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

131–140 of 140 posts

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

#131

Post by cwillu »

Intralexical wrote: post #125
cwillu wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ode to The Paint on Nuclear Submarines The purpose of the hull is to protect the paint. The purpose of the reactor is to drive the paint around. The purpose of the SUBSAFE program is to ensure the paint comes to the surface and will not be lost. The purpose of the cathodic protection system is to back up the paint. The purpose of the weapons is to defend the paint. The purpose of the Special Hull Treatment is to prot…

What's the purpose of the crew? Provide the paint company?

The purpose of the crew is to reapply the paint.

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

#132

Post by valianteffort »

doctorhandshake wrote: post #22
valianteffort wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-all-female-responsible... https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/PolitiFact-No-it-was-...

Your Tampa Bay article does nothing to refute the claim that the bridge was designed by an all female team. All it does is state that men also worked at both companies and were also in leadership roles therefore it couldn't have been led by an all-female team. As though the companies were so small every employee was involved in every project.

If this is the best evidence you have it's not very good. And snopes is a laughably unreliable source I won't even entertain their bullshit.

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

#133

Post by conductr »

_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.

What’s odd to me is it wasn’t even too aesthetically pleasing with the wood. Sure it looked a little unusual but I don’t personally think a plain steel bridge looks all that much different, and certainly not much worse.

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

#134

Post by MeImCounting »

trgn wrote: post #122
MeImCounting wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive never understood why this style of architecture is seen as "horrific" and "offensive". It looks nice. I like to see the materials a building is made of. I am so sick stucco and paneling trying to hide the material a building is made of. If you want to paint it paint a mural. Why must everything be sterilized and flattened.

Because they didnt bother to put a roof on it for ideological reasons (postwar architects were obsessed with cubes, purely because it made a statement), so rain streaks down and those skidmarks looks awful on big concrete slabs. So they at least need to wash it and put on a roof that prevents it from happening again. Apart from that, this building is fine overall. It's odd though, because I would call this building s…

The rain streaks look great to me as well! Its kind of like a pair of well worn leather shoes has creases and lines where the foot bends or how a well worn pair of jeans fades on the knees and wrinkles. Not that I am against a roof for this building, or even adding some materials like brick or maybe timber could be interesting.

I think this about lots of 'brutalist' buildings: theyre gorgeous as is and might be improved a bit and receive less hate if they used more materials than just concrete and glass. Brick, Timber, and stone even after all people love all the Frank Loyd Wright stuff and he used plenty of raw materials.

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

#135

Post by KptMarchewa »

tremon wrote: post #116
loeg wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Have a second one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchenstein_rail_disas...

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

#136

Post by VelesDude »

avery17 wrote: post #127
VelesDude wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good engineer can make a bridge that stands 1,000 years. A great one makes one that can stand 100 years.

These guys must be the best engineers in the world then!

Well I... umm... hmmmm...

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

#137

Post by Aeolun »

constantcrying wrote: post #112
Aeolun wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is considered good architecture these days is also harmful to the people that need to work in it.

So many new buildings seem to think that all space needs to be given over to being impressive, instead of dedicated to the people that work in it.

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

#138

Post by hilux »

MeImCounting wrote: post #98
trgn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horrific, but salvageable. Put on a wide overhang flat roof, so rain no longer streaks down the wall, and wash/paint it. Then, it will just be a large no frills classroom building. Not great, but no longer offensive either.

Ive never understood why this style of architecture is seen as "horrific" and "offensive". It looks nice. I like to see the materials a building is made of. I am so sick stucco and paneling trying to hide the material a building is made of. If you want to paint it paint a mural. Why must everything be sterilized and flattened.

I'm with you in that I don't hate all brutalist architecture, but Wurster is generally acknowledged to be ugly in real life.

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

#139

Post by doctorhandshake »

valianteffort wrote: post #132
doctorhandshake wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-all-female-responsible... https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/PolitiFact-No-it-was-...

Your Tampa Bay article does nothing to refute the claim that the bridge was designed by an all female team. All it does is state that men also worked at both companies and were also in leadership roles therefore it couldn't have been led by an all-female team. As though the companies were so small every employee was involved in every project. If this is the best evidence you have it's not very good. And snopes is a l…

Typically you would refute evidence with other evidence.

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

#140

Post by trgn »

MeImCounting wrote: post #134
trgn wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they didnt bother to put a roof on it for ideological reasons (postwar architects were obsessed with cubes, purely because it made a statement), so rain streaks down and those skidmarks looks awful on big concrete slabs. So they at least need to wash it and put on a roof that prevents it from happening again. Apart from that, this building is fine overall. It's odd though, because I would call this building s…

The rain streaks look great to me as well! Its kind of like a pair of well worn leather shoes has creases and lines where the foot bends or how a well worn pair of jeans fades on the knees and wrinkles. Not that I am against a roof for this building, or even adding some materials like brick or maybe timber could be interesting. I think this about lots of 'brutalist' buildings: theyre gorgeous as is and might be impro…

Yeah, for sure, buildings in nice materials with nice details, would be nice! But I dont think that's what brutality buildings generally are.

But the streaks, oh no, that's just foul lol. Weathering is nice on a buildings, but not grotesquely like that

Post reply on HN