4 ms·

From an article in Le Temps[1], the bridge had some conception issue; Concrete viscosity wasn't consider correctly. The cost of maintenance was very high and a

From an article in Le Temps[1], the bridge had some conception issue; Concrete viscosity wasn't consider correctly. The cost of maintenance was very high and a replacement was considered but the project was opposed. [1] https://www.letemps.ch/monde/catastrophe-genes-lecroulement-dun-pont-11-morts https://www.letemps.ch/monde/catastrophe-genes-lecroulement-...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
peterwwillis 8y ago
Yet another bridge design felled by over-reliance on concrete for structural integrity. A lot more bridges are going to fail around the world because they rely too much on concrete, and on dangerous designs without sufficient redundancy. I like ancient Roman bridges because they're both complex and simple, but my favorite thing about them is how utilitarian they are. At least the examples we have today were clearly not undermining their integrity for the sake of a cool design (2 prestressed concrete tension beams? what the fuck?). Pretty much the only thing that would fell them was the force of flooding rivers. Some fell apart over time, but we're talking over a thousand years. Bridges today barely last 100. We have to stop letting architects design, and cities then build, hipster bridges. Their primary consideration must be their integrity and longevity.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >We have to stop letting architects design, and cities then build, hipster bridges. Their primary consideration must be their integrity and longevity. Agreed. You don't have to go back to roman times to see engineering for function over form. If there's one thing the red side of the iron curtain did right it was not letting form compromise function when it came to public works and civil engineering. >At least the examples we have today were clearly not undermining their integrity for the sake of a cool design What people like to see follows what they're used to seeing. A good example is the GMT800 Chevy truck platform. In 2000-2005 everyone thought they looked like ugly slant eyed jelly beans, now they just look normal because people have gotten used to them. If we built functional things people would get used to how they look and start to like it.
  - Piskvorrr 8y ago
    "If there's one thing the red side of the iron curtain did right it was not letting form compromise function when it came to public works and civil engineering." Um. You're technically correct (because the reasoning was "form be damned, gotta build a wartime infrastructure, we'll just let civilians use it until it's needed for tanks"), but this was undermined by lack of maintenance.
- tajen 8y ago
  > hipster bridges I will steel that expression. You’ve made a good argument I wonder whether the quantity of matter (stone, concrete) needed to build Roman bridges was much more important, thus costly. Would we be able to build as many bridges, if we made them way thicker? Same goes for cars or tools that survived through time: sure you can have a good old wrench that doesn’t break, you just need 4x the amount of iron to build it and it will cost more. But nonetheless, hipster bridges aren’t necessary (and looking very thin isn’t a vertue for a bridge).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

peterwwillis 8y ago

Yet another bridge design felled by over-reliance on concrete for structural integrity. A lot more bridges are going to fail around the world because they rely too much on concrete, and on dangerous designs without sufficient redundancy. I like ancient Roman bridges because they're both complex and simple, but my favorite thing about them is how utilitarian they are. At least the examples we have today were clearly not undermining their integrity for the sake of a cool design (2 prestressed concrete tension beams? what the fuck?). Pretty much the only thing that would fell them was the force of flooding rivers. Some fell apart over time, but we're talking over a thousand years. Bridges today barely last 100. We have to stop letting architects design, and cities then build, hipster bridges. Their primary consideration must be their integrity and longevity.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>We have to stop letting architects design, and cities then build, hipster bridges. Their primary consideration must be their integrity and longevity. Agreed. You don't have to go back to roman times to see engineering for function over form. If there's one thing the red side of the iron curtain did right it was not letting form compromise function when it came to public works and civil engineering. >At least the examples we have today were clearly not undermining their integrity for the sake of a cool design What people like to see follows what they're used to seeing. A good example is the GMT800 Chevy truck platform. In 2000-2005 everyone thought they looked like ugly slant eyed jelly beans, now they just look normal because people have gotten used to them. If we built functional things people would get used to how they look and start to like it.
- Piskvorrr 8y ago
  "If there's one thing the red side of the iron curtain did right it was not letting form compromise function when it came to public works and civil engineering." Um. You're technically correct (because the reasoning was "form be damned, gotta build a wartime infrastructure, we'll just let civilians use it until it's needed for tanks"), but this was undermined by lack of maintenance.
tajen 8y ago
> hipster bridges I will steel that expression. You’ve made a good argument I wonder whether the quantity of matter (stone, concrete) needed to build Roman bridges was much more important, thus costly. Would we be able to build as many bridges, if we made them way thicker? Same goes for cars or tools that survived through time: sure you can have a good old wrench that doesn’t break, you just need 4x the amount of iron to build it and it will cost more. But nonetheless, hipster bridges aren’t necessary (and looking very thin isn’t a vertue for a bridge).