Dear Jeanan:

I feel better, on an aesthetic level and with regards to a sense of security, with a design that instills a feeling of stability, especially when its geometry is based on harmonious proportions. Unlike Miguel, whose point of view I understand and respect, I prefer peaceful, zen-like states to adrenalin-fueled excitement. I would choose a quiet, contemplative walk in a forest over whitewater rafting or bungee jumping, for example.

I recently designed a house with the aid of my daughter, who is an architect. The initial inspiration came from a dream I had of a piece of land we had acquired as an investment, in which the geometry of the lot fragmented and the pieces spun and combined to form two greek crosses, each composed of five modules of 5 x 5 m with walls sloping down from a height of 5 m to 2.5 m. I don't pretend to know much about structures, but intuitively I feel that if forces of compression and tension are flowing through such a structure, it will be more sound and permanent, besides resonating with our innate appreciation of harmonious geometry. After we had worked out the design on a formal and functional level, we had tests run of the bedrock and soils, then hired an engineer specializing in concrete structures to work out the technical and material aspects. I consulted another engineer and an experienced architect about the feasibility of the structural plans, and it was interesting to hear their critiques and suggestions. I'll probably never build this house, for financial reasons, but it was great fun to design, and it was an opportunity to engage minds with my daughter, since I've been teaching architectural history for 36 years and she had just finished her degree in architecture.

Mistakes can be (and often are) made in design, calculation, execution, selection of materials, estimation the resistance of underlying geological formations, prediction of possible seismic activity, etcetera. Corruption is another potential factor contributing to structural failure, for example, a contractor putting less steel in a concrete structure than the amount specified in the approved plans, perhaps bribing a building inspector to "look the other way." The catastrophic earthquake of 1985 in Mexico City revealed many such cases, resulting in large numbers of deaths and injuries.

It is not uncommon to see buildings with structural problems, so having blind faith in the skills of the entire team of specialists involved in the design, supervision, construction, and maintanance of a building would not be wise. A classic case study in this regard --involving cantilevers-- is the residence, designed by Frank Loyd Wright, called Fallingwater. You can read the story here:

https://failures.wikispaces.com/Fallingwater

Precise information on the earthquake of 1985 in Mexico City, in English, may be downloaded here:

http://spin1-www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=908821&_ga=1.131709071.1659414159.1473259240

More information on structural failures in general can be found at this web site:

https://buildingfailures.com/

Dear Jeanan,

It is not fair to speak of instability as we don't know how this structure is projected. What we see here is a cantilever...a really big one. So what? Do we know how long it enters the rock? Do we know if a really heavy weight is on the other side to compensate this "voladizo"? No we don't.

If I were there, would I enter the building?...of course!

Here's another one. The Grand Canyon Skywalk. They really want to make you feel like walking in the sky and I think that is great. Architecture should always be an exciting experience. There is the magic.

Now take a look at the last picture. There you can see the whole lenght of this structure. For sure it is firmly attached to the rock, no doubt about it.

Cheers!

Thanks dear Miguel for your opinion and wonderful example... for us as an architects we can see the invisible structure and know very well it's a cantilever thus we can feel the stability. but I'm sure it's not stable for non architects ...

Dear Jeanan:

I feel better, on an aesthetic level and with regards to a sense of security, with a design that instills a feeling of stability, especially when its geometry is based on harmonious proportions. Unlike Miguel, whose point of view I understand and respect, I prefer peaceful, zen-like states to adrenalin-fueled excitement. I would choose a quiet, contemplative walk in a forest over whitewater rafting or bungee jumping, for example.

I recently designed a house with the aid of my daughter, who is an architect. The initial inspiration came from a dream I had of a piece of land we had acquired as an investment, in which the geometry of the lot fragmented and the pieces spun and combined to form two greek crosses, each composed of five modules of 5 x 5 m with walls sloping down from a height of 5 m to 2.5 m. I don't pretend to know much about structures, but intuitively I feel that if forces of compression and tension are flowing through such a structure, it will be more sound and permanent, besides resonating with our innate appreciation of harmonious geometry. After we had worked out the design on a formal and functional level, we had tests run of the bedrock and soils, then hired an engineer specializing in concrete structures to work out the technical and material aspects. I consulted another engineer and an experienced architect about the feasibility of the structural plans, and it was interesting to hear their critiques and suggestions. I'll probably never build this house, for financial reasons, but it was great fun to design, and it was an opportunity to engage minds with my daughter, since I've been teaching architectural history for 36 years and she had just finished her degree in architecture.

Mistakes can be (and often are) made in design, calculation, execution, selection of materials, estimation the resistance of underlying geological formations, prediction of possible seismic activity, etcetera. Corruption is another potential factor contributing to structural failure, for example, a contractor putting less steel in a concrete structure than the amount specified in the approved plans, perhaps bribing a building inspector to "look the other way." The catastrophic earthquake of 1985 in Mexico City revealed many such cases, resulting in large numbers of deaths and injuries.

It is not uncommon to see buildings with structural problems, so having blind faith in the skills of the entire team of specialists involved in the design, supervision, construction, and maintanance of a building would not be wise. A classic case study in this regard --involving cantilevers-- is the residence, designed by Frank Loyd Wright, called Fallingwater. You can read the story here:

https://failures.wikispaces.com/Fallingwater

Precise information on the earthquake of 1985 in Mexico City, in English, may be downloaded here:

http://spin1-www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=908821&_ga=1.131709071.1659414159.1473259240

More information on structural failures in general can be found at this web site:

https://buildingfailures.com/

I have one further reflection on your question, Jeanan. For aesthetic reasons, I would avoid both the Copper Canyon tourist attraction and the Grand Canyon Skywalk, seeking out the relatively unspoiled areas nearby. In both cases the buildings ruin an otherwise sublime natural panorama, detracting from the aesthetics rather than contributing to it, from my perspective. The same goes for the Caribbean coast of the Yucatán Peninsula: the hotel zone at Cancún is the last place I would be inclined to visit, as it is the most heavily damaged part of an amazing ecosystem.

Dear Jeanan and David,

As an architect, I need to come in defense of master Wright (yes, I know, I know). Every building is a challenge. Buildings are not cars nor washing machines. He was pushing forward the state of the art.

Maybe I'm getting away from the main point of the question here but let me share this video from Johnson Wax Building construction. Here you have the desired shape for the columns that Wright wanted. Not what was better structural talking, but the shape the architect wanted. To me, this is Architecture not Engineering.

David, thanks for the links!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toXhTaWRyP0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqVfZfB6upI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBsLgna0noA

You're welcome, Miguel. Thanks for sharing the videos.

I like to be destabilized in general, to encounter the unexpected, so I like these.  The tower of pisa would not have become so popular if it would have stay vertical. It became an attraction when it started to lean.   Predictable structures do not keep our visual attention, and so we do not look at them.  I whish architects would build more destabilizing structures.  For example a building that would have impossible stairs such as those picture by Escher.

Thanks dear David and Miguel for your opinions and the links attached... Yes David I agree with you .. the Architect who always designs and decides the shape of structure.. I wish if we could read the opinion of non Architect about this topic in order to get feed back about such direction in present Architecture design.

Thanks Louis for your point of view ... The question here ... Are we looking for an architecture to look at or to live in?

@ "For example a building that would have impossible stairs"...One of the basic things in any design is the capability of implementation.

I think, I do not feel better inside unstable form building, I feel rather comfortable in a house on land  with local materials, constructed to take into account the civilizational values of the region. I'll be more comfortable if I can appreciate the interior of my home, 03 things: Beauty, water, greenery

I agree with Mr. Benamar

Did you see la Puerta de Europa towers in Madrid? Two tall towers, significantly leaning toward each other.

http://www.wolfstad.com/2006/09/the-leaning-towers-of-madrid/

I was surprised to see these, and wondered how wide the foundation has to be, to compensate for the tremendous torque they create. Unsettling, to say the least.

Even if technically, such feats of engineering are not "unstable," they are certainly not the design to minimize difficult stress, such as shear, as opposed to compression. There is a reason why we feel uneasy about them. It's called experience.

Trump International Hotel & Tower Vancouver

Location: 1151 West Georgia Street, Vancouver

Budget: $360-million

Completion: 2016

Architect: Arthur Erickson | Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership | DYS Architecture

Height: 188 metres (617 feet); 63 storeys

This building seems to be have been twisted and seems to be willing to return to its untwisted position.

Dear Albert and Louis, Good examples... Thanks

What about the Sublime Cliffside House?

http://architizer.com/blog/cliff-retreat-alex-hogrefe/

European Central Bank...I really hate this building.

@ Miguel...I can't understand why all the hugeness?

What do we want to prove? ... maybe we are looking forward to get to heaven, as in ancient civilizations such as the Babylon Tower !!!

My dear sweet Jeanan, I can't understand it either. In case of ECB, you know, it is a bank! and not a common one but the bank of Europe. So, maybe they wanted to give this image of hugeness, power, money...just like an ancient egyptian pharaoh building his pyramid or the Babylon Tower you mentioned.

This made people really upset and I can understand this. It is too expensive in a time when people is having economical problems.

http://fortune.com/2015/03/18/350-arrested-in-violent-protests-as-the-ecb-opens-its-new-office/

I agree with you " It is too expensive in a time when people is having economical problems."

Extravagant structures that some people will not visit or feel safe in them are not my cup-of -tea either. The architects have a message sure, they can design daring structures, but one does not know everything about nature, they can collapse because of unforeseen, little-known forces. Take the speed of the wind, for example. It can do a lot of damage in today's weather scenarios.  

Encourage to embrace comfortable human scale, visual charm, nurturing landscapes and well proportioned spaces formed by appropriately positioned and articulated architecture.

http://laentradacommunity.com/download/specific_plan/La%20Entrada%20Specific%20Plan%20-%20Section%203%20-%20Design%20Guidelines.pdf

Structures built challenging the principles of balance and stability can be at risk and may not resist natural calamities like earthquake, tornado, etc.

Dear Yogesh,

I agree with you but not in the third picture. Those structures attached to trees are really safe. For sure these can be scary when you climb up or when you are on top of them and can make you feel un safe, but besides that, from a structural point of view, in case of wind or earthquakes the tree will move and dissipate energy, as to me, a tree is a perfect structure, perfectly improved by Nature over the ages.

Thanks for the images!

Device To Root Out Evil (Denver, Colorado)

Can anyone tell me what's going on? .. It seems like our life is upside down!!!

I fixed it!

O ^ O

Good Job :)

That's even better, Miguel!

Adding sense of stability.. See the difference

Creating apparently dangerous building – playing with structural integrity

Thanks for the invitation, Dear Jeanan for this interesting question. I do not feel comfortable with any sort of instability, formal, in content or structural. However Tower of Pisa, for example, is famous worldwide, has a long, nice history and did not fall down after all these centuries.

In the field of hydraulics (hydrostatics), the position of the metacenter of a ship, for example, is normally a serious concern for the naval engineers, and much particularly for common persons that easily suffer from nauseas/motion sickness. See the links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJU7ACOKjYI

Dear Jeanan, I am not an expert in building stability but this is a big issue in seismic regions of the world. I would not recommend to have these constructions as shelters.

Have a nice day.

Dear António Manuel:

The Campanile of the cathedral complex at Pisa was on the verge of ruin a bit over quarter of a century ago. It was closed to visitors due to its instability. Vast quantities of money were required to fund the research and restoration necessary to prevent its collapse. After several unsuccessful --and even counterproductive-- attempts, a technique involving the extraction of soil from under specific zones of the foundation was used to rectify its geometry, thus stabilizing the structure. This technique had been developed in Mexico City to stabilize the dome and vaults of the Metropolitan Cathedral, which was also at risk of collapse, due mainly to the uneven, soggy subsoil it was built on. (It is uneven because of the pre-Hispanic structures underlying the colonial period church.) Happily, no lives were lost, and neither monument has fallen into ruin, thanks to the preventive measures undertaken jointly by government officials and scientists.

Here are two sources with details on the history and restoration of the Campanile:

https://failures.wikispaces.com/Tower+of+Pisa

http://civilblog.org/2015/12/14/about-leaning-tower-of-pisa-history-of-tilt-restoration/

Best regards,

David

Dear Brenda,

I can imagine your feelings at that time... Thanks

Building should provide better quality of life for all including elderly, disabled residents by reducing fear for personal safety, bringing greater sense of community within the building and build more positive interaction possibility within the neighborhood

Dear Krishnan,  I agree with you.

Yes dear Brenda, It's like a strange mass with a sense of instability within the surrounding space.

It must be earthquake engineering. There are and were a lot of innocent victims as a result of the earthquakes. The old buildings and the new ones, which are built in a slapdash manner can cause destruction and catastrophe. Once we were at home during the earthquake.It seemed to me, that our house "danced".Weird feeling! As for the architectural projects, like unstable form buildings, I adore this flight of fancy. To me, it takes breath away! It's great! 

Dear Irina,

I really love your answer. That "dancing" probably saved your lives because the structure needs to move and shake so that it can be able to dissipate energy. If it remains stiff and rigid, it will probable break and collapse.

Best regards.

Anti Earthquake Structure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwu43B0UE8Y

Open-source approach to humanitarian architecture is evolving. Japanese architect Shigeru Ban—who has long worked on disaster-relief structures-

• wood-framed house in Nepal
• paper house in the Philippines

https://b.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/inline/2016/01/3055124-inline-s-6-shop-architects-to-build-50-public-schools.jpg

The feeling of safety and comfort is based on the fact that risks affecting the building in which we live and work has been correctly anticipated and tackled while designing and constructing the structure.

Buildings that gives an impression of instability doesn't mean that it's unstable...

I'm pretty sure that  Architects and Civil engineers never implement a building without making full construction design, testing the structure tension, compression, expansions joints and the case of earthquake. Even though, people still feel that such buildings are unstable.

Indeed, such buildings are designed and constructed with utmost care and taking into account all necessary stability and safety aspects like design, structural tension, compression, expansions joints and earthquake and the buildings are quite balanced, stable and secure in normal conditions. However, since these buildings appear to challenge the basic stability standard; it is generally felt that these structures may not sustain extreme conditions of natural disasters. Though visiting or residing in such buildings may be an exciting experience.