The Disney Concert Hall in LA had similar problems.
"Some residents of the neighboring condominiums suffered glare caused by sunlight that was reflected off these surfaces and concentrated in a manner similar to a parabolic mirror. The resulting heat made some rooms of nearby condominiums unbearably warm, caused the air-conditioning costs of these residents to skyrocket and created hot spots on adjacent sidewalks of as much as 60 °C (140 °F). After complaints from neighboring buildings and residents, the owners asked Gehry Partners to come up with a solution. Their response was a computer analysis of the building's surfaces identifying the offending panels. In 2005 these were dulled by lightly sanding the panels to eliminate unwanted glare."
Bummer. When I first saw the graphic I assumed it was a really clever architectural trick designed to heat the pool efficiently... So yeah, let's do that.
For all those here complaining that they could have done better:
"Designers foresaw the issue, and thought they had solved it by installing a high-tech film on the south-facing glass panes, according to Gordon Absher, the MGM spokesman. The film scatters more than 70 percent of reflected rays. But that's not enough, Absher acknowledged, as some pool guests are still uncomfortable."
Anyone know what these "strange pavilion-like stands topped with polished reflectors" they mention might be? I'm not finding anything via Googling, as that's pretty vague.
edit: as to the main meat of the post, I'm amazed that this sort of thing isn't checked prior to building a gigantic mirror. To the degree of "can they get sued for this?". It strikes me as near-gross negligence on the part of the people who approved the design.
The office tower I used to work in had similar problem. There were two mirror-glass walls that met at 90 degree angle facing each other and the resulting sun reflection heated up the asphalt at the ground level to the point when it deformed into a wave pattern with about 1' wave length and 1/4' amplitude.
Admittedly it led to few very cool "AHA" moments when new employees (on a smoke break) realized what was going on :)
Building codes are reactionary, not proactive. Almost every code is there because at some point there was a problem in the past, usually something involving one or more deaths due to a fire or collapse that could have been prevented. Someone's drink cup melting is not really a concern for the permit authorities.
A friend of the family just passed away, in her eighties. In her youth, she happened to be across the street during the following famous incident, after which she tried to help the injured:
As is common in panic situations, many patrons attempted to exit through the main entrance, the same way they had come in. However, the building's main entrance was a single revolving door, immediately rendered useless as the panicked crowd scrambled for safety. Bodies piled up behind both sides of the revolving door, jamming it to the extent that firefighters had to dismantle it in order to get inside. Other avenues of escape were similarly useless: side doors had been bolted shut to prevent people from leaving without paying their bills. A plate glass window, which could have been smashed for escape, was instead boarded up and unusable as an emergency exit. Other unlocked doors, like the ones in the Broadway Lounge, opened inwards, rendering them useless against the crush of people trying to escape. Bartender Daniel Weiss and entertainer Goody Goodelle both survived in the Melody Lounge; by dousing a cloth napkin with a pitcher of water and breathing through it, Weiss was able to escape by crawling through the kitchen and other subfloor areas, while Goodelle and several other employees were able to escape by crawling through a barred window in the kitchen. Five survived by taking refuge in a walk-in refrigerator. Fire officials later testified that, had the doors swung outwards, at least 300 lives could have been spared. Many young soldiers perished in the disaster, as well as a married couple whose wedding had taken place earlier that day.
And that, boys and girls, is why we have building codes.
(It's also why many professional engineers in the US and Canada take an oath, like doctors. Proper engineering is a serious business. Lives are at stake.)
Safety is probably the original reason for having building codes, however today the very significant majority of these rules (measured by both quantity and design time required for their impementation) has nothing to do with safety. Codes dictate building masses and building areas, building lines, requirements for parking, facade design, choise of materials, form of the roof, floor heights etc. etc. Some of those don't cause very much damage since they are useful and most architects would implement them anyways. As to the others...
You are correct regarding the reasons building codes were established. However, in the US, the sort of life safety issues which contributed to loss of life in the Coconut Grove fire (improper egress and flammable finishes) are handled by architects rather than engineers.
Engineering licensure requires a combination of education, testing, and work experience. I am unaware of any US jurisdiction which requires the Engineer's Oath in order to become licensed to practice engineering.
The Engineer's Oath does not address life safety or the welfare of individuals. Such a commitment might be incompatible with many engineering projects for the defense industry.
If you don't think that how buildings use water isn't going to be ridiculously important in the next hundred years of human expansion, you've got some reading to do.
Lives might actually be at stake. Livelihoods almost certainly will.
how can one be that brainwashed. Doesn't it seem strange to you that instead of real pricing on water and energy (that would trigger efficiency improve across the board) there is that hysterical propaganda of individual conservation despite the fact that individual consumption pales in comparison to Big Agriculture&Industry?
I just hear the sound of your brain being flip-flopped by
the propaganda :
paper to plastic -> saving trees
plastic to paper -> saving the planet
and as a result your attention being diverted from the real
causes of the problem.
"Lives might actually be at stake. Livelihoods almost certainly will."
You're absolutely right. WW III, if it happens, will be about global enforcing of cap&trade once the countries most severely affected by the global warming (incl. its consequences like harsh weather and water shortage) organize together and amass enough military power. Low-flush and biking to work, while feeding your ego with warm and fuzzy feeling that you're personally saving the planet, don't mean anything at that scale.
Going that way will expose the market (ie. real) price of water and thus will significantly affect largest (and politically connected) consumers - Agriculture and Industry - kicking them off the nice ride they've been having on subsidized water _stolen_ from the Nature.
The architect of record is ultimately responsible for the building configuration (someone in Rafael Vinloy's office).
Since there appears to be nothing negligent or illegal, it is unlikely that there will be any sort of disciplinary charge.
There might be some sort of claim by the owner. These are typically first handled by mediation and binding arbitration if necessary. It's just a mistake.
However, the question here would be: could you deliberately design an architecture without walls, using only thermal gradients—defining areas of public use and congregation solely based on heat?
I was standing outside the Portland Convention Center this year at OSCON and noticed the wood bark around one of the trees was smoking profusely. Needless to say, the glass awnings had the death ray effect as well.
This just in, huge concave structure lined with reflective materials causes unexpected strange heating effect from the sun, says engineers. News at 11.
"Some residents of the neighboring condominiums suffered glare caused by sunlight that was reflected off these surfaces and concentrated in a manner similar to a parabolic mirror. The resulting heat made some rooms of nearby condominiums unbearably warm, caused the air-conditioning costs of these residents to skyrocket and created hot spots on adjacent sidewalks of as much as 60 °C (140 °F). After complaints from neighboring buildings and residents, the owners asked Gehry Partners to come up with a solution. Their response was a computer analysis of the building's surfaces identifying the offending panels. In 2005 these were dulled by lightly sanding the panels to eliminate unwanted glare."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Concert_Hall