The image above is on the Northeast corner of one of the Regent Quarter buildings which is about to be renovated. You may notice the engineering dialogue between superstructure and façade is challenging to decipher, but this is not the focus on this occasion.

This time the emphasis is on our aspirations and appreciating our unconscious ability to induce compounding complexity.

Take the now household name IKEA; objective/aspiration: relatively low-cost furniture, speed of acquisition and assembly to enjoyment of product. Cue the infamous instruction manual and a missing connector. Not wanting to be defeated and still clutching to the original aspiration of speedy completion, you decide defiantly to take the fateful step and abandon the governance of IKEA. You are now in uncharted waters, editing and fashioning parts from that kitchen draw where spare parts go to die. All this so that you may be granted access to the next page of the instruction manual. Only to learn your Heath Robinson contraption fowls a vital sliding operation 7 pages later, rendering all of your time wasted.

We convince ourselves that something is so important that we’re willing to abort convention and strive for innovation, and that’s fine, but as Inspector Clouseau said “There is a time and a place for everything”.

So, when is it appropriate to induce complexity into construction? A loaded question perhaps, but we would start with the following:

• Is it safe?
• Is it within the budgets the client has assigned and forecast?
• Is it positive for the next generations?
• Is it reasonable to expect installers to accommodate?
• Can the result be underwritten by an insurer?
• Does it add value?

This last point is particularly hard to answer, as I cannot articulate any tangible value that would merit the efforts and the practicality of achieving such a feat. If you look at the support assemblies, there is a strong indication that the desire to proceed with this aspiration has induced the layered gymnastics of conditions, whilst losing sight of what could have been far simpler with almost zero sacrifice to the outcome in such a seemingly meaningless location.

Glass-to-glass design demands more onerous thinking than conventional marketplace solutions. This means that if there is an intent to hybrid a glass-to-glass design with standardisation, you’ll be venturing into innovation, or at least the bespoke. Where curtain walling incorporates such detailing, the management of support involves components which ‘appear’ to be slim, in order to accentuate the ‘lightness’ of the glass connection. The support design, if done well, can be a series of tension rods which are housed within a stainless-steel tube (polished of course to mirror the reflective glass fabric and go unnoticed). The issue with this, is that the sequence of assembly and components are the definition of craftwork; Drilling and tapping needs to be reverse threaded, appreciation of thread timing, elongation considered, calibration devices, custom lathing and all supported with joined-up engineering. This is not the case for this construction.

Ultimately and bluntly, the connection always draws attention to the corner as it is obviously different from that of its neighbouring mullions left and right. Such energy, and for what? A view across 15 feet of air to another building in a courtyard not accessible by the general public.

We’re not anti-glass engineering, we just encourage critical thinking where the context of the aspiration is exercised in a way that benefits all.