|
|
|
Turning Torso Condo, Sweden
- Thread starter azurex
- Start date
TKTKTK
Senior Member
Wow.
I didn't think it would look quite as scary as that once it was built.
I didn't think it would look quite as scary as that once it was built.
Edward
Senior Member
Interesting idea though I'm not sure I like the cladding.
junctionist
Senior Member
It's like it came straight out of the IKEA school of design.
Canuck
Active Member
It's a fantastic structure, and probably the one that most defines the 'twisty' trend in architecture.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Another beauty by Calatrava.
Zephyr
Active Member
Although I am a fan of this structure, it now looks dated when compared to his Chicago Spire - which carried nearly every aspect of this Swedish tower to a higher level of resolution.
Two problem areas which are often mentioned for Turning Torso of Malmö are the so-called "ugly" base (Slate), and the decision to place the exterior lateral bracing on the outside, rather than in the structure itself.
Granted, the base is left in max torsion and off-center, whereas Calatrava approached this differently with Chicago Spire, by using a kind of triad balance on the helical rails that are partially hidden in the skin of the building itself, and is then sheathed at the base, before the work is finally hidden in the ground at the foundation-mat level.
The lateral bracing is viewed as an exposed element by choice in Malmö, but is at the corners of the faces of Chicago Spire, blending into the multi-helical design implicitly, and more elegantly.
Finally, the elongated Chicago Spire also allowed Calatrava to do several subtler transitions in the taper and rotation of the rails, although he maintained his rigid two degree rotation of floor plates above the upper base. Curiously, the taper of Turning Torso is the reverse of most tapers, which at times makes the building appear to be leaning in a particular direction depending on angle.
I have no doubt about the structural stability of Chicago Spire, but I have always wondered how the sway calculus translates on this tower. It has to be less than CS but it is potentially more disturbing in the outrigger motif that it adopts.
Two problem areas which are often mentioned for Turning Torso of Malmö are the so-called "ugly" base (Slate), and the decision to place the exterior lateral bracing on the outside, rather than in the structure itself.
Granted, the base is left in max torsion and off-center, whereas Calatrava approached this differently with Chicago Spire, by using a kind of triad balance on the helical rails that are partially hidden in the skin of the building itself, and is then sheathed at the base, before the work is finally hidden in the ground at the foundation-mat level.
The lateral bracing is viewed as an exposed element by choice in Malmö, but is at the corners of the faces of Chicago Spire, blending into the multi-helical design implicitly, and more elegantly.
Finally, the elongated Chicago Spire also allowed Calatrava to do several subtler transitions in the taper and rotation of the rails, although he maintained his rigid two degree rotation of floor plates above the upper base. Curiously, the taper of Turning Torso is the reverse of most tapers, which at times makes the building appear to be leaning in a particular direction depending on angle.
I have no doubt about the structural stability of Chicago Spire, but I have always wondered how the sway calculus translates on this tower. It has to be less than CS but it is potentially more disturbing in the outrigger motif that it adopts.