The Building that Melted Cars

Driving a car in London just got a lot more dangerous. A soon-to-be-completed skyscraper in
the downtown area is having an impact that no one could have imagined: it is starting fires and
melting cars. The building— designed by internationally renowned architect Rafael Viñoly—is
a dramatic edifice with curved exterior walls. Built at 20 Fenchurch Street in London’s financial
centre, the 38-story skyscraper is known locally as “the Walkie-Talkie” for its unusual shape.
But that curvilinear shape is exactly what’s causing the problem. The south-facing exterior wall
is covered in reflective glass, and because it’s concave, it focuses the sun’s rays onto a small
area, not unlike a magnifying glass directing sunbeams into a superhot pinpoint of light.

The beam caused by the curved skyscraper concentrating the sun’s rays was measured at
more than 110 degrees Celsius (230 degrees Fahrenheit) in September. So far, the building
has been responsible for partially destroying a parked Jaguar XJ luxury car, catching carpets
on fire in nearby shops, and shattering slate tiles at local restaurants. This is likely to be a
recurring problem for any structure built within range of the power reflected light coming from
the building. Because the effect is caused by the sun’s elevation in the sky at certain times of
the day and during a specific time of the year, experts expect the intense light and dangerous
heating effect will last about two hours a day over a period of three weeks. To help in the short
term, the building’s owners have contracted with local authorities to block off a limited number
of parking spaces that are right in the reflected beam’s path. Longer-term solutions are more
problematic; the design of the building will not change and of course, the sun’s path is not likely
to alter in the near future! Melting cars and causing fires are not the only problems that have
been reported because of the unique building design. In fact, it appears that the Walkie-Talkie
building has a residual feature—the ability to blow people away. The 37-story building has a
downdraft wind problem caused by its shape, and during breezy days, it has almost blown
pedestrians into the road and has regularly toppled food carts parked along the street. In fact,
this phenomenon has led city planners to revise the guidelines for building design and insist
that independent wind studies be conducted on future building projects during their planning
phase.

This isn’t the first time Viñoly’s architecture has been the subject of similar controversy. His
Vdara Hotel in Las Vegas has been criticized for directing sunbeams onto the swimming pool
deck that are hot enough to melt plastic and singe people’s hair. The technical term for the
phenomenon is a solar convergence, but the hotspot soon became known as the “Vdara death
ray.” The Vdara resolved the death ray effect with larger sun umbrellas, but fixing the problem
in London might take a lot more work. “There are examples in the past where an architect has
had to rebuild the façade,” said Philip Oldfield, an expert in tall buildings at the University of
Nottingham’s Department of Architecture.

“If this is serious, then I dread to think how expensive it will be.”

Architectural critic Jonathan Glancey says the story is not unprecedented. In 2003, the opening
of the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, designed by architect Frank Gehry, had a
similar problem. The building is covered in stainless steel panels and includes many graceful,
curvy ripples along its surface. Unfortunately, that design also meant that certain angles of the
sun shining on the building refocused the sun’s rays and caused hotspots on the sidewalk, with
reflected temperatures measuring up to 140F (60C). Blinding glare also affected drivers
passing the building. After computer models and sensor equipment identified the panels
causing the problem, they were sanded down to break up the sun’s rays. In the case of the
London Walkie-Talkie building, developers could employ several possible solutions. One
suggestion is to coat the windows to reduce the harshness of the reflection, although this would
have the side-effect of reducing the amount of light that could enter the building. A much more
expensive solution would be to deliberately misalign the window frames, altering them little
more than a millimetre, just enough to offset the solar concentrating effects of the building’s
windows. Whatever solution the building’s owners ultimately adopt, it will prove an expensive
solution to an unexpected problem that gives the “Walkie-Talkie” building one more nickname
– “the building that melted cars.”

Questions

1. What risks can be assessed upfront, and which are “unknown-unknowns”?

2. Which stakeholders care responsibility for this failure?
3. Consider this statement: “With construction, the risk is simply the residue of creative
designs. You cannot account for it in your plans.” Pick either the “pro” or the “con” side of
this debate. Is risk a natural result of creativity?
The Hidden Costs of Infrastructure Projects—The Case of Building Dams

In recent years there has been a surge in the construction of large dams in developing and
developed countries, including Brazil, Ethiopia, Pakistan, and China. There are several
reasons for this increased interest in dam building. Electricity demand is expected to double
worldwide between 2010 and 2035. Thus, hydroelectric power is seen as a cheap, available
option for countries with river systems that allow for dams, mainly as it is a preferred option to
dirtier coal-burning plants. Other arguments in favour of building these dams include their use
for flood control, crop irrigation, inland transportation, urban water supplies, and job creation.
These are all-powerful and tempting arguments in favour of building large dams. However, one
crucial counter-argument to the push toward these hydropower megaprojects is that they fail
to offer the advantages they are assumed to provide.

There are several criticisms of large dam projects. First, mega dams take on average nearly
nine years to complete. Thus, arguments that they will ease the burden of energy demands
must be taken on faith; given their long lead times, they certainly are not an option for energy
crises. They also assume that all current circumstances (energy demand, population growth
patterns, water availability, and energy prices) are likely to remain steady, or at least
predictable, over the period in which the dam is developed, which can lead to dangerous
assumptions of future benefits. For example, Nigeria’s Kainji Dam has fallen short of
generating its expected hydroelectricity levels by as much as 70%. Also, cost and schedule
projections to complete these dams are almost always grossly underestimated.

Research suggests that cost overruns for large dam projects average 96% higher than
estimated costs; that is, actual project costs were nearly double the original estimates.
Schedules for these dams averaged overruns of 44% or 2.3 years. Third, the price in absolute
terms for these large dam projects can nearly bankrupt the countries investing in them. For
example, Ethiopia’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Nile River was projected to cost
$4.8 billion when it was started in 2011. When completed in 2017, it ended up costing more
than $10 billion, or one-quarter of Ethiopia’s GDP. Instead of helping the economy and fostering
growth, Ethiopia could be facing enormous problems paying off long-term debt from financing
the dam. Nor is this a new phenomenon. Brazil’s Itaipu Dam was built in the 1970s at the cost
of almost $20 billion, or 240% more than projected. Since its opening, it has been a drain on
the country’s finances. Despite producing electricity that is needed to support development in
Brazil, it is unlikely that the costs of the Itaipu Dam will ever allow it to break even.

What is the solution? Countries such as Norway, which produces some 99% of its energy from
hydropower, have adopted a smaller, more flexible solution to the use of dams. The
government encourages the development not of large mega dams but of smaller, more flexible
plants designed to produce smaller volumes of electricity at more locations within the country.
Thus, Norway currently supports some 1,000 smaller energy-producing dams that do not
disrupt the natural flow of rivers, cause no environmental impact, and produce cleaner energy.

Large mega-dams of the type that are being developed around the planet are tempting and
expensive in the pursuit for most countries undertaking them. But with poor project
development records historically, including huge cost and schedule overruns, these projects
are typically undertaken as much for the national prestige they offer. At the same time,
countries that have invested precious budget money in creating the dams are frequently
disappointed with the results, including underutilization, decades of a financial squeeze and
debt obligation, and a failure to realize the expected benefits. When it comes to mega-dams,
the energy they produce is usually neither abundant nor cheap.
Questions

1. Which are the pros and cons of mega-dam construction.

2. Given the history of significant cost overruns associated with mega-dam construction, why
do you think they are still popular, especially in the developing world?
3. Should international development organizations as World Bank, European Bank for
Reconstruction, etc. support such big infrastructure projects?