How about this for a cool bridge...

[Specialone]

http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx225/specialone0055/sunkenbridge2.jpg

http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx225/specialone0055/sunkenbridge1.jpg


http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx225/specialone0055/sunkenbridge3.jpg


No, your eyes are not deceiving you - the waters have indeed parted! This incredible “sunken” bridge located in the Netherlands is giving visitors a unique way to access a beautiful 17th Century Dutch fort. Designed by RO & AD Architects, the Moses Bridge literally parts the waters that surround the fort, allowing pedestrians to pass through.



A series of moats and fortresses were built over the West Brabant Water Line region of the Netherlands during the 17th century in order to provide protection from invasion by France and Spain . Fort de Roovere was surrounded with a shallow moat that was too deep to march across, and too shallow for boats. In turn the earthen fort had remained protected –until now.

[Nobbylad]

Very cool indeed

[DarrenSV650S]

That looks cool. What happens when it rains? :)

[Amadeus]

Impressive - not as impressive as Millau but impressive none the less.

[Specialone]

That looks cool. What happens when it rains? :)

You get wet :confused::rolleyes:

[DarrenSV650S]

But the bridge will sink! lol

[andrewsmith]

I must lay off the caffeine

I wonder what happens when the vandals attack :rolleyes:

[Mrs DJ Fridge]

I must lay off the caffeine

I wonder what happens when the vandals attack :rolleyes:

They will need scuba gear to graffiti the outside of it!

[DJFridge]

Impressive - not as impressive as Millau but impressive none the less.

Very true. We had great pictures of the Millau bridge but some gang of toerags stole our camera. Grrrrr

[The Idle Biker]

That looks cool. What happens when it rains? :)

They open a plug hole in the bottom of the bridge floor to let the rain water drain out.;)

[Jordy]

Loving that! :cool: Not the most practical though...

[mattSV]

That is not a bridge - it is a tunnel without a roof.

[keith_d]

That looks cool. What happens when it rains? :)

The rainwater flows down through the floor slats, into a drainage channel in the concrete base and eventually reaches a sump where it's pumped out, along with any seepage.

Well, that's my best guess anyway. Anyone know what the real answer is?

Keith.

[speedplay]

It's an inside out aqueduct....

[Specialone]

Its gotta be something like that albeit its a shallow non flowing moat so i asumme they maintain the level so it doesnt overflow.
But yes a pumped sump seems most logical way.

[MisterTommyH]

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/1321646810-section-1000x426.jpg

Not very clear, but it looks like there's a single sump pit in the centre

[Specialone]

Jeez Tom, thats some detail :rolleyes:

I have some more pics of the bridge but cant be bothered to upload them to photobucket.

[MisterTommyH]

Looks like an Engineers drawing rather than an Architects ;)

[Specialone]

What cos it was built rather than imagined? :rolleyes:

[MisterTommyH]

Kind of - that drawings got levels and dimensions on it and stuff that allows you to build it. Plus you can see where they've mirrored the text and not bothered to change the alignment - wouldn't see that on an architectural drawing.

Although you're lucky to get text. They're usually more like this:

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/1321472317-sketch01-1000x750.jpg

:rolleyes:

[Roberrrrt]

Looks like an Engineers drawing rather than an Architects ;)

Oi! Fair point I suppose, but look how puurrdy the architect's sketches are! ;)

Excellent bit of architecture that.

[Specialone]

Architects dream, engineers build :)

[Roberrrrt]

Architects envision, engineers rationalise, builders build, duh! ;)

[MisterTommyH]

I know some that can't 'envision' very much......

Or if they can they certainly can't visualise anything.

[Roberrrrt]

I know some that can't 'envision' very much......

Or if they can they certainly can't visualise anything.

Stop it :p

[MisterTommyH]

All meant in good spirit. And the game that a design team play.

I refer you to my favorite sketch: A few good engineers. (http://www.sputoandlammert.com/AFewGoodEngineers.htm)

[andrewsmith]

I know some that can't 'envision' very much......

Or if they can they certainly can't visualise anything.

Haha

or lack common sense and moan when their drawing is sitting in the bin

[maviczap]

It was meant to be a bridge over this pond, but some Irish navies built it upside down, after looking at the plans the wrong way ;)

[Geodude]

It was meant to be a bridge over this pond, but some Irish navies built it upside down, after looking at the plans the wrong way ;)

That made me lol :D nice upside down bridge though.

[Specialone]

Joking apart, my experience with arcitects in the domestic game isn't brilliant tbh, I can't believe some of the things they spec.

I had one a couple of years ago doing his own calcs, really over specifying the beams and then telling the customer ( who employed him for the drawings) they could have flat ceilings, I fecked his calcs off and paid out of my own pocket for new ones after explaining to the customer why.

Sorry if it offends but some of them live in the clouds.

[MisterTommyH]

TBH there are some good ones out there Phil, but it's an all encompassing job where you are supposed to take everything into account (including everything contributed by about 4 or 5 other disciplines). I wouldn't want to do it, but I've no problem flaming them for a bit of sport.

As for your experience with housing - Most good ones don't want to work on housing as its quite repetitive for them. If I were in their position I'd be looking for something with variety that allowed me to use my 'creativity'.

[Specialone]

Well I learnt at the time my structural engineer guy I've used loads of times also does full plans submissions so any future projects where I've gotta handle everything, I'll use him.

Hey I agree there are some good ones around but for domestic extensions etc, they are a bit overkill and I think they, like you say, find that a bit boring so they overkill everything for a change ;)

[Roberrrrt]

Joking apart, my experience with arcitects in the domestic game isn't brilliant tbh, I can't believe some of the things they spec.

I had one a couple of years ago doing his own calcs, really over specifying the beams and then telling the customer ( who employed him for the drawings) they could have flat ceilings, I fecked his calcs off and paid out of my own pocket for new ones after explaining to the customer why.

Sorry if it offends but some of them live in the clouds.

Totally agree, why architects feel that it's within their realm to do a structural engineer's job is beyond me. Bit of an old-school way of doing things, and a lo of one-man-banders tend to like to have a go in the spirit of trying to save their client from paying an engineer on top (which as we know is uneconomical).

However by the same token, I personally can't understand why you'd use an engineer to design your space for you - it's not what they're trained to do. What people often fail to understand (and I'm afraid to say it's often practically-focussed people like engineers and builders) is that true design ability is not a skill that is learnt overnight. It's partially natural talent, but mainly year after year at exhaustive architecture school - I'm eight years in, and I've still got two to do, minimum, until I can become chartered.

The point that is often missed is that a building isn't just the bricks-n-mortar that it's made from, it's the arrangement of these materials into a meaningful space, which often adds value that could be missed by someone not trained in what is classed as both an art and a profession - good architecture adds value beyond the cost of the materials and labour.

...and yes, on reflection, that reads exactly like a waffley architect's reply! ;)haha

For those of you interested, small-scale architectural projects (such as house extensions) are not 'too-boring' for all architects by any means. Have a looksee at the latest AJ article for inspiration:

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/

[andrewsmith]

Totally agree, why architects feel that it's within their realm to do a structural engineer's job is beyond me. Bit of an old-school way of doing things, and a lo of one-man-banders tend to like to have a go in the spirit of trying to save their client from paying an engineer on top (which as we know is uneconomical).

However by the same token, I personally can't understand why you'd use an engineer to design your space for you - it's not what they're trained to do. What people often fail to understand (and I'm afraid to say it's often practically-focussed people like engineers and builders) is that true design ability is not a skill that is learnt overnight. It's partially natural talent, but mainly year after year at exhaustive architecture school - I'm eight years in, and I've still got two to do, minimum, until I can become chartered.

The point that is often missed is that a building isn't just the bricks-n-mortar that it's made from, it's the arrangement of these materials into a meaningful space, which often adds value that could be missed by someone not trained in what is classed as both an art and a profession - good architecture adds value beyond the cost of the materials and labour.

...and yes, on reflection, that reads exactly like a waffley architect's reply! ;)haha

For those of you interested, small-scale architectural projects (such as house extensions) are not 'too-boring' for all architects by any means. Have a looksee at the latest AJ article for inspiration:

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/

or hire a Building Surveyor we do the lot!!! ;)

*runs*

[Specialone]

In fairness, I see your point roberrt, but I've seen plans drawn for an extension by the structual engineers firm and it's top notch for work of this kind, he does some big projects apparently.

For the small scale work I do, I could draw plans good enough so his plans are brilliant in comparison.

[Roberrrrt]

In fairness, I see your point roberrt, but I've seen plans drawn for an extension by the structual engineers firm and it's top notch for work of this kind, he does some big projects apparently.

For the small scale work I do, I could draw plans good enough so his plans are brilliant in comparison.

That's the key point I guess - someone know's exactly what they want then fine, just IMO when they've had their eyes opened to opportunities that might not have been immediately apparent, then perhaps the value of education in exploration of design options begins to show its worth.

[Specialone]

Yeah again I see your point, most people want conventional unfortunately and they want it done as cheap as chips, not many wanna pay for outside of the box thinking :(

[BanannaMan]

Never seen anything like that.
Brilliant design.

[Fallout]

And the pedant in my asks: is that really a bridge?

Definition from Wikipedia:
A bridge is a structure built to span physical obstacles such as a body of water, valley, or road, for the purpose of providing passage over the obstacle

However, a tunnel is described thus:
A tunnel is an underground passageway, completely enclosed except for openings for ingress and egress, commonly at each end

So it's not a tunnel. I propose we combine the two words and call it a Tidge, or alternatively, a Bunnel.

Glad I could be of service.

[G]

Looks cool, but it's generally a windy country, which would make that walkway not very appealing when wind is blowing mini waves over the edge of the walkway.

[Roberrrrt]

Yeah again I see your point, most people want conventional unfortunately and they want it done as cheap as chips, not many wanna pay for outside of the box thinking :(

Tell me about it, spend most of my time doing the conventional cheap-as-chips bread-n-butter architecture to be honest.