Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

dezeen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 140 posts

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#101

Post by deanresin »

soneca wrote: post #77
_hbro wrote: post #27

The idea that a "strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to the failure of a bridge doesn't make any logical sense. Employing a strong focus on aesthetics doesn't preclude also having the necessary focus on stability and safety. Bridges fail because they were not designed or engineered properly.

How do you focus in two different things? You can strongly value two (or more) things, but when you decide to focus on something, as I understand the term, you necessarily preclude focusing on another thing.

They said "strong focus" which implies there is a spectrum of focus and that everything falls on that spectrum of focus. I disagree that any amount of focus precludes any focus on something else, especially in this context.

On second thought, a camera can only focus on one field. So it would make sense if our language only allowed one focus. But what if we had multiple cameras? Or multiple teams or engineers designing a bridge?

Have we gone too far? lol

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#102

Post by ajross »

Aeolun wrote: post #87
ajross wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that basically arguing "Don't talk to me about statistics, I want to talk about this one specific data point"? Bridges on the whole are pretty clearly better built and safer today then they were 130 years ago. I don't think there's any significant argument to the contrary. There are outliers in both directions, obviously. The old one at this site looks like it was pretty great. The new one sucked. That doesn't…

On the whole they may be better built, but the same design in steel would likely not have failed? I guess that’s what they’re going for when they say aesthetics had too much of a focus?

> On the whole they may be better built, but the same design in steel would likely not have failed?

I don't see how that follows? Lots of steel bridges have failed over the past 130 years. The overwhelming majority of new-built bridges or any material don't fail.

People really, really want this to be about "aesthetics" because it confirms their priors about being smarter than the rest of the world or whatever. I'm just saying that's 100% bunk and that there's zero evidence for that hypothesis.

Architecture has had a "strong focus on aesthetics" since the very first stones were piled up to make a temple. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#103

Post by anigbrowl »

mperham wrote: post #10

The key line IMO: Tretten Bridge was designed while building regulations in Norway were in transition from a national system to European codes. Provisions for this transitional period enabled the project to follow the older national standards, which unlike the Eurocodes did not account for block shear failure.

Yeah, I'm not sure why the editorial focus on 'aesthetics'.

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#104

Post by TylerE »

arp242 wrote: post #97
TylerE wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moisture causes corrosion. Rivers produce lots of moisture. Corrosion weakens the steel. It's literally the metal flaking away. All steel corrodes. Even stainless. Once corrosion sets in and the outside of the metal starts to pit, the corrosion speeds up drastically. (The old area vs volume thing, same thing that makes lump coal difficult to ignite while aerosolized coal dust is practically an explosive). Here's a mo…

There are metal bridges over 100 years old still in service today, including a few you've heard of. Do you know this specific bridge was replaced for this specific reason, or are you just making stuff up?

I’m not making any thing up. Why the hostile tone?

This is basic materials engineering.

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#105

Post by loeg »

ajross wrote: post #102
Aeolun wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the whole they may be better built, but the same design in steel would likely not have failed? I guess that’s what they’re going for when they say aesthetics had too much of a focus?

> On the whole they may be better built, but the same design in steel would likely not have failed? I don't see how that follows? Lots of steel bridges have failed over the past 130 years. The overwhelming majority of new-built bridges or any material don't fail. People really, really want this to be about "aesthetics" because it confirms their priors about being smarter than the rest of the world or whatever. I'm ju…

Another recent example that isn't wood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_Universi...

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#106

Post by loeg »

Gare wrote: post #54
loeg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Engineers in 1895 knew how to use steel trusses and built a bridge that lasted 100+ years It's a little too strong of a claim. Plenty of poorly designed steel bridges from the 19th century have collapsed as well, despite the superior material.

> Plenty of poorly designed steel bridges from the 19th century have collapsed as well, despite the superior material. Disagree. In late 19th century steel girder bridges were well understood and many of them survive to this day. They were usually replaced due to changed demands (wider roads, heavier loads), not because of failure.

Is this late enough in the 19th century for you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_Bridge_disaster

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#107

Post by bdjsiqoocwk »

rdtsc wrote: post #14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tretten_Bridge The ironic part is "The bridge replaced a steel truss bridge built in 1895 at the same location". Engineers in 1895 knew how to use steel trusses and built a bridge that lasted 100+ years, and in 2012 they decided to use glued wooden beams and it fell apart in 10 years. Well perhaps Plan Arkitekter and Norconsult can take a trip to the archives and see what the engineers i…

But just think how beautiful it is.

Well, was.

Sarcasm aside, I see more beauty in doing something well than whatever this was. Are they hiring art students to build bridges now?

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#108

Post by philwelch »

hilux wrote: post #13
voisin wrote: post #3

Architects’ first commandment: always prioritize function over form.

Unsurprisingly, this is Wurster Hall, home of the Architecture School (aka "College of Environmental Design") at UC Berkeley: https://www.sosbrutalism.org/cms/15892267

Is this a maximum security architecture school?

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#109

Post by boxed »

rdtsc wrote: post #14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tretten_Bridge The ironic part is "The bridge replaced a steel truss bridge built in 1895 at the same location". Engineers in 1895 knew how to use steel trusses and built a bridge that lasted 100+ years, and in 2012 they decided to use glued wooden beams and it fell apart in 10 years. Well perhaps Plan Arkitekter and Norconsult can take a trip to the archives and see what the engineers i…

Survivor bias.

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#110

Post by SoftTalker »

akira2501 wrote: post #43
_hbro wrote: post #27

The idea that a "strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to the failure of a bridge doesn't make any logical sense. Employing a strong focus on aesthetics doesn't preclude also having the necessary focus on stability and safety. Bridges fail because they were not designed or engineered properly.

> Employing a strong focus on aesthetics doesn't preclude also having the necessary focus on stability and safety No, you just have to pay a lot more for it, and civil projects don't typically allow for endlessly ballooning budgets.

Are you familiar with Scandinavian civil projects? They tend to be quite attractive, IMO.
Post reply on HN