Workers have almost completed mounting the copper paneling on the American Copper Buildings (née 626 First Avenue), the new tilting, two-towered development on Manhattan’s East Side, but their most striking feature—a three-story, 100-foot-long skybridge—is still open to the elements. [...]
The skybridge itself, though, is designed to be the showstopper. The architects placed a 75-foot lap pool on the bridge, so residents can swim 300 feet in the air [...].
— bloomberg.com
↑ Interior rendering of the skybridge pool area on the 29th floor.
↑ Exterior rendering of the SHoP-designed towers with the skybridge spanning the 27th to 29th floors. (Image: JDS Development; via bloomberg.com)
↑ JDS Developers hope to have the towers completed in 2017.
Images via the developer's website and bloomberg.com.
Related stories in the Archinect news:
107 Comments
This skybridge pool has so much ANGST.
Are we living in the dumbest time in history?
Infinity pool? Walk off the edge and fall to one's death? WTF?
Exactly. Is the idea now to induce as much anxiety as possible?
I guess it is to take your mind off of the fact it is an uninteresting project.
At least Bjarke does not use fear to sell his work.
I think "Angst" perfectly sums up a large amount of starchitecture...The rest is blind optimism about the future. Either way, today's architecture is based on fiction.
lets see
I was in singapore for 24 hours and had dinner on the sky deck... I didn't have a hotel room because I was basically in the middle of the longest layover ever, but view was amazing. Have some cool photos of the light show in the harbor at night. I thought I was moving there so I didn't pay the $15 to go swimming in the pool. Ended up not taking the job and don't think I will ever make it back. Regret... not really, but would've been cool.
^ What's the "jump-count" or is the $15 a deterrent?
I can't imagine this trend aging very well.
Where's the guardrail to protect people from just going off the edge. Guard rail ABOVE the water level. Something just isn't working right in the head of whoever is designing this?
They make guardrails that are made of laminate safety glass that would resist a full size human throwing their entire body at it. Like they do in high-rise windows. If they have at least that and represent it in some way. it be great.
We don't have the transparent forcefield technology found on the NCC-1701-D or NCC-1701-E Enterprise.
so if the pool is 48" deep with a 48" wall at the end, wouldn't the height of the end wall/guard rail be 48"?
curtkram, but that does't work as people float unless they have lead in the ass.
Add to that, if there was an earthquake and you have sway.... what's keeping the water and the people.
Lets say we were putting an elevated pool on a deck (lets say the deck is structurally built to support the weight) and the deck with pool was 15-ft. above the ground. If the pool was placed on outside edge of the deck. the bottom of the pool surface being obviously below the decking surface and supported by under-structuring. Don't you think the building official would require a guard rail 48" above a datum line aligned to the top surface of the decking. Don't you think they would expect that all around the deck including around the pool to prevent a person falling out of the pool. The point is anytime you have some kind of elevation surface, it is expected that you have some measure to prevent people falling to injury or death.
If I have to do that even for a house, don't you think the safety standards would be expected on the 29th floor of a commercial high-rise?
Someone raised a good point, "Are we living in the dumbest time in history?"
Wurden Freo posted this image:
What if she decided to go a little further over beyond that thin brick wall?
Why do you think we invented parapets?
It sometimes amazes me how so called licensed architects comes up with these life dangering ideas? What happened to the mindset of HSW being #1 priority. That is the law you are by law required to uphold HSW #1 above absolutely everything else. The people who came up with the licensing laws would be rolling in their graves over the nonchalant wanton disregard of health, safety and welfare of public or anyone for that matter.
That's the harsh criticism I have to give towards people who aren't thinking about these issues from day 1 at every point in the design process.
You do realize that the water isn't spilling over the edge of the building right? There is a trough on the other side, and likely the pool is stepped in 20' or so from the roof of the floor below...
jla-x,
That's assuming.
It sure doesn't look like it. If there is, that would be great. I'm trying to see the mechanisms to safeguard falling off the edge to a very sudden death at the end of the fall. The falling doesn't kill. It's the sudden stop upon impact with the ground or whatever below after reaching a certain level of velocity.
When I look at this image, it doesn't look like there is anything to stop a fall.
It's not supposed to look like it...that's kinda the point. It's very probable though.
Calm down, it's just an illusion. There is a deck surface about four feet below the edge of the pool, with a guardrail, and even below that is another projected plane. See how the wall at the left end of the pool extends several feet past the side of the pool? The walkway surface extends out to the end of that wall. If you jump from the side of the pool you just end up on the deck a few feet down, and if you jump over the guardrail there you just end up inside of the projected fascia. There are far easier towers to jump from all over the city.
Sponty,
First, thanks for indicating about a lower deck. Supporting proof of one in design or otherwise would be ideal.
If an architect presented only a picture like the above in say a town hall meeting or something I would raise this concern. Which is valid from an HSW point of view. Since you understand my point well, I would expect to see drawings also showing just a lower deck as you mention. I do see the extended wall line but even you can agree that alone doesn't prove there is a lower deck with a guardrail.
If I saw this in a studio crit, if I didn't see anything else to support evidence of some method being used to safeguard people falling off to their deaths (or significant injury), I would raise the concern about it.
Between me & you, we both would implement some method that would prevent someone from falling off to their demise or severe injury. If that is a lower deck, we would implement such. HSW would be in the forefront of our minds.
Nonetheless, thanks for indicating a lower deck. If there is photos or drawings or renderings showing the lowered deck, that would be great.
Thought we were discussing a pool on the roof of the bridge, but I read: “….a rooftop deck and infinity pool and a spa with a Turkish-style marble hammam, while the three-story skybridge will feature a lengthy swimming pool, a lounge, a hot tub and a bar”…..so there are 2 pools with the infinity on the top of the building’s roof. I don’t see any “ledges” near the tops of the buildings…maybe just can’t see them.
Speaking of jumpers saw something new last week in a new HKS medical building….a 3 story sky-lit atrium with glass rails surrounding at each floor….that were 6’ tall! Has anybody seen this elsewhere? 6' tall railings?
There's no ledge visible in elevation from the ground. It's obscured by a lower fascia. The view at the top, in or near the pool, is pretty much as in the rendering, and the view from the ground is also as in the renderings and photos, but there is a deck with a railing, and then a horizontal projection below that. I's a tiered wedding cake at the human scale at the top - but it doesn't look that way from the ground. I've seen the sections in a magazine - I'll post them if I run across them again - otherwise I'm sure they're findable. These seemingly edgeless roof pools have already been done all over the world, pretty much always the same way.
Sponty,
Thanks. I look forward to it if you come across it.
I don't think you can blame any of us having concerns from the photo. I didn't get to see the section view in the magazine (whatever magazine it was) or at least, I don't recall seeing it.
If you follow the edge of the pool to the right in the second photo I posted you can see the trough and the leading floor below the pool. You can also see at the very end the glass enclosure on the leading floor below that comes up like a hockey rink.
wurdan freo,
It's pretty damn small and lack of fidelity makes it hard to tell what it really is. I suppose you might be right but in a small image on an image that's basically ~500x350 pixels image isn't going to be clear what I am looking at, there.
I know I'm right. I was there. Standing on the fucking deck!
^you'll need more than that to convince Rick.
JFC.
Just because you can't think of a way to make a design work doesn't mean it doesn't work. Shut the fuck up until you have enough facts to form a valid thought.
Edit: Directed not at wurdan or jla
Rick is picturing a scenario similar to the flat earthers of the 1400's who were concerned about sailing off the edge of the earth and landing on satans doorstep.
rick, when you get to singapore to verify, post pictures and keep us updated.
also, rick, can you send me the section of the building code that addresses floating and buoyancy as it relates to guard rails?
Ta da!
curtkram,
Professional Standard of Care.
We've done lots of infinity edge pools, and many of them have drop-offs on the far side that would normally require a guardrail. When we do that, we are usually able to convince the building department that the floor surface is the bottom of the pool, and the side of the pool itself is the "guardrail". It's very common for us.
But none of them have a 600 foot drop off.
The issue for me is not so much safety as it is the appearance of safety.
wurdan,
I know I'm right. I was there. Standing on the fucking deck!
Okay. Fine. I was referring to how small that part is to the image and at ~500x350 pixel image, the fidelity isn't that great. I am looking at the image here on this site. It isn't like I am looking at a higher resolution version of the image or having been there physically.
SneakyPete,
Just because you can't think of a way to make a design work doesn't mean it doesn't work. Shut the fuck up until you have enough facts to form a valid thought.
It doesn't matter whether or not I can think of a way to make the design work. It is important that the person(s) that designed the building thought of a way to make the design work and uphold health, safety and welfare. It is also the ARCHITECT's RESPONSIBILITY to show how they are going to safeguard health, safety and welfare to professional standard of responsible care. (being responsible is reasonable.)
It doesn't matter how I might design it to make it work. If I was designing it, it would be my responsibility to show how I would make the design work. Right?
EKE, the extent of elevation would certainly raise the bar of safety. If it was just 5 ft. or less... I wouldn't imagine someone dropping to their death. A few hundred feet can make a big difference.
"It doesn't matter whether or not I can think of a way to make the design work. It is important that the person(s) that designed the building thought of a way to make the design work and uphold health, safety and welfare. It is also the ARCHITECT's RESPONSIBILITY to show how they are going to safeguard health, safety and welfare to professional standard of responsible care. (being responsible is reasonable.)"
Thanks for making my point for me. It makes your previous posts in which you challenge whether or not SHOP did this even more ridiculous. If they didn't do this, they wouldn't be in business. Then they would have to move into a basement somewhere.
Also, you know fuck-all about everything you claim to. You second guess codes, architects who WORK instead of run their mouths. What's next, you gonna challenge gravity?
"EKE, the extent of elevation would certainly raise the bar of safety. If it was just 5 ft. or less... I wouldn't imagine someone dropping to their death. A few hundred feet can make a big difference."
We've done the no-rail infinity edge 15-30 feet above finished grade. Certainly high enough to be injured if you fell.
double-post
SneakyPete,
The building codes aren't everything and is the minimum standards up to a point. At some point, you go above the minimum of the building codes as they typically prescriptive standards for prescriptive conditions. When you are doing something outside the prescriptive conditions of the building codes where the intent of the building codes standards no longer applies so much. Since the pool is essentially a roof top pool, right. What is the requirement for roof top edges on high rises on roof tops areas used for activities?
It is also the ARCHITECT's RESPONSIBILITY to show how they are going to safeguard health, safety and welfare to professional standard of responsible care.
That it was built seems to indicate they were able to show exactly this, enough to convince the permitting department.
I'm not really sure what your argument is.
EKE, I suppose you can get by with it.
A few hundred feet is certain death at the sudden stop at the ends the falling unless you are cursed to live through it.
"What is the requirement for roof top edges on high rises on roof tops areas used for activities?"
Depends on where you're building. 42" typically.
Your point about code being minimums, while technically true, doesn't make any of your other points valid. You'd be paddling up shit creek without a paddle if you told a client you were spending more money or deleting a program element just because you thought code wasn't strict enough.
tduds,
The project's in Singapore? Right?
Do you trust the building department's there? I'm not exactly sure I trust their airlines.
Simple solution I've seen (and love): stay within 30" vertical drop adjacent to the walking / swimming surface until the sightlines work, THEN install a 42" guard.
Oh wait, that's what they did!
*ding ding ding*
I'm not arguing for this. I think the SHoP pool is perverse, frankly. My design approach leads me to view pools as part of the Earth, as they are in nature. Pools shouldn't be hovering in the air. It makes people feel unstable and uneasy, which i do not believe is a proper goal of architecture. Of course there are many who disagree. :)
SneakyPete,
Clients desires comes second to HSW. Always.
I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a place more regulated than Singapore.
Have you been there? I have, and their quality of construction is impeccable.
tduds,
If Malaysia applied that same standard in their safety standards for airline services, we probably wouldn't have so many planes go down a few years ago. Oh well....
I'll take your word for the regulated status of Singapore.
"Clients desires comes second to HSW. Always. "
Fuck off, man. HSW is codified. Architects gave it away to bureaucrats. If you think you know better, fine. But to say that designing over code minimum because of your opinion will wash with a client? You're full of shit. Especially in this this, where you can't articulate why the pool is unsafe beyond a vague notion of "HSW" as an abstract.
You're the same type of asshole who argues that horizontal cable rails are dangerous because of some bullshit resemblance to a ladder.
If someone could fall out of the pool and get injured, you'd have a point. But you're arguing for nanny codes. Someone would have to be doing something stupid to get hurt.
So fuck off.
Surprised nobody got my angst joke... just me and Rem I guess.
Like the building though... looks really great in person. Just right amount of whimsy with nice detailing, and a skybridge! Think Holl did skybridge pools in China already, nice to see them here.
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.