It's about investigating airplane crashes, and in particular two different paradigms for understanding failure. It deeply changed how I think and talk about software bugs, and especially how I do retrospectives. I strongly recommend it.
And the article made me think of Stewart Brand's "How Buildings Learn": https://www.amazon.com/dp/0140139966
It changed my view of a building from a static thing to a dynamic system, changing over time.
The BBC later turned it into a 6-part series, which I haven't seen, but which the author put up on YouTube, starting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0
I especially like that in the comments he writes: "Anybody is welcome to use anything from this series in any way they like. Please don’t bug me with requests for permission. Hack away. Do credit the BBC, who put considerable time and talent into the project."
Too true. Anyone interested in this topic should check out "How Buildings Learn". Well worth reading: https://www.amazon.com/How-Buildings-Learn-Happens-Theyre/dp...
Also made into a 6-part TV series by the BBC: http://www.openculture.com/2015/07/watch-stewart-brands-6-pa...
Stuart Brand's "How Buildings Learn" also provides some theoretical background on buildings as infrastructure and can inform how a property may be improved with an eye to the future.
There's a whole video series as well, this segment discusses the advantages of loose zoning at the docks in Sausalito:
In software engineering there are still rigorous requirements in fields that run software on other planets or in medical systems, but there's software with looser requirements as well.
The best metaphor I've encountered for the wide variety of software engineering was a talk that covered the book "How Buildings Learn" http://www.amazon.com/How-Buildings-Learn/dp/0140139966 -- there are structures that favor adaptability, and others that favor rigor, but that doesn't mean that structural engineering doesn't happen on one end of the continuum compared to the other.
(To be fair, there are rigorous forms of writing, too, but I think restricting the analogy to only novels is too narrow to be effective.)
Yes. Stewart Brand should need no introduction to readers of HN for his many influences on high-tech industry, but I'm always telling friends about How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built,
especially friends who study architecture.
"Prefabricated skyscrapers can be inflexible. To create a lobby for this hotel, Broad had to stick an awkward pyramid onto the base."
Central planning of the national economy during the Warsaw Pact era left some cities in central and eastern Europe with some of the world's ugliest and most user-unfriendly "modern" architecture. Only in a country with a centrally planned economy could a builder come up with the idea that skyscrapers built like Lego toys will become the new standard for skyscrapers.
I think it's here on Hacker News where I learned most of the interesting story of the construction of the Burj Dubai (now Burj Khalifa) skyscraper. There were structural innovations in that building
that allowed it to reach its world-record height. It was also built during a crazy, boom economy, and it remains to be seen how soon, if ever, the building will produce an economic return for its investors.
I think the most thoughtful book I have ever read about architecture, published before Hacker News was founded, is Stewart Brand's How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built.
(Yes, the author is the same Stewart Brand who is famous among HN participants for saying "On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.") Brand's book How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built is all about the many modifications that building owners make to buildings over time as the economy changes, as new materials and technologies are invented, and as buildings change owners. The gee-whiz articles about what the Chinese builder PLANS to do with buildings made of pre-fab parts are less interesting to me than what the possibilities are for modifying such buildings after they are built.
AFTER EDIT: An interesting second-level comment below asked about
it looks in the video like they build the crane into the building (which is sort of a waste of a crane)
and that prompted me to look up an article about how the tower cranes that build the tallest skyscrapers interact with the buildings they build.
There are occasions when some parts of the crane's support structure is built into (or onto) the building as the building goes up, but usually the working part of the crane is disassembled and reused.
AFTER ONE MORE EDIT: While doing something else, I remembered that another Hacker News participant recently linked in a comment in another thread to Paul Graham's 2005 essay "The Submarine,"
about the public relations industry, and how "news" stories are inserted in the mainstream media. I have seen a lot of kind submissions to HN of stories about the Chinese builder's PLAN to build the world's tallest skyscraper out of pre-fab components, but those stories, even in the best instance, have included remarkably little actual reporting from the scene about the economic viability of the plan or how well the builder's existing buildings are liked by owners or occupants. He has a great publicity machine, but I'd like to know more about the buildings.
TLDR: The bones of a building determine how adaptable it is to reskinning and structural change. If you don't have the right bones, you will have to tear the building down and it will not adapt over time. Adaptable systems have a backbone that lets them be stable during change.
If you agree, you might enjoy the book "How Buildings Learn".
The cost of demolition and new construction is much lower than renovation, especially when the systems requirements (showers, plumbing, etc.) are so different.
I feel quite confident stating that - aside from a stunt or two here and there - we will never see malls turned into housing in any sort of massive way.
Fresh book recommendations delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday.