It is the obituary of Oscar Niemeyer, a Brazilian architect of global stature who did time under Le Corbusier, as appearing in The Guardian of December 6, 2012 authored by Martin Pawley and Jonathan Glancey that gave me the impetus to post this piece of moderate length.
It is singular irony that I had to source inspiration from an architect, a dead one at that, to write on structural engineering. But, the irony is attenuated by the fact that I will be mentioning not the architectural aspects of Niemeyer’s creations, but the fact that the obit carries some kind words about structural engineering! Architects, structural engineering and kind words, all in one sentence? The first time this must have happened, ever.
A few words from the obit: ”Using one basic material, plus daring structural engineering [my emphasis all through], Niemeyer turned poured concrete painted white into an expressionist masterpiece.” Another sentence: “In Brazil’s benign climate, concrete requires no expansion joints and there are no problems of insulation and condensation.” About the ministry of education building, designed by Niemeyer, in Rio de Janeiro, the article says, “a convincing fusion of art, engineering, craft, landscape and architecture, this confident building was ecstatically received.” To note, architecture way down the list and much after engineering!
That is, in one article, an obit for a master architect, probably authored by architects (who else could write things like expressionist masterpiece, confident building etc!), I find structural engineering referred to at least three times. I, as a structural engineer, was in seventh heaven.
This is when it dawned on me that some months ago, I had the feeling of being dumped into one of our urban drains, like the Najafgarh Drain in Delhi, the Mithi River in Mumbai, or the Cooum in Chennai. I will give an example of how society differentiates between architects and engineers, fully to the disadvantage of engineers.
There was an article about bridges across River Hooghly in the vicinity of Kolkata (The Bridges on the Hooghly appearing in July 7, 2012 issue of Mint, Kolkata edition; behind a pay wall now). The article framed the famed Howrah Bridge, known now as Rabindra Setu as the signature of Kolkata even as the Second Hooghly Bridge, christened Vidyasagar Setu, has added technical feathers to the cap of bridge engineering in this stretch of the river.
The article is good in the sense that it reaches beyond the nuts and bolts, and rivets too (this was a trivia question when I was growing up: How many bolts are there in the Howrah Bridge? Answer: None; all the connections are by rivets!), of engineering of these multi-dimensional marvels through perspectives carried and espoused by photographers, journalists, a biking enthusiast, novelists, and a film director.
The article is full of literary allusions and expressions of architecture. These are all fine and they add to the piece and I am not denying that. However, there have been no comments on the two bridges from any engineer. An article on bridges with only sparse details on its engineering aspects and stated only as a matter of fact, concealing the aptitude and brains of engineers that have gone behind these creations, in my estimation, is lacking the key stone, an overarching narrative. The engineering dimensions have to be made to come alive in the minds of the readers.
To point out that each bridge sports a main span of nearly half a kilometer, which if stood up vertically, will dwarf Eiffel Tower by 50% is the Wow! factor the engineer brings to the narrative. Ignoring engineers’ contributions appears to be a global trend, like buildings being remembered for the architects and not the engineers; the litterateurs taking reference to these monuments, giving the go by to the engineers. In the context of the article, the trend may have become more intensified, completely ignoring a recent engineering marvel and that too crossing the river in the same stretch the other two do.
Nivedita Setu crosses River Hooghly in the northern reaches of the metropolis. It must be juxtaposed with the Bally Bridge, built in 1932 and predating Rabindra Setu, which now goes under the name Vivekananda Setu. As a venerable lady of 70 years, Vivekananda Setu showed much aging and people suffered. The bridge and the people needed relief. A new bridge, perhaps?
Call the engineer.
It is the bridge engineers who conceived, planned, designed and built the Nivedita Setu as the main component of a complex crossing that distributes the traffic on both the banks. There lies an interesting story behind the above seemingly bland and redundant detail - after all, who else but a bridge engineer will be involved? It is the nature of the engineers' involvement that needs to be looked into.
The bridge is in the vicinity of the inspirational spires of the Dakshineshwar Temple. I quote Geoffrey Moorehouse from the article who, referring to Rabindra Setu, said: "There never was a bridge that dominated the landscape as much ..."
Allow me to change the word "landscape" above to "skyline" in the context of Nivedita Setu. The skyline dominated by the spires of the temple thrusts the environment heavenward, with the help of the spiritual strength the temple embodies.
If you brought in the visual envelope like the ones encasing either the Rabindra Setu or the Vidyasagar Setu, Dakshineshwar Temple would be engulfed within it. The engineers avoided inflicting that "ignominy", perhaps too strong a word but one that emphasizes the commitment of the engineers.
Architects asked for a non-threatening visual enclosure. River hydraulics commanded that the flow not be restricted - no temporary support from the river bed; align the piers of the new and the old bridges. The structural form and action of the bridge evolved within the above set of severe restrictions. Most of the traditional forms and structural systems were mooted, analyzed and were found unsatisfactory. The extradosed bridge design, then, blew across engineers’ mindscape as a breath of fresh air. To make clear what this means - it is one of the few bridges of this kind in the world; possibly the only bridge of this kind with multiple spans.
Of course, Rabindra Setu is "powerful looking and expressive", and Vidyasagar Setu espouses "minimalist modernity".
Well, Nivedita Setu does both simultaneously! From the middle of the river and looking downstream, its clean lines melt within the envelope of the Vivekananda Setu - super minimalist modernity.
You must congratulate yourself if you could discern the cable lines of Nivedita Setu!
Along its length, Nivedita Setu’s impressive single line of cable-stays supporting what appear to be eagle wingspans, about 14 m on each flank, is a visual experience that evokes awe.
The new bridge is a mere 50 m downstream of Vivekananda Setu. People of Kolkata know how dense the traffic is in this area. To bring into alignment the bridge and the approaches while giving the nod to reducing land acquisition - the Bible said it right in its camel and eye-of-the-needle verse, and paraphrasing it: "it is easier for a bridge to be built than threading an approach to the bridge." For example, there was a significant expanse affiliated to the jute industry, jute mills, that had to be accommodated. I may want to mention that Rabindra Setu probably missed out on this aspect. A single cell box segment weighing 150 tons had to be lifted in the middle of the river. Engineers responded and how!
No one knows the condition of the foundations of Vivekananda Setu. Yet, engineers dared, and succeeded in founding the support shafts of the new bridge but avoiding additional stress on the old lady. The engineers innovated - kept the top of the well foundation flush with the river bed not to infuriate the river god.
To be more prosaic about the bridge, it was the first such large Public Private Partnership project in the bridge sector, built adhering to a strict and tight time schedule and within cost.
Now, all of the above deserve overt appreciation and loud approbation. And, yes the bridge was feted by a professional bridge engineering association in America that conferred an award for it being the most innovative bridge design, the first for an Indian bridge. That brings me to whether Rabindra Setu and Vidyasagar Setu deserved awards. Yes, they too deserved international acclaim. Perhaps as a tribute to these bridges and to the continuing excellence in bridge engineering in this stretch of River Hooghly, the Nivedita Setu brought home this prize.
I am proud to claim that the award belongs to bridge engineering in the country.
I was truly surprised that an article on bridges across River Hooghly was silent on Nivedita Setu, an innovative bridge meeting society’s demands, and executed within cost and budget bringing both public agencies and private players together.
Is it because it is too recent to be venerated, has not yet caught the imagination of photographers and litterateurs? Does it mean innovation does not deserve appreciation for its utility? If that be so, how do we avoid bringing up the rear in technological progress?
I know I am an engineer. I know I am talking about engineering. I also know that my talk will not reach many people. This is the ailment that afflicts engineering – society’s lack of appreciation. There is enough blame to go around, but I blame my tribe.
People have to recognize and acknowledge the sublime beauty of technology, its utility to society. This is best done when engineering is allowed to talk to people and take itself to people.
Raghuram Ekambaram
It is singular irony that I had to source inspiration from an architect, a dead one at that, to write on structural engineering. But, the irony is attenuated by the fact that I will be mentioning not the architectural aspects of Niemeyer’s creations, but the fact that the obit carries some kind words about structural engineering! Architects, structural engineering and kind words, all in one sentence? The first time this must have happened, ever.
A few words from the obit: ”Using one basic material, plus daring structural engineering [my emphasis all through], Niemeyer turned poured concrete painted white into an expressionist masterpiece.” Another sentence: “In Brazil’s benign climate, concrete requires no expansion joints and there are no problems of insulation and condensation.” About the ministry of education building, designed by Niemeyer, in Rio de Janeiro, the article says, “a convincing fusion of art, engineering, craft, landscape and architecture, this confident building was ecstatically received.” To note, architecture way down the list and much after engineering!
That is, in one article, an obit for a master architect, probably authored by architects (who else could write things like expressionist masterpiece, confident building etc!), I find structural engineering referred to at least three times. I, as a structural engineer, was in seventh heaven.
This is when it dawned on me that some months ago, I had the feeling of being dumped into one of our urban drains, like the Najafgarh Drain in Delhi, the Mithi River in Mumbai, or the Cooum in Chennai. I will give an example of how society differentiates between architects and engineers, fully to the disadvantage of engineers.
There was an article about bridges across River Hooghly in the vicinity of Kolkata (The Bridges on the Hooghly appearing in July 7, 2012 issue of Mint, Kolkata edition; behind a pay wall now). The article framed the famed Howrah Bridge, known now as Rabindra Setu as the signature of Kolkata even as the Second Hooghly Bridge, christened Vidyasagar Setu, has added technical feathers to the cap of bridge engineering in this stretch of the river.
The article is good in the sense that it reaches beyond the nuts and bolts, and rivets too (this was a trivia question when I was growing up: How many bolts are there in the Howrah Bridge? Answer: None; all the connections are by rivets!), of engineering of these multi-dimensional marvels through perspectives carried and espoused by photographers, journalists, a biking enthusiast, novelists, and a film director.
The article is full of literary allusions and expressions of architecture. These are all fine and they add to the piece and I am not denying that. However, there have been no comments on the two bridges from any engineer. An article on bridges with only sparse details on its engineering aspects and stated only as a matter of fact, concealing the aptitude and brains of engineers that have gone behind these creations, in my estimation, is lacking the key stone, an overarching narrative. The engineering dimensions have to be made to come alive in the minds of the readers.
To point out that each bridge sports a main span of nearly half a kilometer, which if stood up vertically, will dwarf Eiffel Tower by 50% is the Wow! factor the engineer brings to the narrative. Ignoring engineers’ contributions appears to be a global trend, like buildings being remembered for the architects and not the engineers; the litterateurs taking reference to these monuments, giving the go by to the engineers. In the context of the article, the trend may have become more intensified, completely ignoring a recent engineering marvel and that too crossing the river in the same stretch the other two do.
Nivedita Setu crosses River Hooghly in the northern reaches of the metropolis. It must be juxtaposed with the Bally Bridge, built in 1932 and predating Rabindra Setu, which now goes under the name Vivekananda Setu. As a venerable lady of 70 years, Vivekananda Setu showed much aging and people suffered. The bridge and the people needed relief. A new bridge, perhaps?
Call the engineer.
It is the bridge engineers who conceived, planned, designed and built the Nivedita Setu as the main component of a complex crossing that distributes the traffic on both the banks. There lies an interesting story behind the above seemingly bland and redundant detail - after all, who else but a bridge engineer will be involved? It is the nature of the engineers' involvement that needs to be looked into.
The bridge is in the vicinity of the inspirational spires of the Dakshineshwar Temple. I quote Geoffrey Moorehouse from the article who, referring to Rabindra Setu, said: "There never was a bridge that dominated the landscape as much ..."
Allow me to change the word "landscape" above to "skyline" in the context of Nivedita Setu. The skyline dominated by the spires of the temple thrusts the environment heavenward, with the help of the spiritual strength the temple embodies.
If you brought in the visual envelope like the ones encasing either the Rabindra Setu or the Vidyasagar Setu, Dakshineshwar Temple would be engulfed within it. The engineers avoided inflicting that "ignominy", perhaps too strong a word but one that emphasizes the commitment of the engineers.
Architects asked for a non-threatening visual enclosure. River hydraulics commanded that the flow not be restricted - no temporary support from the river bed; align the piers of the new and the old bridges. The structural form and action of the bridge evolved within the above set of severe restrictions. Most of the traditional forms and structural systems were mooted, analyzed and were found unsatisfactory. The extradosed bridge design, then, blew across engineers’ mindscape as a breath of fresh air. To make clear what this means - it is one of the few bridges of this kind in the world; possibly the only bridge of this kind with multiple spans.
Of course, Rabindra Setu is "powerful looking and expressive", and Vidyasagar Setu espouses "minimalist modernity".
Well, Nivedita Setu does both simultaneously! From the middle of the river and looking downstream, its clean lines melt within the envelope of the Vivekananda Setu - super minimalist modernity.
You must congratulate yourself if you could discern the cable lines of Nivedita Setu!
Along its length, Nivedita Setu’s impressive single line of cable-stays supporting what appear to be eagle wingspans, about 14 m on each flank, is a visual experience that evokes awe.
The new bridge is a mere 50 m downstream of Vivekananda Setu. People of Kolkata know how dense the traffic is in this area. To bring into alignment the bridge and the approaches while giving the nod to reducing land acquisition - the Bible said it right in its camel and eye-of-the-needle verse, and paraphrasing it: "it is easier for a bridge to be built than threading an approach to the bridge." For example, there was a significant expanse affiliated to the jute industry, jute mills, that had to be accommodated. I may want to mention that Rabindra Setu probably missed out on this aspect. A single cell box segment weighing 150 tons had to be lifted in the middle of the river. Engineers responded and how!
No one knows the condition of the foundations of Vivekananda Setu. Yet, engineers dared, and succeeded in founding the support shafts of the new bridge but avoiding additional stress on the old lady. The engineers innovated - kept the top of the well foundation flush with the river bed not to infuriate the river god.
To be more prosaic about the bridge, it was the first such large Public Private Partnership project in the bridge sector, built adhering to a strict and tight time schedule and within cost.
Now, all of the above deserve overt appreciation and loud approbation. And, yes the bridge was feted by a professional bridge engineering association in America that conferred an award for it being the most innovative bridge design, the first for an Indian bridge. That brings me to whether Rabindra Setu and Vidyasagar Setu deserved awards. Yes, they too deserved international acclaim. Perhaps as a tribute to these bridges and to the continuing excellence in bridge engineering in this stretch of River Hooghly, the Nivedita Setu brought home this prize.
I am proud to claim that the award belongs to bridge engineering in the country.
I was truly surprised that an article on bridges across River Hooghly was silent on Nivedita Setu, an innovative bridge meeting society’s demands, and executed within cost and budget bringing both public agencies and private players together.
Is it because it is too recent to be venerated, has not yet caught the imagination of photographers and litterateurs? Does it mean innovation does not deserve appreciation for its utility? If that be so, how do we avoid bringing up the rear in technological progress?
I know I am an engineer. I know I am talking about engineering. I also know that my talk will not reach many people. This is the ailment that afflicts engineering – society’s lack of appreciation. There is enough blame to go around, but I blame my tribe.
People have to recognize and acknowledge the sublime beauty of technology, its utility to society. This is best done when engineering is allowed to talk to people and take itself to people.
Raghuram Ekambaram
No comments:
Post a Comment