|
Home > Archive > Architecture > September 2006 > Your general thougts re: titanium panels?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Your general thougts re: titanium panels?
|
|
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-15, 1:25 pm |
| There are several commercials showing, I think it is the Disney Centery, by
Gehry - it looks sorrt of like a sheet in the washer and, if I recall
correctly, is sided with titanium panels (I never have seen anything, in
any pic of it, that looks like a window).
I actually can't decide what I think of it. On the one hand, it's
*different*, has an unusual color, but other than that, I'm not suer I
actually like it aand not sure it isn't kind so wasteful.
Anyway, now that it's been standing for a while and poeple have had a
cahance to "absorb" it so to speak, I can't help but wonder what other
people, who actually work in Architecture as designers, huilders, and so
on, think about it.
I'm just interested in your general thoughts and discussion about it, IOW
viewpoints other than my own layman notions.
Thanks in advance for any ideas you want to share - structural, design-
specific, environemntal (both "green" and in terms of standing up to the
environment), and anything else anyone would like to put out there.
Dunno why, I'm just interested/curious ;)
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:S0AOg.12454$xQ1.8139@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> There are several commercials showing, I think it is the Disney Centery,
> by
> Gehry - it looks sorrt of like a sheet in the washer and, if I recall
> correctly, is sided with titanium panels (I never have seen anything, in
> any pic of it, that looks like a window).
>
> I actually can't decide what I think of it. On the one hand, it's
> *different*, has an unusual color, but other than that, I'm not suer I
> actually like it aand not sure it isn't kind so wasteful.
>
> Anyway, now that it's been standing for a while and poeple have had a
> cahance to "absorb" it so to speak, I can't help but wonder what other
> people, who actually work in Architecture as designers, huilders, and so
> on, think about it.
>
> I'm just interested in your general thoughts and discussion about it, IOW
> viewpoints other than my own layman notions.
>
> Thanks in advance for any ideas you want to share - structural, design-
> specific, environemntal (both "green" and in terms of standing up to the
> environment), and anything else anyone would like to put out there.
>
> Dunno why, I'm just interested/curious ;)
>
I know people think its too shiny, made them resurface some of it that
reflected out to the skyscrapers around there.
Me personally, I like it, its different, it looks nice. Simple aesthetics
for me though, don't know about resource use and things like that. Looks
really good in contrast to the masonry at the back of the building. I think
they should have emphasized this a little more. I think it would look cool
with big shaped glu-lam beams as well. Still, once they make flexible solar
panels, all my love will be going to that  .
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
|
"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:450b027f$0$19732$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:S0AOg.12454$xQ1.8139@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> I know people think its too shiny, made them resurface some of it that
> reflected out to the skyscrapers around there.
>
> Me personally, I like it, its different, it looks nice. Simple aesthetics
> for me though, don't know about resource use and things like that. Looks
> really good in contrast to the masonry at the back of the building. I
> think they should have emphasized this a little more. I think it would
> look cool with big shaped glu-lam beams as well. Still, once they make
> flexible solar panels, all my love will be going to that .
What are you people talking about?
| |
| RicodJour 2006-09-16, 3:25 am |
| Kris Krieger wrote:
> There are several commercials showing, I think it is the Disney Centery, by
> Gehry - it looks sorrt of like a sheet in the washer and, if I recall
> correctly, is sided with titanium panels (I never have seen anything, in
> any pic of it, that looks like a window).
>
> I actually can't decide what I think of it. On the one hand, it's
> *different*, has an unusual color, but other than that, I'm not suer I
> actually like it aand not sure it isn't kind so wasteful.
>
> Anyway, now that it's been standing for a while and poeple have had a
> cahance to "absorb" it so to speak, I can't help but wonder what other
> people, who actually work in Architecture as designers, huilders, and so
> on, think about it.
>
> I'm just interested in your general thoughts and discussion about it, IOW
> viewpoints other than my own layman notions.
>
> Thanks in advance for any ideas you want to share - structural, design-
> specific, environemntal (both "green" and in terms of standing up to the
> environment), and anything else anyone would like to put out there.
>
> Dunno why, I'm just interested/curious ;)
I like his stuff. I remember when he was messing around with chain
link fence and such. You know, when he actually operated under a
budget! He's brought a lot of technology to the game. The titanium
panels are great if you can afford them. They're your basic forever
material and you can do interesting things with the base metal. I'd
love to see some of the curvy stuff done in heat treated titanium with
embossed textures.
http://mrtitanium.com/ShowItems.cgi?E037
http://mrtitanium.com/ShowItems.cgi?Dots
I'm hoping to get up to MIT later this year to see his new building.
http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/200..._gehrys_mi.html
If you like edgier stuff check out Santiago Calatrava.
http://www.answers.com/topic/santiago-calatrava
Last winter I had to abort a drive to Boston, mid-drive, to see
Calatrava lecture at MIT due to a severe snowstorm. I was majorly
bummed.
R
| |
|
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1158384405.834250.302270@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> I like his stuff. I remember when he was messing around with chain
> link fence and such. You know, when he actually operated under a
> budget! He's brought a lot of technology to the game. The titanium
> panels are great if you can afford them. They're your basic forever
> material and you can do interesting things with the base metal. I'd
> love to see some of the curvy stuff done in heat treated titanium with
> embossed textures.
> http://mrtitanium.com/ShowItems.cgi?E037
> http://mrtitanium.com/ShowItems.cgi?Dots
>
> I'm hoping to get up to MIT later this year to see his new building.
> http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/200..._gehrys_mi.html
>
> If you like edgier stuff check out Santiago Calatrava.
> http://www.answers.com/topic/santiago-calatrava
> Last winter I had to abort a drive to Boston, mid-drive, to see
> Calatrava lecture at MIT due to a severe snowstorm. I was majorly
> bummed.
>
> R
>
Calatrava's structures show a fine logic and beauty of line. Have you seen
photos of his concert hall in the Canary Islands? FOG's MIT building is
just a jumble. The flashing details must be incredible, what a waste of
materials, money, and design talent trying to make such crap work. He has
apparently no concept of designing for the climate and surrounding
environment. I wonder what FOG's buildings will look like in 50 years? I go
by the MIT building a couple times a week and avert my eyes.
EDS
| |
| RicodJour 2006-09-16, 1:25 pm |
| eds wrote:
> Calatrava's structures show a fine logic and beauty of line. Have you seen
> photos of his concert hall in the Canary Islands?
Not yet. Google to the rescue!
> FOG's MIT building is
> just a jumble. The flashing details must be incredible, what a waste of
> materials, money, and design talent trying to make such crap work. He has
> apparently no concept of designing for the climate and surrounding
> environment. I wonder what FOG's buildings will look like in 50 years?
I think there might be some construction knowledge lurking around in
the halls of the 'tute, so I'd tend to think that such details were
taken care of with an eye to the future. What makes you question the
longevity of the buildings?
>I go by the MIT building a couple times a week and avert my eyes.
As in "I am not worthy to view you!"...? ;) It's one of those places
that I'll have to see for myself to make up my mind. I'd like to have
seen Gaudi and Gehry get together and have the Wright apprentices build
it. Titanium and tile! Catenary curves in string and curving panels
designed with boat hull software! Now that would be architecture. Or
an abortion. I'd have to see if for myself to make up my mind...
R
| |
|
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1158421987.262362.77830@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> eds wrote:
>
> Not yet. Google to the rescue!
>
>
> I think there might be some construction knowledge lurking around in
> the halls of the 'tute, so I'd tend to think that such details were
> taken care of with an eye to the future. What makes you question the
> longevity of the buildings?
>
>
> As in "I am not worthy to view you!"...? ;) It's one of those places
> that I'll have to see for myself to make up my mind. I'd like to have
> seen Gaudi and Gehry get together and have the Wright apprentices build
> it. Titanium and tile! Catenary curves in string and curving panels
> designed with boat hull software! Now that would be architecture. Or
> an abortion. I'd have to see if for myself to make up my mind...
>
> R
>
Sorry, misused the word, I really meant that the building (and a lot more)
are not worthy of being viewed by us.
I base my concepts about longevity upon the many buildings constructed in
the Boston area by "world famous" architects and their followers in the
50's, 60', and 70's. I personally have had to rework the detailing of
buildings by Edward Durell Stone (no expansion joints in the brickwork, no
weepholes - God knows why, etc); Gropius (no expansion joints and poor
flashing details), Karl Koch (flashing details that did not protect the
precast plank edge and pealed off repeatedly during storms), and others.
"Great men" always have flunkies around who do what they order and not what
should be done. My opinion of those flunkies is that they are usually from
the 50% below average contingent of a profession.
God really is in the details
EDS
| |
| 3D Peruna 2006-09-17, 5:25 pm |
| >>
> Sorry, misused the word, I really meant that the building (and a lot more)
> are not worthy of being viewed by us.
> I base my concepts about longevity upon the many buildings constructed in
> the Boston area by "world famous" architects and their followers in the
> 50's, 60', and 70's. I personally have had to rework the detailing of
> buildings by Edward Durell Stone (no expansion joints in the brickwork, no
> weepholes - God knows why, etc); Gropius (no expansion joints and poor
> flashing details), Karl Koch (flashing details that did not protect the
> precast plank edge and pealed off repeatedly during storms), and others.
> "Great men" always have flunkies around who do what they order and not what
> should be done. My opinion of those flunkies is that they are usually from
> the 50% below average contingent of a profession.
>
> God really is in the details
I've seen great details ignored or destroyed by contractors... Often,
it will be designed to last, but the idiot in the field doesn't want to
take the care to do it right and botches the job. I wouldn't be too
quick to blame the architect. I've personally pointed out things that
needed to be ripped out and reinstalled correctly...but the owner
doesn't want to deal with the contractor, so bad stays put.
I've also seen some really dumb architect designed details...
| |
|
|
"3D Peruna" <""w!h#a$r%o^l&d\"@w*e#i%r!d#n$e%s^s.c^o*m"> wrote in message
news:36hPg.36$k74.20@newsfe06.lga...
>
>
> I've seen great details ignored or destroyed by contractors... Often, it
> will be designed to last, but the idiot in the field doesn't want to take
> the care to do it right and botches the job. I wouldn't be too quick to
> blame the architect. I've personally pointed out things that needed to be
> ripped out and reinstalled correctly...but the owner doesn't want to deal
> with the contractor, so bad stays put.
>
> I've also seen some really dumb architect designed details...
So have I.
I worked at TAC under Gropius from 1959-1961, then on the JFK Federal Bldg
(Grope designed) 1962- 1964, working drawings through topping off and then
finish shop drawing review. I was architect of record for repairs on the
Stone building in Cambridge and we had the original drawings. Full of
"cutting edge" details (originally built for NASA, yes they were to be
located in Cambridge until JFK was killed and everything was moved to
Houston by order of LBJ.) 185' of 16" thick post-tensioned glazed brick
attached to a 185' concrete frame. Concrete shrank, brick did not. 1/2"
steel ties between concrete and brick sheared on the top half of the
building. No weep holes, moisture went in from the rear and was trapped.
Boston area has about 500 freeze-thaw cycles per year, so in early spring
you could watch the sun go around the building and pop those brick faces
off. We had to wear hard hats to take pictures. Most architects without
field experience have no idea what climate does to buildings. My Mentor was
from Cuba, and continually pushed this. He said that it took him a year to
learn to properly detail for a northern climate.
EDS
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-18, 1:25 pm |
| "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
news:450b027f$0$19732$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:S0AOg.12454$xQ1.8139@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> I know people think its too shiny, made them resurface some of it that
> reflected out to the skyscrapers around there.
>
> Me personally, I like it, its different, it looks nice. Simple
> aesthetics for me though, don't know about resource use and things
> like that. Looks really good in contrast to the masonry at the back
> of the building. I think they should have emphasized this a little
> more.
I don't recall having seen that in any of the images. It sounds
interesting, tho'.
> I think it would look cool with big shaped glu-lam beams as
> well.
?Glu-lam...?
I do think the malleability is interesting, and the color, I just wonder
whether it's an efficient use of the material. OTOH, sometimes what
seems efficient, is not, and visa versa - that's one of the things I've
wondered about re: titanium siding.
> Still, once they make flexible solar panels, all my love will
> be going to that .
>
I've wondered about that - and finally saw some plces that used solar-
cells as siding. I think it's a great idea.
I wish there was some way to use solar energy to both darken windows (so
you don't have to put those black screens in front of your windows until
some trees grow in), and also use them as some sort of energy-generator.
I think it'd be interesting to design a place to be its own generator,
so to speak. Well, I usppose this has already been doen somewhere, so I
probably kjust have to figure out how to arrange the search terms ;) .
I'm usre there are many ways to do thins, which I've never heard of or
thought up.
Getting back to metals, tho', it'd be interesting if the thermal
gradient (between sun-heated side and shade-cooled side) could be used
in some way.
Tho' that's another topics I guess ;)
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-18, 1:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:eeftq9019pf@news3.newsguy.com:
>
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:450b027f$0$19732$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> What are you people talking about?
>
>
>
Titanium as a siding/cover/sheathing material for buildings in general,
and possibly for houses.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-18, 1:25 pm |
| "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
news:1158384405.834250.302270@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> I like his stuff. I remember when he was messing around with chain
> link fence and such. You know, when he actually operated under a
> budget! He's brought a lot of technology to the game. The titanium
> panels are great if you can afford them. They're your basic forever
> material and you can do interesting things with the base metal. I'd
> love to see some of the curvy stuff done in heat treated titanium with
> embossed textures.
> http://mrtitanium.com/ShowItems.cgi?E037
> http://mrtitanium.com/ShowItems.cgi?Dots
Those are interesting! That idea will, I think, percolate around in my
mind for a while - I wasn't aware you could get those effects and it's
definitely something to think about. There is a thing I've been thinking
about making for a long time, and actually, I could picture such effects
with it (I "merely" =:-o need a well-equipped metal-working shop...<g!> )
The durability is IMO an important element, and one of the things I was
wondering about, so that's an interesting bit of info.
>
> I'm hoping to get up to MIT later this year to see his new building.
> http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/200..._gehrys_mi.html
>
> If you like edgier stuff check out Santiago Calatrava.
> http://www.answers.com/topic/santiago-calatrava
> Last winter I had to abort a drive to Boston, mid-drive, to see
> Calatrava lecture at MIT due to a severe snowstorm. I was majorly
> bummed.
>
i looked at several of the links to Calatrava's works - I don't think
they're "edgy" as much as interesting and, for the msot part, visually-
pleasing. They have a tactile element to me, that I can "deel" in my mind
more than I can many buildings. The article you linked to mentioned that
he uses organic elements, and that might be what I like - organic doesn't
*have* to mean mud buildings <g!> To me, "organic" refers to a broad class
that has certain ways of handling proportions, struts/supports (to make
them look like and actually be contiguous and vital parts of the
structure), and surfaces, with these ways/methods looking to, and derived
from, general aspects of living creatures, once-living creatures (such as
foraminifera), and biologically-produced structures (coral, shells,
exoskeletons, and so on).
I specify because it seems as tho' a lot of people use "organic" to mean
hand-sculpted buildings of concrete and/or adobe and the like, which take
their forms almsot wholesale from animals and especially the human body.
IMO, that's just one aspect of what "organic" does/can mean.
I'm not too sure about Gehry's work, haven't decided whether I actually
*like* it - OTOH, I definitely think the world would b eless interesting
without it and similar forms ;) , because an important part of Art is
inspiring one to question.
But I do wonder what Calatrava would do (has done?) with some of those
titanium panels and the techniques you linked to. Wow! I kept the link
you provided because I'm intrested in seeing more, thanks
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-09-18, 1:25 pm |
|
Don wrote:
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:450b027f$0$19732$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> What are you people talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium
New to me (in architecture), Ti panels.
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:VFAPg.13201$bM.5206@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:450b027f$0$19732$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
>
>
> I don't recall having seen that in any of the images. It sounds
> interesting, tho'.
Yeah it is at the back of the building, probably where the offices needed to
be standard rectangular shapes. I personally thing the contrast of metal
and concrete/stone looks striking, not to mention the contrast between
curved and straight surfaces. What comes to mind is seeing Bibao in spain
looking down the streets with traditional facades on either side framing it.
>
>
> ?Glu-lam...?
>
> I do think the malleability is interesting, and the color, I just wonder
> whether it's an efficient use of the material. OTOH, sometimes what
> seems efficient, is not, and visa versa - that's one of the things I've
> wondered about re: titanium siding.
Yeah I don't know much about the material with regard to resources.
Glulams are beams built up of 2x4 pieces of wood. They are held together by
glues, and while int he process of drying, can be shaped to make some really
cool looking arches.
Here's the first thing that came up with google:
http://www.aitc-glulam.org/
kinda busy here right now, otherwise I would show you some really good
examples.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> Titanium as a siding/cover/sheathing material for buildings in general,
> and possibly for houses.
What would be the advantage over conventional materials?
As it is, titanium is prohibitively expensive at this point.
I just purchased a small (1 liter) camping/cooking pot from MRS that cost
$40.
It weighs 1/4 that of a steel pot and conducts heat better than steel or
aluminum and supposedly food doesn't stick to it like the others.
| |
| RicodJour 2006-09-19, 3:25 am |
| Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> I do think the malleability is interesting, and the color, I just wonder
> whether it's an efficient use of the material. OTOH, sometimes what
> seems efficient, is not, and visa versa - that's one of the things I've
> wondered about re: titanium siding.
I'm not sure what you mean by efficient. Is wood clapboard efficient?
Hardie fiber cement siding?
Thermal expansion would definitely be a factor, but titanium would be
forever siding. Even if it wasn't 100% waterproof, and it just
functioned as a cosmetic rainscreen, the zero maintenance factor would
attract a lot of people with deep pockets - similar to lead-coated
copper flashing in institutional buildings, churches and museums.
R
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by efficient. Is wood clapboard efficient?
> Hardie fiber cement siding?
>
> Thermal expansion would definitely be a factor, but titanium would be
> forever siding. Even if it wasn't 100% waterproof, and it just
> functioned as a cosmetic rainscreen, the zero maintenance factor would
> attract a lot of people with deep pockets - similar to lead-coated
> copper flashing in institutional buildings, churches and museums.
Couple things.
If you compare the cost of titanium to hardi, wood or vinyl siding would be
one way to determine efficiency.
Another consideration is how do you deal with a titanium siding plank that
has been dented?
(I used to be an advocate of vinyl siding, never considering the PITA it is
to replace when a bonehead melts it with a gas grill)
I agree that for drip edges, fascias, soffits, gutters, valleys, etc. it
could be a very good thing.
The part I like the best though are the aesthetics, I had never seen it like
in the links you provided and I thought that stuff looked cool.
Don't know if I'd side a whole house with that swirly stuff though, but it
could be neat accent material.
Maybe even for front doors, burglar proof!
Er, S.W.A.T. proof......
Or hurricane proof window frames with a stylish kick.
Its lightness vs strength quotient could be a valuable factor too, like for
OH garage doors.
| |
| RicodJour 2006-09-19, 3:25 am |
| Don wrote:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
> Couple things.
> If you compare the cost of titanium to hardi, wood or vinyl siding would be
> one way to determine efficiency.
I think it was application of the term efficiency itself that I was
questioning. Titanium definitely makes sense from a whole bunch of
angles, but it's not cost efficient, so it can't be efficient. Was
that English? Did that make sense? ;)
Let me try it another way. Since it would largely be an esthetic
decision, and since the cost would be so high, it could never be
efficient in any of the usual definitions.
> Another consideration is how do you deal with a titanium siding plank that
> has been dented?
> (I used to be an advocate of vinyl siding, never considering the PITA it is
> to replace when a bonehead melts it with a gas grill)
Interlocking panels that can replaced would take care of dented Ti.
You have to figure that with such an expensive material there'd have to
be a pretty slick installation that would allow for thermal expansion,
repairs, etc.
> I agree that for drip edges, fascias, soffits, gutters, valleys, etc. it
> could be a very good thing.
> The part I like the best though are the aesthetics, I had never seen it like
> in the links you provided and I thought that stuff looked cool.
> Don't know if I'd side a whole house with that swirly stuff though, but it
> could be neat accent material.
> Maybe even for front doors, burglar proof!
> Er, S.W.A.T. proof......
>
> Or hurricane proof window frames with a stylish kick.
> Its lightness vs strength quotient could be a valuable factor too, like for
> OH garage doors.
I worked on project in Manhattan with a stainless steel storefront.
Stuff was gorgeous. I like stainless, but having the choice of matte
Ti or some of the rainbow colors from heat-treating Ti would be great.
R
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-19, 5:25 pm |
| "eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in
news:drqdnUgtCLXuhpHYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1158384405.834250.302270@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Calatrava's structures show a fine logic and beauty of line.
That's a good description. I've seen some examples of "organic
building" that IMO are deliberate efforts at primitivism. OTOH most of
the images I saw of Calatrava's works had the beauty of form of things
organic, but distilled through thought. And without taking it to an
extreme where it might become affectatious or *so* manipulated that it
becomes not-organic. If that makes sense.
> Have you
> seen photos of his concert hall in the Canary Islands? FOG's MIT
> building is just a jumble. The flashing details must be incredible,
> what a waste of materials, money, and design talent trying to make
> such crap work. He has apparently no concept of designing for the
> climate and surrounding environment. I wonder what FOG's buildings
> will look like in 50 years? I go by the MIT building a couple times a
> week and avert my eyes. EDS
Good points. I'm not opposed to angles (or other elements) per se, but
I dislike "angles just for the sake of angles and as many as possible".
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-19, 5:25 pm |
| 3D Peruna <""w!h#a$r%o^l&d\"@w*e#i%r!d#n$e%s^s.c^o*m"> wrote in
news:36hPg.36$k74.20@newsfe06.lga:
>
>
> I've seen great details ignored or destroyed by contractors... Often,
> it will be designed to last, but the idiot in the field doesn't want
> to take the care to do it right and botches the job. I wouldn't be
> too quick to blame the architect. I've personally pointed out things
> that needed to be ripped out and reinstalled correctly...but the owner
> doesn't want to deal with the contractor, so bad stays put.
>
> I've also seen some really dumb architect designed details...
>
I was wondering about similar points.
Another thing I'm wondering is whether a mindset, which tends to form
ideas in terms of sweeping/grand form, might leave the more mundane
construction details up to the worker bees - who maybe don't really knwo
what they're doing, or do things only good enough to pass the final
look-over, or similar shirks. It seems to me that grand-concept and
practical-engineering are an interwoven couple which function best
together, and worst when one is opposed to, or divided from, the other.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-19, 8:25 pm |
| "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
news:1158633653.523351.165940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
wonder[color=darkred]
I've[color=darkred]
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by efficient. Is wood clapboard efficient?
> Hardie fiber cement siding?
The balance between what it costs to mine and refine, how difficult it
is to work, how long it lasts, how difficult is it to repair if
necessary, and probably at least a dozen other aspects I don't know
enough to ask about.
>
> Thermal expansion would definitely be a factor, but titanium would be
> forever siding. Even if it wasn't 100% waterproof, and it just
> functioned as a cosmetic rainscreen, the zero maintenance factor would
> attract a lot of people with deep pockets - similar to lead-coated
> copper flashing in institutional buildings, churches and museums.
Ah, OK. So it's a large up-front cost but zero maintenence. That
counts towards efficiency in my book - just as there is a difference
between "inexpensive" and "cheap", there is a difference, too, between
"flash" and "substance". Flash is of course more common, both common as
in widespread and common as in mundane/low-quality.
Thermal expansion - now, this is off-the-wall, but has this
characteristic of metals been used, that you know of, as a consious part
of design? IOW, to reveal or conceal other design elements as the
temperature changes, or change the appearance of the overall texture
(closest analgy I can think of is a bird fluffing or flattening its
feathers), or any other way of using expansion/contraction of metal
sheets as a design element? It might be utterly tacky but I dunno, the
idea of it just crossed my mind as I was typing here, and if I thought
of it, I'm sure someone else has already done it ;) .
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-20, 9:25 am |
| User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <NFbQg.14035$bM.9850@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:49:33 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.206.76.242
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net 1158760173 24.206.76.242 (Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:49:33 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:49:33 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.architecture:127290
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:eennht0hig@news4.newsguy.com:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
> Couple things.
> If you compare the cost of titanium to hardi, wood or vinyl siding
> would be one way to determine efficiency.
> Another consideration is how do you deal with a titanium siding plank
> that has been dented?
> (I used to be an advocate of vinyl siding, never considering the PITA
> it is to replace when a bonehead melts it with a gas grill)
Heh... ;)
Those things are part of what I think of when I am considering
efficiency. Not only the up-front costs, but the longer-term
maintenance and/or replacement cost. I've had a place with some
Aluminum siding, and one with that vinyl siding, and decided "never
again" on both, for various reasons such as what I have to pay for
cleaning/maintenance equipment, it effect (or lack thereof...) on the
home's insulation properties, how easily it gets damaged, its appearance
plus all the above factors compared with what it's supposed to be trying
to imitate, and so on.
No matter what the material is, tho', there are basic maintenence tasks
that need to be done periodically. And some materials are a bigger PITA
to maintain. There are a number of things that I didn't think about
back when getting those places, but that I sure as shootin' would think
about now - and reject. This is my first direct experience with
HardiPlank so it hasn't been long enough yet for me to discover its
subtler points. Aluminum just annoys me, tho', esp. when it's obviously
going all powdery. Frankly, I'm amazed they continue to use aluminum
window frames here (currently, Houston area) becuase they conduct heat
(i.e. raise the AC bills) and they do corrode - I'd thought high-quality
vinyl and/or vinyl-wrapped wood was better but hey, whaddoo I know...
> I agree that for drip edges, fascias, soffits, gutters, valleys, etc.
> it could be a very good thing.
The cost-per-year would be an interesting statistic (well, to me ;) ).
I tend to prefer paying more up-front *IF* that coincides with low-to-no
maintenence and longevity and a good appearance over the long term,
because really, nobody wants to see their design or home start looking
like old junk because all the parts start to dent, bend, lose their
finish, and so on, within just a couple years. Heh, whihc is one reason
why I specifically chose an area where the builder was putting all-brick
around the whole first storeys of the houses. You *know* that a lot of
people won't maintain their places no matter what, so having first
stories of brick IMO will keep the area looking nicer for longer.
At any rate... In terms of public buildings, tho', it also makes sense
IMO to use materials and methods that will make for low-maintenence for
a long time, and less need to replace bits and pieces. There's a ot to
be said for doing things right the first time around ;)
If Ti is, in fact, low maintenance and repairable, then it is cost-
efficient over the long term. BTW, couldn't dented panels be sent to
the building equvalent of an auto-body shop, where the dents could just
be smoothed out and the same panel put back up - someone mentioned
"replacing panels" but wouldn't it be just as good, but less expensive,
to simply repair the panels wherever possible...?
> The part I like the best though are the aesthetics, I had never seen
> it like in the links you provided and I thought that stuff looked
> cool. Don't know if I'd side a whole house with that swirly stuff
> though, but it could be neat accent material.
> Maybe even for front doors, burglar proof!
> Er, S.W.A.T. proof......
>
> Or hurricane proof window frames with a stylish kick.
> Its lightness vs strength quotient could be a valuable factor too,
> like for OH garage doors.
*Honeycomb core* frames <G!>. That's how they make jet-plane wings
(well, as of about 15 yrs ago at least - dunno what they do now).
Garage doors, now there is an aggravation. Those metal things dent so
darned easily. The house I grew up in was a 1950's "cottage" (they used
to just say "little house", now they say "cottage" ;) ) and it had a
wood garage door - heavy but nearly indestructable. These metal things,
yeesh, look at them sideways and they dent...
I have no idea how Ti holds up to impact, so that's another point of
curiosity to me.
Meanwhile, here is another Q. I have - what about Ti-clad materials?
I've heard of vinyl- and aluminum-clad wood, which combines the good
points of two materials (poss also the bad, tho'...) So, why not Ti-
clad wood etc.? That way, you get the extra support of the foundation
material, and the look and durability of the Ti surface.
I've been thinking of making a "fish scale" concrete fountain
(basically, some geometric shape covered with overlapping tiles that's
make the water ripple as it ran down the sides), so Yet Another Question
is, having seen the "stainless steel sphere" fountains, what about a Ti-
clad fountain? The color is different from Stainless so a designer
worth their salt should be able to do some creative/artistic things with
it. Has that been done? If not, I wonder why?
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-20, 9:25 am |
| "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
news:450ef414$0$19630$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:VFAPg.13201$bM.5206@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[ ...]
>
> Yeah it is at the back of the building, probably where the offices
> needed to be standard rectangular shapes. I personally thing the
> contrast of metal and concrete/stone looks striking, not to mention
> the contrast between curved and straight surfaces. What comes to mind
> is seeing Bibao in spain looking down the streets with traditional
> facades on either side framing it.
Web pics? (Never been there.)
I tend to say that I like contrasts, although that's of course onyl one
element and. as with any, can be mishandled. Overall, tho', I think a
contrast between materials and so on is more "natural" than are
monolithic materials. In nature, even when a *material* is monolithic
(i.e. same material throughout one huge structure, such as Half-Dome in
Yosemite), there are variations in shape, texture, and color. I think
that's why buildings that are all of one material, shape, and color can
so easily feel "oppressive". That, like most of my yammer, is of course
just my own half-baked (and not necessarily well-educated) theory ;) .
IOW I have no idea what the accepted ideas are, or what studies might
show. That just seems to me to make sense - humans are from/of the
natural world - not extra-natural (that latter might be true of some
future machine intelligence, but that remains to be seen).
>
> Yeah I don't know much about the material with regard to resources.
>
> Glulams are beams built up of 2x4 pieces of wood. They are held
> together by glues, and while int he process of drying, can be shaped
> to make some really cool looking arches.
>
> Here's the first thing that came up with google:
>
> http://www.aitc-glulam.org/
Oh, OK, that - I didn't know what it was called, even though I've seen
it.
> kinda busy here right now, otherwise I would show you some really good
> examples.
I appreciate that but it's great just knowing what it's called (I didn't
realize that "glu-lam" was an actual term), so I'm happily googling away
here - it's an interesting material, and similar to a technique I've
seen demonstrated in some types of furniture-making, especially of s-
shapes and other curving shapes, where the woodgrain would crack if you
tried to carve the curve from a single piece. I also read that there
are glues which are even stronger than the lignins in the wood itself,
and waterproof, so those things aren't issues or problems. And it has
similar advantages to using the smaller version for furniture (increased
stability/strength that retains wood's flexibility and warmth, the
ability to curve/bend the material during the lamination rpocess to
create arches, adn so on), plus the visual "feel" of timbers without
having to kill old-growth forest.
I can picture that with not only titanium, but other materials and
treatments thereof. The titanium OTOH is visually interesting because
as others have described it (which I prob. mentioned already...), it has
a "buttery" sheen that gives it a warmer visual feel than aluminum or
stainless steel. That tint would go together well with wood - it's
still a contrast of material and texture, but the warmer color would
harmonize more, I think, with wood. And those "timbers" would offset
the somewhat etherial quality that shaping of the metal can achieve. So
that combination could (IMO as I am picturing it mentally) do very
nicely with organic designs.
IMO it ought to be a good addition to one's "design toolkit and idea
scrapbook", whether for public buildings, cutting-edge homes, home-
parts, garden stuff, artwork, and soon and so forth. Other metals are
used in those ways but I don't know how much more expensive a Ti sheet
would be - also, Copper, brass, bronze, and steel panels'n'parts can be
obtained fairly easily; Ti would probably be tricky to get hold of. But
what the heck, I guess one never knows when a client might come along
who has money *and* interesting tastes/ideas.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-20, 1:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:een8fb02v4t@news4.newsguy.com:
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>
> What would be the advantage over conventional materials?
Aside from aesthetics? I dunno, that's why I'm asking <g!>
> As it is, titanium is prohibitively expensive at this point.
> I just purchased a small (1 liter) camping/cooking pot from MRS that
> cost $40.
Er, my simlarly-sized All-Clad stainless item cost significantly more
than that. The question to me isn't what the up-front cost is, at least
one of my questions is, What is the combination of purchase price plus
things related to longevity.
IOW, value, as opposed to price. It's not at all uncommon for high-
value items to cost less over a few years' time than cheapjunk, but
initially lower-priced, items.
> It weighs 1/4 that of a steel pot and conducts heat better than steel
> or aluminum and supposedly food doesn't stick to it like the others.
>
OK, so that also adds to value, esp. if you also use the item at home,
if you add in that less food would be lost/wasted to scorching, less
time lost to making corrections necessitated by inefficient/incporrect
cooking, . Form your example, I don't see "prohibitively expensive".
I see higher up-front cost, but that's only part of the story.
It's similar to the Tech-Shield. We paid extra up-front for it, so over
the course of the mortgage, it adds a couple dollars per month to the
payment. OTOH, we're already saving several times more than that in
reduced energy bills.
OTOH, had we gotten "designer colors" (all of which looked muddy or
otherwise ugly to me), or had we gotten "upgraded cabinets", or even
"upgraded lighting", any one of which would have cost more than did the
TechShield, with no savings/cash payback. But most people would (and
do) reject the TechShield as being "too expensive", and instead go for
options that have no cash payback.
That's part of why I don't consider "price" to be a sensible indicator
of "value".
So, it might be that the price of Ti is high, but the value is fantastic
- that's part of what I'm questioning.
| |
| Godzilla Pimp 2006-09-20, 8:25 pm |
|
I prefer solid plutonium panels myself. Adds real snob appeal since they
cost $1 billion each. Don't tell Gehry.
GP
|
|
|
|
|