Posted by Manuel Oliveros on September 21, 2001 at 09:28:56:In Reply to: WTC Collapse posted by Malachy Larkin B.Arch. Architect. on September 21, 2001 at 04:49:45:
Like almost everything, is a thing of degree. To have spacious rooms has been the pride of the owners and indeed the progress of civilization and architecture can be seen as the augment to taller and wider structures, unencumbered by, between other things, columns. Pilotis in Le Corbusier were "better" than bearing walls because the freed the plan. Now it is clear that the pride of public spaces is quite adversarial to the intimacy wanted by individua users, think of bosses or in the air currents over a bed in a big-big room, better a cocoon. To the modest requirements of privacy columns rarely will be adversarial, yet these buildings were more public than private thing, to the point of being selected as targets as representation of the national pride of the leader nation in the world.
This by the way brings to my mind a question not yet seen posted elsewhere. The safety of WTC and skyscrapers is relevant, of course, thousands can and have died in relation with this...but what about the safety of the Pentagon? That building should be even safer, not thousands of lives depend on it, maybe in the millions...and yet we have only (defence measures apart) seen the basic natural features of its spread plan causing it better behaviour. Of course from an architectural viewpoint the towers are maybe a more attractive subject of thought, and more fitting to the concerns of the architects, yet my mind doubts that the core of defence, at least some significant part of it can be left subject to some fall-in attack like this. But of course this as well has been to the surprise of most.
|
Search
ArchWeek
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|