Crazy ideas thread

[PanAsian]

On the most general level, wouldn't the added purposes of the "bridge" increase usage and thereby reduce longevity?

The risk of accidental damage of various types would also increase as more and varied activities now take place on the structure. Fire, water, and electricity risks come to mind.

As with all things that are multipurpose, would the failure of one purpose also result in the reduced functioning or failure of another? If there was a fire in the buildings below the bridge in its supports, even if there is no structural risk, wouldn't smoke decrease visibility and thereby shut the bridge down to traffic or risk causing accidents?

I would say this crazy idea doesn't pass the practicality test. It's been possible for a long time for people to integrate multipurpose structures with bridges yet they don't do it, it's probably for good reason.

 

[no_name]

Not much more than any other building on reclamated soil.

I'm just thinking that it will feel like more when you are dangling half out in the air.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I restricted my Idea to the Towers, These Other images are of a more ambitious sort. but I point out there are any number of buildings in the world that have "Flying" elements. The CCTV building for example. as to Swaying and movement a mass dampener can reduce such.

 

[AssassinsMace]

That Italian bridge concept looks like someone is about to call out "Clean up on isle 5!"

 

[Equation]

On the most general level, wouldn't the added purposes of the "bridge" increase usage and thereby reduce longevity?

Nope, metal and concrete when build at the same time period as the habitats are, still has the same longevity as the bridge itself since they both made of the same materials.

The risk of accidental damage of various types would also increase as more and varied activities now take place on the structure. Fire, water, and electricity risks come to mind.

The risks are the same as a high rise. Actually this can be safer than a high rise living because it provide easier access for the fire fighters to move, locate, and evacuate.

Plumbing and electrical risks (if that's what your question was) are the same as a mulit-story apartment building.

As with all things that are multipurpose, would the failure of one purpose also result in the reduced functioning or failure of another? If there was a fire in the buildings below the bridge in its supports, even if there is no structural risk, wouldn't smoke decrease visibility and thereby shut the bridge down to traffic or risk causing accidents?

Good question. No it wouldn't. Because accessibility routes would be more because it's horizontal instead of vertical. Smoke would NOT trap the people in stairways like it would in an elevator shaft since there are more outdoor spaces for the smoke to travel to. There would be emergency exits not just on each level but downward as well (for those who are really trapped) like a net system to jump off from would be one or safely slide down to the next safe level like an emergency inflated slide you see on airplanes.

I would say this crazy idea doesn't pass the practicality test. It's been possible for a long time for people to integrate multipurpose structures with bridges yet they don't do it, it's probably for good reason.

The technology and design is there, the risk is minimal, the cost, unfortunately still a lot. Integrating multipurpose structures is one way to save precious spaces in a tight urban environment.

 

[PanAsian]

"Originally Posted by PanAsian
On the most general level, wouldn't the added purposes of the "bridge" increase usage and thereby reduce longevity?"

Nope, metal and concrete when build at the same time period as the habitats are, still has the same longevity as the bridge itself since they both made of the same materials.

That doesn't address my point, I'm talking about the increased usage causing increased wear and tear. Bridge A is just a bridge used by say 1000 cars a day, Bridge B has additional housing used by 1200 cars a day and a 1000 people a day. Bridge A and Bridge B will not have the same wear and tear even if they are built using the same materials at the same time. Bridge B will need to be built tougher to last as long as Bridge A.

"Originally Posted by PanAsian View Post
The risk of accidental damage of various types would also increase as more and varied activities now take place on the structure. Fire, water, and electricity risks come to mind."

The risks are the same as a high rise. Actually this can be safer than a high rise living because it provide easier access for the fire fighters to move, locate, and evacuate.

Plumbing and electrical risks (if that's what your question was) are the same as a mulit-story apartment building.

That's my point. The bridge with housing would have the same risks as a highrise plus a bridge, which would be more risks than just the risks of a bridge. This may mean higher insurance costs for the bridge-highrise than if it was either just a bridge or just a highrise.

"Quote Originally Posted by PanAsian View Post
As with all things that are multipurpose, would the failure of one purpose also result in the reduced functioning or failure of another? If there was a fire in the buildings below the bridge in its supports, even if there is no structural risk, wouldn't smoke decrease visibility and thereby shut the bridge down to traffic or risk causing accidents?"

Good question. No it wouldn't. Because accessibility routes would be more because it's horizontal instead of vertical. Smoke would NOT trap the people in stairways like it would in an elevator shaft since there are more outdoor spaces for the smoke to travel to. There would be emergency exits not just on each level but downward as well (for those who are really trapped) like a net system to jump off from would be one or safely slide down to the next safe level like an emergency inflated slide you see on airplanes.

This depends on how the structure is designed and what extra features there are I guess.

The technology and design is there, the risk is minimal, the cost, unfortunately still a lot. Integrating multipurpose structures is one way to save precious spaces in a tight urban environment.

The key is that there would be a lot of ADDITIONAL costs for the bridge-highrise to perform as well as just a bridge and just a highrise would. But if these are less than the cost of additional real estate then it would be worth it.

 

[Miragedriver]

I mentioned Dubai as a example but I originally thought of it for any super city that could want a new bridge and a new building like say Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York, San Francisco, ecta. It would be quite expensive no doubt but think of all the unused space in any major bridge. the Piers are as big as skyscrapers but empty.

It still think that it is very possible. It is just a matter of money.

Entire cities could be designed to take advantage of all the energy saving and modern techologies available for economic living. I would take a major investment by government (I hate it when government gets involved, but they do have deep pockets and the ability to print money) to build a modern City.

The Brasilians did it in the early 1960. Brasília was planned and developed by Lúcio Costa and Oscar Niemeyer in order to move the capital from Rio de Janeiro to a more central location. The city's design divides it into numbered blocks as well as sectors for specified activities, such as the Hotel Sector, the Banking Sector and the Embassy Sector. Brasília was chosen as a UNESCO World Heritage Site due to its modernist architecture

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In regards to the empty bridge towers. Equation is correct with respect to the additional loading on the structure due to mechanical, plumbing, dead loads for furniture and live loads for people and movable machinery. That is not to say it cannot be done. Just costs more.



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

 

[Equation]

That doesn't address my point, I'm talking about the increased usage causing increased wear and tear. Bridge A is just a bridge used by say 1000 cars a day, Bridge B has additional housing used by 1200 cars a day and a 1000 people a day. Bridge A and Bridge B will not have the same wear and tear even if they are built using the same materials at the same time. Bridge B will need to be built tougher to last as long as Bridge A.

I don't understand your point. It doesn't matter the activities on the bridge will be because the materials such as concrete and metal has already been calculated by the engineers. A house sitting on a bridge made of concrete and steel rebars is the same as a house sitting on a slab of concrete and rebars as a foundation. Was that your question?

That's my point. The bridge with housing would have the same risks as a highrise plus a bridge, which would be more risks than just the risks of a bridge. This may mean higher insurance costs for the bridge-highrise than if it was either just a bridge or just a highrise.

A bridge with buildings has easier access to freeways for emergency crews and police services to get to. A stand alone high-rise on fire requires a stairway path made of concrete with a fire rated door for people to get in and survive and WAIT for firefighters to come and rescue them if they're trapped in a fire. Elevators are out of the question. A bridge with housing allows for several and more than one escape accessibility for people to get out and emergency crew to get into as well (no more climbing several stories with heavy equipment to get to the fire or rescue the trapped people).

The key is that there would be a lot of ADDITIONAL costs for the bridge-highrise to perform as well as just a bridge and just a highrise would. But if these are less than the cost of additional real estate then it would be worth it.

Because for some people who want to walk out onto their balcony in the morning sitting at their breakfast table and enjoy these kinds of view right from their home?

 

[ABC78]

For a while now as crazy idea I thought law enforcement mainly beat cops should be armed with a modern LeMat revolver. The LeMat would allow an officer to fire standard pistol ammo and a variety of shotgun loads. Pistol round say 38.cal 40.cal shotgun ammo non-lethal like bean bags, rock salt, paint ball and taser shot. Go lethal to non-lethal with just a flip of a switch

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Cops could become really scary looking on patrol with hand cannons like the Lemat.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

La'Mat Was a flawed system yet also one ahead of it's time.
it was a high capacity revolver 9 rounds. not counting the shotgun shell.
but it was also old. A cap and ball revolver preloaded metal cartridge's were available to northern troops for sometime, The Smith and Wesson model 1 introduced in 1857 years before Lamat and in fact concurrent with Lamat was the first commercially successful Cartridge revolver.
second problem. They called it the "Wrist breaker." The 20 gauge shell recoil was never meant to be fired form a revolver.
Thrid the conversion was not as easy as a flip of a switch. one had to pull back the hammer flip a leaver inverting the firing pin. then brace The Shot however was wide and about as accurate... Well it would hit the broad side of the barn but that's a large target.

Now a few years back there was a system concept prototyped that i think is more like what you are looking for. the Metal Storm O'Dwyle VLE
[video=youtube_share;91PcRli231U]http://youtu.be/91PcRli231U[/video]
a 4 barrel electronic pistol that can be tailored to meet the needs of the Peace officer. One barrel could be bullets like say 4.6mm rounds, The second barrel is your less then lethal Rubber bullets, the third lethal again the fourth miniature tazer rounds Real life Leyden ball if your a Jules Verne Fan for less then lethal.