> we on the other hand can maintain the stuff we want to last a long time.
That we don't do it, e.g. infrastructure with the particularly bad maintained bridges in Germany, is not the materials fault, or the original designs fault.
I have to respectfully disagree on this one. Humans in general have become spectacularly bad at maintaining physical infrastructure across longer timespans. Technological advances have enabled a cheap/fast/overbuild culture. This very much includes the design phase.
Look at the evolution of design. The large majority of our infrastructure, depending on the spot on our earth, largely dates from the last 200 to 50 years. Look at infrastructure predating that. Look at evolution. The bond with local communities depending on the infra? You'll inevitably find it cut. You'll find more bloat in the design. You'll find less local involvement.
To some extent, this is progress. Unfortunately, this has an impact on maintainability.
Looking at your example of German bridges. I'll make it even more tangible and look at the Eifel region with so much of its infra recently destroyed by flooding. How do we get excellently maintained bridges, when we know this is very much against human nature?
This means questions like:
- Does this bridge really need to be (re)built? To this specification? In this place?
- How much does this bridge benefit the local community where it is built? Can we think of ways to increase that?
- How much of this bridge absolutely needs to be built out of reinforced concrete?
- Wouldn't it make sense to build some infra in now very flood-prone areas out of less durable but cheaper, more quickly replaced materials like wood?
- 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?
- ...
> How much does this bridge benefit the local community where it is built?
Why does a bridge have to benefit the local community? Why not eg the wider community?
> 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?
> I have to respectfully disagree on this one. Humans in general have become spectacularly bad at maintaining physical infrastructure across longer timespans. 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?
Your comment emphasis closeness in space a lot, with talks of local community etc. So why not emphasis closeness in time, too? Surely the people living at a particular point in time might be best place to judge what infrastructure they need; instead of having to forecast hundreds of years in advance?
> 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.
I have to respectfully disagree on this one. Humans in general have become spectacularly bad at maintaining physical infrastructure across longer timespans. Technological advances have enabled a cheap/fast/overbuild culture. This very much includes the design phase.
Look at the evolution of design. The large majority of our infrastructure, depending on the spot on our earth, largely dates from the last 200 to 50 years. Look at infrastructure predating that. Look at evolution. The bond with local communities depending on the infra? You'll inevitably find it cut. You'll find more bloat in the design. You'll find less local involvement.
To some extent, this is progress. Unfortunately, this has an impact on maintainability.
Looking at your example of German bridges. I'll make it even more tangible and look at the Eifel region with so much of its infra recently destroyed by flooding. How do we get excellently maintained bridges, when we know this is very much against human nature?
This means questions like: - Does this bridge really need to be (re)built? To this specification? In this place? - How much does this bridge benefit the local community where it is built? Can we think of ways to increase that? - How much of this bridge absolutely needs to be built out of reinforced concrete? - Wouldn't it make sense to build some infra in now very flood-prone areas out of less durable but cheaper, more quickly replaced materials like wood? - 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? - ...