Glass

[Nowhereman1280]

This is a thread for general discussion on glass and its use on buildings. Its main focus is to vent people's angst about wavy glass and the constant arguments over it.


I'll start it off. All modern buildings have wavy glass, its not possible to make it not wavy in the large panes we use on our buildings. Even the glass on "masterpieces" of modernist architecture is wavy. Thus I present to you Exhibit A: John Hancock is wavy.


If that doesn't look as wavy or wavier than the glass on Trump, I don't know what does...
Now compare with Aqua, what do you think? I think if you criticize Aqua's glass you have to criticize JHC's glass...

Pic from Bvic or someone...

[aaron38]

Since Aqua's glass is the current subject, I thought it would be good to compare to a close analog, Marina City.
That's a case where no one notices or cares what the glass looks like, and it looks wavy to me in this image, where it reflects other buildings:
http://www.stevendahlman.com/cgi-bin...rt.pl?marina03

When Aqua is done, I don't think anyone is going to look at the glass.

[aaron38]

The Spire and W=A are going to be wavy too.

[bnk]

From the Aqua thread 9:28 pm

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

That's it, I'm starting a thread about wavy glass...

You were not kidding when you said you would make a thread about this issue.

What prevents waviness?

Is it the quality of the glass itself or is it the ingredients that go into the mixture?

The composition of the glass can change remarkably by the material that goes into it. Take for example Pyrite glass in cooking or chemistry laboratories. There is almost no way to crack it from heat extremes.

I suspect it has alot to do with thickness. And therefore to keep costs and weight down they cut into the thickness to save for the almighty profit margin..

[Nowhereman1280]

Well really thick glass would probably also cause other problems for design as well. I mean if it was one solid sheet then you would get that weird filter effect that happens when you see really thick glass, like at a bank in the ghetto. And a solid pane would bleed tons of heat. So now a days we usually use double paned glass which, as it is, distorts the view sometimes already, Imagine double paned glass with like 3/4" thick glass...

@ Aaron, where in that picture does Marina City reflect other buildings? I can't see it? Also, the glass on Marina city is so clear it doesn't seem to reflect much of anything.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Alliance

[On Aqua,] Why cant we use fairbanks quality glass? why? Why are we staring in the face of an icon and actively trying to drown it?

Hi Alliance, to answer your question in a place where it won't be deleted:

It's about budget, my friend. Look at Fairbanks: The lobby is raw concrete (some Venetian plaster), the interiors are unfinished, $/sf was probably higher, and it had no giant outdoor amenities level. You and I would gladly trade expensive glass for raw concrete in the lobby, but most people wouldn't stand for it.

Also, Jahn is the glass man, and he's been at this for decades, mostly in Europe now. Gang is a bit green yet.

[Rizzo]

I think it's becoming a lot more noticeable because we are using larger panes of glass and further spacing of mullions as opposed to solid surfaces with "punched openings." I guess it means more of what you see looking out than the appearance of the building up close (after all the inside is what sells). The typical person, or I guess buyer, isn't going to complain a whole lot about wavy glass.

It would be nice to develop glass that doesn't have this appearance, but it would really depend on how its manufactured and how the environment acts on it, such as uneven heating from sunlight. I'm sure it would be expensive to produce and quickly increase project costs considering glass constitutes the majority of the building envelope.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by honte

It's about budget, my friend. Look at Fairbanks: The lobby is raw concrete (some Venetian plaster), the interiors are unfinished, $/sf was probably higher, and it had no giant outdoor amenities level. You and I would gladly trade expensive glass for raw concrete in the lobby, but most people wouldn't stand for it.

Even the glass on 600 N. Fairbanks is quite distortive, its just clear so it doesn't reflect those distortions. Seriously, if you walk up on the opposite side of the street from it and look very closely, you will see the same ripple bending effect that you do on Trump and Aqua, its just more difficult to see in clearer glass.

[SapphireBlueEyes]

Now take another look at the Hancock Center. If you would, please notice that the glass on the bottom 44 floors is much different, has a coppery appearance where as the upper floors, 45-92 and 95-96 of the 100 floors are a different type of glass and is not wavy.
405 North Wabash glass is wavy, but it also gives it a crystal like appearance and I think it looks stunning-and I appreciate it much more than the glass on the Trump Tower.
-SapphireBlueEyes-

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

This is a thread for general discussion on glass and its use on buildings. Its main focus is to vent people's angst about wavy glass and the constant arguments over it.


I'll start it off. All modern buildings have wavy glass, its not possible to make it not wavy in the large panes we use on our buildings. Even the glass on "masterpieces" of modernist architecture is wavy. Thus I present to you Exhibit A: John Hancock is wavy.


If that doesn't look as wavy or wavier than the glass on Trump, I don't know what does...
Now compare with Aqua, what do you think? I think if you criticize Aqua's glass you have to criticize JHC's glass...

Pic from Bvic or someone...

[SapphireBlueEyes]

I totally agree with you on the trade offs between more expensive glass and lobby decor...in fact, I deal with the raw feel of a mental hospital with the Travertine walls and floors that were installed in the residential and sky lobbies of the John Hancock Center in 1995. It makes me feel like the walls are closing in and I picture my head squashed in like a watermelon and blood and guts hanging out of the Travertine's grooves and dripping down those Travertine walls, with my eye balls looking like squashed grapes with veins hanging from them sticking like pasta to the walls.

I really could care less about whether or not a skyscraper's glass is shiny and reflective, as long as it's not semi-milky looking or grainy.
What I care about is good taste and those on the decorating committees from 95' and the new renovations taking place right now from the 07' decisions are pathetic to say the very least and even some of the people on those committees are disgusted. Why did they choose the new color schemes? It's because it is a blend of everyone's particular tastes and what we will have is reminiscent of an Austin Power's movie.
-SapphireBlueEyes-



It's about budget, my friend. Look at Fairbanks: The lobby is raw concrete (some Venetian plaster), the interiors are unfinished, $/sf was probably higher, and it had no giant outdoor amenities level. You and I would gladly trade expensive glass for raw concrete in the lobby, but most people wouldn't stand for it.

[2PRUROCKS!]

I think alot of the perception of wavy glass has to do with lighting and the angle at which the glass is viewed at. These 2 photos are of 108 N. State St. In the first photo the glass appears to be very wavy and to distort the reflections of the surroundings (photo by harryc). In the second photo the reflection of the glass appears almost so pefect that the building almost disappears (photo by spyguy). When viewed from a certain location in certain lighting pretty much all glass with a reflective tint it seems to me will look distorted and wavy and from other angles and lighting can seem to offer a near perfect reflection.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I completely agree with you 2pru, I think the evidence you posted above is a perfect example of how lighting and angle, not necessarily "quality", create the wavy effect we see in glass.

[aaron38]

So this is what I learned today. Aqua's glass is better than Swissotel next door, and no wavier than other projects that are hailed for the quality of their glass. I don't see a big enough difference to get worked up over.

340 on the Park: Wavy


600 N Fairbanks: Better, but still wavy


Parkview West: Wavy

[aaron38]

While I was out, I remembered this post by Alliance:

Originally Posted by Alliance

See? This is glass.

So I went over to the Art Institute to take a look. Sorry to say it, but this glass looks just as wavy as any other.




This is my bottom line. If Renzo Piano glass looks wavy, then there's no point in discussing this further. If wavy glass is unacceptable, then there's little we can do but abandon glass curtainwalls and return to masonry and small windows.
Or we can just accept the glass as is.

I'm not going to worry about it further. Aqua will look just fine.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Thank you for the photo documentation.

That is exactly what I am saying, if you take a picture of any building from the right angle, you can see how the glass bows outward and distorts the light.

The only reason the Piano looks good in the first shot is because the picture was taken from dead on and the glass is very long and straight and so is the object being reflected, Aon. If there was a horizontal line being reflected, it would look like a wave.

[Tom Servo]

this thread is almost as funny as the parking podium thread...

[M II A II R II K]

But there is actual glass that's a mirror on one side, and see through on the other side, why not create some adaptation of that or something.

[Pandemonious]

Waviness comes not necessarily from the size of the glass, but how it is produced. It isn't even about cost. Glass that is tempered or laminated (ie, by code typically, glass on highrises must be able to not shatter into pieces onto the ground if it is broken), and through that process the glass develops a slight unevenness due to temperature and/or pressure.

Annealed glass can be made into huge sheets that will provide an almost perfect reflection (pelli's performing arts center in Madison, WI has 17' x 9' panes of glass), but it cannot typically be used in highrises, as it will shatter. Hence, in the art center they have a special barrier to keep people away from the glass, and it isn't that tall of a building.

All tall buildings will have wavy glass until we can find a way to economically make completely flat, reflective glass that will not shatter onto the street if broken/damaged.

I am working on the curtain wall of a supertall building right now, and our unitized panels are made up of just one huge pane of glass each. Our glass must be laminated, by code, and therefore will be wavy. Thats just the wasy it is for now..

[Steely Dan]

^ thank you pandemonious.

i love it when people who actually know what they're talking about contribute to this forum.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Pandemonious

Thats just the wasy it is for now..

The question is this: Is all glass created equal? This is not an issue of glass having waves, (dispite some people's continued creation of a non-existant argument) its an issue about relative quality.