Whatever happened to One Building / One City?

Apparently not much.

My previous post:http://stevekingonsustainability.blogspot.com.au

Links:
http://www.dezeen.com/2015/07/20/foundations-planned-worlds-tallest-building-changsha-china-repurposed-fish-farm-skyscraper-broad-sustainable-building/

Small Sky City built prototype:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/26/asia/china-skyscraper-prefabricated/

Same but not the same

A recent post on designboom featured Luo Design Studio’s Longfu Life Experience Center, in the Henan province of China, designed “with a view to create a ‘universal space’ that boasts infinite possible uses rather than being limited to one specific function”.  

 The architect’s statement claims that the timber structure can be completely dismantled and reused.

 

It didn’t take long for a comment to appear on the post, suggesting that the project “looks cool but its (sic) a total knock off of Shigeru Ban’s Nine Bridges project”.   

The comment betrays a typically superficial scrutiny of the two projects. However, it does raise interesting questions about originality and imitation, and the notions of type and typology in architecture.

Indeed, the headline images show a certain similarity of an overall rectangular prismatic volume, with a visually dominant timber structural system.

Nine Bridges Country Club - Shigeru Ban

The main similarity between the two projects is that both employ timber structures characterised by ‘clustered columns’.  To my mind this is a well known structural typology, and Luo Studio can quite properly reference it by that generic, name without attributing it to Shigeru Ban’s particular example. 

Otherwise Ban, in turn, could be taken to task for ‘imitating’ a number of remarkable Gothic churches with spectacular groined ceilings.

Equally telling is the difference between the two projects. 

Ban’s timber ‘trees’ are resolved to stridently high tolerances, and go to extreme lengths to hide any steel connections – if indeed any are employed.

In contrast, Luo Studio celebrates a ‘steam punk’ aesthetic of hybrid structure, with prominent, oversized, loose fit steel connectors. 

It’s that loose fit that allowed the architects to meet the challenge of completing the entire design and construction in less than two months, and at the same time control the cost.

"….the building was also required to be reusable so that any part of the structure can be enlarged, cut, replaced or moved based on different needs. what’s more, the building can also be completely dismounted and repurposed, and its materials can be reused for other constructions, hence achieving the objective to create a space that is both ‘universal’ and conveys the green credentials of the client."

Clearly, both projects offer something as precedents, but their messages are radically different.

 

https://www.designboom.com/architecture/luo-studios-timber-structure-china-dismantled-reused-11-20-2018/

https://www.archdaily.com/490241/nine-bridges-country-club-shigeru-ban-architects

Not just another brick in the wall

Energy generating bricks.

A brief article in Architecture&Design has announced the development of a thermogalvanic brick, which generates electricity as long as the two faces of the brick are at different temperatures.

The preconditions for generating electricity in this way exist everywhere; there are temperature differences across almost any part of the building fabric, be they walls in the sun, panels on the roof, even floor slabs. And the practical applications of the principle are therefore not necessarily confined to a brick format.

Indeed, the headline image of the architecture&design article may be 'sub optimal', in that it illustrates a brick wall where self shading actually cuts down the available temperature differences between the sunlit exterior surface and the interior face of the wall.  But of course, it may be that in this application, the reduction in cooling load far outweighs the reduction in electricity production.

From that specific proviso, we can generalise; however brilliant the theoretical principle, it's widespread practical application will be subject to much more complex evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.

Does it generate useful amounts of electricity in comparison to other systems? Can it power a range of useful devices, and at useful times of the day?  At first sight, it would appear that the proposed applications are limited to the basic needs of developing countries, for a nominal amount of night-time illumination and importantly, for charging mobile phones.

What are the cost benefits?  Properly, these should be accounted for not just financially, but by 'cradle to cradle' analysis of embodied materials and energy.  In this regard, the proposal is elegant:

"Crucially, they do not require maintenance, recharging or refilling. Unlike batteries, they store no energy themselves, which also removes risk of fire and transport restrictions."

But there are many other considerations, most especially the potential waste stream. After all, for many years, plastic bags were thought to be extremely effective at what they do.

But I am sick of being pessimistic. The principle is brilliantly obvious. I wish them the best of luck in scaling up.

For the A&D article, click here.

For more information see the IDTechEx report on Distributed Generation: Minigrid Microgrid Zero Emission 2018-2038.