Frontiers of Construction - top ten projects of the 20th century?
Bill Kinkaid
Frontiers of Construction is a weekly program on the Discovery Channel
in Canada (Canadian produced but peddled elsewhere, I presume) which
features interesting, impressive and innovative construction,
renovation, demolition etc projects around the world, more from the
nuts and bolts view of things than the stuff on Home & Garden.
This week they featured a top ten countdown of the ten greatest
construction projects of the twentieth century; ten wonders of the
modern world if you will, though they didn't call it that (the exact
order beyond the first three escapes me)What do you think?
Eurotunnel
Empire State Building (New York)
Panama Canal
Golden Gate Bridge (San Francisco)
International Space Station
CN Tower (Toronto)
Hoover Dam (Colorado River)
The Big Dig (burying expressways in Boston)
Guggenheim Museum (Bilbao)
Hong Kong Airport
Bill in Vancouver
Gary S. Callison
: Hong Kong Airport
Sure this wasn't Narita? That's some serious construction: they built an
island, and it's sinking, but at different rates, so the entire airport is
on jacks that they can adjust. Place survived earthquakes - which is
amazing, considering it's on a man-made island that's sinking...
--
Huey
TonyKestle
>From: Bill Kinkaid kin...@telus.net
>Date: 5/29/2003 9:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <2elddvc3h2r0bgqo3...@4ax.com>
Saw A similar show last week - #1 was the Radio Telescope @ Aricibo
Tony
Peter Renshaw
"TonyKestle" <tonyk...@aol.com> wrote:
As a loyal Australian, I would argue the magnificent Snowy Mountains
Hydroelectric Project is worthy of a place in this list -
http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/education/engineering.cfm will give some idea
of this remarkable achievement.
Tassie
----------------------------------------------------------
I am a graduate of Starfleet Academy - I know many things.
Worf
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (The Darkness and the Light)
osmium
> I list them only to open discussion.
> Frontiers of Construction is a weekly program on the Discovery Channel
> in Canada (Canadian produced but peddled elsewhere, I presume) which
> features interesting, impressive and innovative construction,
> renovation, demolition etc projects around the world, more from the
> nuts and bolts view of things than the stuff on Home & Garden.
> This week they featured a top ten countdown of the ten greatest
> construction projects of the twentieth century; ten wonders of the
> modern world if you will, though they didn't call it that (the exact
> order beyond the first three escapes me)What do you think?
<snip>
> Guggenheim Museum (Bilbao)
> Hong Kong Airport
I wasn't aware of the museum. After googling I found these (and others)
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Guggenheim_Bilbao.html
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/spain.jpg
Bilbao is near France.
It looks to me like simply another proof by example that if you are willing
to spend the money you can come up with an astonishing variety of malformed
buildings. I don't know why this is to be preferred over the opera house at
Sydney. My first guess is they are purposely trying to introduce
controversy since Sydney is so much more well known. I am not interested
enough to learn about the Hong Kong airport but it looks like more of the
same (controversy).
There might be a "we are the leading edge" thing here too, I suspect these
two just made it under the wire for the 20th century.
osmium
> As a loyal Australian, I would argue the magnificent Snowy Mountains
> Hydroelectric Project is worthy of a place in this list -
> http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/education/engineering.cfm will give some idea
> of this remarkable achievement.
Oddly enough, that was on digital cable last night. (Thursday). Pretty
impressive, I should watch that show again and pay more attention. Do I
understand properly that there are *two* sets of generators drive by a
single source of water?
Peter Renshaw
"osmium" <r124c...@attbi.com> wrote:
That is the way I understand it (we learned all about it in elementary
school social studies, but my memories are a little stretched!). Not only
was it a magnificent feat of engineering - the effect on immigration to
Australia of skilled workers from Europe and the US had a lasting and
beneficial effect on our country.
Tassie
-----------------------------------------
"Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he pulled his scimitar from the neck of the Orc.
Erich
"osmium" <r124c...@attbi.com> wrote:
What makes Hong Kong airport interesting is the network of bridges
required to reach it, not the terminal building.
... Erich
Mark Hanson
news:2elddvc3h2r0bgqo3...@4ax.com...
> The Big Dig (burying expressways in Boston)
My girlfriend actually doesn't like this one, because now when she drives
through Boston on I-93 (you know, once a year or so) she can't see the city.
Or more accurately, she won't be able to see the city, since it's not quite
finished yet. I think she needs help. It's worth any expense in years and
money just to get rid of the elevated expressway, possibly one of the most
ill-though-out urban highway improvements in history.
Mark
s...@pffcu.com
weight of the flight regulation manuals.
I swear it's true.
--
The prairies are vast plains covered by treeless forests.
Nick Spalding
They are going to look dated long before, for instance, the Colosseum or
the Pont du Gard do. Nothing dates faster than the leading edge, or is
more expensive to maintain.
--
Nick Spalding
James Gifford
> They are going to look dated long before, for instance, the Colosseum or
> the Pont du Gard do. Nothing dates faster than the leading edge, or is
> more expensive to maintain.
Well... much the same is said about any building that doesn't follow
classical or "classical" lines. It's true of some. OTOH, it was said
about the Guggenheim in NYC, still an astounding treat for the eye
inside and out.
--
|| James Gifford * jgif...@surewest.net ||
|| See www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more ||
Nick Spalding
> Nick Spalding wrote:
> > They are going to look dated long before, for instance, the Colosseum or
> > the Pont du Gard do. Nothing dates faster than the leading edge, or is
> > more expensive to maintain.
>
> Well... much the same is said about any building that doesn't follow
> classical or "classical" lines. It's true of some. OTOH, it was said
> about the Guggenheim in NYC, still an astounding treat for the eye
> inside and out.
I beg to differ. I don't like the Guggenheim in NYC or Bilbao. On the
other hand I am not offended by much built before the middle of the last
century.
--
Nick Spalding
James Gifford
>> Well... much the same is said about any building that doesn't follow
>> classical or "classical" lines. It's true of some. OTOH, it was said
>> about the Guggenheim in NYC, still an astounding treat for the eye
>> inside and out.
> I beg to differ. I don't like the Guggenheim in NYC or Bilbao. On the
> other hand I am not offended by much built before the middle of the last
> century.
Well, tastes and mileage vary.
I bet I could find quite a few 1900-1950 buildings that would peg your
EwwYuck-O-Meter. I think you're romanticizing the prewar (pre-Wright,
pre-Neutra) era and looking only at buildings that survived because they
followed the classical models.
Dilbert Firestorm
Extreme engineering, eh.....
I'd disagree on this museum being part of this list.
what about this Canadian causesway that's supposed (or will be) to be the
longest in the world. I think like maybe 15 miles or something like that.
Nick Spalding
> Nick Spalding wrote:
> >> Well... much the same is said about any building that doesn't follow
> >> classical or "classical" lines. It's true of some. OTOH, it was said
> >> about the Guggenheim in NYC, still an astounding treat for the eye
> >> inside and out.
>
> > I beg to differ. I don't like the Guggenheim in NYC or Bilbao. On the
> > other hand I am not offended by much built before the middle of the last
> > century.
>
> Well, tastes and mileage vary.
>
> I bet I could find quite a few 1900-1950 buildings that would peg your
> EwwYuck-O-Meter. I think you're romanticizing the prewar (pre-Wright,
> pre-Neutra) era and looking only at buildings that survived because they
> followed the classical models.
Possibly. We can only hope the process continues.
--
Nick Spalding
Scott P
wrote:
I know it isn't as "important" as most of these are but I thought the
Luxor Pyramid in Vegas was pretty amazing.
Scott
Bill Kinkaid
<scanb31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote:
>
>Extreme engineering, eh.....
>
>I'd disagree on this museum being part of this list.
>
>what about this Canadian causesway that's supposed (or will be) to be the
>longest in the world. I think like maybe 15 miles or something like that.
The Confederation Bridge to Prince Edward Island? It's definitely a
bridge, not a causeway, built on piers across the Northumberland
Strait. But I think it's considered the longest something-or-other
bridge in the world.
Bill in Vancouver
groo
I think you've got this backwards, Huey. IIRC, Narita is inland, and
there was in fact quite a furor about taking farmland when it was
originally created and again during the expansion:
http://www.jca.apc.org/narita/toho_e.html
The Hong Kong Airport heavily utilized land reclamation.
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~kevinduh/hkair/landfill.htm
Or maybe you are thinking of Kansai International Airport in Osaka,
which is also sinking and is jacked up (at least a terminal building
is).
Gary S. Callison
: "Gary S. Callison" wrote:
: > Bill Kinkaid (kin...@telus.net) wrote:
: > : Hong Kong Airport
: > Sure this wasn't Narita? That's some serious construction: they built an
: > island, and it's sinking, but at different rates, so the entire airport is
: > on jacks that they can adjust. Place survived earthquakes - which is
: > amazing, considering it's on a man-made island that's sinking...
: I think you've got this backwards, Huey. IIRC, Narita is inland, and
: there was in fact quite a furor about taking farmland when it was
: originally created and again during the expansion:
: http://www.jca.apc.org/narita/toho_e.html
: which is also sinking and is jacked up (at least a terminal building
: is).
Yes, that's the thingy, thank you.
--
Huey
Sean Houtman
That comes to 11, and what is that last one anyway? I couldn't find any
references to and Bill in Vancouver anywhere.
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.
Richard R. Hershberger
> Bilbao is near France.
and Chicago is near Canada...
Asterbark
>
>Nick Spalding wrote:
>> They are going to look dated long before, for instance, the Colosseum or
>> the Pont du Gard do. Nothing dates faster than the leading edge, or is
>> more expensive to maintain.
>
>Well... much the same is said about any building that doesn't follow
>classical or "classical" lines. It's true of some. OTOH, it was said
>about the Guggenheim in NYC, still an astounding treat for the eye
>inside and out.
A building that actually looks like a heap at a landfill is not gorgeous. I can
agree it's an astounding feat for the curves of a free-form structure to turn
out just like the plans, rather than the relative ease of slapping up another
row of this or that, straight up. Liken it to the Eiffel Tower, which is an
asymptote curve. As I understand it, the calculations had to be made for every
individual piece that went up, and on paper, not in the days of computer-aided
drafting, and were predrilled, ready for assembly on-site. Of course, the
Eiffel Tower was an achievement of the previous century, but the Guggenheim in
Bilbao is not so hot to look at. That is what they said about the Eiffel Tower
when it was too modern for the day.
I happen to think Wright's Guggenheim in NYC is pretty cool and innovative (not
my favorite example, however), and I've seen it from the inside, though they
managed to screw up that view with what I'd consider not a worthwhile exhibit
to have gone and seen at the time. It may have been worthwhile, maybe they
could have placed it better in another museum. I'm just not a fan of the design
influence of mere free-flowing shapes for the sake of being "different," as in
Gehry's interpretation. He seems to build a lot of things which optically seem
to defy gravity or which look as if they will fall over, which was also the
influence at the end of the previous century, which astounded and repulsed and
frightened a lot of people. I don't know Gehry's works very well, but I was
hoping he was the same man as the sculptor who does large and amazing metal
pieces which the viewer has to walk through to get the experience of the art,
rather than look at it. He (anyone know who I mean?) had been commissioned to
produce a piece of art to be placed in front of a building, and word on the
street is that most people who encounter it are surprised it's art and come
away with the feeling that some piece of unfinished construction has been left
on site (because it's not really more to admire from looking at than
experiencing up close and sensing with other senses). Perhaps experiencing the
interior at the Guggenheim in Bilbao would be somewhat like that, although
distracting from the art. Architecture of a museum should enhance the art, be
calm and background-like. I take back my sentiment about the NYC Guggenheim
interior effect being wrong for a Nam June Paik exhibit, for it is probably
better seen in a round hallway, but as a tv lover, I expected it to be more
innovative than looking at 20 tvs in a row filming the same fish in a remote
location. I have to say, I think I'm the only one I saw there that day who
perceived it correctly, which is watching it (any row of tvs showing variations
of something) while quickly passing by, not staring for a long time in deep
pose, as if it was getting the message through. I don't think the same effect
could be had at a rectangular gallery than making ones way up a ramp in the
shape of a large spring.
But Gehry isn't the same guy (as the metal sculptor). "Free-form" as a design
concept is kind of lazy, in my opinion. I see it in furniture and kooky
accessories and some abstract art, imitative of a genuine inspiration started
by someone else, someone who actually knew what they were doing, and it doesn't
strike me as something I want to look at. It's not something that appeals to me
as something that is new or hip or different just because it's not the same
shape or recognizable as a literal form that we've been accustomed to looking
at and appreciating.
I do, however, appreciate the sentiment behind gathering a lot of tvs together
for an occasion. My secret dream is to have a wall of tvs like Reverend Jim had
in that episode of "Taxi," and perhaps many doors and a horse behind one of
them, preferably not in the condition as the one in another episode of "Taxi."
Paik's interpretation of a wall of tvs seemed oddly like a retail display
compared to the significant message intended that we are confronted and seduced
with many images that fracture our contact with the living world, even friends
in the same room with us. It substitutes (as in news programs and all-day
channels) as the authority of what's important, that you are experiencing the
reality vicariously through the screen and it is *important* that you do so,
miss your own really important life and contact with people in order to
*experience* a scandalous or tragic event in someone else's life for a few
hours. In one sense, it desensitizes violence, which is still violent, yet more
entertaining than one's own comparitively dull life, but it desensitizes your
own comparitively dull life. Life can be pretty intriguing if one doesn't tend
to compare it to tv news headlines.
--
Aster
JB
>
> James Gifford jgif...@surewest.net wrote:
>
> >
> >Nick Spalding wrote:
> >> They are going to look dated long before, for instance, the Colosseum or
> >> the Pont du Gard do. Nothing dates faster than the leading edge, or is
> >> more expensive to maintain.
> >
> >Well... much the same is said about any building that doesn't follow
> >classical or "classical" lines. It's true of some. OTOH, it was said
> >about the Guggenheim in NYC, still an astounding treat for the eye
> >inside and out.
Astounding? Nah.
> A building that actually looks like a heap at a landfill is not gorgeous. I can
> agree it's an astounding feat for the curves of a free-form structure to turn
> out just like the plans, rather than the relative ease of slapping up another
> row of this or that, straight up. Liken it to the Eiffel Tower, which is an
> asymptote curve.
> As I understand it, the calculations had to be made for every
> individual piece that went up
That has, and always will be, standard for every structure.
> and on paper, not in the days of computer-aided
> drafting,
I assume that by "computer-aided drafting" you are referring to the entire
genre of computer-aided design, including computerized structural stress
analysis (normally called CADD, computer-aided design and drafting).
However, all structures predating CADD (eg, Golden Gate Bridge, Empire State
Building, etc.) also required manual stress calculations for every structural
member.
> and were predrilled, ready for assembly on-site.
Everyday standard for all structures. The Empire State Building frame could
not have been erected in a year if onsite structural fabrication had been
required.
> Of course, the
> Eiffel Tower was an achievement of the previous century, but the Guggenheim in
> Bilbao is not so hot to look at.
Agreed; the Guggenheims in Manhattan and Bilbao are unimpressive. Neither
are attractive in themselves, nor do they harmonize with their surroundings.
They both have the look of architects straining for a vision to sell to a
client. The Sydney opera house is far better example of successful,
pleasing, unconventional architectural design with perfect functionality.
--JB
Greg Goss
>> and were predrilled, ready for assembly on-site.
>
>Everyday standard for all structures. The Empire State Building frame could
>not have been erected in a year if onsite structural fabrication had been
>required.
unique and pre-drilled. Each panel had to go onto the correct place.
Each girder on the ESB is probably very similar to most of the other
girders.
JB
You can count on variations throughout the structure. The columns near the
bottom are much heavier than those at upper levels since the loads are
greater. This means differing joints, and differing horizontal member
lengths as the structure gets taller to accommodate the different column
dimensions.
Per standard structural design, every single piece is individually
identified, designed and detailed.
--JB