladding system that formed a chimney effect and allowed the flames to spread rapidly. It’s worth noting that this festival happens every year, lots of fireworks are set off, and to date, none of the many other high-rises in Beijing have lit up like a paper dragon. It amazes me how many people on this forum seem willing to simply file this under the “aww shucks, shit happens” heading. Unfortunately, I doubt that the true circumstances of this case will ever be fully known, and no lessons will be learned.
- so exactly to what level has your respect dropped for Norman, given that he has designed or is currently designing, projects in…
Again, I never claimed Foster was a saint, or even a role model. It’s an unfortunate fact of life that oppressive regimes exist, and that they sometimes hire famous architects. Should architects accept such commissions? If we turned down every project that comes from a client with questionable morals, very few architects would be putting food on the table. I would argue that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, though. I'm not entirely certain where that line should be, but it's a discussion worth having.
which category do you put the Hearst Corp into? oppressive institution or just good ol' capitalist corporation.
Last time I checked, Hearst is a publishing company and doesn’t send political opponents to rot away in gulags. But if Foster designed a flashy new headquarters for Halliburton or KBR, I’d probably put him on my shit list.
It burned so very quickly
I've seen a few fires and this was fast!
Ask a fireman how quickly it burnt up.
Ask yourself why
Check the building materials used
what was also stored up there
Thank whatever diety you subscribe to that no-one was up there long enough to get caught
It went up like a firecracker and a furnace combined
Its ironic as it was Chinas largest firework at the end of the Chinese new year celebrations. Not many people will get that.
The architecture burned hot, the cladding melted and rained down spreading the fire down the building.
It leaped from floor to floor.
No-one would have stood a chance
The fire department had no chance and one guy lost his life because of it. Just think of his family
They had to let it burn out.
Where is the sense in that?
No fire walls?
where was the fire suppression system?
However, the structure still stands - a testament to the engineers, not the architects, they just decorate the structure with flammable materials and expect it to stay up whatever happens.
Well 9 times out of 11 they do (9/11).
Unless something burns out the heart of a building, it will use all available sources and means of stability and support until the last one is exhausted.
If it fell, even now, the engineers would be executed not the architects. the chinese have the power to do that.
Shocking situation from all angles.
Learn from this guys.
Imagine yourself up there and how you would get down.
Imagine you are the fire chief and you have to get people out!
You are asking everyone else to face this dilemma building like this.
You will be elsewhere looking on shocked, just as I was.
THINK! - you are trained to do for the most part but think of the worse case scenario then double that.
DESIGN IT OUT! - don't go for awards
Design it in - safeguards, fire barriers, firewalls, safe corridors, inflammable materials etc etc. plug every hole between levels.
Expect fire to jump large gaps. Don't design fuses to catch fire between levels.
DON'T ASK TOO MUCH! ask how can it be done much better and safer.
Easy for me to type this. Very hard for the guy facing the chop - literally!
Oh yeah, architects never pay attention to fireproofing and fire prevention / suppression detailing. We're hoping all the occupants of our buildings end up engulfed in flames. Oh and they don't take our licenses away or prosecute us when this happens, either. The architect's license is like a free hall pass for eternity, doesn't everyone know that?
That's the assumption I'm under, manta! And if it falls down because I didn't make sure it was built according to my structural engineer's design, I just blame them and walk away scot-free because I'm licensed yeehaw!
Now bring me some boring steel frame I can gussy up with - what was it LiG said? - kerosene-soaked hay bales! Woohoo!
maybe the bamboo scaffling was the first thing to burn...and caused the fire to spread.... Then again it might have been the flying dragon....with a burning broom stick. Fung ....dung might have stepped in to help this building along....but I'm sure it wasn't that
someone forgot to put in the fire blocking. Then again I do like the sound and visual of kerosene-soaked hay bales!
sorry for the long text, but it provides some additional reporting from China:
Smoke Clears, Doubts Linger at CCTV Fire
By staff reporters Ouyang Hongliang and Luo Changping
From Caijing Magazine
Investigators are studying financial deals while trying to pin blame for a blaze that scorched a Beijing skyscraper last month. A spectacular fire that charred a 30-story building under construction in downtown Beijing may have burned the cover off questionable financial deals tied to China Central Television executives and its new headquarters.
While pursuing criminal charges connected to the February 9 fire that gutted the Television Communication Center -- part of CCTV’s new complex -- investigators have focused on possible financial corruption involving high-level executives. According to a source, the National Audit Office plans to look into the finances of several retiring CCTV managers as well as the CCTV complex construction project.
At the same time, questions have been raised about the project whose costs ballooned from an initial estimate of 7.7 billion yuan when it was approved by the State Administration of Radio Film and Television in 2005 to the latest price tag of more than 12 billion yuan, not including equipment costs of more than 7 billion yuan. A key figure for investigators is Xu Wei, the CCTV building construction project director who was arrested shortly after the fire. Xu allegedly approved the Chinese New Year fireworks show at the building site that officials say sparked the flames that spread through the unoccupied building.
Xu, a 20-year veteran of CCTV, was appointed the network’s technical department director in December 2000 and was named construction project director three years later. Authorities also have looked into Xu’s close friend and old college chum Li Xiaoming, who had served as CCTV’s vice director. Li was questioned by police the night of the fire as well as the next day. A source said Li, unlike Xu, has not been detained, and was seen at CCTV offices February 24.
Xu also worked as the legal representative of a construction company in charge of the complex project called CCTV Gauging, a joint venture formed in 2003 by CCTV and a building company named Beijing Gauging Consultants Co. Ltd. In this capacity, Xu was handed control of a 20 billion yuan CCTV construction fund. According to a preliminary investigation, Xu earned a commission of about 80,000 yuan from CCTV’s purchase of fireworks for the February 9 show, which was handled by the San Xiang fireworks company. Caijing learned that a fireworks commission may be as high as 30 percent.
The network said the holiday show cost 1 million yuan, but a source told Caijing the actual cost was about 350,000 yuan. Similar displays cost 300,000 yuan in 2007 and 500,000 yuan in 2008. A source said the same company every year sold the fireworks for CCTV’s shows. Police investigators found the money used to purchase the fireworks was transferred to an account held by a media technical company called Da Xin Heng Tai, for which Xu was the first legal representative.
Da Xin Heng Tai was set up in January 2006 with an investment of 5 million yuan from CCTV Gauging. It then went through a fishy privatization. On April 12, 2006, CCTV Gauging transferred Da Xin Heng Tai’s stock to another media company called Ying Xiang, which provided CCTV advertisement services, consulting and training. But Ying Xiang withdrew its investment after finishing two CCTV projects and transferred the stock to five of Xu’s close friends, Caijing learned. According to Da Xin Heng Tai’s public information, the company has managed at least seven CCTV projects and received more than 100 million yuan in payments from the TV network.
Pinning Blame
Xu is one of 20 people arrested so far in connection with the blaze, which killed a firefighter and spread rapidly through the more than 103,000 square meter structure. CCTV blamed the speed of the flames on insulation in the partially completed building. Xu’s CCTV-hired lawyer is raising questions over who’s to blame. In the lawyer’s opinion, key issues are whether the construction company should take responsibility, whether the fireworks display was based on an order from Xu or someone higher, and whether the fireworks company should be held responsible for an illegal show using illegally transported fireworks.
Nine San Xiang staffers were among those arrested so far. Xu’s lawyer said the company illegally transported fireworks and should take responsibility. Others say CCTV, which hired the company, should be blamed. A source close to the investigation, who asked to remain anonymous, told Caijing defining responsibility is difficult. But according to the preliminary investigation, the order to launch the display came through official channels, not via an order from Xu, a point supported by the fact that CCTV had arranged four cameras to record the display for use in future TV programs.
The source said investigators so far have been inclined to pin the major responsibility on CCTV, while putting minor blame on others. The construction company’s culpability is also in question.
According to a fire inspector’s report issued to CCTV before the fire, deficiencies were found in eight of 26 areas probed at the building site. Despite the known risks cited by inspectors, construction company officials did not try to interfere with the fireworks display.
Uncertain Future
The future of the soot-blackened skyscraper, also known as the TVCC tower, is also in question. CCTV released a private announcement to top managers February 13 saying that a network-hired investigation team determined the tower could be repaired. The outermost walls on the south and north sides were not damaged, the team found, and equipment inside the south and north sides of the tower were unharmed. Moreover, the team said, the building frame is intact.
However, neither fire officials nor the construction company have commented on CCTV’s internal assessment. An architect who asked to remain anonymous told Caijing he is cautious about the announcement because there’s little possibility that outer walls and equipment inside escaped damage entirely. A source close to the fire department said the six-hour fire may have heavily reduced the building’s strength, which may make it vulnerable to earthquake risks. Another architect said he would tear down the tower, if the choice was hit, since although a repair job could save money, the building could be hazardous.
The TVCC project cost CCTV more than 2 billion yuan. But the building itself is registered as a 3 billion yuan asset, since it included a 241-room luxury hotel and a cinema. The future of each facility is now in doubt.
Meanwhile, CCTV Director Zhao Huayong said the network would continue its plan to relocate offices to the new complex which includes other buildings untouched by the fire -- as scheduled.
Zhao, 61, should have retired last year according to Chinese regulations. He is currently overseeing the post-fire re-development.
TVCC ON FIRE
Thanks.
You can now go back to ranting about their complete lack of regard to life safety.
"PerCorell, as I mentioned before, the envision of this profession matters. You seek the building as forms, while we believe buildings are way beyond forms."
eCoDe, it is not to offend you -- but where on earth has you got that idea about what I think ? What you say I think is the exact opposite of whar I do, and realy I am offended now, when you public shout out your emagination about me, an emagination I simply don't understand where you found.
I been saying exactly the opposite of what you claim I say, -- are you planning a charecter murder ? --- Go uoy and say "per think like this" when that i a lie, but only fir with your wish to put smeone in your Hippie box.
I exactly point to structure as the important issue, I even suggest new better systems, -- when I do that, you burst out , throw various sorts of dirt -- first you insinuate I know nothing, then to confuse what general argument you just been using you say : "And you could have hundreds of concepts how the building works or looks."
I don't think you even read my note, maybe halve a sentense, -- and that seem enough for me to fit into some box you has ready, and now you pour all the mud you mean for those in that box, over me to, --- withour reading what I say. Sorry but I did my time at the acadamy, and beside you did not comment on one single issue, -- there were several. --- in my post, only the one where you mislead your glasses so you read it wrong, the other issues were of no interest for you to comment ; how fire protection realy can be projected ( offcaurse you need to be able to use th computer in the projecting, but others than I am application develobers on the hardest platforms, many young people are very very good with it, -- another issue "I see regression happening", -- Na yu couldn't use that for a comment.
In fact all you said, was "you shal not think you know more than we"
--- and did not ansver one single of the relevant suggestions I just mentioned, a bit over agressive and quite arogant, arogant based on what, --- can you use a computer yourself, one of those nice 3D programs and do you understand what direct-link-production will mean, when it replace that old attitude towerds structure I point to ?
And eCoDe --- when you from the start force a lie into my mouth ;
"You seek the building as forms, while we believe buildings are way beyond forms."
Then you are not just not interested in what I am saying in the rest of the mail, where I say the opposite of what you claim, but you also invent an oppoment where if enough belive what words you put in my mouth, and ideology you at the same time throw mud after, -- without knowing if these are my belives.
Will you please stop that !
my contribution:
don't worry anymore about OMA and Koolhaas. he is, from what i know hear around here in rotterdam, not likable at all, and he is surely not as interesting as (f.e.) le corbusier and john hejduk.
and rather worry about you own work and personality. that matters much more.
LIG, you have all the good lines:
"my ire ... is toward the mentality that allows such trophy structures to be built in the first place."
- in which case, where would you place the Sydney Opera House? given that it was more than 10 times over budget, and caused the NSW government to have to deal with a huge loss of public revenues that might have gone to schools, hospitals, housing, care for the indigenous population...
"Whether it's the fault of OMA, the contractor, or the Chinese government (or some combination thereof) remains to be seen, but somebody should hang for this."
- am i the only one who finds a deeply troubling irony in this statement?? after having condemned the Chinese government as repressive, dictatorial, brutal, committing countless human rights abuses, you are now demanding capital punishment. perhaps it is only fitting that it is China and the USA that have the highest rate of capital punishment as a state sponsored criminal deterrent.
"Unlike some celebrity architects, Foster seems to have a genuine interest in detailing and construction, and an overriding concern for the broader social implications for what he's designing."
-have you seen any recent Foster bldgs? the refined 'hi-tech detailing' that may have marked some of his early projects is largely absent now. but the point is that the Foster office is so large, that Norman works on less than 15% of the projects that bear his name. but why does he have so much work? because he is a name - more fashionable in the corporate and monied world than Rem, Zaha, Ben, or HdM put together.
-as for his "overriding concern for the broader social implications..." i would dearly love to see the bibliography that lists his articles, texts, books on this subject. other than some recent musings about city planning (master plans being his latest interest) there have been few concerns ever expressed by Norman - other than concerns for delivering expensive, corporate architecture, anywhere in the world.
"It sounds like the contractor fucked up on the Vegas project..."
- interesting that you are so ready to give the contractor the chop on the Vegas project, and yet continued to blame Rem's office for the TVCC fire, and their lack of 'due diligence'. exactly why that hypocracy?
"when architects – especially those who are in the fortunate position of being able to pick and choose their clients – accept commissions from oppressive institutions, my respect for them will typically drop by a notch or two."
- so exactly to what level has your respect dropped for Norman, given that he has designed or is currently designing, projects in:
China - you know, that repressive, anti-human rights regime, spending money on grandiose projects at the expense of the peasants - sorta like the world's largest airport bldg.
Saudi Arabia - you know, those Muslim fanatics who don't let their women drive.
Malaysia - ever seen how they treat their ethnic or Chinese minorities?
UAE - same as Saudi, but even more profligate.
Kazakhstan - not exactly the land of human rights and democracy, with a 'president' granted "lifetime powers and privilege". Foster's "Palace of Peace and Reconciliation" has just that nice tinge of Orwellian double-speak.
which category do you put the Hearst Corp into? oppressive institution or just good ol' capitalist corporation.
You guys are obviously having fun beating up on LiG's every statement, humorous hyperbole* or not - but he's one of few here stating what to me is the obvious issue:
No 40 story tower's exterior cladding should go up in flames in 20 minutes. That this happened is indefensible.
Something was clearly wrong here, be it in the design, the construction, or the fire suppression system. Somebody fucked up.
And given China's control of information, are we really likely to ever find out what the mistake was? No. So as a community engaged in the building arts, we don't stand to learn anything from this colossal mistake. Which makes me furious.
* every instance of which is cracking me up
someone always fucks up, my sink fills up in a second,
but, i don't think its Rem's fault,, i actually kind of like him
i'm not sure that many people are beating up on LiG, lb. Frankly I think its his way of putting things that inspires arguments.
It is very obvious someone fucked up and of course no tower should go up in 20 minutes but immediately blaming the architect seems to me to be jumping the gun, that's all. Of the thousands of people who worked on this job, how did no one see this coming or did they see it but couldn't say anything?
And yet they chose to build it anyway. Was it worth it? I don’t presume to have an answer in that particular case, but it’s a debate worth having.
- am i the only one who finds a deeply troubling irony in this statement?? after having condemned the Chinese government as repressive, dictatorial, brutal, committing countless human rights abuses, you are now demanding capital punishment. perhaps it is only fitting that it is China and the USA that have the highest rate of capital punishment as a state sponsored criminal deterrent.
God forbid anybody use a bit of hyperbole to make a rhetorical point. Do I think the at-fault party should literally be hanged in the town square? Of course not, but they certainly need to be held accountable.
-have you seen any recent Foster bldgs? the refined 'hi-tech detailing' that may have marked some of his early projects is largely absent now. but the point is that the Foster office is so large, that Norman works on less than 15% of the projects that bear his name. but why does he have so much work? because he is a name - more fashionable in the corporate and monied world than Rem, Zaha, Ben, or HdM put together.
-as for his "overriding concern for the broader social implications..." i would dearly love to see the bibliography that lists his articles, texts, books on this subject. other than some recent musings about city planning (master plans being his latest interest) there have been few concerns ever expressed by Norman - other than concerns for delivering expensive, corporate architecture, anywhere in the world.
I never claimed Foster was a saint, and I do think his firm’s more recent work has unfortunately fallen into some predictable patterns. But in his earlier work such as the HSBC tower in Hong Kong and the Commerzbank Building in Frankfurt, a great deal of care was put into addressing concerns about daylighting, natural ventilation, the buildings’ relationships to their respective contexts, energy efficiency, and the comfort and well-being of the end users. Is it really so outrageous to argue that such design considerations should be the norm, and not the exception, in every project (not just the ones that grace the pages of Architectural Record)?
- interesting that you are so ready to give the contractor the chop on the Vegas project, and yet continued to blame Rem's office for the TVCC fire, and their lack of 'due diligence'. exactly why that hypocracy?
Because Foster’s office most likely wasn’t responsible for laying out every bit of rebar, and I think it’s pretty unlikely (but not inconceivable) that the structural engineer would screw up something so fundamental. That pretty much makes it an installation error. An argument could be made that the structural engineer could have done a better job monitoring construction, but that doesn’t absolve the contractor. (Again, that assumes the article can be taken at face value… I still suspect there may have been economic factors in the decision to shorten the building.)
Once again, I never blamed Rem’s office directly for the TVCC fire. But the fact of the matter is that a 40-story building was totally engulfed in flames in less than 20 minutes. It’s possible that OMA designed the building with every modern safeguard in mind and the contractor completely fucked it up, and not a single person on the job site noticed during the entire time the building was under construction. It seems more likely, though, based on what’s been posted elsewhere in this thread, that there was a serious design flaw with the exterior cladding system that formed a chimney effect and allowed the flames to spread rapidly. It’s worth noting that this festival happens every year, lots of fireworks are set off, and to date, none of the many other high-rises in Beijing have lit up like a paper dragon. It amazes me how many people on this forum seem willing to simply file this under the “aww shucks, shit happens” heading. Unfortunately, I doubt that the true circumstances of this case will ever be fully known, and no lessons will be learned.
- so exactly to what level has your respect dropped for Norman, given that he has designed or is currently designing, projects in…
Again, I never claimed Foster was a saint, or even a role model. It’s an unfortunate fact of life that oppressive regimes exist, and that they sometimes hire famous architects. Should architects accept such commissions? If we turned down every project that comes from a client with questionable morals, very few architects would be putting food on the table. I would argue that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, though. I'm not entirely certain where that line should be, but it's a discussion worth having.
which category do you put the Hearst Corp into? oppressive institution or just good ol' capitalist corporation.
Last time I checked, Hearst is a publishing company and doesn’t send political opponents to rot away in gulags. But if Foster designed a flashy new headquarters for Halliburton or KBR, I’d probably put him on my shit list.
LiG, I heard Foster has finished prelim. work on Blackwater's new HQ...
Just kidding! Much love everybody.
It burned so very quickly
I've seen a few fires and this was fast!
Ask a fireman how quickly it burnt up.
Ask yourself why
Check the building materials used
what was also stored up there
Thank whatever diety you subscribe to that no-one was up there long enough to get caught
It went up like a firecracker and a furnace combined
Its ironic as it was Chinas largest firework at the end of the Chinese new year celebrations. Not many people will get that.
The architecture burned hot, the cladding melted and rained down spreading the fire down the building.
It leaped from floor to floor.
No-one would have stood a chance
The fire department had no chance and one guy lost his life because of it. Just think of his family
They had to let it burn out.
Where is the sense in that?
No fire walls?
where was the fire suppression system?
However, the structure still stands - a testament to the engineers, not the architects, they just decorate the structure with flammable materials and expect it to stay up whatever happens.
Well 9 times out of 11 they do (9/11).
Unless something burns out the heart of a building, it will use all available sources and means of stability and support until the last one is exhausted.
If it fell, even now, the engineers would be executed not the architects. the chinese have the power to do that.
Shocking situation from all angles.
Learn from this guys.
Imagine yourself up there and how you would get down.
Imagine you are the fire chief and you have to get people out!
You are asking everyone else to face this dilemma building like this.
You will be elsewhere looking on shocked, just as I was.
THINK! - you are trained to do for the most part but think of the worse case scenario then double that.
DESIGN IT OUT! - don't go for awards
Design it in - safeguards, fire barriers, firewalls, safe corridors, inflammable materials etc etc. plug every hole between levels.
Expect fire to jump large gaps. Don't design fuses to catch fire between levels.
DON'T ASK TOO MUCH! ask how can it be done much better and safer.
Easy for me to type this. Very hard for the guy facing the chop - literally!
Steve
an Engineer
Oh yeah, architects never pay attention to fireproofing and fire prevention / suppression detailing. We're hoping all the occupants of our buildings end up engulfed in flames. Oh and they don't take our licenses away or prosecute us when this happens, either. The architect's license is like a free hall pass for eternity, doesn't everyone know that?
That's the assumption I'm under, manta! And if it falls down because I didn't make sure it was built according to my structural engineer's design, I just blame them and walk away scot-free because I'm licensed yeehaw!
Now bring me some boring steel frame I can gussy up with - what was it LiG said? - kerosene-soaked hay bales! Woohoo!
maybe the bamboo scaffling was the first thing to burn...and caused the fire to spread.... Then again it might have been the flying dragon....with a burning broom stick. Fung ....dung might have stepped in to help this building along....but I'm sure it wasn't that
someone forgot to put in the fire blocking. Then again I do like the sound and visual of kerosene-soaked hay bales!
"maybe the bamboo scaffling ..........Then again it might have been the flying dragon............... along...."
----to much assumption and illusion
"but I'm sure it wasn't that someone forgot to put in the fire blocking."
----a sudden conclusion from the "flying dragon"
"Then again I do like the sound and visual of kerosene-soaked hay bales!"
----you sick dude
what's the news on this building?
I was wondering the same thing yesterday, accesskb. Has anyone heard anything?
most likely the building is coming down and the steel smelted and turned into tanks so the Chinese can go crush the people of Tibet.
This may clear some things up:
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/090313tvcc.asp
sorry for the long text, but it provides some additional reporting from China:
Smoke Clears, Doubts Linger at CCTV Fire
By staff reporters Ouyang Hongliang and Luo Changping
From Caijing Magazine
Investigators are studying financial deals while trying to pin blame for a blaze that scorched a Beijing skyscraper last month. A spectacular fire that charred a 30-story building under construction in downtown Beijing may have burned the cover off questionable financial deals tied to China Central Television executives and its new headquarters.
While pursuing criminal charges connected to the February 9 fire that gutted the Television Communication Center -- part of CCTV’s new complex -- investigators have focused on possible financial corruption involving high-level executives. According to a source, the National Audit Office plans to look into the finances of several retiring CCTV managers as well as the CCTV complex construction project.
At the same time, questions have been raised about the project whose costs ballooned from an initial estimate of 7.7 billion yuan when it was approved by the State Administration of Radio Film and Television in 2005 to the latest price tag of more than 12 billion yuan, not including equipment costs of more than 7 billion yuan. A key figure for investigators is Xu Wei, the CCTV building construction project director who was arrested shortly after the fire. Xu allegedly approved the Chinese New Year fireworks show at the building site that officials say sparked the flames that spread through the unoccupied building.
Xu, a 20-year veteran of CCTV, was appointed the network’s technical department director in December 2000 and was named construction project director three years later. Authorities also have looked into Xu’s close friend and old college chum Li Xiaoming, who had served as CCTV’s vice director. Li was questioned by police the night of the fire as well as the next day. A source said Li, unlike Xu, has not been detained, and was seen at CCTV offices February 24.
Xu also worked as the legal representative of a construction company in charge of the complex project called CCTV Gauging, a joint venture formed in 2003 by CCTV and a building company named Beijing Gauging Consultants Co. Ltd. In this capacity, Xu was handed control of a 20 billion yuan CCTV construction fund. According to a preliminary investigation, Xu earned a commission of about 80,000 yuan from CCTV’s purchase of fireworks for the February 9 show, which was handled by the San Xiang fireworks company. Caijing learned that a fireworks commission may be as high as 30 percent.
The network said the holiday show cost 1 million yuan, but a source told Caijing the actual cost was about 350,000 yuan. Similar displays cost 300,000 yuan in 2007 and 500,000 yuan in 2008. A source said the same company every year sold the fireworks for CCTV’s shows. Police investigators found the money used to purchase the fireworks was transferred to an account held by a media technical company called Da Xin Heng Tai, for which Xu was the first legal representative.
Da Xin Heng Tai was set up in January 2006 with an investment of 5 million yuan from CCTV Gauging. It then went through a fishy privatization. On April 12, 2006, CCTV Gauging transferred Da Xin Heng Tai’s stock to another media company called Ying Xiang, which provided CCTV advertisement services, consulting and training. But Ying Xiang withdrew its investment after finishing two CCTV projects and transferred the stock to five of Xu’s close friends, Caijing learned. According to Da Xin Heng Tai’s public information, the company has managed at least seven CCTV projects and received more than 100 million yuan in payments from the TV network.
Pinning Blame
Xu is one of 20 people arrested so far in connection with the blaze, which killed a firefighter and spread rapidly through the more than 103,000 square meter structure. CCTV blamed the speed of the flames on insulation in the partially completed building. Xu’s CCTV-hired lawyer is raising questions over who’s to blame. In the lawyer’s opinion, key issues are whether the construction company should take responsibility, whether the fireworks display was based on an order from Xu or someone higher, and whether the fireworks company should be held responsible for an illegal show using illegally transported fireworks.
Nine San Xiang staffers were among those arrested so far. Xu’s lawyer said the company illegally transported fireworks and should take responsibility. Others say CCTV, which hired the company, should be blamed. A source close to the investigation, who asked to remain anonymous, told Caijing defining responsibility is difficult. But according to the preliminary investigation, the order to launch the display came through official channels, not via an order from Xu, a point supported by the fact that CCTV had arranged four cameras to record the display for use in future TV programs.
The source said investigators so far have been inclined to pin the major responsibility on CCTV, while putting minor blame on others. The construction company’s culpability is also in question.
According to a fire inspector’s report issued to CCTV before the fire, deficiencies were found in eight of 26 areas probed at the building site. Despite the known risks cited by inspectors, construction company officials did not try to interfere with the fireworks display.
Uncertain Future
The future of the soot-blackened skyscraper, also known as the TVCC tower, is also in question. CCTV released a private announcement to top managers February 13 saying that a network-hired investigation team determined the tower could be repaired. The outermost walls on the south and north sides were not damaged, the team found, and equipment inside the south and north sides of the tower were unharmed. Moreover, the team said, the building frame is intact.
However, neither fire officials nor the construction company have commented on CCTV’s internal assessment. An architect who asked to remain anonymous told Caijing he is cautious about the announcement because there’s little possibility that outer walls and equipment inside escaped damage entirely. A source close to the fire department said the six-hour fire may have heavily reduced the building’s strength, which may make it vulnerable to earthquake risks. Another architect said he would tear down the tower, if the choice was hit, since although a repair job could save money, the building could be hazardous.
The TVCC project cost CCTV more than 2 billion yuan. But the building itself is registered as a 3 billion yuan asset, since it included a 241-room luxury hotel and a cinema. The future of each facility is now in doubt.
Meanwhile, CCTV Director Zhao Huayong said the network would continue its plan to relocate offices to the new complex which includes other buildings untouched by the fire -- as scheduled.
Zhao, 61, should have retired last year according to Chinese regulations. He is currently overseeing the post-fire re-development.
Wow... This has the makings of a Law & Order episode.
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.