The Negative Reputation of the Constructors of the London Millennium Bridge - Research Paper Example

Millennium comes from two Latin words – mille and annus, which mean thousand and year, respectively. A millennium, therefore, refers to a period of one thousand years, and a millennium year refers to the year that closes one period of a thousand years, and opens another. Some sources disagree whether the new millennium should be considered as beginning in the years 1000 AD, 2000 AD, etc., or in the years 1001 AD, 2001 AD (Meyer)… Regardless of which perspective one adopts, the beginning of a new millennium occurred 9-10 years ago, either in the year 2000 or the year 2001. There was much excitement leading up to the new millennium. Many construction projects and architectural projects were undertaken to symbolically mark the beginning of the new millennium, while also responding to existing needs. The Millennium Bridge in London was one of these projects. The Millennium Bridge The Millennium Bridge, a steel suspension bridge for pedestrian use, stretches across the Thames, linking the City of London, near St. Paul’s Cathedral, with the Bankside area, by Tate Modern Gallery. The Bridge is positioned between two other bridges, with the Southwark Bridge downstream and the Blackfriars Railway Bridge upstream. Bridge House Estates, a charitable trust that falls under the City of London Corporation, maintains the Bridge. This history of the Millennium Bridge dates to 1996, when the Financial Times, together with the London Borough of Southwark and the Royal Institute of British Architects, held a competition (ARUP, Vision). The competition sought to identify who could best design and construct a footbridge across the Thames that would be both a work of architectural engineering, and a service to people and the environment. The bridge would both enable people to cross the Thames, and provide stellar views of the city. A coalition comprised of Foster and Partners, Sir Anthony Caro, and Ove Aru and Partners, won the competition with their proposal of an “innovative and complex structure, featuring a 4m wide aluminium deck flanked by stainless steel balustrades, supported by cables to each side” (London Landmarks). The design enabled the Bridge to have a profile six times shallower than other suspension bridges, using anchored high tension cables and two river supports as props (London Landmarks). Over two hundred people were involved in the background research, testing, and construction of the Millennium Bridge. Building began in 1998, with ARUP global firm of consulting engineers, as one of the main participators. The bridge, as initially developed, had spans, cables, cable sag, piers, saddles, abutments, a deck, and bifurcation (ARUP, Bridge View). The project involved, in addition to the design and construction of the Bridge, the removal of a jetty on Bankside to make room for the Bridge, and archeological excavations. The first main challenge in the development of the Bridge was the initial designing process, as different firms looked for ways to make a unique suspension footbridge. The second main challenge came unexpectedly, after the footbridge was first opened to the public. As the Bridge, from the moment its existence was conceptualized through the 1996 competition, was intended to be opened for the new millennium. The constructers made the building timetable accordingly, and the Bridge opened on June 10, 2000. Public interests, hopes and expectations were high, and around 100,000 people came on June 10 to cross the Bridge on the first possible day. To the surprise, and possibly to the embarrassment of the engineers and architects, the people nicknamed the Bridge the “Wobbly Bridge,” presenting a new challenge. The sideways movement was greater than it should be, sometimes reaching 70 mm (ARUP, Challenge). Accordingly, the Bridge had to be closed again two days later in order to research and remedy this fault. The engineers defended the Bridge’s construction by saying that the swaying was something that could happen on any bridge when large crowds pass over, and that the oscillation is heightened by the way people walk (London Landmarks). Nevertheless, the firms went into further tests and research, and turned to a passive damping system that would help absorb the energy and prevent the swaying. The testing programme included consulting international experts, researching into similar occurrences on other bridges, and making laboratory tests on moving platforms at the Imperial College and South Hampton University. To obtain more specific information about the influence and pressure exerted by walking pedestrians on the Millennium Bridge, ARUP paid volunteers to walk over the Bridge, so the exact results could be recorded and used in the remedy efforts. These tests were used to establish the relationship between the swaying motions of the bridge with the walking of the pedestrians, enabling the constructors to determine the size crowd that would cause the oscillation, and the time it would take for the movement to begin (ARUP, Challenge). The two possible solutions lay in either stiffening the structure of the bridge so the frequency wouldn’t coincide with that of the pedestrians, or using passive damping to absorb the energy. The construction and engineering firms decided in favor of the latter, and furthermore selected passive damping, with harnessing, rather than active damping, which has not yet been tested in a design as complex as a bridge. ARUP therefore made use of viscous passive dampers under the deck and by the south landing, and tuned mass dampers, also located under the deck (ARUP, Challenge). With this solution, the bridge design and construction remained intact, modified by these additions. The Millennium Bridge was reopened in February 2002, after almost two years had been dedicated to the tests and modifications. This time, the Bridge was a success. Thousands of people again crossed over the Bridge, and the swaying motion had had been successfully eliminated. Resource Analysis The Millennium Bridge is 4 meters wide and 330 meters long. At high tide, the Bridge is 10.8 meters above the river. In terms of materials, the piers were constructed out of concrete and steel; the cables are 120 mm of locked coil, the deck is aluminum, and the handrail is bead blasted stainless steel (London Landmarks). The total cost of construction amounted to over 18 million pounds; an additional 5 million pounds were used for the modifications (London Landmarks), thus causing the project to cost much more than expected. The main benefit of the Bridge, in addition to becoming a place for tourism, lies in its combination of architectural design and practical use, as a bridge connecting the old and the new. The main disadvantage to the Bridge is common to all suspension bridges – its susceptibility to resonance, which enables the swaying that marked the Bridge when it first opened. According to BBC, the Millennium Bridge Trust acknowledged when the Bridge closed on June 12, 2000, that it had a problem, but clarified that there was no risk to safety (BBC News). Assuming this analysis to be true, the main risk involved in the project did not have to do with safety, but with the possibility of failure. The design was unique, and made a more sleek bridge than other suspension bridges, but the techniques used were safe. The Bridge nearly became a failure, or another white elephant – something that can’t be easily disposed of, but has an unrealistic cost of upkeep – like the nearby Millennium Dome (London Landmarks). The greatest risk, then, lay in loss of money. Nevertheless, the successful modifications of the Bridge, and its subsequent use, beginning in 2002, seem to have outweighed the risk. It can still be argued, as an opinion analysis will show, that the Bridge is not worth the money that went into it. Nevertheless, the money has been spent, so arguing that other projects could have used it more effectively, won’t change the reality. Considering that the money was spent, and the Bridge does exist, it has been an architectural success, a convenience for pedestrians, and another location for London tourists to visit. Opinion Analysis The results of an opinion survey conducted at Greenwich School of Management shows some of the views people have toward the Bridge. The survey asked several questions regarding the safety of the Bridge, its usefulness and its success as a project. In general, all the undergraduate students who took the survey seemed confident about its safety. They felt that this had been assured by the studies and tests conducted on the bridge, and have also been manifested by the past eight years of its regular use. Furthermore, several pointed out that the idea of a suspension bridge is not new. This Bridge is a unique application of a well known and tested form of bridge construction. A few students spoke of added confidence since international experts had been consulted on the matter when the oscillating became apparent. One student commented that even though he knows the Bridge is safe, and it has not oscillated since reopening, he has not crossed it because the idea that the swaying happened the first time scares him, even if it isn’t acknowledged as a safety threat and hasn’t happened since. Another student mentioned that even though the Bridge seems safe and has been tested, she had seen the fictional destruction of the Bridge in the Da Vinci Code movie and now has reservations about the Bridge. She acknowledged that it was pure fiction, but said she fears it could one day happen in reality. These students, however, were among the minority of survey respondents; the great majority testified to the Bridge’s safety. 80% of those surveyed have been over the Bridge at least once; 66% have been over it several times, and 25% use it regularly. While the student survey showed that many people have confidence in the Bridge’s safety, their perspective on its usefulness and the overall worth of the project wasn’t so positive. In terms of usefulness, many students considered the Bridge to be less useful than others since it is only a footbridge. Other students pointed out that the bridge is between two other bridges. There are many bridges over the Thames. This one may symbolically connect the old to the new, but the other bridges aren’t that far away. Nevertheless, they admitted that for some pedestrians, it would definitely be more convenient to have a bridge in that location than to have to walk to a further bridge. The students seemed to largely agree, however, that the usefulness of the Bridge lies not in convenience, but in architecture. Several mentioned that it is a custom work of architecture, modern and appealing to the eye. Others mentioned that the view from the Bridge can be outstanding, and therefore the Bridge has value in terms of nature and beauty, but not as much value in terms of convenience or practicality. The most negative point of the survey that most of the students agreed upon lay in the overall worth of the project. While, as already mentioned, most students acknowledged that there was some use and value in the Bridge, either in terms of pedestrian transportation, or for sightseeing, 85% of the students interviewed expressed the opinion that whatever value there is in the Bridge does not measure up to the over 23 million pounds that went into the project and its modifications. They believed that too much money was spent on a Bridge that may be nice, but wasn’t necessarily needed. Several brought up other social issues, such as employment, bettering different parts of the city, etc. that they believe would have been a more effective use of the money. As a result, while the project adds to London’s landmarks and architectural successes, most of the students reached the conclusion that the outcome was not worth the money and effort put into it. A few added, however, that this will not stop them from enjoying and using the Bridge since it already exists and no one can reverse the project. Review of Literature Most sources seem to agree about the sustainability of the London Bridge, considering it to have been unsustainable in its initial condition, as opened June 10, 2000, but now, largely successful and sustainable, following its modifications. This opinion is expressed by travel guides (London Landmarks), the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the authors of other newspaper articles (Reaney, 2009). The Bridge’s sustainability was threatened when it first opened due to the oscillating, and immediate negative opinion formed. Had the Bridge stayed in that condition, it would have been largely avoided by the public out of fear, even though the engineers assured it wasn’t a safety hazard. The resulting modifications, however, which took place over the next two years, succeeded at eliminating the swaying motion, while retaining the sleek and attractive architectural design. The Bridge therefore became a successful pedestrian pathway, combining convenient transportation, as it is the only current footbridge across the Thames, with innovative architecture, and a pleasant view. It is therefore considered to be a success, in spite of its initial challenges, and is expected to be sustainable into the future. Conclusion In conclusion, as a ground breaking, millennium opening bridge, the London Millennium Bridge can be seen as a failure. It received a negative review and nickname immediately after its grand opening; the negative pressure was so strong that the Bridge had to close down after only two days, to undergo its testing and modifications that would last for two additional years. As an opening Millennium project, then, the Bridge seemed like a disaster. Nevertheless, due to the dedication of the constructors and engineers, the story did not end with that failure. In spite of the negative reputation and embarrassment, the constructors of the Bridge invested further funds to fix the Bridge. In this way, while they may have spent more than initially planned, they managed to salvage the Bridge, thus avoiding a complete financial failure. Although the initial failure has not been forgotten, the Bridge today has become a well used, successful and unique part of London, and promises to be so in the future as well. References ARUP. 2010 The Millennium Bridge. Retrieved from http://info.arup.com/millenniumbridge//index.html BBC News. Millennium Bridge Closed. June 12, 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/786743.stm London Landmarks. Millennium Bridge, London. Retrieved from http://www.urban75.org/london/millennium.html Reaney, Patricia. (Nov. 6, 2005). "Why the Millennium Bridge wobbled". New Sunday Times, p. F20. When did the New Millennium Begin? Meyer, Peter. Hermetic Systems http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/newmill.htm Personal Development Planning: Evaluation and Revision Full Name Name of Institution Personal Development Planning (PDP) is essential for success in education and career. I realize that while I benefit greatly from good professors and college curriculum, my success ultimately depends on my own effort and personal development. Throughout the year, I have tried to follow the professional development plan I made at the beginning. Now, toward the end of the year, I have evaluated my success at following that plan, analyzed my current situation, and formulated a new PDP to help me continue forward from this point on. Evaluation of former PDP My former PDP was mainly focused on helping me get to know myself, my strengths, weaknesses, desires and interest. I realized that, prior to this year, I had not reflected about myself, my objectives, and what I wanted to achieve out of my education and career. I had not focused very much on my own talents and interests and, as a result, did not have a concrete plan that incorporated those talents and interests in a way that would lead to future success. I realized, in my first PDP, that I have certain academic talents and strengths that I hadn’t realized, and hadn’t been applying in my studies. I have a good memory. I have am able to think quickly and on my feet. I am good with numbers and facts. I also saw that I have personal qualities that can help me in my future careers. I am good at dealing with people. I can express myself well. I am determined, and can find ways to reach my objectives. I believe that all of these qualities, both intellectual and personal, give me what I need to become a good manager and businessman. I realized, however, that I also have different weaknesses. I wasn’t applying myself to my studies. I wasn’t focused on aligning my studies with my career interests. I wasn’t looking for practicum experience. I didn’t know my own learning styles. I had a general sense of my interests and likes, but no specific plan making sure I would achieve them. As a result, my initial PDP focused mainly on getting to know myself, and becoming serious about my studies and my career, aligning my present with my future. Some of my specific points included learning more about the courses I was signing up for, and making sure they would be the most effective ones for my chosen career; choosing my reading materials and writing materials based on what would help my development the most, rather than what would be fastest; looking for resources that would help my understand my learning style better; reviewing professors’ comments on assignments to track my strengths and weaknesses; listening to what other say and present during class in order to learn from them; setting aside more time for study in the evenings and on weekends so I can maximize my performance; and looking for opportunities, such as out of class discussions, seminars and experiences that could be of further assistance in developing my talents and the skills I need to have a successful future in management. Current Situation I have improved over the semester, thanks to my first PDP. I have become more serious about my studies. I looked into the different learning styles and types of intelligence, and found out that I am a visual learner with a logical, mathematical, and interpersonal intelligence. I developed study strategies accordingly. I have begun reading much more and, as a result, have a more in depth understanding of the topics covered in my courses. I have also dedicated myself to my assignments much more, and have set specific objectives for different assignments, so I am not only able to meet the expectations of my professors, but am also able to strengthen different skills, such as written expression, debate, statistical analysis, innovative thinking, etc. At this point, I believe I have two main weaknesses that I need to address, before fine tuning other habits and skills. One lies in being somewhat close minded. I arrive to my course, or pick up a book, with certain expectations in mind. I expect certain things to be true and I take them for granted. I therefore often assume others are wrong, sometimes including my professors, without taking the time to fully understand what they are saying, and without questioning my own beliefs in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of the issue. Secondly, I feel that my contact with management lies strictly within my university experience. I believe I will have a much more effective educational experience and preparation if I complement my university experience with more practicum experience and real life observation. I mentioned this in my first PDP, but did not really follow up on it during this year. New PDP Rather than having countless small points the way I formed my first PDP, I am focusing this revised PDP on the two main weaknesses I mentioned above. In this way, all the more minor points will converge to the extent that they help me strengthen these areas. My objective continues to focus on aligning my present educational experience with future career success. I realize that my career, in addition to effective education, requires openness to the ideas of others, and an understanding not just of theory, but of reality as well. As a result, the following are the main points of my current PDP: 1. I will listen to the ideas of my professors and other classmates. When I disagree with one, instead of rejecting it, I will ask questions about it if appropriate, and otherwise find reading materials about it. In this way, I will inform myself of the other person’s perspective and any facts/data that support it, rendering myself more capable of either maintaining my own opinion, or revising it based on new information. 2. When I am writing about given topics, I will make the effort to explore both sides of the issue before determining my thesis and perspective on the matter. In this way, I will challenge my own ideas, stretching them to be more comprehensive. 3. I will actively look for practicum experience. I will try to find a part time job that won’t just make an income, but also somehow relates to my studies. When completing assignments and studying, I will include applications and examples from my practicum experience. 4. I will make the most of group discussions, meetings with my professors, and personal dealings with people I know in the management field to learn about the real life experiences of others, focusing especially on how their experience differed from their expectations, the challenges they faced, and the skills they have found to be most important in overcoming those difficulties. 5. I will make sure that, when researching for my assignments, I will look into real case studies and obtain information about real management companies and positions that I can incorporate into my understanding of the issue and use as application Conclusion With this new PDP, I hope to further strengthen my skills, and use my time in university more effectively, in terms of my future career. I believe that my future is in my hands, and my future success depends not just on knowledge, but on development as well. As a result, I hope that this development plan, in addition to helping my broaden my scope of knowledge, has the elements need to help me develop further skills of observation, personal dealings, creativity and innovation that will be invaluable for me in the future as a manager. Read More