Whenever a new tower starts muscling its way toward the sky, it drains a bit more light from the streets and parks below, so walking along a sidewalk can sometimes feel like pacing the bottom of a deep well. But what if, even in the densest thickets of Manhattan, skyscrapers could be designed to shrink, or even bleach out, the shadows they cast? Imagine a structure that bends like a rubbery dancer to dodge as many rays as possible and let them fall on a park instead. That’s what Jeanne Gang’s Solar Carve tower will do for the High Line. Or think of a high-rise fitted out with angled mirrors that make its shadow glow. Jean Nouvel’s One Central Park in Sydney, Australia, does that. New Yorkers who fear that a 1,500-foot-high wall of deluxe condos will one day cast Sheep Meadow in permanent shadow could start demanding designs that cast soft, glare-free pools of light instead.
Software and high-tech glass offer precise ways of managing shadows, but the idea of maximizing solar access has a long pedigree. In the 1970s, the Los Angeles–based architect Ralph Knowles observed that the Acoma people of New Mexico had always oriented their terraced pueblos to the south, ensuring that every house would get maximum exposure to the low winter sun. Knowles proposed enshrining a right to sunshine in a legal concept he called the “solar envelope.” In New York, resistance to darkened streets is already baked into law. We’re approaching the centennial of the 1916 zoning code, which obliges buildings to retreat as they rise, opening up cones of sunshine that touch the ground. The pursuit of light created the classic New York skyscraper.
Attractive concept, but one to be used with care.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Adamsjas on Friday December 04 2015, @08:35AM
Maybe this is the opposite of what architects should be doing. Maybe with global warming they should be trying to create more shade. Maybe they should be using the sunlight they absorb to produce energy, or reflect and focus that sunlight skyward and out into space.
(Score: 2) by xav on Friday December 04 2015, @11:46PM
Global warming is not directly due to sunlight but to infrared that can not go past the upper atmosphere and get reflected. The problem is not that we should capture sunlight but that we must allow infrared to escape Earth atmosphere.
Maybe with global warming they should be trying to create more shade (...) or reflect and focus that sunlight skyward and out into space.
The total surface of all shadows created by man-made constructions on Earth is very very very very tiny in comparison to the Earth surface exposed to sunlight, and it will remain so forever. You won't solve global warming by just capturing the sunlight energy that hits buildings.
But you are right. That energy, however tiny, should be reused anyway. The solution to global warming is to alleviate the greenhouse effect, not by capturing light and focusing into space, but by using a green energy that will not worsen it. And light is the greenest energy.
(Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Monday December 07 2015, @07:45PM
Heat Islands
Read about them here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island [wikipedia.org]
http://www.epa.gov/heat-islands [epa.gov]
http://education.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/urban-heat-island/ [nationalgeographic.org]
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarmingandweather/a/heat_islands.htm [about.com]
(Score: 2) by xav on Wednesday December 09 2015, @02:30PM
OK, cities are a heat source, no one will object. I fail to see how it is supposed to support your idea to catch sunrays and sending back to space, or how it contradicts anything I said.