Thursday, April 22, 2010

Site Model - compiling

We have a few parcels loaded into the full digital site model. Here's a first look:



Isn't it a better "first look" than the Digital Project site model from a few weeks ago?

Try the VRML model, too.

[Note: the link has now been updated to the WRL2.0 file. It works.... kinda.... it takes a LOT of zooming out/panning/rotating/moving to got into a position to see anything. Part of the problem is the ground plane, which is the same color as the background, so if you get
under the plane, everything becomes a sea of gray.

Another issue seems to be the viewing extents. Once I navigated to a point above the middle, I could see buildings that were near me, but others were obscured by the gray background. As I rotated around, they would melt in an out of this background. I did surround the entire model with a sphere so that a background image could be mapped onto it, but the sphere is plenty big enough that it shouldn't be obscuring any towers.

Yet another issue is that the Zoom and Slide buttons don't seem to work properly. Oh, and somehow the orientation of the model has tilted 90-degrees, so using the Straighten button really screws up the orientation. Hopefully all this can be sorted out by Monday, when it will be time to take the model across the street and set some views....]

Friday, April 9, 2010

DP, you are NOT helpful



Dear Digital Project,

Thanks. Thanks so very much. No, really, I am truly in debt to you for providing me with such a wealth of information. Your communication skills are enviable. Dick Cheney would be proud of you...

Sincerely,
Nate

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Full Site - first look

Thar she blows!




Quite the motley crew of structures there. Disregard the red; this screenshot was taken before attempting to run a global update. There were several problems when the update was run, but I'm not sure why... each individual part file operates fine by itself, but when the full product is opened, there are suddenly errors (over-constrained sketches, fills with self-intersecting wires, etc etc). We'll see...

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Bionic Architecture and the Vertical City

Check this out:


http://www.cerveraandpioz.com/bionic_megacities_v.htm


Tower with a height of 1,228m, holding 100,000 people, that's only about 150m in diameter...

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Ok, now DP is just messin' with my head

This error was the result of attempting to use the "remove" command to subtract one solid from another. The thing about it is, I had used this command a good half-dozen times this morning with no problem. I didn't notice anything change between when the "remove" command worked and when it gave the error...

DP - Digital Pessimism

I think this says it all:





Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Can this be right?

Is a F.A.R. of almost 1,200 too much? Is a 17,000ft (3.2 mile) building too tall? Is 2.1 million square feet too big of a footprint for a single building? So far our zoning rules do not seem to preclude these outcomes:

..................................
(click here for the PDF version)

There are clearly some issues with this proposal:

1) 85% efficiency of occupiable area versus built area might be overly optimistic in a structure over 3 miles tall.

2) Reserving a half-dozen floors, each with 10' ceilings, for open-air greenspace probably won't work, considering the fact that natural daylight will only reach about 5% of the area.

3) Open greenspace on the roof? At over 3 miles high? Only if supplmental oxygen systems are available. Some more info on altitude vs. oxygen. Then there's the issue of being above the clouds, though that would only help with allowing more sunlight :)
.
4) Proximity to airport could be an issue. I still haven't found airspace maps for aiports yet, but I know they exist. Perhaps they just aren't published online, or for free...
.
As for the structural integrity of such a tall, tall thing, I am not convinced. I wonder what PvB would say about it...