Wasn't there something recently about an expensive skyscraper that when built turned out to trap heat way too well due to angles of infraction from sunbeams or something? Is this a case of the architects missing something obvious? If so, pretty big fuck up.
Sun reflections happen all the time with these metal and glass buildings. The one you're talking about is probably Nasher. The link also shows a proposed fix to it. When Gehry's Disney Hall went up, people complained about the glare too, so they ended up scuffing the titanium in places to soften the reflectance (i think). All of the really big firms and so-called 'starchitects' basically have their own legal teams because they get sued so much. Some of it is legit, some of it is a cash grab. Building these tall towers and curvy buildings have become so complex that it's nearly impossible to anticipate every scenario by which things could go wrong. There really is no excuse for the reflectance issue that I can see though. The sun travels in a well known path that is easily modeled and can be predicted to the second. As far as the wind goes, and I don't know why it's happening, but - imo - no amount of modeling or testing could reasonably predict the exact patterns created by the height, nearby buildings and weather. The real world conditions are just too difficult to model. No doubt though, when the city decides to do something about, someone is gonna have to pay to fix it. It could be cheap. It could be expensive. Of course no one will want to pay either way because doing that is admitting you did something wrong. And so begins the finger pointing, the cataloguing of correspondence, the third parties, the expert opinions, and the overall case building to see who pays the tab.
I think the one you might recall is the London Walkie talkie building. That's the only one I know of. Supposedly it burned a car mirror or something? Random source: http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/Blog/2013/09/03/Skyscraper-melti.../