The burning vanity of an architect

I am second to none in appreciating the role of architects in putting up buildings that arrest the attention of people walking by. After all, I am a structural engineer and even as I have a running battle with the architects, I know that both these professions are in it together. The architect needs me neither less nor more than I need him. In the war we are on the same side but do have internal skirmishes. When the war ends, both the architect and the structural engineer are together the winners.

When I look at the ITC Green Centre in Gurgaon I feel good, indeed great.

Just by looks, the building is not impressive. An ordinary four storey building with prominent brick fascia and some glass, which appears as rather a reluctant concession to our current conception of modernity. Yet, it is an impressive building. Why? The owner, developer, the engineers and not the least, the architect worked together to create a building that conserves water, optimizes energy use, conserves natural resources and generates less waste. You do not have to believe me, but look who says this – the U.S. Green Building Council.

It is a “Green” building, a certified “Green” building, carrying a LEED Platinum rating. I feel proud that my profession has contributed to this building.

But that feeling melted away when I read about the 37 storey Walkie Talkie building in the City of London. The building is being nicknamed the Walkie Scorchie and my profession, to its eternal shame, did not stand up to a vainglorious architect. First, look at the building and also at how the building looks at you, bathed in sunlight.

What did the building too to invite my scorn? To tell the truth, nothing. The culprit is the architect. There is something architects must know: high school physics is useful. The architect of this building thought he was way above that level and ended up melting the hood ornament and much else, of a high-end car, a Jaguar, in the parking lot.

The building, the skyscraper at 20 Fenchurch Street acted like a “£200m magnifying glass, its concave south-facing facade has been focusing the sun's rays down on to the street in a concentrated beam, setting doormats alight, cracking tiles and even melting parts of cars and bicycles. It has become London's new fryscraper.”

Not only the architect not know that light rays reflecting of a concave surface converge, he also had the courage to blame the lack of a suitable software for doing the analysis. "’I knew this was going to happen, but there was a lack of tools or software that could be used to analyse the problem accurately.’" As an engineer, I have to ask whether the accuracy was the problem. I reckon it is not. The problem is the architect’s vanity and penchant for concave surfaces. Add to it, the contempt to work with one’s brain, tasks outsourced to software. An incendiary brew.

Curved surfaces are OK, as Oscar Niemeyer showed repeatedly and to the delight of the onlookers.

But, reflecting concave surfaces exposed to sun light are not. Now, to assess the strength of this architect’s vanity - “The architect has a track record of creating buildings that burn. His Vdara hotel in Las Vegas, with a similarly concave form, focused sunlight onto the pool terrace in 2010, hot enough to melt loungers and singe guests' hair. The glass has since been covered in non-reflective film.”

On top of this arrogance comes his effort at humor, ghoulish humor:  "’We pointed out that [arc shaped towers] would be an issue too, but who cares if you fry somebody in Las Vegas, right?’" He has brought shame to his profession. An architect who could not convince the client about the danger of what they are suggesting. He wanted to satisfy the client and run away with his fee, no matter some people in Las Vegas will be fried. His explanation for this earlier fiasco was that he was “following a masterplan that specified arc-shaped towers.” I am wondering why he did not take lessons from Niemeyer, on curves. The same contempt for basics, like high school physics?

Hear what the mayor of Bristol had to say about the architect. “’When I once described [the architect] as a menace to London, I didn't think he was going to burn it.’” You can take this as cutting humor or a scathing – indeed, scalding may be the appropriate adjective – criticism. I go with the latter.

What do the developers have to say? Not a whole lot different than what the architect said. First the architect. “We made a lot of mistakes with this building, and we will take care of it.” Now, over to the developer, ”[We] are continuing to evaluate longer-term solutions.” As a cynic, I see the time to the end of the building’s design service life as the period of evaluation, when the architect’s promise of taking care will be fulfilled.

I am not going to brush the architecture profession with this man’s ego and vanity. Yet, I would like the profession to stand up and denounce him. But, perhaps I am too much of an idealist to expect that.

Raghuram Ekambaram

References

1.    Shield is erected after shops in City of London complain of burning carpets and melted furniture, Oliver Wainwright, The Guardian, September 46, 2013

2.    Walkie Talkie architect 'didn't realise it was going to be so hot', Oliver Wainwright, The Guardian, September 6, 2013