Previous Post
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Email this to someoneShare on Facebook
Read on Mobile

Maybe The Lagging Adoption Of #CRETech Is Not Because Of People. It’s The Structures Themselves.

20160720_113427

Awesomeness.

Just take a look at this!

390 MADISON from Sara Fay on Vimeo.

I had the privilege and the pleasure of touring this specific building in New York.

 

It is still under construction and what a fascinating afternoon it was.

The architect is a friend, and we talked beams, weight distribution, concrete, steel, sight lines, and all building nerdy stuff.

If you watched the video at about the 1:30 mark it shows the open deck that will face Madison Ave.

Look at my pictures above and see what it looks like today. I’m standing right there.

The money, the time, the effort, the manpower, the brain power that it takes to do this is always AMAZING to me.

Building for the Future?

I’m just assuming here, but I am sure all the people involved are doing everything possible to make this structure as appealing to tenants today tomorrow and into the future.

But what about the technology involved in not only creating the structure but the actual way technology is today and will be used tomorrow.

Is it possible to foresee what that is and how the structure itself should function?

I’m not so sure.

Could we be building structures today that may be functionally obsolete is less than five to ten years?

How about this?

Could we be building structures that are not only functionally but Morally obsolete?

Start wrapping your head around that.

Most if not all of the buildings being built today have “legacy systems.”

Legacy systems embedded into the physical structure.

How hard is it to adapt or improve systems that by their very nature suggest a permanence that can’t be touched?

The costs, time and waste associated with that act tears at the layers and layers of physical and social change.

Do existing structures need to be torn apart because of a different need or use?

None of which is structural.

Do we run the risk of turning obsolete buildings into newer better more improved obsolete buildings?

Does the experience within that structure for the actual users and the systems define it as obsolete?

Be it a retrofit or brand new build straight out of BIM we look for and use the best possible product at the most cost effective price.

Does that same mentality not turn into a vicious cycle of integrating technology into structures that will create a whole new generation of obsolete integrated structures?

Easy Answers?

It would seem so.

Cultural change. (Brick huggers cringe at the very thought.)

Understanding that a structure does not have a 100-year physical life. (Don’t tear down the Woolworth building. It’s gorgeous.)

Create structures that are built for the programmable future. ( i.e., The built environment.)

Moral Imperative. (Ironically brick hugging and not at the same time.)

Financial and Portfolio models defined by said cultural change. (Is it just an asset or an asset within the actual community it exists?)

The environmental legacy beyond not only the structure but actual functionality itself.

So.

Maybe The Lagging Adoption Of #CRETech Is Not Because Of People. It’s The Structures Themselves.

 

+1  Used the words Legacy and Obsolete quite a few times

+1+1 There has to be something to that don’t you think?

 

 

Next Post

Written by