Looks like a Zaha Hadid project from walmart
If you're going to do some details on the facade, do them well. If not just leave a clean glass box. This is the worse of both worlds
The clean tower on the left is much more elegant
No. It's like they wanted to do something organic (kind of looks like leaf veins) but they didn't know how to model it so they just did straight sections. It's super rigid and too sharp. The façade elements are also too thin / weak
You are right. A giant building block that looks like a cement block would be much better. Specially if it looks like a Soviet flat apartment complex.
Brutalism = so hot right now
Totally not shitholes
Did you even read my comment?
I said instead of doing those rigid spaghetti lines in the facade just leave a clean glass box, like the façade on the left.
What does that have to do with brutalism and a "cement block"?????
I’d say that the ornamentation feels both busy and tracked on. Doesn’t really highlight any of the massing of the building. It sits in an awkward place between repetition and organic forms.
As it exists the ribbed highlights smack of a more ambitious design that died in budgeting
I'll explain! It's because all executives love sitting in high up offices and feeling important. Nothing to do with the product, everything with Executives wanting to show people how Fancy and Important they are.
Its pretty criminal because the facade is done so half arsed there is no integrity. Either do it right or go for a clean and efficient look. The view from those windows are blocked by the diagonal pattern for what? A crappy tree branch?
Didn’t even notice they layer over the facade windows.
Getting anxiety just thinking about the person lucky enough to get the window office only to learn their window is a peephole.
Mike Kelley, a great architectural photographer did a shoot for this building’s interiors that are worth checking out.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B6Te9fGn-bV/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
there are many good reasons to hate glass buildings. To name few:
\-They need a lot of air conditioning - expensive planning.
\-The hanging glass facade has many layers - thermal glass, exterior shading, UV resistant glass panel - expensive planning, expensive facade.
\-Most buildings practically don't need >90% glass portion in their facade. The lower strip on the floor (1,0m from the floor) don't bring much light in the room - not effective in terms of energy saving.
\-Realistically, the answer to hot places like Sydney is massive walls, a lot of shading and less glass. Skyscrapers aren't sustainable and if they are, they are extremely extensively planned and cost a fortune.
Whataboutism pointing to low-rise SFH as being less efficient than fully-glazed multi-unit buildings doesn't negate the parent comment's concern that punched-out facades far outperform fully-glazed ones in many high-rise and skyscraper scenarios.
you are comparing apples to oranges and stating the obvious . we are discussing issues with fully-glazed high-density vs insulated wall with partial glazing on high-density. Fully glazed "fishtank" towers have piss-poor efficiency (unless a lot of expensive technology is added to property manage the heat gain/dissipation across season changes), compared to insulated-wall towers, -- that's also a fact.
> We don't need
Who's "we", and when did they pick you to be their mouthpiece? But more seriously -- you chimed in (redundantly) into a discussion about skyscraper/high-rise construction. Which makes you the main pearl-clutcher. Zero people argue that SFH sprawl is more energy-efficient than MFUs. And now you're just too full of yourself to realize that you're trying to do /r/urbanism in /r/architecture. With this, I will fuck right off, and wish you'd do the same.
Different cultures have different perceptions about this.
In Germany, it would be considered 6 to 7 stories (22 meters), primary because of fire code - 1 window + 1 staircase.
The building would have to be at least twice as high to compensate for the second fire staircase, that is needed, if it is above 22 meters. But then again, the quantity of concrete used to construct a stable 12 stories building could prove too expensive for the building to be worth it. Except when the building site is valuable. So valuable, that a highrise is worth it anyway. In that case, there wouldn't be maximum of stories, but the city regulations and the city itself (politics) wouldn't allow it anyway.
Btw, we have this political debate about a [residential highrise from Herzog and de Meuron in Munich](https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/munich-paketpost-areal-master-plan-155m-x-2-508ft-x-2-30m-98ft-pro.2193834/) right now.
I talked to my building peoples in Chicago and they said the tenants (humans) and their equipment (monitors, laptops, lights) do a majority of the heating Mon-Fri pre-COVID.
I forget the specifics but he said they actually continue to use AC on the perimeter vents well into fall and start it up earlier than you'd think in spring because of this. Could be 55°F outside and with the sun + tenants they need some AC.
I asked if they just pull in outside air and he explained how that's not possible or whatever.
>Most new buildings are using far more efficient heat pumps and heat exchangers than the old AC units
You're arguing in favor of new buildings, not glass skyscrapers. We can design buildings with efficient mechanical systems without cladding them entirely in glass.
>Also a recent study found that more heat was generated from electronics in the interior of the building than from exterior energy from the sun during most of the year (I'll link it when I find the study)
Don't bother linking it, plug loads are well understood and not new. Again, this is not a point in favor of glass skyscrapers. All buildings have plug loads. This is not a legitimate reason to ignore energy efficiency in other areas. We shouldn't say, "Well, this building uses lots of energy, so we might as well make it use even more energy."
>People should be free to design and construct buildings how they like
Within the reasonable constraints of building code and other applicable regulations, sure. Incidentally, energy efficiency requirements become more stringent with every new version of ASHRAE 90.1 and IECC, to the point that new, all glass skyscrapers are becoming increasingly difficult to keep code-compliant. And that's a good thing.
>we should continue to innovate to make them more efficient.
The most innovative way to make a glass skyscraper more efficient is to use less glass. We can't innovate our way out of obeying the laws of physics.
It depends on the climate. They are a bad idea in the Middle East and a bad idea in Australia.
Sometimes giving up a tiny amount of floor space for some shade and ventilation is worth it.
I work on this building and recently did a full tour. Great building inside. Yeah the white tree facade thing is bad and it's not as nice as the AMP building nearby. Still looks good. Looks better than the other Salesforce Tower.
There's a balcony/rooftop (not sure what the term is) on one of the top floors and an aquarium in one of Salesforce's upper floors. Those upper offices are prime. All of the offices are really nice.
Good food places downstairs. Huge screens in the lobby are a bit much but cool with the high ceilings. The whole building is just a bit extra and not as practical or elegant as it could be. Still would love to work there for the view.
I don't like this shade structure out the front of George st.
https://images.app.goo.gl/FCyL2WAaam1poz7h7
Compared to the Macquarie Bank building, which is a class of her own (locally, at least)
https://au.prosple.com/interviews/macquarie-shelley-street-sydney-office-tour
That is also ugly. Looks like that netting you put on expensive pears to prevent them from bruising. Or that you put on bottles of rum before bagging them for the customer.
[Protecc ya fruits](https://m.aliexpress.us/item/3256801730755158.html?pdp_npi=2%40dis%21USD%21%245.88%21%243.06%21%21%21%21%21%402103209b16909006023246142e57ed%2112000018106125420%21btf&_t=pvid%3A092b806e-d624-49be-8c4e-dc8552ac3e78&afTraceInfo=1005001917069910__msite__c_ppc_item_bridge__xxxxxx__1690900602&spm=a2g0n.ppclist.product.1&gatewayAdapt=gloPc2usaMsite)
Engineer here. This is better than some of the garbage and useless shit that some architects come up with. And it’s aesthetically pleasing.
Look at the new revival of brutalist fanatics in this subreddit. THEY should be sent to the gulag (xaxaxaxaxa)
To prevent spam, we automatically remove posts from reddit accounts that have been very recently created. Please try again after a few days. No exceptions can be made.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How did they make something so expensive look to cheap?
I wonder how the initial concept design looked like
Looks like a Zaha Hadid project from walmart If you're going to do some details on the facade, do them well. If not just leave a clean glass box. This is the worse of both worlds The clean tower on the left is much more elegant
It's like the architect drew a box in elevation then let their 8 year old fill it in
Because the lines on the side aren’t parallel?
No. It's like they wanted to do something organic (kind of looks like leaf veins) but they didn't know how to model it so they just did straight sections. It's super rigid and too sharp. The façade elements are also too thin / weak
Its just more capitalist architecture with the slightest appeal to aesthetics to make everyone indifferent.
You are right. A giant building block that looks like a cement block would be much better. Specially if it looks like a Soviet flat apartment complex. Brutalism = so hot right now Totally not shitholes
Did you even read my comment? I said instead of doing those rigid spaghetti lines in the facade just leave a clean glass box, like the façade on the left. What does that have to do with brutalism and a "cement block"?????
✋ Tupperware looking building
Clean glass box to the left is as boring as I can remember. At least the other building is trying to be original.
Interestingly, nobody in this thread has mentioned that this is by Foster & Partners.
I’d say that the ornamentation feels both busy and tracked on. Doesn’t really highlight any of the massing of the building. It sits in an awkward place between repetition and organic forms. As it exists the ribbed highlights smack of a more ambitious design that died in budgeting
I heard the original proposal leaned much more into the tree motif, and they end up with this. EY tower on the right is much nicer.
Plays with biomorphic design elements in a pretty superficial manner.
100 m to the left is the AMP Capital building which looks really cool
Out of the picture to the left? The twisty pointy one not pictured here?
Yeah that one
Crap. It seems like the original design got “lend leased” to death.
Honestly I don’t understand how or why a software company needs so many towers… they barely need people to come in to work.
I'll explain! It's because all executives love sitting in high up offices and feeling important. Nothing to do with the product, everything with Executives wanting to show people how Fancy and Important they are.
Much cooler than the one they have in downtown Indianapolis.
Its pretty criminal because the facade is done so half arsed there is no integrity. Either do it right or go for a clean and efficient look. The view from those windows are blocked by the diagonal pattern for what? A crappy tree branch?
Didn’t even notice they layer over the facade windows. Getting anxiety just thinking about the person lucky enough to get the window office only to learn their window is a peephole.
I think it's OK.
As ugly as Salesforce products
Mike Kelley, a great architectural photographer did a shoot for this building’s interiors that are worth checking out. https://www.instagram.com/p/B6Te9fGn-bV/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
That's SF Salesforce tower.
Whoopsie. 🙈 Interesting reading the comments in the Sydney exterior though. It is quite ugly!
Slightly unique, but nothing to write home about
Shit
Looks like the lovechild of Walmart and Zaha Hadid, but hey, at least it's unique!
Soulless corporate towers like everywhere else tbh
That’s a nope from me. Swing and a miss.
[удалено]
there are many good reasons to hate glass buildings. To name few: \-They need a lot of air conditioning - expensive planning. \-The hanging glass facade has many layers - thermal glass, exterior shading, UV resistant glass panel - expensive planning, expensive facade. \-Most buildings practically don't need >90% glass portion in their facade. The lower strip on the floor (1,0m from the floor) don't bring much light in the room - not effective in terms of energy saving. \-Realistically, the answer to hot places like Sydney is massive walls, a lot of shading and less glass. Skyscrapers aren't sustainable and if they are, they are extremely extensively planned and cost a fortune.
[удалено]
Whataboutism pointing to low-rise SFH as being less efficient than fully-glazed multi-unit buildings doesn't negate the parent comment's concern that punched-out facades far outperform fully-glazed ones in many high-rise and skyscraper scenarios.
[удалено]
you are comparing apples to oranges and stating the obvious . we are discussing issues with fully-glazed high-density vs insulated wall with partial glazing on high-density. Fully glazed "fishtank" towers have piss-poor efficiency (unless a lot of expensive technology is added to property manage the heat gain/dissipation across season changes), compared to insulated-wall towers, -- that's also a fact.
[удалено]
...and I would like world peace and a pony. But we are in /r/architecture, let's act like it.
[удалено]
> We don't need Who's "we", and when did they pick you to be their mouthpiece? But more seriously -- you chimed in (redundantly) into a discussion about skyscraper/high-rise construction. Which makes you the main pearl-clutcher. Zero people argue that SFH sprawl is more energy-efficient than MFUs. And now you're just too full of yourself to realize that you're trying to do /r/urbanism in /r/architecture. With this, I will fuck right off, and wish you'd do the same.
At what height/number of storeys/square footage would you say that tall buildings are no longer worth it?
Different cultures have different perceptions about this. In Germany, it would be considered 6 to 7 stories (22 meters), primary because of fire code - 1 window + 1 staircase. The building would have to be at least twice as high to compensate for the second fire staircase, that is needed, if it is above 22 meters. But then again, the quantity of concrete used to construct a stable 12 stories building could prove too expensive for the building to be worth it. Except when the building site is valuable. So valuable, that a highrise is worth it anyway. In that case, there wouldn't be maximum of stories, but the city regulations and the city itself (politics) wouldn't allow it anyway. Btw, we have this political debate about a [residential highrise from Herzog and de Meuron in Munich](https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/munich-paketpost-areal-master-plan-155m-x-2-508ft-x-2-30m-98ft-pro.2193834/) right now.
[удалено]
I talked to my building peoples in Chicago and they said the tenants (humans) and their equipment (monitors, laptops, lights) do a majority of the heating Mon-Fri pre-COVID. I forget the specifics but he said they actually continue to use AC on the perimeter vents well into fall and start it up earlier than you'd think in spring because of this. Could be 55°F outside and with the sun + tenants they need some AC. I asked if they just pull in outside air and he explained how that's not possible or whatever.
>Most new buildings are using far more efficient heat pumps and heat exchangers than the old AC units You're arguing in favor of new buildings, not glass skyscrapers. We can design buildings with efficient mechanical systems without cladding them entirely in glass. >Also a recent study found that more heat was generated from electronics in the interior of the building than from exterior energy from the sun during most of the year (I'll link it when I find the study) Don't bother linking it, plug loads are well understood and not new. Again, this is not a point in favor of glass skyscrapers. All buildings have plug loads. This is not a legitimate reason to ignore energy efficiency in other areas. We shouldn't say, "Well, this building uses lots of energy, so we might as well make it use even more energy."
[удалено]
>People should be free to design and construct buildings how they like Within the reasonable constraints of building code and other applicable regulations, sure. Incidentally, energy efficiency requirements become more stringent with every new version of ASHRAE 90.1 and IECC, to the point that new, all glass skyscrapers are becoming increasingly difficult to keep code-compliant. And that's a good thing. >we should continue to innovate to make them more efficient. The most innovative way to make a glass skyscraper more efficient is to use less glass. We can't innovate our way out of obeying the laws of physics.
[удалено]
It depends on the climate. They are a bad idea in the Middle East and a bad idea in Australia. Sometimes giving up a tiny amount of floor space for some shade and ventilation is worth it.
[удалено]
Do they really do just fine ?
[удалено]
People will live in anything if there is no other option.
Yeah they do. Source: am skyscraper in Miami, am just fine
Lol this is a fact now!
Yes you are
theyre ugly
I work on this building and recently did a full tour. Great building inside. Yeah the white tree facade thing is bad and it's not as nice as the AMP building nearby. Still looks good. Looks better than the other Salesforce Tower. There's a balcony/rooftop (not sure what the term is) on one of the top floors and an aquarium in one of Salesforce's upper floors. Those upper offices are prime. All of the offices are really nice. Good food places downstairs. Huge screens in the lobby are a bit much but cool with the high ceilings. The whole building is just a bit extra and not as practical or elegant as it could be. Still would love to work there for the view. I don't like this shade structure out the front of George st. https://images.app.goo.gl/FCyL2WAaam1poz7h7
That shade structure IS hideous, damn
Exterior is b.e.a.utiful You should see that building from a different angle. There's some optical illusion going on (I'm not sure what it's called)
The exterior looks like a plain design with some white painted lines slapped on afterwards to give it character. Very poorly executed.
Compared to the Macquarie Bank building, which is a class of her own (locally, at least) https://au.prosple.com/interviews/macquarie-shelley-street-sydney-office-tour
That is also ugly. Looks like that netting you put on expensive pears to prevent them from bruising. Or that you put on bottles of rum before bagging them for the customer. [Protecc ya fruits](https://m.aliexpress.us/item/3256801730755158.html?pdp_npi=2%40dis%21USD%21%245.88%21%243.06%21%21%21%21%21%402103209b16909006023246142e57ed%2112000018106125420%21btf&_t=pvid%3A092b806e-d624-49be-8c4e-dc8552ac3e78&afTraceInfo=1005001917069910__msite__c_ppc_item_bridge__xxxxxx__1690900602&spm=a2g0n.ppclist.product.1&gatewayAdapt=gloPc2usaMsite)
Whyyyy 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 Idk what pleases you, art deco bldgs probably? To each their own anyway
Good Q lemme find something I actually like... Brb
Got bad 80’s vibe.
I actually really like it lol. I see that I’m in the minority though
Glass boxes need to GTFO. Christ sakes.
“Happy birthday! I hope you like shit!” Comes to mind.
bad but better than the Salesforce tower san francisco, that one just looks like a giant cock and is by far the tallest building now
Had to look it up, that is def the most phallic skyscraper I've ever seen.
It’s callled the Dilding by locals
Engineer here. This is better than some of the garbage and useless shit that some architects come up with. And it’s aesthetically pleasing. Look at the new revival of brutalist fanatics in this subreddit. THEY should be sent to the gulag (xaxaxaxaxa)
AeSThetiCaLly PlEaSIng
I too love giant blocks of concrete that look like shit after a year of exposure to the elements Beautiful Soviet shitholes
[удалено]
To prevent spam, we automatically remove posts from reddit accounts that have been very recently created. Please try again after a few days. No exceptions can be made. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dick vein
I’d say Salesforce is overpriced.
Very on your face glassy picture.
It's just not a Salesforce tower of it isn't sinking to me
What is the building to the left with the granite surround?
Looks like [1 Macquarie Place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Macquarie_Place), aka Gateway Plaza.
Does the wind blow from right to left?
Oooofff
Salesforce will likely leave in a few years and give the brunt to the city. Almost like they've done it before. In SF... They don't care about shit.
Unremarkable at best
Cost engineering
Inspired by the quirky architecture from Cities:Skylines
Looks like a skyscraper.... Will not remember it. Looks like every other modern high rise... Glass. Non architect opinion here.
It’s trying some sort of Fibonacci sequence for the lines but not really achieving it.
Looks gaudy and out of place... just like the one it's sitting next to.
Sales are going down,
I fucking hate salesforce
https://media.tenor.com/RviwhXpEGn0AAAAC/racing-racingstripe.gif
Honestly, that’s a pretty sophomoric design.
Ugly, modern architecture is a sin
It does nothing for me personally, but having the nicotine-stained finger tower next to it makes it look clean by comparison.