But its not a design flaw that leads back to the lighting designers, thats the point I’m trying to make, this isn’t a FLW leaky roof situation where he was the one that drew the details in which the roofs would be built. Like I said the designer design the appearance of the lighting and choose the fixtures, how they are physically installed is not in their purview. I’m uncertain of who did the lighting job for 1 WTC, but oversight in the instances that you are describing would generally not be the fault of the lighting designer. Whether a fixture operates or not is not their fault, that would be the fault of the manufacturer or the installer.
That same instance would be true at this tower too. It would only be the fault of the lighting designer if the appearance of the lighting to one didn’t look good, which would be subjective as is architecture in general. A fixture breaking is not subjective, but in addition, it would only be their fault if they were also designing the wiring and routing for the lighting.
As for CPT, I dont remember the lighting look bad when it was being tested, it was extremely bright and for the most part looked like the renders that did show the lighting. There may have been technical failures/errors that led to it being shelved but I still dont see how that would be on the designer, especially when the testing was successful (imo).
Eitherway, as it pertains to this building, we know there is infact lighting and we know it will be upkept because it is JPMCs signature tower, just as I mentioned before OV is SLGreens signature tower, ESB is ESD signature tower, etc etc. They care about their lighting as is evident, not everyone cares as much as others, no reason to bring it up all the time though.
Also as it pertains to this tower, Merry Christmas all, I’m almost certain we can expect holiday themed programmable lighting here as has already been hinted with the one render of the screen lighting.
There are three kinds of ‘defects’ in construction: design defects, product defects, and installation defects. The lighting designers, and architectural designers, and engineering design are only one aspect of what may have gone wrong with the lighting.
I believe there are also product/manufacturing defects, and installation/construction defects.
The product defects, and installation defects need to be considered too; and are most likely contributing factors in the botched lighting feature of these buildings.
I am hopeful that 270 Park will deliver on the lighting: there is al lot of lights we can see being built into that facade.
So, you are perhaps right about the design defects: but who knows for sure if we are looking at a design defect, product defect, or an installation defect - or perhaps ALL THREE. My conjecture it is all three.
I particularly agree on your above posted point linked here - Happens way too frequently.
Same! As much as I know we can debate lighting (or lack of) with most modern supertalls forever, I feel 270 Park will be the first to deliver with a dazzling building day and night with points mentioned by others here. Since they still have tons of panels to put up on the base alone, I’m guessing early spring before we see it aglow
Reminds me of a bridge they built in my hometown designed to heat the surface during snow/ice conditions. They tried it and the whole thing shorted out and of course embedded in concrete. Oops -
Great update not only of the base of the tower but also of 660 Lexington Avenue. It appears that work has resumed on the building (visible in the center of the first photo).
Shot a few rolls of film yesterday. Hopefully I won’t wait another 6 years to develop those. Time consuming, expensive, and difficult to share so enjoy the iPhone pics for the time being.
Yeah, the old iPhone is a tricky bit of kit. The filters can fool you. I’ve printed some iPhone shots on photo paper and they look darn good up to 8x10. Previously, if you wanted that look w/the black border you needed to file down the negative carrier used in the enlarger, but today it’s a filter on the phone.
