by Centurii-chan

  • paranoia@feddit.dk
    79·
    2 days ago

    both of these were designed by architects. neither reflects the twin simplicity and laziness that engineering embodies.

    • CelloMike@lemmy.world
      85·
      2 days ago

      If engineers had our way all buildings would look like this

      This is the ideal building. You may not like it but this is what peak performance looks like 😆

        • Letsdothisok@lemmy.world
          5·
          7 hours ago

          “Shop”? Depending on the type - and I don’t want to jump to conclusions - I doubt it being ugly was a major part of its bankruptcy.

      • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
        7·
        2 days ago

        Dogshit R-factor, poor impact resistance, I mean that’s the obvious stuff lol

        Peak performance is highly dependent on who’s defining it 😝

        • CelloMike@lemmy.world
          6·
          2 days ago

          Engineers love these things because they’re real easy to design, and very efficient in usable volume vs materials (which is why they’re used for every warehouse/big store/factory)

          Obviously not great for living in or anything but that’s the joke :)

          • Pilon23@feddit.dk
            1·
            1 day ago

            Very interesting! I never thought of that before. On the building pictured, which would take least effort to double the storage space - making it twice as long, wide or tall?

            • grue@lemmy.world
              2·
              23 hours ago

              Do you really mean “effort” (and if so, whose?) or do you mean cost? The other reply is correct that making it twice as long would minimize the need to redesign, but without doing the math (I am a civil engineer, but I can’t be bothered) I suspect making it twice as tall would use the least additional materials and therefore be cheapest. (That assumes taking advantage of the extra height for storage is the client’s problem, not the engineer’s. Having to put in a second story floor would change things.)

              • Pilon23@feddit.dk
                1·
                10 hours ago

                Yeah I guess I was thinking about cost when I said effort. I figured maybe building up would also provide more design challenges to keep the thing from collapsing, or is that negligible?

                • grue@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  5 hours ago

                  You’ll have a little bit more wind loading and you may have to put in a little bit of thought into the size and bracing of the vertical support columns to make sure the extra length doesn’t risk buckling, but that’s pretty much it.

    • zout@fedia.io
      18·
      2 days ago

      As an engineer, I prefer to call it minmalism.

      Quick edit: I saw the typo, but it is also an example of what the sentence is supposed to convey.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    37·
    2 days ago

    Surely that second building is AI generated or something right? Surely physics would not allow such a monstrosity, nor would any city approve it… right?

      • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
        15·
        2 days ago

        Yeah I didn’t think there was any way. Even with like a steel frame and everything else made of Styrofoam and paper mache, I’m pretty sure that thing would still snap off under its own weight.

        • Spezi@feddit.org
          10·
          1 day ago

          It’s totally doable with the right structure and balancing. Have you seen the bases of skyscrapers like 150 North Riverside in Chicago or the Rainier Tower in Seattle? Or the One Za’abeel in Dubai, which has a 65 meter overhang in an 90 degree angle.

          150 North Riverside

          One Za’abeel

          • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
            5·
            1 day ago

            I don’t know what the first building has to do with the original image. But the one in Dubai is much more conparable. But they are not the same. The Dubai building certainly needs strong framing to keep that overhand from falling. But it is also held at one end and the middle giving it strength and stability. And the forces at the attachment points are both vertical (upward or downward at the end depending on weight distribution on the lever and downward in the middle). That makes a huge difference as they don’t have to work against lateral forces. The middle attachment holds all the weight and the end attachment counters all of the torque on the lever. The center of mass is also within the footprint of the building(s) bases

            The actual length of the overhang for the real building, while impressive, does not compare to the length in the original image. It does not have anything holding the weight in the middle of the lever, meaning that the end attachment has to hold the weight up alone, AND counter the torque. Furthermore, the point at which the hang in the altered image is attached to the main trunk is also at wide angle meaning it will put a lot of lateral forces on the trunk that are not counter balances by the opposite branch which is shorter and less angled. The center of mass of the hanging branch would be well outside the base of the building and so it would want to rotate at the connection point and pull away from the joint. That’s if the steel frame itself doesn’t just bend under its own weight putting torque on the lever.

            I really don’t think that there are any materials under Earth gravity capable of creating a rigid structure with this design at this scale. The forces would be tremendous on a single junction point and along the length of the frame of the hanging arm. Something would give.

    • Dragonstaff@leminal.spaceEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      I’m not sure it exists. I spent three whole minutes on Google and can’t find it. I’d expect it to be fairly famous if real.

      I’m not sure Y anyone would build it, but I do think we could figure a way to build it safely if someone wanted to throw enough money at it.