Actually, that's a good point. The Freedom Tower? Speaking of targets, it is going to look and sound like George W. Bush's middle finger. I think if my company decided to move into that building, I would start looking for another job.
OK, I understood (that people are greedy) when Arkansas and many other states needed homeland security funds to protect their alligator farms and whatnot, but either there is some money involved here that I don't see (demolition crews getting a sweet contract?), or these people are idiots.
If we can't have giant, shiny, yellow letters spelling out things, then the terrorists have really won.
A friend works for the GSA. The DHS requirements for the border crossings are no doubt absurd (truck scanners for all the crossings), and there are something like 14 crossings in Maine alone. But the per square foot costs are rather low (under $125, if I recall), and the competition for these jobs was pretty heated. You don't get to ball park your fee or simply throw on an absurd percentage. You have to submit to an audit of your internal costs and are awarded a multiplier. The projects include an art component, which this sign might have been, but that comes from 'Percent for Art' legislation. Getting of these jobs is good for cash flow, but it's not like designing the Prada boutique.
Richard,
Stick to what you know...deconstructing teenage reality shows, PC thinking he has to push back Seb's hair, then realizing he just shaved down below yesterday, while Joey spits into his mouth, and Bronne watches.
I would like to mention that a professor of mine worked on the latest restoration of the Manhattan Bridge, and they were initially surprised by how well the cables, and the structure itself, have remained all that time (at that point, early 00's, the cables had never been replaced). The cabling was replaced for the sake of not letting it get to a point where it is "bad".
If you want bad oscillations in NYC, the Whitestone Bridge is a great example. Don't know if they ever fixed it, but it had issues in that it oscillated too much due to wind (actually I think the design is pretty much the same as the Tacoma Narrows Bridge). But then they made it too heavy when trying to solve that, and now I don't know.
I've been scared of bridges all my life, because of freakin' Superman. Y'know that scene with the earthquake where the schoolbus of kids dangles off the side of the bridge and only Superman could save them? I saw that movie when I was 4 years old and was smart enough to know that in real life Superman wouldn't actually swoop in to lift a bus to safety if it were dangling above the water(though I'm pretty sure I thought "Jedi knight" was a legit occupation to aspire to at the time, so it's not like I had a super-precocious grip on reality or anything). Anyway, to this day I freak out a little driving over bridges, esp. if I spot a bald guy nearby who could pass as Lex Luthor.
Remember that a suspension bridge is essentially a long slab of concrete and asphalt held aloft by cables. It is by no means immovable, and the main forces that act upon it are the automotive/train traffic, and the wind. (Wind is what ultimately brought down the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.)
The next time you're stuck in traffic on a suspension bridge, such as the GWB, the Verrazano Narrows etc., feel for it: your car is gently bounding up and down, with the decking of the bridge.
For a while, the City's bridges fell into disrepair, due to neglect: the structural concerns of the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges, for example, have been well-documented -
http://bit.ly/3wNME
- but soon after a 2007 bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the City undertook a comprehensive review of its 787 (!) crossings. It found that three of them, including the Brooklyn Bridge, rated "poor" according to federal standards, but that it was ultimately safe to use:
@Aaron Altman: Adding to that. The Brooklyn Bridge was rated "poor", not because there was anything wrong with the span, its problems lie in the exit and entrance ramps. Also that the faux masonry on said ramps used to have the tendency to fall off (since the "masonry" is decorative it is not a structural issue but sucks if your car gets struck by it).
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
TASTEE NUDIST might be a little too welcoming.
07/29/09
If we can't have giant, shiny, yellow letters spelling out things, then the terrorists have really won.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/26/09
07/25/09
Stick to what you know...deconstructing teenage reality shows, PC thinking he has to push back Seb's hair, then realizing he just shaved down below yesterday, while Joey spits into his mouth, and Bronne watches.
Not structural engineering.
07/25/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/24/09
If you want bad oscillations in NYC, the Whitestone Bridge is a great example. Don't know if they ever fixed it, but it had issues in that it oscillated too much due to wind (actually I think the design is pretty much the same as the Tacoma Narrows Bridge). But then they made it too heavy when trying to solve that, and now I don't know.
07/24/09
07/24/09
They also expand and contract depending upon the season. Isn't science nifty!
07/24/09
07/24/09
The next time you're stuck in traffic on a suspension bridge, such as the GWB, the Verrazano Narrows etc., feel for it: your car is gently bounding up and down, with the decking of the bridge.
For a while, the City's bridges fell into disrepair, due to neglect: the structural concerns of the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges, for example, have been well-documented -
http://bit.ly/3wNME
- but soon after a 2007 bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the City undertook a comprehensive review of its 787 (!) crossings. It found that three of them, including the Brooklyn Bridge, rated "poor" according to federal standards, but that it was ultimately safe to use:
http://bit.ly/EiQYQ
I'm gonna go cross one now. :-)
07/24/09