Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH
It would likely be unsafe to land a helicopter on a building that is unstable. And even if it was, smoke from fires would hinder the helicopter's ability to land anyway.
|
This is only an issue because this is an architecture forum, because this is about aesthetics. It isn't likely unsafe to land a helicopter on an unstable building, it is unsafe, it wouldn't be the best way of saving people from a burning building or from an earthquake but heliports aren't there because it's the best way, they're there because it's a way. Rescuers get injured all the time. People who go on rescue missions get killed all the time, that's why they're "heroes." Architects are about design. In another forum if you talked about earthquakes you'd talk about seismic technology, you'd talk about mitigation, how to get people out of a building before a disaster happened, in another forum if you talked about heliports, if you were talking about terrorists, it would be all about when people wished there was a helicopter. You'd talk about emergencies when people weren't able to get out quick enough when they needed it, because intelligence wasn't quick enough to know it was going to happen, you'd care more about all the times people have died, maybe you'd care about how that would mess up the design and you'd care about the beauty and aesthetics of the building, but that would come second. You'd think about safer ways to get out of the building because you'd care about people, you'd think about eliminating heliports because you care about rescuers getting injured, and rescuers get injured because they do things fast when they're necessary, they don't sit around and think about design. If the city doesn't lift restrictions it's not because they know heliports aren't the best way, that they'll even be the way a rescue happens, it's because they know city damage is in population and aesthetics is secondary. It's because the louder people talk about aesthetics the less they'll listen to those voices, the less they'll trust architects who ask to get heliport restrictions removed just because there's better options. It's just saying that the beauty of the skyline is what comes first, it's not the seismologist saying how it could have been prevented and it's not the pilot saying why it wasn't fast enough, it's saying there should be better-looking ways, instead of enough. I'd trust a skyscraper forum for ideas of beauty. I wouldn't trust it for safety, not when aesthetics come first.