What were they thinking?

[sapphire]

First it was the glass ceiling, now its the glass floor

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/09/gl ... ?hpt=hp_c2

[Milfmog]

Diana,

I reckon the answer to your question is that they weren't thinking...

Have fun,


Ian.

[Jack Williams]

Totally bizarre.

[DALederle]

As one person said in the video, "this is a rare case of too much transparency in government!"
Sapphire:
I remember, while growing up, a lot of the boys, when we got to about 4th grade, began to make an effort to look under girls dresses and skirts. I never quite understood why. Did you have that problem, as a girl growing up, that boys were trying to peek under your skirts or dresses.
Clearly those stairs were designed by men. Maybe men remembering their childhood activities too.

I am truly sorry for all the indignity men have put women through in their daily lives.
We men seldom understand this sort of thing.

Dennis A. Lederle
Live Long and Perspire!

[crfriend]

I reckon the answer to your question is that they weren't thinking...

Looking at the image in the article, it's actually a rather striking architectural feature. If done well, and using skylights above, it could also dramtically reduce the need for artificial lighting. It also works superbly well to open the space up by almost vanishing into air. So, I suspect a fair bit of thought did go into the design -- with the one proviso that whoever the architect was didn't possibly take into account an increasingly-rare article of clothing.

In looking at the design -- and this is why I put the caveat in above, there are hints that the staircase is blocked off by other glass panels thereby keeping would-be voyeurs out from getting directly below it. If that's the case, then it's really no worse than a conventional staircase when looking the stairs and general modesty rules would suffice to keep one from getting exposed.

I haven't done any deep research into the building, so I don't know who the architect is, but it's worth remembering that there are a great many women architects, some of whom have very good reputations and recognition. What happens if it was a woman who designed the space?

[Milfmog]

It is not the first time this has happened. There has been a story circulating for a while of a large corporate that had their London building refurbished. The finished design had two five floor office blocks with a central atrium area that went from ground to roof creating a large naturally lit space in the middle. To save folks from one office bank going all the way down and up again to reach the other bank of offices, they installed bridges across the atrium at a couple of levels. The bridges had glass floors to avoid spoiling the light effects below...

Apparently it was several months before the management realised that most of the female staff would not use the bridges According to the story, the management eventually had frosted glass effect matting laid across the bridges in the interests of modesty.

Have fun,


Ian.

[crfriend]

There has been a story circulating for a while of a large corporate that had their London building refurbished.

Offering no offence, I'm wondering what the building was or who the "large corporate" was. Something about that makes my "urban legend" alarm go off.

There are problems, no doubt, with glass floors for everybody involved. These can range from vertigo effects for the folks on the walkways to the perception that modesty would be compromised by virtue of "onlookers" below. Unfortunately, as one reduces the effect of the latter with height the former increases. At a distance of three stories the average person's eyesight would not be able to pick out enough detail to "appreciate the view"; however, at three stories of height looking straight down through the floor could be very disconcerting for many. In practise, getting the proper angle for a "view" would require one to crane his head right back and would attract attention if it persisted for more than a few moments with a fixed gaze, and in this case speed and motion are the friend of the person on the walkway.

Apparently it was several months before the management realised that most of the female staff would not use the bridges According to the story, the management eventually had frosted glass effect matting laid across the bridges in the interests of modesty.

I still get the nagging feel of "urban legend". Unless the "corporate" in question had a skirts/dresses dress-code for women, there would have been a mix of trousers and skirts involved -- thereby skewing things a bit.

Certainly trousers are 100% effective in concealment when one is in situations involving catwalks or other (semi) transparent "floors", but skirts can be just as about as good. It takes light, recall, to see something, so unless there's light "from below" a reasonably opaque skirt will cut down on what can be seen. A slip cuts the light further. There's also the effect of contrast: the ambient light from above will overwhelm the reflected light from below effectively keeping things from view. So, unless we've got a wiseguy with a powerful flashlight and a telephoto lens under the glass walkways -- which would get noticed -- there is little risk in practise. However, the perception can be different, and as an irrational species we tend to over-worry about the preception rather than the practicality.

Would I use a glass-floored skywalk on the 3rd floor above an open lobby whilst wearing a skirt. Sure. Would I use one on the fifth floor? Possibly, and I'd probably not look down.

[sapphire]

Hi Dennis,
All that I can think of is that it was a "forbidden" activity. Children love "forbidden" activities and trying to get away with them, especially if they don't understand why it is "forbidden". No, no one ever tried to look up my skirt. They didn't have to. I'm a total klutz and excel at falling down. So in the schoolyard, I'd be running around and either my skirt would fly up or I would fall down or I'd climb a tree and fall out out of it. Everyone knew what color my panties were. But since my knees were perpetually scabbed or bandaged and I always had bruises on my legs and I could never keep a blouse tucked in or a skirt on straight and my hair was always tangled and I had buck teeth and coke bottom glasses and was quite likely to take out anyone who bothered me, I wasn't much of a target. That and I was weird, geeky and loved science fiction (which no one else understood).

Ah, elementary school. Gotta love it.

As for the glass staircase, I wouldn't use it. It would give me vertigo. Even those stair cases that don't have risers mess with my head. And if one is careful and is standing beneath that style of staircase one can still get a glimpse of panties. However when confronted with "revealing" architecture whilst wearing a skirt one learns to gather the skirt to lessen the risk of exposure.

[kingfish]

In the video, the treads (where you would step) were opaque. Only the risers (the vertical pieces at the back of the treads) were transparent.
I imagine that they'll be installing translucent window film on those really soon.
For a while back in the 70s there was an architectural trend toward having no risers at all. Of course the treads of those staircases usually had a couple of inches of overlap.

[Milfmog]

There has been a story circulating for a while of a large corporate that had their London building refurbished.

Offering no offence, I'm wondering what the building was or who the "large corporate" was. Something about that makes my "urban legend" alarm go off.

The company concerned was Smithkline Beecham (Now part of Glaxo Smithkline) and the building was opened in the mid to late nineties. I'm not sure whether they still have that building as they have a new building right by the M4 in west London.

I have a friend who works for the firm although at the time he was based in Gloucester around 100 miles west of London. He was the first person I heard the tale from, largely because he has an aversion to heights and on those occasions he was in head office he would not use the bridges.

Have fun,


Ian.

Edited to correct brian failure, I had the company name as Glaxo Beecham, it should have been Smithklein Beecham, now corrected - Ian.

[crfriend]

I have a friend who works for the firm although at the time he was based in Gloucester around 100 miles west of London. He was the first person I heard the tale from, largely because he has an aversion to heights and on those occasions he was in head office he would not use the bridges.

So now we have the name of the firm to work with, and one lad's reasoning not to use the bridges -- and a perfectly valid one, mind -- but no overt reasoning for the assertion that most of the women would not use them. Now fear of heights is one thing; I suffer from a bit of that myself, and hence would likely not use a transparent walkway suspended some several dozen feet above a hard floor, but that's because I fear getting mangled more than getting killed -- I have no problems looking down from aircraft or from very tall bridges (like the time Sapphie and I watched sea lions hunting in the main shipping channel beneath San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge).

I still think the threat to modesty from such architectural features is minute, and certainly manageable. I would feel poorer if not for splendid and innovative architecture.

[phathack]

I would think any women entering a court house in a dress/skirt would be wearing a reasonably modest length dress/skirt as well as underwear so there would be nothing to see.

However as was stated in the article, if people were reasonable there would be no need for the building in the first place. Though it might help if government was more reasonable as well.

[Grok]

This looks like a job for the Macabi skirt.

[DALederle]

Sapphire:
Wow! You were a tomby! That explains a lot!
That sounds like my mother and all the girls I played with up until high school. Wild creatures with skinned knees because they couldn't wear pants most of the time.
I guess the real answer is that there should be no limits, except common sense, in what we wear. Pants if needed, shorts in hot weather, skirts, kilts, sarongs, caftans and even dresses should all have there time a place and be for both genders.
Unfortunatly, peoples minds are often closed and often go along with the pop cultures five second answers based not on history but based on what the media tells them to think.
I am constantly surprised by the thinking and questions I here from my grandchildren and great-grandchildren. There so little past knowledge being passed on to the new generations.
It will be a sad day when the last world war two vet dies. Many are already trying to rewrite our history to suit themselves.

Dennis A. Lederle
Live Long and Perspire!

[crfriend]

That sounds like my mother and all the girls I played with up until high school. Wild creatures with skinned knees because they couldn't wear pants most of the time.

I can aver that trousers -- even the heaviest gauge denim with patches to reinforce the inside of the knees -- are not enough to protect against skinned knees. Given the level of damage I was able to do to mine as a child it's amazing my legs look as good as they do!