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

111–120 of 140 posts

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

#111

Post by 8bitsrule »

Gare wrote: post #58
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…

Paint protects steel. A frequently painted steel bridge can last centuries. As always, lack of maintenance and poor design choices (use of corten steel) are the culprit.

The Golden Gate in S.F. has been continuously painted since it was built in 1937 ... that when they've finished on one end, they move to the other end and start again. [0] https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/bridge-maintenance/paintin...

This page details the other continuous maintenance going-on. [1]https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/bridge-maintenance/

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

#112

Post by constantcrying »

Aeolun wrote: post #92
constantcrying wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any good design is a collaboration of art and engineering, where the end result accomplishes the technical requirements and integrates itself into the world around it in an appropriate way. Neither of these can be considered alone, function has a form of its own, just like form has a function of it's own. Architects aren't structural engineers and only in dialogue good infrastructure can be created.

I’m fairly certain good ‘infrastructure’ can be engineered. If you want something pretty that integrates into the world around it’s not solely infrastructure any more.

Bad architecture is harmful to the people who have to interact with it.

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

#113

Post by Sakos »

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…

Am I the only one who thinks it's strange there isn't a single picture of the bridge pre-collapse on that page?

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

#114

Post by c048 »

digging wrote: post #34
_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.

I don't agree; to me it states they were so focused on aesthetics that they weren't able to see structural flaws. Like tunnel vision. Seems like the best way to state this phenomenon IMO.

It can also easily mean they were willing on taking risks, like using unproven techniques, skirt close to minimum safety requirements or even ignore certain rules, just so it would look prettier.

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

#115

Post by akira2501 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #110
akira2501 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Building pretty things on land is significantly easier than building them over water. Engineering is the art of tradeoffs. You want to pick your "aesthetics" battles somewhat carefully. Which also means you're going to want some _solid_ justifications for incorporating them into a retrofit.

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

#116

Post by tremon »

loeg wrote: post #106
Gare wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

So your convincing evidence for the claim that "plenty of poorly designed steel bridges from the 19th century have collapsed" is a single example of a bridge that collapsed because it was designed "less extensive and robust than [..] previous similar designs"?

Or is your claim a mere circular argument, since we can deduce that a steel bridge was poorly designed if it has since collapsed?

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

#117

Post by gpderetta »

iamacyborg wrote: post #73
Gare wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know in what poor country you live, but in my country bridges are well maintained and I don't recall a single critical failure. Even though we're one of the poorest EU countries.

Now do a quick internet search for “hammersmith bridge”.

Which is a shame as it is otherwise a beautiful bridge.

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

#118

Post by gpderetta »

loeg wrote: post #105
ajross wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Another famous one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Ponte_Morandi_collapse

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

#119

Post by INTPenis »

sorenjan wrote: post #91
INTPenis wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bridge was built during a trend to build wooden apartment houses here in Sweden, and probably all over Scandinavia. This fad has now passed and there have been several news stories about what a bad idea it was. I guess they were trying to get back to using more natural materials.

There were 250% more apartments built from wood built in 2022 than in 2012. In total 14.4% of all new apartments finished in 2022 used wood. https://www.di.se/hallbart-naringsliv/trahustrenden-nar-nya-... https://www.tmf.se/bransch-naringspolitik/branschutveckling/...

That's true, I had missed how popular they had become. My brother briefly lived in a wooden apartment building around 2017 and after they moved out I noticed a few criticism of the new wooden trend. Then I just lost track of it.

The trend goes back to 2014 even, so it wouldn't surprise me if this wooden bridge built in 2012 was part of that whole wave.

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

#120

Post by throwaway3563 »

loeg wrote: post #106
Gare wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

“Plenty”?
Post reply on HN