Comments on: Monolab’s High Rise Tower

By: bazla

bazla — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:59:40 +0000

Hello all!
this is a logically thought out building.
it seems to be an architectural and engineering wonder of the present time.
Some work should be done on the form even now as this building appears to be an alien’s building it should be appear to a building of EARTH.

By: Victor Vroegindeweij

Victor Vroegindeweij — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:42:52 +0000

Unparalleled ugliness.

By: Terry Glenn Phipps

Terry Glenn Phipps — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:44:22 +0000

@Josh & Kevin

It was my privilege to have an explanation of the form of 30 St Mary Axe from Robin Partington, who credits the form mostly to the planning process. The structure was engineered to maximize column free interior spaces. Natural ventilation (a feature that Swiss Re, tenants in the building since its sale, unfortunately don’t use) came about as the result of rotating the floor plates and creating offsets in the vertical atria that are diffused throughout the structure.

The “gherkin” is an entirely logical building in the tradition of the greatest of its predecessors.

As for the proposed Rotterdam tower, I would have to say this is one of the more useless exercises I have ever seen. After trying very hard to find something to like, all I can manage to come up with is that it recalls both a petroleum refinery and the gantry structure of the Saturn V. A light show could be achieved without the Rube Goldberg elevator arrangement which can be called silly out of charity.

The best thing about this building is the infinitesimal probability that it will ever be built.

Terry Glenn Phipps

By: Sofie

Sofie — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:38:28 +0000

I’ve been in Rotterdam several times, and I don’t think such a high building is appropriate there. ‘Wanting to stand out’ is not a good reason to build this -or anything (although it can be a plus in some situations). Adding the complex elevatorsystem without enough reasons doesn’t make it any better.
This tower just doesn’t feel right. Designing something suitable is already difficult enough!

By: The Developer

The Developer — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:41:27 +0000

HAHAHAHAHAHA ! I laugh in the face of your naivety.

By: Allan L

Allan L — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:44:24 +0000

it seems that they want to create a skin with these elevators, but they are unuseful in the sense that there is too much of them, this would only create chaos and waste of energy.

By: carlos pozo

carlos pozo — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:52:32 +0000

Monolab High Rise Tower in Rotterdam: http://www.archdaily.com/25317/monolabs-high-rise-tower/

By: Frederick

Frederick — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:28:05 +0000

“primitive and of mediocre quality” … and utterly pointless!!!

By: mat archi

mat archi — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:47:02 +0000

Maybe they smoked too much join’s!!!!!

It’s impossible to building an High rise building of 450m in rotterdam !!! the ground looks likes a fresh goat cheese
I had participate in the high rise workshop at Delft University
We had to design an High Rise of 250 meters and the engineers who made lectures (which was one of the burj Dubaï) said us it was impossible. the only city where you can build such Building in Randstad Holland is Utrech ….

they lose their time

By: Eco Architecture: Dutch architecture firm designs sustainable high-rise for Rotterdam | Green Cleaning Ideas

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:05:34 +0000

[...] Via: ArchDaily/DesignBoom [...]

By: Partick Bateman

Partick Bateman — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:08:38 +0000

when does it take off?

By: Koós Miklós

Koós Miklós — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:37:41 +0000

450 m-es toronyház terve a rotterdami kikötőbe http://bit.ly/mFffk

By: Lana

Lana — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:17:28 +0000

it is very under developed, seems likes the first sketch model of an idea that can develope much much further… The pieces of the building do not seem to relate at all…

By: ornament and crime

ornament and crime — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:57:24 +0000

PPS – If you want to do tall buildings, move to south east Asia.

By: ornament and crime

ornament and crime — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:53:32 +0000

Note to Monolab : insulting every building in the city you propose a big fuck off tower is probably not the best approach to getting your ideas fulfilled.

PS – a developer would laugh in the face of your naivety.

By: Lasse

Lasse — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:43:00 +0000

I don’t see the pragmatics either, “shaped to reduce wind and shadow” ? I don’t buy that… And uninterrupted floorplans?? All floorplans must be different anyway so why is this a goal? I would say it is a setback to deny the users good straight forward connection between floors where it makes programmatic sense.

The elevators would be fun to ride, to move around in this complex mechanism if it would work. And it seems from the renders that they try to tell us it will. I don’t buy that either…

It seems the went all in on the machine aesthetics and in the process of doing so failed to see just how much further they could go with the same meens if they did it proporly.

By: Henrique

Henrique — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:45:15 +0000

In my opinion, the elevators system can produce interesting and even revolutionary ultimate outcomes. But I still miss some more explanations about it. How it work on intersections for instance. Anyway, it could spare us some precious space waste on vertical circulations and inumerous wells (not sure if it is called that in English, sorry). It unpleases me however, besides its aesthetics, not to see the plans or living spaces as flexible. It seens to me, on the overall a reunion of different projects.
That’s all for now.

By: 16:08:78

16:08:78 — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:43:38 +0000

In the “Intestinal Architecture” we’re into, this sort of design might happen.
Monolab fail in achieving what he states he achieve.

These are my Reasons:
1. “Pragmatic sense” is absent. Movement should be contained inside the intestinal shape tubes. Indeed, the shape of intestines are for this purpose, so that things can move trough it up and down, this movement is also found in other tubular shapes things out there on nature.
2. For this matter, the argument above makes the intestinal shape senseless itself, as it is in need of a supporting structure for it to do the real job.
3. Given the fact that the structure is senseless itself, it exposes the truth about the firm’s intention to be ambitious about an impractical design.

* All are welcome to debate this view.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:28:10 +0000

@ Kevin

Swiss Re aka 30 St Mary Ax [since Swiss Re sold the building] is derived from structural ideas to limit interior columns, the natural ventilation could occur nearly as well in a box, if proportioned properly. Which tower are you on? The Huron?

By: kevin

kevin — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:24:01 +0000

I have worked on a high rise project for over a year that is currently under construction in the city of London.
However, this already had a massive amount of complexities even though the shape of the highrise has been regular.
I think a more complex shape in a highrise really needs a solid reason. The Swiss Re tower in London by Foster for example is derived by ventilation improvements.
The idea to extract ventilation to the outside is good but why this random organic bubble shapes as tower. Especially Rotterdam is already a park of curiosities. Maybe get a review
from some local architects ( u know who ! );) !!