Bridges: The Science and Art of the World's Most Inspiring Structures Book

This book was not at all what I thought it would be. There is actual engineering (with math, requiring algebra to understand) in this book. Despite that fact, it's not for civil engineering students: it's too elementary. I thought it would be more "entertaining" about the science and more expository about the art of bridges. But it was really neither. The author is clearly erudite, and writes well. Too bad he just doesn't have any clue about what to write. There is an odd theme throughout the book where he tries to bring in some oddly-metaphysical, philosophical mumbo-jumbo about "building bridges" between people and disciplines. All that he had to say about that could have been said in a page or two, and should have been limited to that. All in all, this book was not worth my time to slog through, but I did simply because I felt the author was capable of having something interesting and valuable to say. But, in the end, it was a fruitless exercise. All that I actually learned from this book could have been encapsulated on 20 or so pages. It also needed more pictures (not to mention less diagrams).

Surprisingly, the author mentions (on page 233) that he worked with Barry Turner, the author of a very well-respected, famous (in its circle) book "Man-Made Disasters" (which I have reviewed here). Turner's book was also hard to digest, but having learned of their association (for 15 years) and compared their writing style, I can now understand. Both of their books that I have now read are simply dense. Note that I am educated sufficiently to understand everything in both of their books. But this author has failed to make the subject interesting.

There is one, singular, informative (although not earth-shattering, and certainly not original) passage in the book, which I will quote here:

"The distinction between processes and products is useful but can be distinctly unhelpful if it causes a neglect of change. In the past, most bridge builders were commissioned only to design and build a bridge. The bridge was delivered, and nothing more. Not enough thought was given to long-term effects. There are even instances where designers weren't involved in the erection of their bridges. Maintenance and decommissioning wasn't even on their radar. The problem has been exacerbated by the highly fragmented nature of the modern construction industry brought on by the enormous increase in specialization. The overview that Telford, Brunel, and the Roeblings were able to maintain was, and still is, often lost. With no 'guiding mind', projects can lack 'joined-up' decision-making." [page 176:]

That (long-winded) thought is exactly like the one that was much more famously explained by Dr. Frederick P. Brooks, Jr., in both of his books: The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, 20th Anniversary Edition and The Design of Design. Brooks terms the concept "conceptual integrity" and offers several examples, both of designs that suffered from its lack and of others that benefited from its presence (such as the Reims Cathedral in Reims, France). The "guiding mind" of David Blockley is the "architect" or "designer" of Dr. Brooks, and "the maker" of Dorothy L. Sayers (The Mind of the Maker).