> Why does a bridge have to benefit the local community? Why not eg the wider community?
This was written in the context of maintainability. I'm obviously not opposed to infrastructure benefiting a larger community.
Imagine two equal bridges. One benefits the people nearby a lot, the other not so much. Which one do you think will get maintained best?
>> Can we bring the design closer to the layman? Can we for example design a bridge so that it will visually degrade in step with safety degradation?
> What's the benefit?
This was again written in the context of maintainability. Imagine two equally unsafe bridges. One to the layman looks "visually ok", the other "a nightmare of fear crossing this one". Which one do you think gets repaired first?
>> Technological advances have enabled a cheap/fast/overbuild culture. This very much includes the design phase.
> You say this like it's a bad thing. If stuff becomes cheap enough to build that every generation can afford to build their own, that's much better, isn't it?
I was mostly saying this is not an optimal thing. Cheap/fast/overbuilt can be a real burden in the long term in terms of maintainability. Budget and environmental issues are also very closely related.
> Your comment emphasis closeness in space a lot, with talks of local community etc. So why not emphasis closeness in time, too?
Absolutely! That's why I mentioned an example of building infra in now very flood-prone areas out of potentially less durable but cheaper, more quickly replaced materials like wood.
Thank you for your comment. I'm grateful for the opportunity to discuss this. It's a subject that almost naturally attracts my attention. Might have something to do with living between Belgium and Latvia. Belgium has lots of physical infra, often not very well maintained. Cheap/fast/overbuild is definitely a thing. Latvia has a lot less infra. Due to history's course, there's very interesting distinctions in terms of infrastructure. Some of it is cleverly minimalist. Most of its new infra is heavily EU subsidised. Many projects are no doubt very beneficial, but often one can almost smell the bloat of needing to spend those sweet subsidies. In many places, the bulk of infra is Soviet era. A significant part of what's still in active use is often badly maintained or not at all. Then there's the enormous visible scars in the landscape of crumbling disused infra. Some fascinatingly sad examples are the giant former agricultural collective farm buildings that are falling apart all over the country.
This was written in the context of maintainability. I'm obviously not opposed to infrastructure benefiting a larger community.
Imagine two equal bridges. One benefits the people nearby a lot, the other not so much. Which one do you think will get maintained best?
>> Can we bring the design closer to the layman? Can we for example design a bridge so that it will visually degrade in step with safety degradation? > What's the benefit? This was again written in the context of maintainability. Imagine two equally unsafe bridges. One to the layman looks "visually ok", the other "a nightmare of fear crossing this one". Which one do you think gets repaired first?
>> Technological advances have enabled a cheap/fast/overbuild culture. This very much includes the design phase. > You say this like it's a bad thing. If stuff becomes cheap enough to build that every generation can afford to build their own, that's much better, isn't it? I was mostly saying this is not an optimal thing. Cheap/fast/overbuilt can be a real burden in the long term in terms of maintainability. Budget and environmental issues are also very closely related.
> Your comment emphasis closeness in space a lot, with talks of local community etc. So why not emphasis closeness in time, too? Absolutely! That's why I mentioned an example of building infra in now very flood-prone areas out of potentially less durable but cheaper, more quickly replaced materials like wood.
Thank you for your comment. I'm grateful for the opportunity to discuss this. It's a subject that almost naturally attracts my attention. Might have something to do with living between Belgium and Latvia. Belgium has lots of physical infra, often not very well maintained. Cheap/fast/overbuild is definitely a thing. Latvia has a lot less infra. Due to history's course, there's very interesting distinctions in terms of infrastructure. Some of it is cleverly minimalist. Most of its new infra is heavily EU subsidised. Many projects are no doubt very beneficial, but often one can almost smell the bloat of needing to spend those sweet subsidies. In many places, the bulk of infra is Soviet era. A significant part of what's still in active use is often badly maintained or not at all. Then there's the enormous visible scars in the landscape of crumbling disused infra. Some fascinatingly sad examples are the giant former agricultural collective farm buildings that are falling apart all over the country.