35
votes
Norwegian bridge collapsed ten years after it was built – all because designers focused too much on making it look good
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Bridge Collapses After Just 10 Years Because Designers Were Too Focused On Looks
- Published
- Apr 12 2024
- Word count
- 383 words
Here's a before picture from a comment in the article.
Maybe I'm not bridge-savy enough to see the ""beauty"" here, but I don't really like the look of the bridge.... You'd think if they valued aesthetics over structural safety it'd at least be cool looking....
Edit: @PleasantlyAverage posted a few pics that make the bridge look a lot more aesthetically pleasing, or at least not as awful as the pic in the comments of the article. Here's the link to their comment in case anyone else wants to give bridge-y here another chance :p
It looks like one of the first bridges you build in a bridge builder game.
If that's what it takes to build an aesthetic bridge I guess I'm moving to Norway to design bridges
It seems to me the goal was the "beauty" of "minimalism", and reusing two existing foundations, so they skipped on adding a third support. At least that's what I gather from the article. Ended up with two asymmetrical supports instead of awkward 2+1. But I don't know, I don't do bridges.
I think that image makes it look worse than if viewed in person. Few examples:
https://www.moelven.com/contentassets/e3cbae98206a40919debf74f63eb4619/tretten--bru-8-3.jpg
https://plan.no/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Tretten-bru-1024x525.jpg
https://img1.custompublish.com/getfile.php/5101298.1851.a7uqaamqaibmms/Tretten+bru.jpg
Street view
For comparison the old bridge:
https://www.google.com/maps/@61.3126341,10.3013366,3a,75y,253.85h,80.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEjkJX9IijzdDzJtbhD1i5Q!2e0!5s20100301T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Alright I concede, I guess that commenter found a particularly unflattering picture - it's not as bad in your pics!
Edit: I've edited my original comment with a link to yours, for fairness' sake hah
Maybe it had a nice personality
There’s got to be more to the story, or maybe something was lost in translation. This bridge looks really basic and functional. It’s hard to believe that anyone involved in its design got carried away by an aesthetic vision.
Purely based on the photo linked in the other comment, and a cursory read of Wikipedia for materials used.
I imagine the beauty is based on fitting in within the environment and being minimally imposing.
The use of glulam (wood), weathered steel (rust appearance), and stone piers make it look like an old bridge.
The curve and tapered top of the truss also helps reduce its visual impact.
It fits in better than a generic white concrete & grey steel bridge.
I would like to see pictures of what it replaced. Wikipedia says there was 1895-built steel truss bridge.
Found: https://digitaltmuseum.no/021015802088/tretten-bru-over-gudbrandsdalslagen-i-1895
What? That's a beautiful bridge! Way more aesthetically pleasing than this one was. And it lasted, I assume, 115+ years?
What the hell that's such a nice looking bridge!! Getting real Ecce-Homo vibes from this whole situation...
Also: more to the story, from HN:
Was that not mentioned in this article originally? Maybe it was edited at some point. Final paragraph:
You're right. But the other provides this part which, idk, I'm not an engineer to understand whether it's even relevant.
There's a video from a year ago I watched about this bridge, it has a lot of engineering info about what happened.
How did the Engineers Miss This? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSPI0xkTifI