|Quoting srbmod (Reply 16):|
Quoting MrChips (Reply 5):
Blame the bonehead architect who thought this was an appropriate design for the location.
That would be Rafael Viñoly.
I'm an architect and I can see that Rafael's design got caught short by the compromise that was done in order to realize the design.
You can blame the architect for the death ray but in that Register article they even acknowledge that it's a challenge that they are aware of. From one perspective, the concave shape facing the south is a good design move as it maximizes the rooms facing away from direct sunlight and minimizes the direct sunlight hitting the south face. Unfortunately, in this instance the reflectivity of the glass caused the entire surface of the south side to concentrate all the sunlight and rather than go into the rooms, it reflects outside and down into the pool area. Architecture, like nearly everything else, is an exercise in compromises. In this instance, the greater benefit was to minimize the amount of air conditioining needed inside the building due to the shape of the building and the reflectively of the glass. Unfortunately, the drawback is the "death ray".
Now, you could have added a section of phsyical sunshades to the project but that would have ruined the clean modern lines of the building as well as add a six or seven figure $$$ sum to the construction cost. You could have also added a glazing that would absorb the sunlight but that would only exacerbate your air conditioning needs (to the tune of probably several more cooling towers). As one poster said, you could skin the building with an absorbant window graphic skin (like on the sides of a bus or a train or writ large on some of the other Vegas hotels). However, I don't think they will do that type of adversting to the Vdara such as they've done to the Mirage, Mandalay Bay or Luxor, it just would not go well with modernist design of the City Center properties. The Register article inidcates that they are studying adding a film that would reduce the effects of the sun by 70 percent. I'm curious what film they'll use that will cut the sun's effect by 70 percent without causing the need for air conditioning to go up as the sun's energy (i.e. heat gain) has to go somewhere.
As the article indicates, they are giving guests who complain an umbrella. I would not be surprised if that is not a part of the ulimate solution in the form of a tensioned fabric structure (similar to Denver's tent structure) over the pool.
Also, you can also be sure that while Rafael's (or rather his firm's) name is going to be on the lawsuit for the cost change of this mistake, his architect of record (the ones who actually designed and engineered the building) and possibly the contractor is going to be listed it as well. It takes more than one person to get into a mess like this. Also, if the owner (MGM) is acknowleging that this is a problem, then that *probably* means that the architect told the owner about this a long time ago.
|Quoting TSS (Reply 13):|
Further proof that architects should be forced to live in/use, or in this case specifically go to the pool at, the buildings they design.
Both the architect and the owner in this case acknowlege that this is a challenge and that it was a design compromise. The architect probably could not have known how bad the compromise was going to be. The building's fine in this case, it's the pool that's the problem. And while the pool in a hotel is an important consideration, I'm sure the owner thought it was going to be a minor nuisance, not one like this.
All in all, I think the City Center project is the city of Las Vegas trying to reinvent itself.