As part of its ongoing Riverline community project, Perkins+Will has proposed an entirely conceptual 80-story, 300 unit residential skyscraper made from timber called the River Beech Tower.
Announced 145 years after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, this proposed tower would feature a massive central atrium and an aluminum veneer over the exposed diagonal lattice timber beams. While engineers say it is structurally possible, Perkins+Will is currently trying to figure out just how much it would cost to build.
The River Beech Tower distinguishes itself by being one of the tallest wooden structures currently proposed; for a round-up of other tall wooden structures, take a look at these recent news stories:
45 Comments
sure, why not?
I really admire their MEP, fire alarm, and sprinkler equipment detailing. It all looks totally concealed and invisible.
Show me a concept rendering ever with any of these things. Kind of a lazy jab, if you ask me.
So 3.75 suites per floor (which each appear to several tens of thousands of square feet). Seems totally legit.
Tomorrow I'm going to spend time modelling my also-totally-legit 81 storey wooden tower.
Also, it's storey, not story. WTF.
Yeah! Also it's beach, not beech. SHEESH!
If you can model it, it is just as real as if it was really real.
Those trees lol lol Iol.
Ya'll are just being haters.
As part of its ongoing Riverline community project, Perkins + Will has proposed an entirely conceptual 80-story, 300 unit residential skyscraper made from timber called the River Beech Tower.
Conceptually, this is beautiful. Technically, I have no doubt an 80-storey tower can be built in wood and/or wood composite. Design is iterative: In practice, we have to design things so we can then figure out how to design them better the next time.
It is further proof that the current design culture of mass timber , including Perkins+Will, needs to be fired for extreme disregard of Health, Welfare, and Safety.
I, for one, welcome our new Trotter overlord. I am certain due to his experience with *checks notes* theDailyTrotter®, we can all relax and enjoy the rich, successful future he will guarantee.
Seth please elaborate on your reasons for assuming mass timber represents "extreme disregard of Health, Welfare, and Safety."
Ultimately, I hope Perkins+Will is just releasing an April Fools day joke a week early, however, the selection of material representation reveals a extreme hazard to safety. Azobe is the most fire resistive wood I know of, however, after 20 years the sap dries and azobe is combustible. Some scientist might concoct a non-combustible coating, which exists, however, it eventually burns through or causes smoke. It is a concern of welfare if a building can't be occupied because of a 75th floor tea pot. I understand that Perkins+Will will be responsible in determining the Architecturally defined visually represented work, but, it shows bad influence in design culture.
It's also from 2016.
Ah, gibberish, got it.
Not only from 2016, but from October 2016 which obviously isn't a week from April Fools Day. But that won't stop theDailyTrotter® miss a chance for a sick burn (horrible pun intended).
I appreciate the brand identity acknowledgment. As professional in Architecture, per the United States Code, it is my opinion that Perkins+Will has earned a fire because of their representation. I can apologize to P+W if they feel that understanding is out of place on a design forum.
Typically when we make points we use the word "because" and then some cogent thoughts after it.
Oh boy... did I need that chuckle. Well played folks.
"As professional in Architecture, per the United States Code, it is my opinion that ..."
what does this even mean? Seriously. First, what do you mean when you say "United States Code" in this context? Secondly, how does the "United States Code" validate your opinion as "professional in architecture?"
"... Perkins+Will has earned a fire because of their representation."
Again, you'll need to explain what this means. What does it mean to "earn a fire," and what is the representation they are making? Do you mean their rendering when you say representation? You mentioned earlier that you think their selection of material representation reveals an extreme hazard to society. You know these are just pixels from six-and-a-half years ago, right? How dangerous to society can they be?
The last year or two defined defined a new class of law that defines a less mixed system of law, primarily for medical marijuana legalization, but defined a category of other Architectural services, which includes LEED as an Architectural service. U.S. § Code is the definitive law of the United States with state statutes and professional code adoptions. Perkins+Will is a leader in Architectural work; however, portraying mass timber in a proposed design of 80 floors is incredibly misleading to young “design” teams. We cannot joke about materials, especially with the plague of cultural subjectivity flipped on the Post Modern Anti-
Hi
*mobile posting.... Flipped on legitimate Architecture. The United States needs to have very compliant Architecture. It’s insanity if someone leverage two billion dollars as an Architect thinks a Class B structural floor is good enough. I accept that P+W likely intended this as a joke. I hope they accept their digital forum opinioned fire.
What is happening here..... Are you claiming to be a federally licensed architect??? XD ... Are you also suggesting that mass timber, has not been established, tested, and approved for use in buildings that require ratings? You realize steel isn't fireproof either right? XD
Well... this is certainly something. Seth, are you sure you're not confused, even slightly? -spoiler alert- it's more than slightly.
Building codes are complicated. material science is complicated. Merging advances in both into one project is double complicated and you can't use the silly LAW CODE defense to weasel into an argument against it (or for it, for that matter). Try to actually understand the issue before drooling out incoherent statements.
Thanks Seth. Can you provide links to the cases or statutes that are defining the new class of law you're describing and how it relates to architectural services vis-à-vis LEED, and how marijuana legalization plays a role?
FWIW, I don't think P+W intended this as a joke. I've already pointed out this was not an early April Fools post, as it was posted in October 2016, but I suppose you can keep hanging your hat there. It was most likely intended as the article describes "entirely conceptual" and I don't think there is much risk of young design teams misinterpreting that. At least not any more more risk than young designers misinterpreting US Code regarding architectural services, building codes and construction types, interior finishes and building code required surface burning characteristics, and structural types for valuation estimating (i.e. Marshall and Swift) as you've shown here.
BTW, I'm still wondering what you mean by "... Perkins+Will has earned a fire because of their representation." What is a "fire"?
I am referring to a full dismissal of their contract with their client for representing something so simply wrong that it is embarrassing to the Architecture community. Perkins+Will isn't in design school where analyzing those ideas is valid.
I see, you think the client should fire (verb, not a noun) them because the idea is embarrassing to the architectural community.
I won't even get into the debatable topic of whether this is embarrassing to the architectural community (thank you for single-handedly taking on the role of spokesperson for the community BTW). Instead I'll just point out that the client in this case is themselves and the partners they've teamed with in order to research and develop these ideas. So I don't think you should hold your breath that they'll get "a fire" because they'd be firing themselves ...
"When designers at Perkins&Will, researchers at the University of Cambridge and engineers at Thorton Tomasetti teamed up to explore the concept of a mass timber skyscraper ..."
"Client: Partnership between University of Cambridge, Thornton Tomasetti, Perkins&Will"
https://perkinswill.com/projec...
Anyway, I'm excited to see the links to the cases or statutes that are defining the new class of law you're describing and how it relates to architectural services vis-à-vis LEED, and how marijuana legalization plays a role.
https://uscode.house.gov/ look up the title for professional architectural services; the comment on marijuana was for general context to the previous administrations sweeping changes in our law sets, which includes a downgrade in stalking laws.
I'm not smart enough to even begin to explain how dumb all of this is. It's impressive, in a sense.
ok, now what?
https://uscode.house.gov/searc...
Ah, I see we've cartwheeled into stalking territory. Please do continue.
How many posts before we start hearing about sovereign citizens?
T his isn't a nerd forum, please have respect for the work of professionals. I have shown enough respect to Perkins+Will.
Not sure what nerds have to do with any of this. I'm asking what I should do next to find out more about the new class of law you're describing and how it relates to architectural services vis-à-vis LEED. I searched the term you wanted me to in the US Code and there were no results.
40 U.S. Code § 1102, please stop taking my time this morning. My comment to Perkins+Will is very serious about the cultural representations of Architectural work.
40 U.S. Code § 1102 defines the terms "Agency head", "Architectural and engineering services", and "Firm" That's it. that's the whole section. In the larger context, Chapter 11 describes the federal process for selecting architects for federal projects. You seem to mistakenly think the section defines the terms generally for use within the entire nation. That's not how law works. The section defines the terms as they're used in the chapter, which - again - is about the US Gov't as a client, hiring architects for public work.
None of that has anything to do with HSW, or ethics, or mass timber, or Perkins + Will, or building code, or literally anything even remotely related to this discussion beyond the word "Architect." You'd have been better pointing to a dictionary.
With all due respect, you're extremely out of your depth on this. Just let it go man.
Seth, what else do you need to do today? I am sure you can put aside your next slightly skewed awkward "self-portait" photograph shot for the "portfolio" and clarify the code issues you're referenced?
As someone choosing to respond to us, AND with a wide open appointment calendar ... I don't think we are really "taking [your] time."
Also, ditto to what tduds said. I don't even have to look it up because I can trust that tduds knows what he's talking about. I can't say the same for you.
Yay I'm trustworthy.
I'm just waiting for the official response from P+W to his complaint. There's no way they'd let something like this just go without responding to the serious implications their work has on the architectural community and culture now that this has been brought to light, and so clearly explained too, by none other than theDailyTrotter® in such a timely *checks notes* four-and-a-half years after it was published originally.
I mean the baseless claim that they used a digital representation of wood dangerously or in complete disregard to the HSW of the entourage people in this conceptual exploration on the use of wood in skyscrapers is just too much to ignore.
My only fear is that rather than respond and hash this out in the comments here, they'll just set up an appointment on Seth's calendar and we'll never know how this is all resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
theQuadrennialTrotter
EA - they'd just point him to their own page on this project, their handbook on mass timber, the other articles they've posted on mass timber, the projects they have done in mass timber, the newer 40 floor skyscraper they are doing in mass timber in Vancouver that is not intended to be a conceptual only project, the code inclusions for mass timber, or you know a bunch of other industry stuff.... which he would just be like.. "but wood burns"
Nice try, natematt, but you have too many words coherently strung together. theDailyTrotter® has the full backing of a misunderstanding of the US Code and real estate valuation on his side. His opinion is "professional in architecture" and this is a Class B structure (neither of those things are true, BTW).
Curse my words.
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.