Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Viaduct verbal

Letters

Nearly fifty years ago I was a bridge engineer working for a county council, and we were commissioned, together with an architect, to design a local bridge.

Without any prior consultation, the architect chose a bridge type which a short amount of preliminary work in our ofce showed would be extravagant both in construction and maintenance costs. The Ministry of Transport ignored our advice, and appointed another engineer for the design.

I had the same problem with architects throughout my career: they would invariably insist on 'designing' the project without any engineering input.

As I have always believed that structure and form should be as closely related as circumstances permit, I found this quite unacceptable and in the sixties and seventies we produced many bridge designs based on this principle which were acclaimed for their aesthetic qualities as well as their structural efciency and innovative engineering.

Needless to say, no architects were involved!

Bill Young (F), former senior partner, Stirling Maynard and Partners, w. young@cyberware. co. uk

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.