Posted by Paul Malo on September 30, 2002 at 12:22:43:
In Reply to: Re: Strategy & Tactics posted by d on September 30, 2002 at 11:51:44:
Wasn't Paul talking about a single "core" plus four structural legs? But the single core would be huge, given such a tall stucture (which is another issue--your proposal, d, doesn't require that excessive vertical bravura, which would detract from the spatial intent). A great space doesn't have to be nearly so big as an object in order to be monumental.
Four systems of vertical circulation would be less efficient than one, but so what? Don't make the building so tall, so have smaller cores--four of them, in your case.
This presupposes conventional elevator circulation. Come on, futurists. Isn't there another way of getting up and down than putting people in little boxes on strings? Doesn't that seem archaic?
Why do they use conveyors when moving quantities of industrial materials, or escalators rather than elevators in high-traffic subway entries? The Japanese have perfected helical escalators. Imagine the Guggenheim with a moving helical ramp.
Instead of one lobby from which all elevators depart, why not ascend several escalators to several "sky lobbies," transferring to conventional elevators there, perhaps? Each sky lobby might serve a group of floors--lobby number 3, for instance, serving the third layer of the cake.
Does anyone remember the marvelous interior of the Fuller Dome at the Montreal Expo (1968)? Huge crowds zoomed through a complex weave of solid and void on criss-crossing diagonal escalators. Here's the diagonal again, guys. Great diagnonal braces within the vast interior space could carry the escalator system.
The preconception apparent in most of the proposals so far is that the problem is how to arrange cubic solid on the site, or how to deform the solids into "interesting" forms. Regardless, they're all mere assemblages of OBJECTS. Let's have some SPACE.
Free 3D Models