Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
One can make a structural justification for what they're doing. I don't know if those mullions/dividers are load-bearing or not. However, if they are, then they don't need to be quite so dense at the upper levels, since they have less weight to support (less floors above).
I've seen several buildings do this, where the column spacing gets wider as you go up the building.
However, I think I'd be in favor of a much-less abrupt ending to those columns. A protruding ledge where the columns end, extending across the building, would look quite attractive, and would be in keeping with the rectilinear aesthetic of the original Shaw & Associates design. It would also provide a place to mount spotlights and cast a dramatic pattern onto the building.
|
half of the exterior columns we see are load-bearing. The one's they cut out are not load-bearing
But yeah, had it been designed for what they are doing, then during construction, sure, they wouldn't need columns to be as closely spaced. But the way they designed it (small, puny windows), they didn't need columns to be spaced better, so why even design that way? I think it would be harder to design