Comments update: Dezeen readers have been discussing design’s position in challenging idealised perceptions of the female physique this week.

Debora Dax developed her InConTextUre clothes range to highlight features of the body that men and women generally want to conceal. The patterns incorporate garments that emulate really like handles, dry skin and pubic hair stubble.

“Layout has an critical role to play in changing people’s see of what girls ought to seem like,” wrote Martina. “Fantastic to see it really is getting attempted on a conceptual level.”

But although many commenters felt that Dax’s collection “raises essential body image problems”, some argued that the garments perpetuated – or even enhanced – negative attitudes.

“Destigmatising bodies that have been deemed undesirable and imperfect is crucial – but then to place the clothes on able-bodied, thin, ‘perfect’ versions? It minimizes imperfect bodies to a costume,” argued Jacqui.

“These clothing dehumanise bodily traits and trivialise the oppression and discrimination some folks face.” Read the remarks on this story »

Do not do it: sports brand Nike unveiled a clothes range created in collaboration with style designer Sacai, like flowing garments intended to make sportswear look much more feminine.

But readers were angered by the use of lace and pleats and thought the outfits lacked performance.

“Ruffles n’ lace? Significantly? Never ever thoughts the sexist overtones, the styles are simply unappealing,” added LOW.

Not everyone felt the very same way. “There may possibly be some positive aspects that come from this exploration,” wrote The Liberty Disciple. “Significantly less skin-tight clothes could motivate these with conservative cultures or entire body-image problems to exercise.” Read the comments on this story »

Fryscrapers: a idea for “shadowless” skyscrapers that bounce sun beams down to the ground reminded readers of Rafael Viñoly’s Walkie Talkie building in London, which reflected a beam of light extreme ample to melt cars.

“I didn’t consider we would want to replicate that!” said Frankie.

Other commenters questioned the logic of the design: “I never see the stage if you have to construct a taller tower to remove the shadow of a smaller sized 1,” wrote Kekos.

“If you want a shadowless skyscraper, will not create it in the very first spot,” agreed Steve O. “Extremely reflective buildings do not operate.” Read the comments on this story »

Facadism: Penoyre &amp Prasad’s transformation of the world’s tallest hospital prompted a discussion about the Brutalist style of architecture. Task architect Sunand Prasad described Guy’s Tower prior to its makeover as an “unsightly building” – a comment a lot of took situation with.

“Its forceful, daring aesthetics have been continually undermined, 1st by the Shard and now by this,” wrote MB. “We have misplaced an additional beautiful Brutalist developing to style.”

Stephen Mallory presented a comparable view: “I think this would have been much better if the metal cladding was coloured to match the concrete greater. However, the folded cladding is very gorgeous.”

“I would have favored if it had been offered the ‘Park Hill’ treatment method,” wrote Stuart W, referring to the refurbishment of the Brutalist housing estate in Sheffield. “I fear we will lose all buildings of this era in the very same way.” Read the remarks on this story »

Dezeen