[HN Gopher] The window trick of Las Vegas hotels ___________________________________________________________________ The window trick of Las Vegas hotels Author : edent Score : 628 points Date : 2023-01-29 14:52 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.schedium.net) (TXT) w3m dump (www.schedium.net) | amluto wrote: | There's a converse trick: divided lites. Many newer doors and | windows that appear to have small panes of glass ("lites") | separated by strips of wood or metal are actually large insulated | glass units (sets of multiple sheets of glass and their spacers | and sealing hardware) decorated with wood, metal or plastic | outside the glass. Sometimes a strip of something is out in | between the panes glass as well to make it less obvious. | | It turns out that double- or triple-paned glass is a better | insulator than wood, and the perimeter is a meaningful part of | the cost, so one large unit is better for cost and performance | than a bunch of small units. | mikeg8 wrote: | I'm familiar with divided lites and your description of a | modern SDL (simulated divided lite) vs TDL (true divided...) | but I don't think it's in the same category of "architectural | trick". This post is on a change in scale/proportionality that | has an optical illusion type of effect. SDLs are a change in | construction method that has zero effect on the aesthetic of | the architecture but solely performance and costs. Slightly | different IMO | hgsgm wrote: | Why does SDL exist, instead of having no dividers? What | purpose do they serve besides _simulating_ separate panes? | | Are they more economical than having no dividers at all? | amluto wrote: | I don't think so. But some people like the style. | quesera wrote: | Divided lites used to be the only way to make a large | window. Large panes of glass were impossible or very | expensive. | | That's not true any more, but the "old style" is | aesthetically pleasing to some, and sometimes even required | by law for old houses. | | Today, True divided lites are more expensive -- more | material, more handling, more assembly. | | And simulated divided lites are a cheap way to pretend to | be expensive, or historically correct. | | I always rip 'em out, personally. | hosh wrote: | Christopher Alexander has a whole lifetime work on this subject. | | While "order" and "variety" are something that humans crave, that | is something that can naturally come about because of "generative | codes". That the design process unfolds, with participation by | inhabitants. Centers are identified, and design take all of that | account. You end up with something that has both, universal | invariants, while also uniquely in relation to everything around | it and the people living within it. | ElemenoPicuares wrote: | This topic is vastly more complex that the author realizes. This | window placement technique is one of many design facets that | create the intended visual impact of these buildings and isn't | close to their most significant difference to those large | functional midcentury apartment blocks. Not only do architects | need a 3 year graduate degree and board certification to start | their careers, brand new architects are not the ones designing | large public buildings. The author assuming that their musings | about window placement on Vegas hotels could in any way inform | seasoned and well-educated architects' design approach is pure | hubris. Ridiculous. | | It reads like a non-developer reading a bunch of articles about | tech buzzword du jour like blockchain or microservices and then | ham-fistedly using that to _" explain"_ the architectural | shortcomings of a bunch of complex systems that they couldn't | hope to understand designed by heavily educated and experienced | professionals. An actual developer would roll their eyes but if | the author's readers aren't developers, it not only sounds _as_ | credible, it sounds _more_ credible because someone is finally | explaining that complex thing in a way that makes sense to people | who reason about problems the same way they do. | | If you want to learn about some knowledge domain like | architecture, you're a whole lot better off reading architectural | blogs than a technical person's musings about it. Misconceptions | born from a similar perspective to yours are going to seem | undeservedly credible and be a lot more difficult to parse and | filter out. | tinym wrote: | Are there any architectural blogs you recommend? | ElemenoPicuares wrote: | I like Dezeen, Arch Daily, and The City Fix for more urban | design type stuff. | ketzo wrote: | It seems like you know more of the things that the author is | missing in their explanation. | | I think your comment would bring more value to the world if you | actually talked about some of those design facets, instead of | taking so much time to trash a person for their intellectual | curiosity. | ElemenoPicuares wrote: | That's because I wasn't talking about design: I was talking | about expertise. | | My professional discipline shares some baseline knowledge | with architects and I enjoy architecture, but I am not an | architect. I know enough about it to realize that you're | better off listening to an architect talk about architecture | than me, and _way_ better than someone with no design | background at all. | | Aside from my design discipline, I was also a classically | trained chef, and also spent quite some time as a software | developer. The number of times a person from an engineering- | type background haughtily "explained" my areas of expertise | to me is gob smacking. I'm far beyond the point in life where | I feel the need to hold my tongue when I recognize someone | speaking with authority well outside of their expertise, | especially if they're getting attention by doing so. | ketzo wrote: | Is the author really speaking with "authority," though? If | anything, they go out of their way to remind the reader | that "your taste may differ from mine." | | It just reads to me like someone sharing an interesting | idea they discovered. I feel like any accusations of | haughtiness are a little overblown. | whall6 wrote: | Likewise, is there any literature or other resources that you | could refer us to? | | Im highly interested in this topic especially because I've | seen the reverse pattern in the city where I live: a building | that's not as tall designed to look bigger than it is. I'd | love to learn more | ElemenoPicuares wrote: | I think Dezeen is a great place to start to keep up with | things. When you get a little deeper, you'll have a better | idea of where to look for more in-depth books, etc. that | are more specific to your areas of interest. | badrabbit wrote: | Wow, that's a lot of words you are using to disagree with | exactly nothing the author wrote. Commentary on builiding | design just as with any topic is just that, not hubris. A | person does not need degrees and 10yrs of experience to make an | observation about the design patterns of buildings. | | You could maybe contribute to the discussion by perhaps | mentioning one specific thing the author or the video they used | as expert reference get wrong. | ElemenoPicuares wrote: | See my answers to the above comments. | justin66 wrote: | Your turtleneck is showing. | ElemenoPicuares wrote: | s1ck b3rn m8 | cj wrote: | Comments like this are why I never got into blogging. | | If I had a blog, there's an extremely narrow domain of | knowledge I would be "allowed" to write about by this | commenter's standards. | | This particular blog post is acceptable in my opinion because | they aren't making some crazy claims, it's just a collection of | simple observations and amusing conjecture. | ElemenoPicuares wrote: | You can write whatever you want. If someone who knows more | pointing out that you're off-base is that much of a | deterrent, you're probably right to avoid it. As I said | above, I'm far beyond the point in life where I feel the need | to hold my tongue when I recognize someone speaking with | authority well outside of their expertise, especially if | they're getting attention by doing so. | cj wrote: | The thing is, the author doesn't seem (to me) to be | speaking from a place of authority. | | The post doesn't read like a textbook. It reads like | someone's casual musings. | | There are other cases where I think authors overstate their | position of authority, but the tone of this blog post | doesn't have that. | rgoldfinger wrote: | Here's an explanation I found persuasive for why the 60's and | 70's buildings don't appeal to many of us: | https://commonedge.org/the-mental-disorders-that-gave-us-mod... | | In short, the designers of these buildings experienced trauma | during the wars that changed their brains, in a way that makes | human features upsetting. Most buildings reference human features | in some way (mouth, eyes), and this modernism avoids that and | calms their brains. | | It aligns nicely with the astute observation about the windows, | in that they humanize these large buildings. | ear7h wrote: | I saw that one in the comments section, and I pretty much only | agree with the last sentence. We should probably make more | human-friendly architecture. However, the rest of the article | reeks of eugenics. "Giving input to people who deviate from the | norm harms our society". Ironically, that's actually what was | bad about Le Corbusier, he was an architectural fascist. It | wasn't that his mind processed visual stimuli differently, it's | that he hated the way other people saw things. Here's some | quotes from "The City of Tomorrow": | | "There is only one right angle; but there is an infinityde of | other angles. The right angle, therefore, has superior rights | over other angles; it is unique and it is constant" | | s/right/white/ and s/angle/race/ and you probably have a direct | quote from Hitler. | | "things which come into close contact with the body, are of a | less pure geometry" | | You don't have to go around trying to give fake diagnoses to Le | Corbusier to find where things went wrong. You just have to | listen! | xkcd1963 wrote: | Animals also have eyes and hands, and people of the past were | also traumatized, but did not decide to have buildings without | something expressing features such as eyes and hands (how would | you even) | ArchitectAnon wrote: | Or maybe it's a form of abstract 'high art' like jazz and you | don't understand it. I studied architecture and I understand | how to interpret what these designers were trying to do with | the opportunities provided by the new technology of reinforced | concrete. There was a lot of hubris in the post war period and | a lot of experimental stuff was built. Some examples are poor | designs, some are incredible. | | Here's an example: In the 80's, in London and elsewhere in the | UK, plenty of brutalist towers were demolished and replaced | with more traditional brick two story houses, only for the | residents to realise that they had taken a big downgrade to | smaller darker houses, and were still living in a community | with the same social problems as before that people said would | be fixed by changing the style of architecture. | | Brutalist architecture is a branch of modernism, like jazz and | abstract paintings. Most of it is experimental, some of it is | shit design and sticking plastic ionic columns on it wouldn't | fix it. I don't think you can seriously dismiss the whole genre | as the product of mental illness. | jdm2212 wrote: | That doesn't answer the question of "why did anyone let them | build this crap". Why didn't the non-brain-damaged architects | get to put up buildings? | slim wrote: | That question has an obvious answer : those architects are | better at architecture than normal brain architects. | Architecture is mainly functional, not esthetical | mmcnl wrote: | Citation needed? Architecture is ofcourse esthetical. | mmcnl wrote: | And also the conclusion that modern architecture is literally | the result of brain disorders seems a bit too much. | geoduck14 wrote: | Brutality architecture is _cheap and easy_. It uses minimal | materials: typically concrete and steel, and is simple to | construct for poor people. | psychphysic wrote: | It's a ridiculous premise but as to why let an architect | build how they want? And why do they all look so similar? | | Just fads. Same way web site designs follow trends. | | You can revert a website with some difficulty, good luck | reverting a 5-10 building project! | hgsgm wrote: | There theory is that pretty much everyone in Europe and USA | had PTSD from the Great War. | sofixa wrote: | World War II more so than the Great War. The former | basically destroyed most of Europe, displaced millions and | resulted in the massive collective traumas from | deportations, mass murder, carpet bombing, etc. | | Brutalism really only emerged in the 1940/1950 after WWII. | IshKebab wrote: | How do most buildings reference human features? I don't think | most buildings reference human features at all. Buckingham | palace doesn't have a mouth or eyes. | | You'd have to stretch the meaning of "eye" or "mouth" out so | thin it becomes "opening"... | lucideer wrote: | > _Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so maybe you | think that these buildings are pretty. In that case, good on you. | But I guess there are also a lot of people who find them quite | ugly._ | | > _I often wondered what makes these buildings so ugly and | distressing (unless you like them, I 'm not questioning anyone's | personal taste), and whether there was beauty in them which I am | not capable of seeing, maybe because of my own biases._ | | > _maybe you don 't find [Las Vegas hotels] attractive_ | | > _The Monte Carlo [...] is more orderly and pleasant than the | monster building thanks to its symmetry and some decorative | patterns._ | | > _I am not saying that Las Vegas hotels look beautiful._ | | The author spends a lot of the article telegraphing the fact | their view is subjective and may not gel with others, so | apologies for falling into this trap myself, but... using Vegas | hotels as an aesthetic example to follow really jarred with me. | | This is indeed subjective, but I can't help but feel the author | is in a minority here? No? | ec109685 wrote: | If it wasn't aesthetically pleasing to the majority, I don't | think they would keep employing it. There aren't architectural | requirements on the strip as far as I know that mandate this | style. | ssgodderidge wrote: | I think the author was saying that the order of Vegas is better | than the seemingly disorganized look of those apartment | buildings. I doubt he was trying to argue that Vegas | architecture is the best design possible | sbarre wrote: | Huh I've walked in front of the Bellagio hotel many many times | and I never even thought about this, but it's totally true. | | Those windows are massive but the proportions are deceptive. | Neat. | themodelplumber wrote: | It reminds me of building a simple home or structure in | Minecraft, and then trying out a "build a house" tutorial where | the proportions are completely different. But for good reason, | and the result is pretty legit. | [deleted] | Nifty3929 wrote: | >In a lecture about the universal characteristics of classical | architecture, professor Nathaniel Walker argued that human beings | crave two things: order and variety. If there's too much order, | it's boring and oppressive. If there's too much variety, it's | chaotic and unpleasant. In his view, classical architecture all | over the world aims at creating a "delicate balance between order | and variety." | | It's how 'fractal' things are. There is at least one 3b1b video | about this. I think humans prefer a fractal number of about 1.5 | or so, which is about what nature is. | flakeoil wrote: | " I think humans prefer a fractal number of about 1.5 or so, | which is about what nature is." | | Is it the Golden ratio you refer to maybe (~1.6)? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio | hgsgm wrote: | Humans tend to prever Fractal Dimension 1.3-1.5 (in 2D | imagery) | | https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/2116/1/Pihel_J_110524.pdf | 4gotunameagain wrote: | _Swedish_ humans tend to do so. Might not extrapolate to | the whole world | roywiggins wrote: | Specifically, college students from Malmo University... | skrebbel wrote: | I'm not sure that someone's Bachelor thesis should be given | this much weight. | sclarisse wrote: | No. | supernewton wrote: | Absolutely not. Unless you have a strong _mathematical_ | reason to expect it to show up, instances of the golden ratio | is largely numerology bullshit. | aardvarkr wrote: | ^citation required | crazygringo wrote: | Here are some articles on why the golden ratio having | supposed aesthetic properties is a myth: | | https://eusci.org.uk/2020/07/29/myth-busting-the-golden- | rati... | | https://plus.maths.org/content/myths-maths-golden-ratio | | https://www.fastcompany.com/3044877/the-golden-ratio- | designs... | | So it's more like, citation required for any scientific | evidence it _does_ have unique aesthetic properties. At | the end of the day, it 's just a myth that keeps getting | repeated, not much different from anything else in: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptio | ns | | (Which also mentions the golden ratio in one of its | bullet points.) | finnh wrote: | This reminds me of film "analysis" that shows how the | director keeps creating wonderful triangles between three | points of tension, and our eye naturally finds such | triangles pleasing. | | Neglecting that any three points make a triangle, so this | is basically just saying "a frame with three things in | it". | bee_rider wrote: | On one level there's some intellectual wanking about | triangles, then as you point out any shot with thee | things will have a triangle. I wonder, though, ignoring | any attempts to over-analyze, if three is a nice number | of things to have in a shot. The viewer can only focus on | so many things after all. | | Three is also a sort of especially unspecial number. Zero | things is sort of special in the sense that there's no | concentration of focus (shot of a landscape that just | establishes the environment). If the focus is on one | thing, then that's really drawing a ton of attention to | that thing (camera zooms in on the murder weapon and | lingers). Two things can often be focused on the contrast | between them (the villain towers over the hero). Three is | the lowest number that doesn't have a ton of baggage. | carlob wrote: | Especially so in an exponent... | rattray wrote: | Very interesting. Know of any buildings which embody this well? | ThinkBeat wrote: | Presumably, he means a single window we see is made up of 4-6 | panes and those panes are bigger than a single story | | I am having trouble seeing the 4-6 windows combined from the | photos of the Bellagio. The close up does not help. | | The first mentioned buildings seem brutalist esp. the second one. | It is a form of utilitarian architecture that has great appeal to | me. I think in part because it is rare now. | | I find them far more pleasing to the eye than the giant glass | clad high rises that was the fashion for a long time. I have read | that it is now going out of fashion, but I have not yet seen any | examples locally. | | Wanting to give my dogs new and exciting places to sniff and pee | I try to walk around in different neighborhoods in the area. As | have been doing this for many years now and the unexplored | neighborhoods are getting farther and farther out. | | About two years ago, at random, I found a brutalist single family | dwelling. It is a big house for a single family but it is the | smallest such building I have ever seen, it is beautiful. (to me) | | I truly stands out from all the other nearby houses. I have | visited that area often to take pictures and just look at it. I | would love a chance to see the inside. | | If I had the money and I most certainly do not, id love to live | in a house like that. It would make giving directions a lot | easier as well. | | I wonder if there exists brutalist "tiny homes". That would be | something to behold | | For an explanation of the term brutalist see: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9ton_brut | rmk wrote: | You may like this brutalist church in Palo Alto. | | https://sika.scene7.com/is/image/sika/usa-first-methodist-ch... | number6 wrote: | Meh, to round | rmnwski wrote: | It's not that small but Brandlhuber built a single family | brutalist building fairly recently called Anitvilla: | https://www.archdaily.com/627801/antivilla-brandlhuber-emde-... | pcrh wrote: | Looks great! I would completely dig living in such place. | jq-r wrote: | This looks like a mixture of a building in a war zone and a | house-sized prison. Looks very repulsive to me and I like | brutalism. | throwaway290 wrote: | This is awesome, I didn't know what this style is called. I | love these environments though, they can be paradoxically | cozy. Strategic lighting, right furniture, maybe wooden | elements and it's a dream. | number6 wrote: | I love it, my wife would hate it | kevinmchugh wrote: | I had the same reaction. They staged it to increase the | starkness. If they'd used bright, natural fibers in the | interior it would go a long ways towards making it feel | more livable. | rwmj wrote: | It looks like a building site. | doublesocket wrote: | I struggle to imagine someone actually living there. To me it | looks like an art piece, and perhaps it is only intended as | such. | | The PVC curtains seem particularly icky to me, reminding me | of naff shower curtains and hospitals. | tschumacher wrote: | You might enjoy the movie Columbus (2017). It's a drama about | two people connecting through their passion for architecture | with gorgeous shots of the modernist/brutalist buildings in | Columbus, Indiana. | pimlottc wrote: | > I am having trouble seeing the 4-6 windows combined from the | photos of the Bellagio. The close up does not help. | | You can see it better in this high-res photo from Wikimedia | Commons [0]. Each of the square windows appears to span four | rooms on two floors, while the lower floor rectangular windows | appear to span three floors, making it six rooms. | | 0: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bellagio_hotel.jpg | treis wrote: | Do the windows span multiple floors? | svat wrote: | Yes. A comment on the post points to the TASS building in | Moscow, which nicely illustrates this trick at a smaller | scale: https://discovermoscow.com/en/places/dostoprimechate | lnosti/z... -- at first glance and from a distance it seems | to have four floors. But it has nine, as is clear if you | look more closely or compare nearby buildings (https://uplo | ad.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Moscow_T... is the | same image). | bonsaibilly wrote: | Yeah. What looks like 1 window from the outside is actually | 4 windows for four rooms, two below and two above. The | scale is hard to get a sense of but those subwindows are | quite wide floor-to-ceiling windows in each of those rooms | (at least in Treasure Island's case; I'd assume others are | similar). | | That's why it shrinks the apparent visual scale of the | hotel, which has twice as many floors and twice as many | rooms per floor as it seems from the "window" frames | outside. | ghaff wrote: | A lot of things about the Strip in Vegas, deliberately or | not, really throw your sense of scale off. "Oh it's just | the next hotel over, how far can it be?" A ways it turns | out. | adamm255 wrote: | Totally. "Ah just over there no problem". | | 30 minutes later... | mynameisvlad wrote: | That is the absolute worst. You walk halfway there and it | looks exactly as far away as when you started. | | We watched Penn and Teller at the Rio. You look at a map, | see its a block over from the strip, no problem. You walk | out your hotel room and see the giant Rio sign, totally | fine look how close it is! | | 20 minutes later you stare in horror at the same sign | wondering how it hasn't gotten an inch closer to you. | LorenPechtel wrote: | How are you getting "a block over" from the map? Just | because almost no streets go through there doesn't make | it a block! The strip hotels, especially those on the | west side, are several blocks deep (counting their | parking lots) themselves, then there's a dead zone of the | freeway, then the multiple blocks of the Rio. There's | little room there for practical streets although in most | places there's one street behind the casinos. | derefr wrote: | Is that really how "city blocks" are supposed to be | modelled? AFAIK a "block" is one atomic unit of a | particular _grid_ of city streets -- and a city can have | multiple such grids, with different block sizes. Like a | computer with disks with different block sizes. It 's my | impression that the Las Vegas strip forms its own | distinct grid, with very large blocks. | ghaff wrote: | The point is that someone accustomed to regular city | downtowns is used to ordinary city blocks and hotels that | sit within a block. A quick glance at a map doesn't | really communicate the scale of the casinos on the strip | or the distance you need to walk to get from one to the | other in many cases. | | (It's not all that bad. The Venetian really is more or | less across from the Mirage and Caesar's Palace is then | reasonably close.) | mynameisvlad wrote: | Since when is there a standardized distance for a | "block"? My entire point is that one block (ie. the | distance between two streets perpendicular to the one you | are on) is much larger on the strip than in a regular | city. | | Going down Flamingo, the only intersection between the | Bellagio and the Rio is I15. You could say maybe a block | and a half, but that's still nowhere close to 30 minutes' | walk. | CommieBobDole wrote: | The reason for this is the same reason they employ the | window trick in the headline: the properties on the strip | are enormous, scaled completely outside most people's | day-to-day experience; the Bellagio property, for | instance, covers 77 acres and has just shy of 4000 rooms. | ehnto wrote: | I had the exact opposite experience in really dense | cities funnily, you look at a map and see dozens of | streets between you and where you're going, and it seems | like it's half a city away. In reality it's just a 15 | minute walk. | mynameisvlad wrote: | Yeah, depends on what you're used to. I've grown up in | fairly dense cities so I was not expecting the density of | the strip. | | It doesn't help that there's nothing in between the Rio | and the rest of the strip. I've gone up and down the | strip before and there's at least things to keep you | occupied for those distances. But seeing _nothing_ but | that stupid sign is hell. | rtkwe wrote: | That place was not meant for humans to exist in it. At | least not at the scale it happens right now. | kortilla wrote: | It's not really any different from other places that | require environmental support to make it livable (e.g. | New York). | | The only reason Las Vegas even has water issues is | because of water rights, not anything that makes it | inherently worse than the rest of the southwest. | ehnto wrote: | It's car sized, much of American signage and affordances | are designed to be viewed from your car at speed. | ghaff wrote: | No one is driving down the Las Vegas Strip at speed. | | It's about a certain type of spectacle. | User23 wrote: | I always blow away my step goal in Vegas, and that's even | though I spend at least 4 hours a day at the tables. | Aeolun wrote: | It's quite easy to imagine if you combine the inside | shots for the rooms[1] with the outside one. | | 1: https://bellagio.mgmresorts.com/en/hotel.html | pimlottc wrote: | Yes, it's easier to tell in night time photos: | | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Las_Veg | a... | ziml77 wrote: | Thank you! I couldn't see what the article was telling me | I should from the photo the author used. This photo makes | it very clear how the windows are designed. | EdwardDiego wrote: | That makes it far more obvious, cheers :) | jrochkind1 wrote: | Zoom in on the wikimedia commons high-res one (thanks for | that high res link!), and then look at the balconies in the | middle column of the building. See the door in the balcony? | Each of those four-window blocks is two stories high. Which | means each "pane" is pretty big -- others have said each of | those four-window blocks is actually four hotel rooms. | | The picture in the OP didn't make it totally clear, which | left me wondering too, although I figured that's what they | meant so it must be that way -- the fact that we have to | look so carefully to verify it, I guess shows the success | of the "illusion"! | cratermoon wrote: | Also there's only a balcony every other floor, again | fooling the casual observer into seeing one floor where | there's two. | nvr219 wrote: | Thank you!! | canadianfella wrote: | [dead] | gadders wrote: | You'd love walking round the South Bank of the Thames or the | Barbican in London. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | The most successful Brutalist designs always seem to be | softened with trees, curves, and water - which are the | opposite of bare concrete. | | The South Bank Centre is on the Thames and is decorated with | trees, and the Barbican has a central water feature and | garden. | | They're also fairly opulent on the inside. | | https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Fti. | .. | | Trellick and Balfron Towers have some trees now, but didn't | have much greenery when they originally opened. | | https://designanthologyuk.com/wp- | content/uploads/2019/09/web... | | The order/variety observation is absolutely right, and a core | feature of practical aesthetics across all domains. | Successful aesthetics are a fine balance between surprise and | predictability. Even something as basic as proportion is | based on comprehensible non-random relationships. | | The Wundt Curve describes how too much order and too much | chaos are both unsettling/boring. | | https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/files/8060373/COXj_2017_cr. | .. | vilhelm_s wrote: | Similarly, in recent years people have been talking about | "Tropical Brutalism" (e.g. | https://www.dezeen.com/2022/11/28/architecture-project- | talk-... , https://somethingcurated.com/2019/10/24/the- | evolution-of-tro...), and I think a lot of what is | appealing about it is the contrast between bare concrete | and lush greenery. | twic wrote: | That combination is also extremely Bond villain, and who | doesn't dream of being a Bond villain? | ehnto wrote: | It's a great point. Singapore and Japanese cities can be | built quite raw and oppressive because of the wild density, | but in both nature is snuck into every nook and cranny. In | Singapore it has been a strong architectural design choice, | and in Japan it's the cumulative actions of everyone | putting pot plants all over the place and leaving "weeds" | and moss to grow through on fences and walls. | msrenee wrote: | So I know that pot plants is the term outside of the US | for potted plants. Pot plant here means marijuana and I'm | dying at the idea of Japanese apartments being covered, | inside and out, with various strains of cannabis. I'd | like to imagine there's dwarf varieties, lovingly shaped | and maintained in the corners of the living space. | kevinmchugh wrote: | I'm reminded of Habitat 67, which looks like a utopian | future in most pictures with greenery: https://s3-ca- | central-1.amazonaws.com/building-ca/wp-content... | | And like shipping containers stacked haphazardly in | pictures taken in the winter: https://upload.wikimedia.org/ | wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Ha... | pledg wrote: | As a resident of the Barbican, it is part of our lease that | we maintain plants on the balcony. This significantly | softens the exterior and adds variety the linked article | discusses. | | Coincidentally the fountains were fixed yesterday after | years of being turned off. | rogy wrote: | living the dream! | hasbot wrote: | Would you share a picture of this brutalist house? | nemo44x wrote: | Winston Churchill famously said, "We shape our buildings, and | afterwards our buildings shape us." | | I agree with this and believe we should make beautiful | structures. I'm not sure much architecture since the 1950s in | the west really does this. Modernism was the last consistently | great style imo. Post Modern styles just seem so temporary and | self indulgent which I suppose reflects our time. | rasz wrote: | "The ideologists of socialist realism understood perfectly | well the role played by architecture in the creation of human | consciousness; they realised that the right architectural | 'setting' can influence one's way of life and perception of | reality." | | https://culture.pl/en/article/polands-surprising- | socialist-r... | apocalypstyx wrote: | "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make | a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth | belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it | then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their | usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and | consequently may govern them as they please." | | --Thomas Jefferson | makeitdouble wrote: | Churchill in that quote was making an argument to rebuild the | House of Commons exactly as it was before getting destructed, | rejecting new ideas. | | If anything, I think the 50s architecture opened the door to | new ideas, helped us see what works and what doesn't. Villa | Savoye is a bit from before the 50s, but it basically feels | like it could be built today it wouldn't be out of place in | any bit. | | TBH I'm glad the 50s architects opened the future instead of | clinging to the past. | cassepipe wrote: | I see how brutalist architecture may be endearing because it | looks so dated, like retrofuturistic imagery usually does. But | take a a moment at imagining a city where most buildings are | really high slabs of grey concrete darkened by damp and | pollution and try not to feel depressed. That kind of | architecture was born from the need to build fast and cheap in | order to avoid slums. Architects who embraced those projects | invented it a style and aura. | kevinmchugh wrote: | Any city with a single aesthetic feels oppressive to me. | Design needs to serve people, not vice versa. | ec109685 wrote: | I am surprised brutalist became popular. Concrete ends up | really weathered over time and to me you end up with drab and | dingy looking buildings after a while: "oh that building is | from the 70s". | | I guess there were practical reasons in the beginning to not | focus on adding additional finishes? | ren_engineer wrote: | >I am surprised brutalist became popular | | it never was popular, it wasn't an organic movement. It was | pushed by the Soviets and those sympathetic to them in | Western governments and academia who used tax payer money to | construct hideous buildings | jdgoesmarching wrote: | I'm not sure why you're framing an effort to construct a | ton of housing as efficiently as possible as some spooky | Soviet conspiracy. Maybe governments and academia were just | sympathetic to the idea of using that tax payer money on | cheaper buildings, would you prefer they pay more to suit | different aesthetic tastes? | | Tangentially, speaking of non-organic movements, the | history of the CIA funding abstract expressionist art in | the Cold War to serve as a foil to Soviet realism is | fascinating. Arguably there are echoes of those influences | in this conversation. | pkd wrote: | I don't think so. Initial Soviet architecture wasn't | brutalist. Stalinist architecture was in fact very | classical inspired. You can see that in the seven sisters | buildings in Moscow. Even the late Soviet era blocks were | not brutalist. That style came up in the UK and was more | popular in the Western world than outside of it. | | Brutalism like all other styles is a mixture of the | requirements of the time and a response to the culture at | the time. The building features the original article is | railing against is simply poor design. A poorly designed | classical inspired building will look exactly as bad. | vidarh wrote: | Le Corbusier tried pushing his designs on the Soviet Union, | and Stalin rejected it in favour of a far more ornamental | style. | | The push towards stripping back ornamentation gained | traction in the west long before the time Khrushchev was | able to push for this in Soviet construction. | lmm wrote: | My pet theory is that it became popular in an era where | buildings were judged by black-and-white photographs of them. | In real life bare concrete is drab and grey - but in a black- | and-white photograph textured concrete is one of the more | interesting surfaces to look at. | twelvechairs wrote: | The whole point of brutalism was that Concrete _doesn 't_ | wear much over time. A high pressure hose will remove | 'weathering' of concrete buildings very effectively and | cheaply. I think your problem arises not from concrete but | from these buildings often being public (including public | housing) and having shoestring maintenance budgets. You spend | the same to maintain most other materials and they will have | fallen down by now, or at least parts of them would. | | A good example of one where they did care a lot about the | finish and its lasting finish is the Barbican in London - | there's a little about it here [0] | | [0] https://www.barbicanliving.co.uk/barbican- | story/construction... | makeitdouble wrote: | I think our tastes just changed. | | It's like vinyl floors, it was the rage at some point and | people really valued them. Or heavily decorated wallpapers. | So many of that stuff is just considered fugly now. | brewdad wrote: | The functionality of vinyl is making a comeback, we just | make them look like wood now. | omnimus wrote: | which is the most terrible, fake and cheap looking way | how to bring it back | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | My understanding is Brutalism arose when building codes still | had limits on window size and proportion of glass vs other | materials on the facades of large buildings. This prevented | the glass curtain towers that became popular later until | codes changed. | | Brutalism embraced this constraint as well as the most | expedient materials for building skyscrapers. Intellectually | and aesthetically I like this choice of honesty in reflecting | materials personally. | | Where Brutalism failed is similar to other grand modernist | projects: it failed to engage properly at the human scale, | creating environments that look striking, but that also read | to most people as cold and alienating. In practical terms | this sort of grand architecture usually fails to anticipate | how humans will actually use the spaces, leading to spaces | that are opposed to humans organic behaviors. | | All that said, when Brutalism is tempered with empathy, and | combined with interior design that both features and softens | its starkness, I quite like it. The old library in my home | town was brutalist. | | This is the exterior: https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.8b7a56ab55f | bd5227b8d5c04be176e56... | | Unfortunately there's no photos online of the old interior, | but it did a good job of humanizing the starkness. | | On the other hand, the exterior also showed the flaws of | brutalism, having wide empty featureless grass plains that I | never once saw anyone use for relaxation, a picnic, etc, in | two decades of living in that town. | beardyw wrote: | It was a design choice to celebrate the material being used - | concrete. I think only architects ever really loved them. | kasey_junk wrote: | I'm a huge fan of brutalist architecture and am not ann | architect. | | I live in a brutalist townhome and it exemplifies the | things I love about the style, lack of ornamentation, | function over form, yet scaled and appropriate to its | location. | | The simplicity and usefulness of the house lends it as much | elegance as it needs. | [deleted] | hgsgm wrote: | It's the _appearance_ of function over form. That 's why | USSR used it as propaganda. Concrete is terrible surface | material because it is impossible to maintain and repair. | vidarh wrote: | The USSR used it as a cheap means of trying to meet a | massive housing shortage first and foremost. | | It abandoned the far more ornamental Stalinist style for | brutalism as part of Khrushchev's push for that. | | Note the far more ostentatious buildings under Stalin | _and_ Stalin 's rejection of Le Corbusiers extremely | radical proposals for redevelopment of Moscow in favour | of far more traditional designs. | | To the extent it was later used as propaganda, that was a | follow on effect once stagnation forced doubling down on | construction that had initially been intended as | relatively short term cheap housing. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | No. The concretes function may not be optimal, but it is | there to hold the building up, to form the walls, to | provide conduits for people and services, etc. | | It is not a facade, it is not cladding, it is the | functional building its-very-self. | | Brutalist buildings celebrate their exoskeletons. | cloutchaser wrote: | I wonder if we will feel the same about "minimal" design in | the future. I really don't see anything beautiful about a | white box with black windows, yet architects seem obsessed | with it. | | Probably because it's called good design yet it's almost | the cheapest possible design outwards. Convenient. But I | think in 30 years we will facepalm at these white boxes we | call houses. | ehnto wrote: | These things often oscillate around certain aspects. We | bounce between ornate and simple over history for | example. Minimalism is handy because it's a cheap and | hard to mess it up. Like pop music. | | Look at McMansions, which is a cohort of styles that are | much easier to get wrong, and there are many objectively | bad homes. But for minimalism, the worst you can often | say is it's boring. Correct, but boring. | LarryMullins wrote: | It was made to be ugly by people so traumatized by war that | they no longer believed in beauty. | parenthesis wrote: | Stone also gets really grubby over time, but for some reason | that still looks okay but the concrete doesn't so much. | 2h wrote: | FYI dont need to escape, you can use IRI: | | https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Beton_brut | O__________O wrote: | Here's site showing closeup of the four pane panel window: | | http://www.vegastodayandtomorrow.com/windows.htm | listenallyall wrote: | It would appear the linked article plagiarized from this site | (vegastodayandtomorrow). I mean, the concept of "window | trick" and every hotel used as an example, is identified | first right here. | yencabulator wrote: | The site linked therein shows this even better. In the third | photo, compare the building on the foreground vs background. | | http://www.vegastodayandtomorrow.com/dunes_bellagio.htm | paulkrush wrote: | Wow, that is money pic, showing was looks to be two | different scale buildings. | [deleted] | dmalvarado wrote: | > In order to make the buildings look smaller, less intimidating | and messy, architects have come up with a "four or six windows in | one" solution. | | Is there a source for this assumption? "Architects have come up | with..." makes it sound like there was an explicit discussion | about how to make the building look smaller. A) Why would a Vegas | hotel want to look smaller, B) Does it actually look smaller? C) | Smaller than what? A building with no windows? A building with | too many windows? | | I'm not suggesting Architects are getting too much credit. I'm | just suggesting, maybe the monster building had a terrible | architect(s), and the Vegas buildings didn't use terrible | architects. | ec109685 wrote: | Architecture is a discipline and has design patterns that are | shared in the industry. They are inventing techniques for each | new building they design. | | This particular pattern is known: | http://www.vegastodayandtomorrow.com/windows.htm | aflag wrote: | Brutalism was popular in the 60s. You can see examples around | the world. It's not really a matter of being a bad or good | architect. It's more of architectural style preferences. | ec109685 wrote: | There's a trope that Vegas doesn't allow its windows to open / | have balconies because they are afraid of suicides. Is it instead | in practical to have windows that open when employing the window | trick? | personjerry wrote: | Related to the Hong Kong building: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City | phantomathkg wrote: | Disclaimer: I am Hongkonger. | | The one mentioned in the blog is this one | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Building | fullshark wrote: | Very cool setting for Shenmue 2 and Bloodsport | adrianh wrote: | On the other end of the spectrum: here in Amsterdam some of the | canal houses deliberately use smaller windows for the top floors, | to give the impression that the homes are taller (and more | prestigious). | | The way it was explained to me is that it's an optical illusion | when viewing the homes from street level. A 17th century window | trick. :-) | dguest wrote: | Good on the author for acknowledging (twice) that not everyone | shares their sense of aesthetics. | | Personally I think there's a beautiful chaotic honesty in the | monster building. The Vegas hotels look phony, even more so now | that I know their trick. | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | The HK buildings feel dystopian by Western standards because | they're incredibly crammed. By local standard, they might | actually be pretty good (looks like each unit gets pretty large | windows/"indoor balcony" style rooms). | chitza wrote: | I live in Romania. 90% of the buildings sport this brutalist | look, not to mention there are rows after rows having the same | design. You get bored and depressed very quickly if you live in | such environment. I'm always amazed at the diversity of the | facades when I visit other european cities. | atomicUpdate wrote: | > Good on the author for acknowledging (twice) that not | everyone shares their sense of aesthetics. | | I disagree. For example: | | > unless you like them, I'm not questioning anyone's personal | taste | | This type of soft-pedaling is too pervasive in people's writing | nowadays. It diminishes the author's point when they are too | afraid to commit to their own opinions because they might | offend someone that disagrees. This constant affirmation of | "you might disagree, and that's OK," is irritating. | goguy wrote: | Totally agree. It's a blog post, obviously it's your personal | opinion and there's no need to explain nor excuse that. | trgn wrote: | It's unnecessary in this article agreed. The author has an | obvious preference, just own it already. | | Being tolerant is a virtue, but practice this by action, in | life. | | When writing a polemic, say what you mean! If anything, amp | it up a little. Hyperbole and saturation is great when | discussing matters of taste. | | If you're going to critique architecture, you have the best | examples. Just channel some Loos who ridiculed those in favor | of ornamentation for being childish uncivilized country | idiots. Had great effect, we're still living in its detritus. | So just do the opposite here! | typedfalse wrote: | The opposite (that it's not OK to disagree) is one of the | things that has driven political and social discourse to its | current hyperbolic and occasionally dangerous character. It's | the source of much of the so-called "culture war". | | So to be clear: I disagree, you are wrong... and to follow | the mindset underlying your complaint, "fuck you". | timeon wrote: | Whit Bellagio there is too much order because of symmetry if you | compare it with playfulness of Unite d'Habitation. | docandrew wrote: | By doing this, they make the casinos seem closer, easier to walk | to, and more inviting. | nemo44x wrote: | The first time I went to Vegas I decided a casino I wanted to | go to wasn't that far away from where I was. You could see it, | it looked "just over there". | | Turns out I walked over a mile in the desert sun. Taxis and | that rail after that. | fosk wrote: | Tricks me every time. Also the hotel name signage is | disproportionately huge, which from a distance make it seems | like the hotel is close enough for a walk, but turns out it | is not. | lucideer wrote: | Given how pedestrian unfriendly the Strip is, it surprises me | that you even managed this at all. | | On the other hand, I was also surprised how much better | public transit seemed in vegas than in most us cities. | LorenPechtel wrote: | Are you calling it unfriendly because it's set up to make | jaywalking hard? We got tired of drunk tourists getting | creamed because they wandered into traffic. And the crowds | are heavy enough that turning across a pedestrian flow is | problematic in peak hours. Thus it has been engineered to | as much as possible separate pedestrians from cars. | lucideer wrote: | I'm calling it unfriendly because it's a highway cutting | through an area fully suited to being entirely | pedestrianised. You can't even drive to the front of | casinos (they have car park entrances at the back), yet | the vast majority of real estate outside them is given up | to traffic lanes, with precious little left to the people | wandering around them spending. | | There isn't even that much traffic on the strip, the | road-to-footpath ratio of land allpocation is absurd. | | It's unfriendly because you have to walk so damn far to | get around lanes that have little business existing in | the first place. | aflag wrote: | That makes sense. Lots of tourists there who travelled by | plane and may not know how to drive or be unwilling to rent | a car. The casinos would still like these people to drop by | though | nasmorn wrote: | Also people get drunk a lot in Vegas and casinos | encourage it. | allenu wrote: | I had the same experience when I went to Vegas for the first | time. I wanted to walk from building to building but they all | felt so much further away than they appeared. It never | occurred to me it was because of this bit of visual trickery. | anileated wrote: | I can see how these tricks could be used to attract a certain | kind of person (and repeal people like me) but fail to notice | some inherent appeal in this design. We can all agree that | monster buildings are suboptimal in general, buildings with | smaller footprint on the ground tend to feel nicer, but if a | monster is the only way I know which kind I prefer. | | Give me Hong Kong style architecture, with its visible age and | protruding A/C units, over Las Vegas style any day. The first one | is functional and alive, the other is shallow, excessive and | dead. | | European brutalist buildings also look attractive to me (alas, | mostly seen on photos). Beauty comes from function, and brutalism | gives that function a little bit of form but doesn't let it | prevail. | | FWIW the author mentions that it's the matter of taste. The rest | of the article just made no sense to me. | ilamont wrote: | I lived in Asia in the 1990s and was close friends with several | local and international architects working on residential | buildings which often had commercial space on the ground floor. | | One common complaint was their models and drawings never ended up | looking like the result because the developer would add features | (one example: a parking garage which required a large ramp) and | commercial tenants would add hanging signage. Residents typically | used balconies for drying laundry, not the flower gardens shown | in the drawings. Almost everyone used frosted windows, not clear | windows, because outside views of other buildings or the | surrounding landscape were not valued - it was all about the | interior amenities. | btucker wrote: | It's a bit like the forced perspective techniques Disney uses to | accomplish the inverse: make small buildings seem bigger. | | Explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqefjmRVLTM | a4isms wrote: | _In a lecture about the universal characteristics of classical | architecture, professor Nathaniel Walker argued that human beings | crave two things: order and variety. If there 's too much order, | it's boring and oppressive. If there's too much variety, it's | chaotic and unpleasant. In his view, classical architecture all | over the world aims at creating a "delicate balance between order | and variety."_ | | Jazz educator Jerry Coker made the same point about music, that | to be pleasurable it must strike the right balance between | familiarity and novelty. A metaphor for "familiar" and "novel" in | music is to imagine that as we listen, we are "playing along in | our head." | | When we are correct about where the music is going next, it feels | familiar. When we are surprised by it doing something else, we | find it novel. | | Jazz that is too familiar is boring, we never are surprised, it | never pushes our brain to rewire itself to accept "the new | familiar." Jazz that is too novel sounds like a chaotic mess: We | cannot learn to predict it because its novelty is not built on | top of a base of familiarity we can work with. | | The key insight that builds on top of this is that "familiar" and | "novel" are not absolutes: They vary from person to person based | on their tastes and experiences. This leads to the notion of | _progression_. | | When you find music that has the right balance for you, after a | while what used to be novel becomes familiar, and your tastes | evolve to appreciate music that adds novelty to the music you | used to find balanced, but now find overly familiar. Your tastes | are evolving, as most people's tastes do. | | It's never quite as cut-and-dry as that, but this notion of "a | balance between familiar and novel" seems to fit a lot of | aesthetic tastes, and the notion that to maintain that balance, | people's tastes evolve over time also seems to fit a lot of | people's experiences. | | The challenge is that as a practitioner, your personal tastes may | go beyond the tastes of your audience. So either you must bring | them along to where you are, create for them but not entirely for | yourself, or find an audience who is in roughly the same place in | their journey and will delight in the new experiences you | discover for yourself. | | I am personally lazy, so as a blogger I always wrote for myself | and let the internet sort out who would find my stuff about | programming too familiar to be interesting, who would find it to | avant-garde to be interesting, and who found it familiar enough | to be understandable, yet novel enough to be interesting. | | Alas, buildings aren't blog posts or pieces of music. When | building them, you can't always leave it up to the world to sort | out who likes them and who doesn't, you usually have a specific | brief to satisfy a specific audience and society, and you should | design for where their tastes are. | | p.s. And yes, this does apply to software design for those who | take aesthetic pleasure in the code itself. | dehrmann wrote: | I wonder if one reason classical music seems unapproachable is | it's hard to pick out patterns in a lot of pieces. The one | classical piece people regularly ask to hear is a 20th century | arrangement of Canon in D, and it's a single chord progression | with new embellishments getting added to it. Compare that to | something like Beethoven's 5th which feels more like a | meandering story. | a4isms wrote: | Classical itself has progressed, because the composers who | grow up listening to it in any one generation get familiar | with what has been done so far, and then inject novelty into | it to satisfy their own tastes. | | Repeat every twenty years over centuries, and you find that | the older pieces are the most approachable for most people, | while the newer pieces are the least. | | But... If you listen to classical music and follow the | historical progression along, you end up enjoying the newer | stuff. | | Our tastes are elastic. If you don't enjoy Beethoven today, | you may find that by following the historical progression | along, you may enjoy it next year. | [deleted] | antognini wrote: | There is a famous article written by the 20th century | composer Milton Babbitt titled something to the effect of | "Who cares if you listen?" He was unapologetic about writing | music that was only comprehensible to other composers. He | made the argument that we don't expect the layman to | understand modern mathematics or physics. Why should we | expect the layman to understand modern music either? | golemiprague wrote: | [dead] | alfor wrote: | They look oppressive because they are. Our perception is right, | the buildings are wrong. | | What they mean is that someone is at the head of a structure that | house thousand of people, putting the the person living there far | from any impact on the whole. | | The tribe size for humans in around 100 people. Naturally a | building that house 1000 of people is not human sized in it's | management or living organisation. | | The solution is not to fake the facade to trick our visual | perception, it's pushing the problem away instead of fixing it. | cat_plus_plus wrote: | I want to live in the building, not look at it and as such I want | a balcony, a window that opens and an individual A/C unit that | can deliver a strong blast next to my bed on summer nights. If it | looks ugly from outside, who cares, make it up with a pretty, | clean and safe street with shops and restaurants nearby. | joecasson wrote: | What you prefer to live in is not the point of the article. | It's about why some large, many unit buildings appear imposing | / overwhelming while others less so. | cat_plus_plus wrote: | Downtown Pyongyang also looks beautiful, yet I think that | prioritizing needs of the residents is beautiful in the most | important way. Taipei street markets are messy. That's the | best food I ever had. | exegete wrote: | That idea works until you have several such buildings near you | and you get to go out on your balcony and see an ugly building | everyday. | captainmuon wrote: | Interesting, I would say those buildings in HK don't have too | much order and variety, but too little. There is no order, the | facade is completely chaotic, but there is also no variety, it is | all same-same in its brutalist housing style. But I guess that | amounts to the same. | | Regarding the window trick, I think I've seen something similar | with very old or maybe neoclassical buildings in the US. They had | a whole fake storey between the first and second to make the | building look taller - or maybe they merged the first and second | floor to make it look smaller? I'm not sure and can't find the | link where I read this, but it is a very similar and really cool | effect. | adolph wrote: | The De Bakey VA Hospital in Houston TX does something similar | except that the extra floors are windowless. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._DeBakey_Veterans_Af... | arboles wrote: | [flagged] | metisto wrote: | Am I missing a joke? Or is this a reference to something? Could | you please explain it in more detail. | thedougd wrote: | In poor taste. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting | gardenhedge wrote: | I don't see the 'trick'. The buildings still look massive to me. | wodenokoto wrote: | Dubai is full of absolutely massive residential houses, with | Princess tower [1] being the tallest residential building in the | world (well, strictly speaking 432 Park Avenue is taller, but it | doesn't have all it's stories filled in) but very few buildings | here uses the window trick (I'd say The Address Beach Resort | does) | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Tower | a_t48 wrote: | I can't be the only one who hates 432 Park - not because of the | windows, but because of the impossible shape. It just looks | like it shouldn't exist. | brookst wrote: | I love it for that reason. Most things look like they exist, | it's cool to see one that doesn't. | hammock wrote: | In a condo building, each unit owns their own windows and is | responsible for replacement, etc. So grouping windows across | multiple floors works for hotels and commercial buildings, but it | does not work for residential condos | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Another Las Vegas Window Trick is to prevent any natural light on | the casino floors. The gambler has no sense of time of day | without looking at a clock, but that's not the same as feeling | "oh, it's almost dawn" by looking at the daylight. | dghughes wrote: | Not if you live in a northern climate dawn in the winter is 8am | at its worst and sunset can be as early as 4pm. | | I worked in a small casino and we had a huge front window that | you could see south eastward. But yes I'm sure some some people | lose track of time it's human nature. | achairapart wrote: | The best "dark pattern" trick from Las Vegas casinos may be to | start pumping pure oxygen thru A/C around midnight, so guests | would get some "high" boost, keeping them gambling harder and | tirelessly all night long. | | I read about this many years ago in "Fools Die" by Mario Puzo, | which of course is fiction, but I think there may be some truth | in there (One of the characters in the book is mostly based on | the author himself). | | Edit. Found an original quote from the book: | Gronevelt was dressed to go down to the casino floor. He | fiddled with the control panel that would flood the casino pits | with pure oxygen. But it was still too early in the evening. He | would push the button sometime in the early-morning hours when | the players were tiring and thinking of going to bed. Then he | would revive them as if they were puppets. It was only in the | past year that be had the oxygen controls wired directly to his | suite. | Kranar wrote: | Casinos do not now nor have they ever pumped oxygen into | their buildings. It's nothing more than a myth. | hammock wrote: | This is true, however may be worth noting that I'm sure | they (along with many large commercial buildings non- | specific to casinos) control the carbon dioxide levels | inside, and increase air exchange with the outside when | necessary. | | High carbon dioxide levels do have a lethargic effect | triceratops wrote: | > One of the characters in the book is mostly based on the | author himself | | Fun fact: Puzo had a serious gambling problem. He did most of | his research for _The Godfather_ while gambling in a Las | Vegas casino (or several?) and interviewing the manager. | cat_plus_plus wrote: | Building fires would sure be exciting! | achairapart wrote: | Ah! I don't think they need so much oxygen to be a fire | hazard. People would start acting crazy, at least. | | I also wonder if they use to do the same - to some extend - | in trains and airplanes, I always feel quite relaxed while | traveling by them. | jesvs wrote: | Lost count of mall visits where glass ceilings bask in morning | light, only to leave hours later to a dark sky. The capitalist | secret: hiding the day-night transition from customers. | LorenPechtel wrote: | Malls don't have a hotel on top, they can use skylights. In | most places casinos have something above the gambling areas-- | either hotel or meeting rooms (or, in some cases, meeting | rooms and then hotel above them.) Unless you have some | business with the meeting rooms you're likely to not realize | they are there. | | There are also some casinos where there are restaurants above | the gambling areas. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | But they don't have to be built that way. It's a choice | that shows natural light is not a priority. | brewdad wrote: | Of course not. Being able to fit 3000 rooms above the | casino is the priority. | donatj wrote: | I have always heard this, but I suspect it's less of an | intentional trick and more just a happy accident of how large | Vegas gambling floors are. Even if the buildings were wrapped | in floor to ceiling windows natural light would only penetrate | the first couple rows of slots. | | The Mirage in particular actually has a pretty large skylight | towards the front of the gambling floor. | ghaff wrote: | There's a lot of psychological stuff going on with the casino | floors but I'm not sure how you'd design a massive ground | floor room in a way that there would be a lot of natural | light. And it would actually be user-hostile (and, yes, | doubtless business hostile) to spread the casino across a lot | of floors. | toast0 wrote: | I've seen (but not entered) casinos in office towers. I | imagine you have the sea of slot machines on the first | floor or two, and then table games and high roller rooms on | the upper floors. | | For a las vegas style ginormous casino and hotel, many of | them have the casino footprint much larger than the hotel | footprint. You could have big diffused skylights over much | of the gaming area, if you wanted. Of course, you'd | augement that with lots of artificial lighting, so it would | save energy, but not change the experience of roughly | constant lighting 24/7 | loopdoend wrote: | Skylights | ghaff wrote: | I thought about that after I wrote the comment although a | lot of the time there's convention center and other | expansive spaces above the casino. | bee_rider wrote: | Works for the floor that is under the roof. | hammock wrote: | Internal courtyards is how you add light and air | circulation to a large floor plan, typically | rambambram wrote: | I worked at a casino (albeit different country) and I was | always told this is on purpose. My casino also didn't have | windows, and there were no clocks. And the very busy patterns | on the carpet are made like that so visitors don't look down | and keep staring at their slot machines. | LorenPechtel wrote: | The lack of clocks is deliberate, I think the natural light | is simply a case of it not being practical to allow it. | Furthermore, the space around the gambling areas is used | for various business purposes, both to get gamblers to see | the businesses and to get people to walk past the machines | to go to the businesses. To put in windows would be to give | up prime areas. | smallstepforman wrote: | Some gaming jurisdictions mandate that slot machines must | display the time in a font at least 7mm tall. | meeks wrote: | Wedbush Center in LA is another classic example of this trick. | <https://www.wedbushcenterla.com/> | userabchn wrote: | The opposite is done in other buildings, such as MIT's Simmons | Hall, where the building can look bigger than it actually is | because each room has multiple windows: | https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Simmons_Hall,_MIT,_C... | hanspeter wrote: | A similar effect is seen with this office building in | Copenhagen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier47 | rmetzler wrote: | The German Democratic Republik (East Germany) had the problem of | needing housing for many thousand people in the 1970s. It was not | possible to build enough flats. The only way they could scale up | their efforts was through standardisation. Berlin Marzahn and | other areas were villages back than. The Marzahn Village for | example still exists today. | | https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wohnungsbauprogramm_(DDR) | | People wanted individualisation, but the housing was needed. So | they put color in their balconies, which made them look like | color patches. And there existed big murals on the ends of some | houses. | | After reunification, a lot of these buildings were modernised and | made look the same again. Only the color scheme between houses | was different. Existing murals were often painted over. People | then realised, it does look nicer to have coloured walls and they | start to let artists paint the ends again. | | Here is an example by the East German artist Mad C | | https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Berlin_Mural_Fest_2019_M... | | Here is a video of Team Mad Flava, painting a large mural in | Greifswald. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q0vMB5k71c | nottorp wrote: | > People then realised, it does look nicer to have coloured | walls and they start to let artists paint the ends again. | | I really don't understand how people can enjoy the "us | homeowner association" uniformity. It's boring. Let everyone | personalize their home. | sssilver wrote: | A similar trick that car designers use to make a car appear | smaller are large headlights in relation to the rest of the car. | | Mini does this very effectively. | Maursault wrote: | Muse Hall[0] at Radford University in Radford VA also uses a | window trick, except to make the building look much taller than | it is. When standing close to it, the facade is reasonably | effective. | | [0] https://twitter.com/radfordu/status/1364225065974333446 | twic wrote: | Looks to me like it should have pigeons living in it: | https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/pigeons-tower | sollewitt wrote: | This can also be understood via Gestalt principle of visual | processing - we visually group things that are proximal, we like | to perceive continuity, we see parallel things as being related | etc: https://www.superside.com/blog/gestalt-principles-of-design | | Visual designers are architects are trained in these aspects of | human perception. | Miserlou57 wrote: | I think a really good example of this is the Abraj Al Bait in | Saudi Arabia. The complex is absolutely massive, but the large | windows on many of the peripheral buildings are deceiving. The | entire thing is 2-4x bigger than it appears. It's bonkers. | htag wrote: | I think the author missing the biggest reason for these styling | differences. This is their function. A long term dwelling serves | a different function than a hotel. All of the residential | buildings have more personalization on the outside of the | building than hotels allow. I'd also like to add that the shown | residential homes show much more wear and age than the hotels do, | making it hard to do a side by side comparison. | | I'm always driven towards residential areas where the personality | and style of the owner comes out in the property. In the US many | suburban HOAs, apartment management and condo boards will put | arbitrary limits on the appearance of the outside of the home. I | can't stand the single family neighborhoods where all the homes | were build at the same time, with the same builders, in the same | style. In my neighborhood lots are of varying sizes, homes are | built in a ~fifteen year span with different styles, and there is | no hoa. | | Condo buildings can generate the same level of sameness if | several of them are built in the same neighborhood around the | same time, with similar style, and enforce strict limitations on | outside visual appearance. We see this a lot in the US when an | area is "upzonned" and developers flock to build "luxury" | apartments and condos. I prefer buildings where residents put | furniture on balconies, hang decorations from their window, grow | plants outside, and have blinds open displaying rooms styled | differently than their neighbors. I prefer living in urban | neighborhoods where the buildings are of varying ages and show | different architectural styles. | | Hotels can do enforce a very high level of uniformity. | Additionally the amenities, furnishing, styling, and art are very | much at the whim of current styles. This increases the "order" | and decreases the "chaos". The order comes from function, and I | wouldn't want to live in a hotel like environment. | chimeracoder wrote: | > I think the author missing the biggest reason for these | styling differences. This is their function. A long term | dwelling serves a different function than a hotel. All of the | residential buildings have more personalization on the outside | of the building than hotels allow. I'd also like to add that | the shown residential homes show much more wear and age than | the hotels do, making it hard to do a side by side comparison. | | Yeah I'm surprised nobody else mentioned this. The residential | buildings have window AC units and people hanging laundry on | their balconies to dry, two things you'll never see at modern | hotels (the ones pictured don't even have balconies). | | There's no apples to apples comparison happening here. | gregoriol wrote: | Love those archtectural tricks! | | One I enjoy to look at here in Paris is this building: | https://maps.app.goo.gl/VrMNy4RkZPyFE1SC8?g_st=ic It looks like | it is tilted, but it really has a square shape, just the vertical | beige columns on each floor are placed slightly off from the | other floor, and that makes the effect | twic wrote: | There's a building in London that i find genuinely unsettling | to look at - it looks like perspective has got messed up | somehow: | | https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5264997,-0.0879055,3a,75y,... | | https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/M_by_Montcalm | | It's basically opposite an eye hospital, so it's probably given | some people nasty post-operative surprises. | coding123 wrote: | You can't really compare hotels that are serviced to make the | inside identical, and therefore the outside looks as if the | building went up. The Chinese apartments are not hotels so each | owner is changing things so the outside looks different in each | night time lit window | bee_rider wrote: | I dunno, the more chaotic buildings really emphasize that there's | a person living in each one. That can be neat to think about. | Somebody's whole home life lives in each of those tiny windows. | | It is interesting that people tend to take photos of the Las | Vegas hotels that emphasize the visual effect that makes them | look smaller, while they tend to shoot these apartment towers in | a way that makes them look looming and overwhelming. It is just a | matter of framing though, the apartments are shot from much | closer up. | | And there's also the aspect of the building maintenance. I | suspect the hotels just bring in more money per day and get more | aesthetic touch ups on the outside. Apartment and condo building | sometimes look a little grimy just because they don't get painted | every year or whatever. | hliyan wrote: | It seems human beings have certain levels of texture detail that | we find aesthetic. Any more or less, and we find it unappealing. | I first realised this when I noticed that fictional spacecraft | look appealing when they have a certain amount of exterior detail | or "knurling". I also find trees with smaller leaves (e.g. Banyan | trees) more calming to look at than those with large leaves. I | suspect both phenomena are related. | hug wrote: | The word for one of those small surface details is a "greeble", | and the process of adding that visual interest is known as | greebling. | lioeters wrote: | > The term "greeblies" was first used by effects artists at | Industrial Light & Magic in the 1970s to refer to small | details added to models. According to model designer and | fabricator Adam Savage, George Lucas, Industrial Light & | Magic's founder, coined the term "Greeble". | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeble | mach1ne wrote: | Probably related to the more general notion of boring stuff and | too dense stuff. It is as if brains optimize towards a certain | percentage of surprise in their stimuli. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-01-29 23:00 UTC)