Quote:
Originally Posted by joecool
Am I the only one who doesn't like the design? I don't understand the multi facade design. Will this trend ever die?! A solid more sleek design would be better. The one they have in another city looks great. This looks cheap. 
|
I think the building’s changes in surface dimension and surface material help to make it much more interesting. The asymmetry is less predictable and challenges the norm. The design is visually interesting and the complimentary massing keeps you guessing. It’s definitely more visually engaging.
It looks to me as if there were more initial design hours and material considerations put into this design than some of the prevailing box designs. This type of building would typically cost more to construct with its variation in floor dimensions and changes in surface treatments. The changes in floor dimensions would require more time-consuming changes in concrete form-work and the building process becomes less efficient and requires more labor hours than a straight-forward build.
If you have one monotonous flat surface with no changes in surface texture or floor dimension variation, you end up with vast swaths of nothing but wall & windows. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this simplistic design philosophy, but if you are going to pursue the philosophy of “Less is More” in Architecture, you would typically want to choose a highly refined surface material. The use of quality materials in simplistic design concepts also helps to insure that a building that is economical in design or shape does not necessarily come across as being cheap.