I’m often struck by buildings with safety measures that have clearly been added on later, e.g., railings, fences, etc. Like this view from a proposed observation deck on the Chrysler building: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19989364/Screen_Shot_2020_05_20_at_11.07.25_AM.png (from https://ny.curbed.com/2020/5/20/21264740/chrysler-building-new-observation-deck)
Even the original railing itself looks like it was an afterthought. Why would the original designer think that a knee-height wall was a sufficient safety measure for a terrace?
In: 15
in some cases it’s people not knowing better or areas not being intended to be accessed, like the others said, but that’s far from the only explanation
some architects are simply obsessed with themselves, and anything that doesn’t fit their “vision” is cut. if safety rails don’t look good, there won’t be any safety rails. if a curved glass front reflects the sunlight in a way that melts cars and starts fires, [so be it!](https://gizmodo.com/a-brief-history-of-buildings-that-melt-things-1247657178) then it’s just a matter of convincing someone to actually build it. “luckily” a lot of investors don’t know much about buildings or safety, so just make the presentation flashy enough and it’s done
sometimes it’s also the investors who pressure the architect to leave out safety features, because they also put form over function or because they want to cut corners to save money
Latest Answers