If there are problems like this with the finish work, it's likely that there are problems with the stuff you can't see as well. Just like a slow, buggy piece of software is more likely to have security issues than one that runs smoothly and presents a good user experience.

People in the construction industry in the /r/nyc subreddit are saying that finish issues are common when a building first opens, and that overall quality should be judged a year out from opening, when everything has been addressed. The logic goes that there are lots of custom-fab components required in any sizable construction, some of which will inevitably be damaged during transit or install. It may take months to replace them, and you don't want to hold up the entire opening for months for some insignificant fit & finish issues because you'd be losing huge amounts of money.

So you get the place to the point where it opens, and then you do a trickle of night work over the coming months as replacement parts come in and you can finally get everything perfect.

Hell, this happened to my parents' house remodel recently. They scratched a custom-order door in a way that wasn't repairable. Rather than leaving my parents without a door for a month, they left it as-is and then came back a month later with a new door (once it was ready) and installed it.

That really doesn't follow. A building with a beautiful, perfect finish can be shoddy inside, and vice versa.

The software analogy doesn't hold, because security issues are often a consequence of buggy software, whereas shoddy finishes don't have much casual connection to the interior structure.

Also, software that "runs smoothly and presents a good used experience" can be just as prone to security problems, again because there's no necessary casual connection between the two.

You could argue that if the same team is responsible for everything, that the user experience, or finish, may be indicative of the internals - but it's common in both software and construction for different teams and even different companies to be responsible, and there can also be reasons to prioritize the areas differently and devote more attention and resources to one than the other.

> it's clear this person doesn't know much about actual design principles, despite criticizing the designers for it

I don't know how you came that conclusion, it seems irrationally combative. He is in good company.

> Klaus Jacob, a professor at Columbia University, has stated approval of the project stems from the "shortsightedness of decision-making" by its developers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Yards_(development)#Arc...

Jacob's criticisms of the design stem in broader architectural designs of the structures and how the overall development fits into the surrounding neighborhood. The author of the OP is talking about specific nitpicks of things like escalators and railings. They are not at all in the same company.

If the author wants to talk about how the glass buildings and their shape don't fit into the neighborhood, or that they lack a certain aesthetic, then fine. But he's not doing that. He is arguing against functional design principles that are not only commonplace across many similar developments, they are also in place for a reason.

Klaus Jacob's full comment pertains to the inability of the development to sustain changes from climate change, his criticism is not at all aesthetic but functional. He is a geophysicist.

These are, again, not at all in the same ballpark as the criticisms in the OP article. It is apples and oranges.

author seems astonished at the escalator placement that has been standard practice for over a decade.

> To prevent bottlenecking, the stairs should be wider than the walkways they connect to.

That walkway does look ridiculously narrow, though. Seems to be just one person wide.

The standard for luxury malls in the Middle East and Asia can be pretty high, so if it is some sort of international play it matters for sure.

I have been to many 'luxury' malls in places in Tokyo, Singapore, and Hong Kong, and they suffer from the same small insignificant 'flaws' just like the ones mentioned in this article. In fact, many of the luxury developments in Asia and the Middle East (Singapore, Qatar, and the UAE especially) are notorious for cutting corners by using underskilled, underpaid labor to build these luxury developments, causing cut sloppy work. I would say the standards are only 'pretty high' if you only look skin deep.

There is of course plenty of random luxury developments in those places, but high end malls tend to be pretty good. At least in the elaborate-sloppy ratio, as different developments will be competing for the high end brands. But looking more at Hudson Yards it looks more like a random mall, in which case it probably doesn't matter much.

Going by your judgement, Boeing too had underskilled and underpaid labor ? Because they too cut corners.

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I said that certain malls that are known to use underpaid and underskilled laborers suffer from cut corners. That does not mean that all cut corners are a result of underpaid and underskilled labor.

> it takes longer to get on an escalator than it does to get off

How so? Everyone who gets off the escalator had to get on at the same pace earlier.

If everyone who got on the escalator stayed in their position on the escalator until they got off, this would mitigate bunching at the top. But practically, when people get on the escalator, many people walk (while other people just stand) which can throw off the rate that people arrive at the end of the escalator. If two people get on an escalator 3 seconds apart, but then one of them moves forward on the escalator so that they are both on the same step, then they would exit the escalator at the same time rather than 3 seconds apart.

Additionally, the people getting on the upwards escalator, at, for example, Floor 1 aren't the only people that will be getting on the upwards escalator on Floor 2. There will be other people from Floor 2 that want to go upwards as well.

The design should also account for unusual situations as well. Just because someone got on the first escalator with no problem doesn't mean they won't accidentally trip or fall when trying to get on the second escalator. And if that happens, you don't want people getting hurt just because a sudden traffic jam caused a huge bunch of people on the landing between the escalators.

I was curious so I did some additional reading. Based on promo material from escalator manufacturers [1], there is mention of safety issues regarding the amount of space on escalator landings, but there is also a lot of talk about optimizing traffic flow through product display areas. My guess is that the mall's decision to place the escalators the way they did is primarily driven by that, but as someone who used to work in a building where the exit to one escalator was directly next to the entrance to the next escalator, and personally witnessed huge traffic jams (and had the awful experience of being uncontrollably pushed towards such a jam by an escalator), I do appreciate the design for safety reasons as well.

1 (PDF WARNING): https://www.schindler.com/content/in/internet/en/mobility-so...