Sadly, the architects (Cohos Evamy, merged and renamed DIALOG) don't have a feature on their website or in an archive I could find.
In a 2013 interview with the Guardian , he claims there was not much he could do about the Vdara, as the customer specifically wanted an arc-shaped building; in fact the the City Center development has several sweeping arc forms, like in the neighboring Aria -- but the concavity of the Aria's highrises aren't oriented south to converge the midday sun , whereas the Vdara aims them right at the pool deck .
For both Vdara and the Walkie Talkie, he claims to have been aware of the phenomenon going into the design but lacked the ability to correctly calculate the impact. Further, if claims are true, for the Walkie Talkie he said: "(...) the original design of the building had featured horizontal sun louvres on its south-facing facade, but these are believed to have been removed during cost-cutting as the project developed." 
Same as the design phase. It is guaranteed that engineers would have foreseen and been able to calculate the heat intensity.
They just didn't have enough influence or ownership of the problem.
Not the case. For the walkie talkie it was evaluated and the design (including location and it's orientation) were passed by a consultancy for a bunch of environmental items.
Seemingly that wasn't the case and they spent £13m retrofitting shutters. AFAIK the main contractor went after the consultancy for the money but I can't for the life of me find any references right now.
And didn't bother to get the ability either.
Like that was a surprise.
On the topic of FLW, I've visited a number of his houses. One of my friends growing up lived in a Wright house. I've visited Wright's personal house, Taliesen. In my opinion, Wright is not really an architect.
I consider Wright more of a sculptor or an artist. His designs are terribly impractical, and are not versatile in the least. Additionally, he didn't account for the limitations of the materials he was using to build his structures. So his buildings tend to require a lot of repairs, and many have structural problems, leaks, as well as general safety issues.
Wright wasn't the least bit apologetic about any of these things, and it seems like Viñoly shares the same overwhelming egotism.
On a somewhat hilarious note, when I went to visit Taliesin, there were several rooms which I thought were poorly designed, but had an element that I considered a saving grace. In literally every single instance, it was something his wife had added/altered after his death.
So, point being, I think that when you allow an egotistical architect to design something without any sort of editorial limitation, you probably end up with a worse product overall.
Architecture as a discipline has a real problem with this. Far too little attention is given to usability and the prosaic question of how a building turns out in practice; there's far too much back-slapping about "vision".
Unfortunately, this was in the late 60s, so the concrete they used turned out to be poisonous to plant life, so no vines ever covered the building, there were some sad scrawny things in a corner, but that's it. And the underlying building was of course really ugly, so, yeah, that was a pretty big fail:
Fact: the building was so ugly that it self-ignited.
I think the result actually looks a lot better.
FWIW, all these points can apply to IT architects :-(
The Fallingwater House has some (really fancy) cantilever balconies, and even though the contractor building them silently doubled the cross section of the reinforcing steel -- in disagreement with FLW -- they were still too weak.
It was the client, Edgar J. Kaufmann (1885-1955) and his wife Lillian Sarah Kaufmann (?-1952) who started to second-guess some of Wright's decisions early on to the benefit of the house ; when Mr. Kaufmann shared some of his concerns with Wright he took them as a personal attack . Mr. Kaufmann proceeded to hire structural engineers after the construction finished to get a second opinion, and continued to personally measure the deflection of the balcony as the years progressed. In my opinion the house is as much of credit to Kaufmann as it is to FLW, as without his informed skepticism the house would have been more famously remembered as a disaster than as a crowning achievement.
The First Rule of Aesthetics Club is that you'll know when you see it.
That being said, I find FLW's designs more aesthetically pleasing.
I haven't seen the interior of other Wright buildings, but I _loved_ Price Tower. I'm no architect, and I'm sure there's plenty to criticize, but for something that was first conceived in the 1920s and built in the early 1950s, it's amazing. (I'm not sure how much the final draft was changed, but AFAIU the design is substantially the same as conceived of in the '20s.)
One noteworthy thing about the loft apartment in Price Tower is that it was loaded with electrical outlets. I distinctly remember our docent discussing the quantity and spacing of outlets, and IIRC those were a part of the 1920s design. There was a surfeit of places to plug in our chargers. And the general layout of the loft was very comfortable and pleasing, not to mention the incredible views.
I'd also note that the building seemed to be kept in fairly good condition. Given it's remote location, complex architectural features, meager financial support, and general public disinterest until recently, I doubt it's a complete maintenance nightmare. (AFAIK it's not killing people or setting them afire.) That said, the design clearly pushed the envelope, perhaps even by 1950s standards, so I'm sure it keeps some lucky building maintenance engineers busy and their employer stressed.
Sounds like Frank Lloyd Wright was the George Lucas of architecture.
The Marin Civic Center looks super familiar, I guess is probably because I've seen Gattaca 3 or 4 times. I'll definitely check it out if I'm ever in the area.
I'd highly recommend the tours at Taliesin in Spring Green, Wisconsin, and the one at the Johnson and Johnson Wax Headquarters in Racine Wisconsin if you ever get the opportunity. The J&J is largely a long marketing pitch for the Johnson family, but the buildings are fascinating. Taliesin is a lot more academic, and I learned a lot on that tour.
Taliesin West is probably more accessible to SV, and I'd assume the tour is quite good.
One of them being that they tend to be hideous
It would be irresponsible to say the least, and have terrible optics, but it appeals to my darker side.
The worst thing about it though has to be the Skygarden at the top. It was built on some public space, so as part of the agreement, the builders had to include some 'public' space at the top. Unlike most public spaces I've been to however, you have to book in advance, are not allowed in groups over a certain size and have to go through full airport-style security. That's fitting however because when you're up there, the space has all the charm of an airport terminal. And, due to the way the girders are aligned, there's not even much of a view. Which is a stunning achievement really.
The best feature has to be the fancy restaurant which takes up most of 'public' space. It's at the top of one of the taller buildings in London, right in the middle of the City and you can't see out.
Embarrassingly, MIT's Green Building was built like that.
ADDED: There was even an MIT Musical Theater Guild filkish number way back at the dawn of time :-) about not being able to get into the Green Building to the tune of Charlie on the MBTA.
The Grande Arche de la Défense just outside Paris has similar problems, and glass panels rise out of the ground during high winds to shield pedestrians.
Anyone who rides their bike through the area during even moderate winds is blown off, and when heavy winds pick up the place is truly awesome.
I've gone there, covered in poofy jackets so I bounce when I land, and just let myself get blown away. It's tremendously fun. There's a large concrete gap where buses/trams go, maybe the width of a road (maybe 24 feet?) and the wind has picked me up on one side and set me down on another. (Occasionally requires jumping in the air first.) But if I want to get back home? I've got to wait hours, or walk in a large detour around the building.
(The building is in the Netherlands.)
If you (or anyone else) wants to try this for yourself, simply find a place where wind is channeled through a small-ish opening. Small in this context just means "smaller than the walls around it" so even a house-sized opening can work. Searching Twitter/Google for complaints about wind or getting knocked down by the wind can help.
Here's google streetview (you can even zoom into the high wind warning sign):
Here are a couple videos:
Even to this day the winds around the base of the JHT can be obscenely high. I used to walk past it often from Back Bay station to my apartment down Stuart St. and the block it occupies when it lightly rains or snows it feels like a Hurricane vs the blocks immediately before and after it.
edit: should have read the article before commenting, would you believe this is one of the first examples. Apologies for what turns out to be an entirely unnecessary comment.
.. and now we know why. It's politically impossible.
If anyone else owned the building it would be fixed or the owners sued.
> "The Dallas Police & Fire Pension System, which had earlier made a small investment in the Museum Tower project, announced that it would jump in with both feet and finance the entire thing, all $200 million of it"
You can always count on the Brits for coming up with great names for things.
Hence, the Gherkin, Cheesegrater, Can of Ham, Walkie Talkie, Shard, Helter-skelter.
So what I am saying is that while some sky scrapers/etc can cause issues its the design/surface of all window surfaces that cause issues. it just is a matter of scale
If you have to talk about the cliche skyscraper that cooks eggs everyone knows about, it's not really a story, it's more news, a one off (OK there was also one in Las Vegas)
The wind thing is interesting perhaps. Is that an actual engineering issue?