Video: Dynamic Architecture by David Fisher

Dubai is soon to boast the first building associated with David Fisher's Dynamic Architecture. I am not sure how I feel about this idea. On one hand the idea of a moving building is beautiful. Watching the endless patterns and waves created by the individually rotating floors is mesmerizing and gives a completely new identity to the idea of the monolithic skyscraper. On the other hand I can't help but ask the question, why? There is really no practical reason for this and seems to be a colossal waste of energy. Supposedly there are going to be ultra quiet wind turbines built in between each floor to generate electricity to run the system. A great concept except for the fact the power generated is going directly to run a superfluous energy consuming system.

And what happens when the mechanism that spins each floors malfunctions, and we all know it eventually will. I wish there was some sort of environmental reason that would justify this design. However, the only thing I can come up with is the fact that Dubai is swamped with money and needs new shiny toys to build. That being said there is also a similar design proposed for Moscow, another oil rich country - well at least until the recent economic collapse.

The idea of dynamic elements in architecture is wonderful and certainly not new. The simple elegance of the installation by Ned Kahn, featured previously on this site, is a perfect example of a low tech dynamic design that brings new meaning to a building and illuminates the complexities of our natural world. In my eyes this is a much more powerful and elegant concept.

Comments

  1. Same here...cant figure out the purpose or meaning of such designs...doesnt it conflict with the social responsibility of an architect?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems like too many architects are just stroking the egos of insanely rich clients these days. The people who are funding luxury condo towers of this sort should be convinced (or forced somehow) to invest in the billions of people living in poverty. Many US cities have 1% for Art policy requiring a percentage of the cost of the project to fund art installations. Perhaps a 10 percent for the poor policy should be implemented worldwide.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would say its not a bad building, but I do agrre with Lucas Gray, I mean these guys are just trying to get the money out of people's pockets that's all. What is facinating though is how he designed the building so that it doesn't use regular electric energy. I would say this isn't such a bad building in the sense of architectural design.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It isn't a terrible design. I find it more troubling as a continued symbol of what drove us into this economic mess - building for wants instead of for needs. Greed is the problem and I think this tower is a symbol of the greed of the developers, the millionaires who will buy the units and even the architect who needs to make something bold and different to make a name for themselves.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment