Transportation Research Record 1845
Paper No. 03-2053
Fundamental Flaws in the
Appearance of Bridges
Martin P. Burke, Jr.
Many papers on bridge aesthetics design focus almost exclusively on the
importance of certain visual qualities (i.e., harmony, unity, balance) as
necessary distinguishing characteristics of beautiful bridges. Although
each of these papers has considerable merit, their required brevity and
limited focus provide only a superficial view of an effective bridge de-
sign process. Also, for the elucidation of aesthetic subject matter for
bridge design novices, these papers appear to be inappropriate for sev-
eral other reasons. First, they imply that a vague abstraction such as
beautiful is a legitimate goal for a design effort. Second, the empha-
sis on a structures primary visual qualities mistakenly presumes that
the complete silhouette of a highway bridge will generally be seen and
evaluated by distant observers. Finally, these papers generally fail to
mention fundamental flaws due to design, construction, and mainte-
nance neglect and carelessness that can spoil the appearance of a bridge,
even one that has been well designed in most other respects. These issues
are discussed, and it is suggested that, instead of attempting to achieve
beautiful bridges by a preoccupation with abstract visual qualities, a
highway bridge designers attention should be devoted first and pri-
marily to the avoidance or prevention of well-defined and easily recog-
nizable bridge aesthetic flaws, many of which are described and dis-
cussed here. Thereafter, designers attention can be devoted to the
adjustment of a bridges structural characteristics and visible aspects to
satisfy both functional requirements and cost limitations and to simul-
taneously improve a structures visual qualities to the extent that some
observers may be provoked to exclaim beautiful when they first view
a designers work.
And enlightened though we may be, while we pursue the unattainable,
we make impossible the realizable. (1, p. 3)
Aesthetics has been defined as the study or philosophy of beauty,
or the branch of philosophy dealing with beauty and the beautiful.
Consequently, it is not surprising that many writers in bridge aes-
thetics literature choose beauty as a primary goal of their bridge
design projects and as the subject matter for their prose. Beauty and
the Bridge, Beauty in Short Span Highway Bridges, Formulas
for Beauty, and The Beauty of Structures are some of the titles
on the subject available in the literature. But other writers, especially
science-oriented bridge design engineers, shy away from using the
term beauty, a verbal abstraction representing to those who use the
term an extremely pleasant mental-emotional response to a visual
experience. They recognize that choosing beauty as a goal for a
bridge design project would commit them and their staff associates
to use many design hours trying to achieve a goal, the characteris-
tics of which would be difficult if not impossible to initially define
and eventually recognize.
M. P. Burke Bridges, 4350 Crown Point Drive, Columbus, OH 43220.
3
This goal attainment problem has interested professionals in
other disciplines as well. For example, Wendell Johnson, a speech
pathologist and professor at the University of Iowa has observed:
The ideals of the maladjusted are high in three chief respects. In the
first place, they are high in the sense that they are vague. Being vague,
they are difficult to recognize; being difficult to recognize, they appear
to be elusive. It is the consequent misfortune of the individual whose
ideals are vaguely defined that he has no sure way of determining
whether or not he has attained them. (2, p. 4)
Neil Postman, professor of communication arts at New York
University and a self-avowed educationist, has similarly observed:
It is neither seemly nor necessary for educationists to claim to know
what intelligence is and how it is nurtured. . . . To put it plainly, we
know next to nothing about intelligence, in the same sense that med-
ical doctors know next to nothing about health. That is why doctors do
not concern themselves with health, and give all their attention to
relieving us of sickness. Indeed, their definition of health is the absence
of sickness. This is a perfectly sensible way for them to approach mat-
ters and accounts in part for the success they have had compared to
teachers. . . . By concentrating on the elimination of sickness, doctors
give a focus to their objectives and procedures that teachers have not
been able to match.
Something quite similar may also be said of lawyers. When have
you ever heard of someone consulting a lawyer in order to improve the
quality of justice or good citizenship? Whether acting as prosecutors
or defenders, lawyers do not trouble themselves about justice or good
citizenshipof which, in any case, they know no more than the grocer
down the block. They trouble themselves about injustice and bad
citizenship.
This, then, is the strategy I propose for educationiststhat we aban-
don our vague, seemingly arrogant, and ultimately futile attempts to
make children intelligent, and concentrate our attention on helping
them avoid being stupid. (3, pp. 86, 87)
Finally, Paul Watzlawick, clinical professor of psychiatry at Stan-
ford University, and his colleagues at the Palo Alto Mental Research
Institute observed:
From the foregoing, one arrives at the disturbing possibility that the
limits of a responsible and humane psychotherapy may be much nar-
rower than is generally thought. Lest therapy become its own pathol-
ogy, it must limit itself to the relief of suffering; the quest for happiness
cannot be its task. (4, p. 57)
Taking a cue from these writers, this papers main concern is not
with the attainment of an ideal such as beautiful bridges. Instead, it
focuses on a description and discussion of fundamental flaws en-
countered in the design and construction of bridges that appear to
conspire against the attainment of desirable aesthetic results. By
focusing attention this way, needed changes in bridge design and
construction practices can be recognized and made to eliminate or
at least minimize the occurrence and appearance of these flaws.
4 Paper No. 03-2053
After such preliminary efforts, design attention can then be given to
choosing and adjusting a bridges primary structural characteristics
and visible aspects to satisfy both functional requirements and cost
limitations and possibly aesthetics expectations as well. Extra-
ordinary bridges may not be achieved by this approach, but the
bridges that are achieved should be extraordinarily well done.
FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS
Before elaborating on the many fundamental flaws that appear to
conspire to spoil bridge designers aesthetic efforts, it is first neces-
sary to clear the air so to speak and make one thing absolutely clear.
It is a well-known educational principle that people learn best by
doing, and the author has been doing bridge design for over 50 years.
It is also a well-known educational principle that people learn most
from their own mistakes. The author is considered by many to be
an expert on the subject of bridge aesthetic mistakes and flaws, but
he wants to make it absolutely clear that the flaws described in this
paper are not exclusively his. He admits close familiarity with many
of them, but he adamantly refuses to accept personal responsibility for
the lot. Consequently, with this critically important preliminary qual-
ification in mind, consider the following tabulation that, unfortunately,
should be considered suggestive and not comprehensive.
Aberrant Configurations
Aberrant configurations are visible aspects of a composition assem-
bled in such a way as to yield apparently illogical or disorganized
wholes. The general meaning of aberrant is to go astray, wander, or
deviate from what is correct, normal, or typical. The most obvious
examples of this flaw are bridges whose characteristics are deter-
mined generally by artists and nonbridge architects who appear to
be more concerned with making a personal visual statement and less
with not abusing the sensibilities of the bridge engineering profes-
sion or bridge enthusiasts in general. Occasionally, engineers work-
ing on bridge designs beyond their expertise produce similar but
less-refined results. The Tower Bridge of London (Figure 1) is a
FIGURE 1 Tower Bridge over the Thames River, London, United
Kingdom. Built in 1884.
Transportation Research Record 1845
centuries-old example, although its historic significance and unusual
architectural decorations have made it one of the most visited tourist
attractions of the city. The original Landsdown Bridge of Pakistan
is another. Although it was the longest cantilever span in the world
at the time of its completion, it was also considered to be the worst-
looking bridge in the world (5, p. 42). On a smaller scale are the
peculiarly configured pedestrian bridges, one of which is called the
Grasshopper Bridge because local residents believe it structurally
resembles a crouching grasshopper poised for flight.
The Nalley Valley overpass of Tacoma, Washington, is another
example of this flaw. Recognizably, the construction of this bridge
was the work of some talented designers. Unfortunately, however,
the foreshortened views presented to interested observers moving
beneath the structure (Figure 2) are filled with confusing clusters of
slanted columns. Observers are actually forced to look away from
this bridge to find some other less confusing aspect to contemplate.
Blatant Diversity
Blatant diversity is the name used to characterize a composition
within which bridges and their visible aspects are significantly dif-
ferent from each other. In the literature of bridge aesthetics, many
eminent bridge engineers are of the opinion that compositional unity
is the most, or one of the most, important characteristics of aesthet-
ically successful designs. When one contemplates bridges that have
achieved the most acclaim for their appearance, the general unity of
their visible aspects is quite apparent.
On the other hand, blatant diversity is sure to be noticed even
by the most disinterested observer. The bridges serving I-670 in
Columbus, Ohio, provide a good example of this flaw. The bridges
of this project were designed by a number of different consulting
engineers and are of various types, materials, colors, and so forth.
Apparently, little or no coordination of the visual aspects of this
project was part of the project guidelines. Abutment and pier con-
figurations, surface finishes, primary colors, and so forth differ
from each other to such an extent that observers are provoked to
question the purpose served or the messages being sent by the diverse
appearance of these bridges.
FIGURE 2 Nalley Valley overpass, Tacoma, Washington. Built in
1964. (Photograph courtesy of Arvid Grant.)
Burke Paper No. 03-2053 5

The Hungerford Bridge of London is one of the oldest examples of

blatant diversity (Figure 3). It was built across the River Thames
between the historic Westminster and Waterloo Bridges (ornate
multiple-span arch structures) in the most architecturally sophisticated
area of the city. However, the designer ignored the structural and
architectural characteristics of the existing bridges and the aesthetic
sensitivity of the region and chose to design a constant depth lattice
girder bridge supported on two modified brick river piers of an earlier
suspension bridge and a number of new cylindrical column piers.
Although economically and structurally successful, the appear-
ance of this bridge has been condemned in engineering and archi-
tectural journals for over a hundred years. Because of its blatant
diversity, it has been classified as one of the worlds most aestheti-
cally notorious bridges (5, pp. 4244). In this respect, it was inter-
esting to observe that photographers of the Westminster area of the
city appear to always choose a perspective for their views of the city
that either eliminate this structure from their compositions or place
it in an obscure position.
FIGURE 4 Poor control of the mixing and placement of abutment
wingwall concrete. Note that the designer did not provide this wall
with surface relief of any kind.
Blemished Surfaces

Blemished surfaces are those whose appearance is marred by various

ily interested in quick, inexpensive construction while agency stan-
types of defects that owe their existence and condition to construction-
dard design details, design regulations, and construction and material
sensitive details, inadequate surface quality specifications, or poor
specifications are not comprehensive enough to adequately control
or careless craftsmanship. Most surface blemishes occur during cast-
the work.
in-place concrete construction (Figure 4). They include but are not
However, designers are at least partly responsible for many com-
limited to bulges, fins, drips, runs, spalls, holes, cavities, honey-
mon surface flaws because they specify design details that are espe-
combs, stains, and so forth. Typically, they are due to careless work-
cially sensitive to common construction errors, details whose appear-
manship with respect to forming and bracing and to poorly planned
ance is especially sensitive to site-specific illumination, details that
and coordinated concrete placement, finishing, and curing.
stain easily and weather badly, and details that frankly appear to
Consequently, to achieve superior or acceptable results, cast-in-
have been given no aesthetic forethought (Figure 4). Such flaws
place concrete construction must be controlled by use of compre-
include but are not limited to the following:
hensive construction and material specifications, periodic inspection
of work in progress by individuals familiar with quality construc- Uncontrolled construction joint locations;
tion, and rigid specification enforcement. Otherwise, bridge con- Unhidden, unmasked, or poorly masked construction joints;
struction contracts should be awarded only to prequalified contrac- Broken or ragged (unbeveled) edges;
tors whose field crews have consistently demonstrated their ability Uncontrolled shrinkage cracks;
to produce high-quality results. The latter practice is especially Unrelieved vertical surfaces;
important for design-build projects in which contractors are primar- Shallow or shadowless striations, recesses, and rustications
(small-scale surface treatments);
Poor bridge color choice for bridge settings or uncoordinated
control of various bridge colors;
Uncontrolled stains (unsloped, exposed top horizontal surfaces
of walls and parapets, etc.), deck drainage, and long-term weathering
effects; and
Lack of specification control of form and form liner surface
impressions.

Conspicuous Peculiarities

Conspicuous peculiarities are visible aspects of a structure compo-

FIGURE 3 Hungerford railroad bridge over the Thames River,
London, United Kingdom. Built in 1864. (Photograph courtesy
of the J. Allen Cash Photolibrary, London.)
sition that attract attention because of their bold, odd, or unexpected
appearance. Conspicuous peculiarities refer to pier, light pole, and
railing shapes that complement neither a structure nor its setting,
decorations that do not decorate, garish colors, and so forth. Unfor-
tunately, some entire bridges belong in this category. Typically,
this name appears to characterize many of the artistic touches
that are added to structures presumably to improve their appear-
ance. These touches sometimes provoke observers to wonder what
6 Paper No. 03-2053
possessed bridge designers to fool around with what was an otherwise
adequate design.
Haphazard Shadows
Haphazard shadows are shadows that owe their existence to the
unanticipated or uncontrolled effects of site-specific illumination on
the visible aspects of a composition. Typically, this flaw is gener-
ally encountered when novice designers make aesthetic choices
based primarily on the appearance of a structures visible aspects on
line drawings. In such cases, it appears that little or no attention is
given to the probable difference between the bold lines of a draw-
ing and visualizations of the visible aspects represented by these
lines as they would actually appear when illuminated and delineated
by the ever-changing site-specific surface illumination. Shallow
copings, recesses, and striations appear to fade or disappear when
viewed on north-facing surfaces and on all surfaces on heavily over-
cast days. Similar vertical recesses and protrusions or striations at or
near mid-day on south-facing surfaces also appear to fade.
The appearance of the Discovery Bridge of Columbus, Ohio, was
forever spoiled by this flaw, a flaw that is most apparent when the
south side of the bridge is viewed at or near noontime on a bright
and cloudless day. Note how in Figure 5 the dark deck slab can-
tilever shadows partly obscure the defining arches of this structure.
These heavy shadows could have been avoided by eliminating deck
slab cantilevers. Unfortunately, the need for cantilevers was estab-
lished early in the structures design when utility administrators
required a large bank of interstate telephone conduits on the origi-
nal bridge be kept in continuous service during bridge demolition
and reconstruction. However, if these administrators could have been
made aware of how this decision would compromise the appearance
of the structure and its aesthetically sensitive setting, they probably
would have reconsidered their decision about the disposition of
existing utility lines.
Lamentable Complexity
Lamentable complexity is the name used to characterize the visible
aspects of a structure that present a confusing or seemingly dis-
FIGURE 5 Discovery Bridge over Scioto River, Columbus, Ohio.
Built in 1992.
Transportation Research Record 1845
organized appearance. Probably the most familiar examples of this
flaw are the multiple span bridges with each span composed of
stringers of different depths and with some spans composed of steel
and others of concrete. To make matters worse, some agencies even
allow the use of different piers and abutment configurations in the
same bridge. Taken together, such structures are a clear message
of the existence of a design organization completely insensitive to
matters of appearance.
In other instances, technically talented designers choose unnec-
essarily complicated solutions (Figure 2) where a bolder but sim-
pler design would have been structurally, economically, and aes-
thetically suitable. Other familiar examples are the heavily skewed
multiple-span grade separation bridges with closely spaced pier
columns and through truss bridges with both vertical and diagonal
members, especially those with truss-type top chord braces. The ap-
pearance of such structures from a diagonal perspective is particularly
confusing.
Mindless Graffiti
Mindless graffiti are purposeful scribblings, drawings, or signs that
disfigure prominent structure surfaces. It seems hardly necessary to
mention examples of this aesthetic flaw other than to suggest that
traffic signs can also be placed in this category. This is especially
true when a disparate cluster of such signs is indiscriminately placed
to obscure an otherwise carefully designed structure. Bridge num-
bers, paint identification designations, and so forth also fall within
this category (Figure 6).
Monotonous Regularity
Monotonous regularity is the name used to characterize a repetitious
assembly of visible aspects that continue on indefinitely without
pause, punctuation, or relief of any kind. Bridge railings of long
multiple-span urban bridges serving a large volume of pedestrian
traffic are prime examples of this flaw. Railings of such bridges are
usually composed of a steady or constant spacing of the same posts
and panels. Such railings could be considerably improved by pro-
FIGURE 6 Reinforced-earth abutment wall significantly marred by
bridge maintenance markings.
Burke
viding a pattern or rhythm of various panel lengths to relieve an other-
wise monotonous appearance. Insertion of periodic refuges would
also help to soften an otherwise stark functionalism. A small num-
ber of panel decorations (6, p. 175) or even panel colors of different
complementary shades have been used for this purpose in the past.
On a larger scale, the monotonous regularity created by the appear-
ance of standard closely spaced grade separation bridges can be
relieved by providing a bridge with unique characteristics, a bridge
with distinctive pier or abutment configurations, or less expensively
by a bridge with a different basic color.
Retaining walls and sound walls that parallel freeways are prob-
ably the best examples of aesthetically neglected structures where
such neglect results in stark functionalism and monotonous regu-
larity. Correction of this flaw would significantly improve the visual
experiences of the countless number of travelers exposed to such
longitudinal monstrosities.
Neglected Perspectives
Neglected perspectives are those observer views of actual struc-
tures in their settings that exhibit visible aspects radically different
from those of perpendicular views of design drawings usually con-
templated by designers. Two of the first aesthetic disappointments
experienced by the author were due to observer perspectives com-
pletely different from those contemplated during design, views that
had a major influence on the configuration of primary structure
elements.
The first was a multiple-span grade separation steel girder bridge
containing a very long and deep central span continuous with con-
siderably shorter and shallower adjacent spans. Reverse curve bot-
tom flange haunches were used to accommodate the girder depth
transitions adjacent to the piers. At the time, the design staff thought
the curved shape of the girder haunches presented a better appear-
ance than straight tapers. Unfortunately, because the structure was
severely skewed with respect to the lower roadway, the typical view
of the structure from below was considerably foreshortened. This
foreshortened view provoked local residents to ridicule it with the
name Fish Belly Bridge. On viewing the actual structure, the
author agrees this is an apt characterization for what he thought
would be a suitable-looking bridge.
The second structure consisted of a very long variable-height
retaining wall located parallel and close to a two-lane roadway. The
top of the wall was configured to match exactly the existing contours
of the supported hillside with straight tapers and curves used to
improve its appearance. Unfortunately, the author again neglected
to recognize that the typical observer view of the wall would be
extremely foreshortened. Such a view significantly distorted what at
first was thought to be a good-looking design. Aesthetically, it was
anything but that!
Designs that neglect to consider the various perspectives of typical
observers will probably yield disappointing aesthetic results.
Obtrusive Paraphernalia
Obtrusive paraphernalia are unsightly utilitarian elements need-
lessly placed in prominent or inappropriate locations. Obtrusive
paraphernalia include elements such as scuppers and downspouts,
electrical conduits and switch boxes, traffic signs, light poles, and
Paper No. 03-2053 7
junction boxes. Many otherwise acceptable-looking structures have
been spoiled by the indiscriminate placement of these elements.
Regardless of the basic aesthetic attributes bridge designers give
their structures, if control is not exercised over the use, appearance,
and placement of these utilitarian elements, the chances are great
that others unconcerned about appearances will disfigure the work.
To be aesthetically successful, designers must control all aspects
of a bridge that will affect its appearance. Otherwise, the final appear-
ance will be left to chance. And chances are usually good that deci-
sions by one or more contributors to the complete project will make
poor aesthetic choices and spoil an otherwise successful design.
A particularly prevalent example of this flaw is the large overhead
traffic sign. Apparently, traffic engineers are so engrossed in com-
municating their directional messages to approaching traffic that
they completely neglect how the beams and braces exposed on the
backs of such signs clutter the view of travelers moving in the
opposite direction.
Ostentatious Ornamentations
Ostentatious ornamentations are decorations done in such a preten-
tious or extravagant manner that they elicit aesthetic evaluations
opposite those their presence was intended to produce. Probably one
of the most notorious bridges in this respect is the Tower Bridge of
London (Figure 1). Consider what one slightly perturbed bridge
enthusiast had to say about its appearance:
A more absurd structure than the Tower Bridge was never thrown
across a strategic river. What would be the use of these ornate towers
if the suspended roadway connecting them to the banksides were cut
by a shell or by a falling bomb? And what anachronism could be sillier
than that which has united the principle of metal suspension to an archi-
tecture cribbed partly from the Middle Ages, and partly from the
French Renaissance? The many small windows, the peaked roofing,
the absurdly impudent little turrets, the biscuit-like aspect of the mere-
tricious masonry, the desperate effort to be artistic at any cost: all
this, you know, is at standing odds with the contemporary parts of the
unhistorical bridge, parts huge in scale, but so commercial that there is
not a vestige of military fore-thought anywhere. It is mere perishable
bulk. (5, p. 42)
On a smaller scale, one is reminded of the special decorations
used on the outside surfaces of parapets of rural stream bridges
where the decorations are soon permanently obscured by plant
growth. The use of pier pylons that extend above the superstructure
on bridges likely to be widened, and the use of garish paint colors
on small bridges located in rustic communities, and so forth, are
other examples.
Stark Functionalism
Stark functionalism is the name used to characterize designs pro-
duced by procedures that seek to satisfy functional requirements
and cost limitations with little or no regard for aesthetic effects.
Two bridges immediately come to mind, although, unfortunately,
countless other bridges legitimately could be considered prime
examples of bridges that owe their appearance to this flaw. The first
is the notorious Hungerford Bridge of London (Figure 3). As
already described, aesthetic evaluations of this bridge have not
been kind.
8 Paper No. 03-2053
The only thing that can be said in favor of [this] bridge, as far as I know,
is that it has no decoration applied to it by an architectural assistant. In
that it is superior to the Tower Bridge . . . and Waterloo Bridge, both
of which have been sent as high as the Royal Academy to be trimmed.
It is honest enough, no doubt, but what a blundering thing it is. What
can have happened to the science that began with the medieval cathe-
dral builders, that persisted with Sir Christopher, and that declined into
bathos like this? (5, p. 43)
As a probable response to such criticisms, its stark functionalism
has recently been slightly altered by the multicolor paint system used
to protect its constant-depth lattice girders. As another sign of this
structures lack of aesthetic appeal, professional photographs of
this historic bridge, which has been serving the city of London for
14 decades, are scarce. The photograph of Figure 3 was located only
after an extensive year-long search of Londons museums, libraries,
and professional photographers.
The second bridge was recently constructed in the southwestern
United States (Figure 7). As an example of stark functionalism in
design, the appearance of this bridge speaks for itself. However,
stark functionalism is not entirely responsible for this bridges sorry
appearance. There are many other fundamental flaws that have
contributed to its sorry appearance, including the following:
Aberrant configurations,
Blatant diversity,
Conspicuous peculiarity,
Haphazard shadows,
Lamentable complexity,
Mindless graffiti,
Neglected perspectives, and
Obtrusive paraphernalia.
A close examination of the structure would probably reveal
blemished surfaces as well. Consequently, the only flaws not read-
ily apparent in Figure 7 are monotonous regularity and ostentatious
ornamentations. Actually, the appearance of this structure is so poor
that monotonous regularity could actually be considered a helpful
attribute.
FIGURE 7 Grade separation bridge, United States. Built in 1972.
Daily traffic under the structure at the time of construction,
18,000.
Transportation Research Record 1845
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Many papers on bridge aesthetics design focus almost exclusively
on the importance of certain visual qualities (i.e., harmony, unity,
balance) as necessary distinguishing characteristics of beautiful
bridges. Although each of these papers has considerable merit, their
required brevity and limited focus provide only a superficial view of
an effective bridge design process. Also, for the elucidation of aes-
thetic subject matter for bridge design novices, these papers are
inappropriate for several other reasons. This approach to design,
especially for typical highway bridges, seems inappropriate for sev-
eral primary reasons. First, these papers imply that a vague abstrac-
tion such as beautiful is a legitimate goal for a bridge design effort.
However, the attainment of such a subjectively ill-defined goal
during an objective search for an economical balance between site-
specific functional requirements such as alignment, spans, clear-
ances, width, loadings, geometrics, and so forth would be difficult
if not impossible for a staff of technically oriented design profes-
sionals. Second, emphasis on a bridges primary visual qualities pre-
sumes that the complete silhouette of a highway bridge will gener-
ally be seen and evaluated by distant observers. However, typical
highway bridges have the most visual impact at close range where
they are viewed from various foreshortened perspectives by observers
moving at both high and low speeds. It is those close-range per-
spectives and speed of observers that must be recognized by design-
ers if their structures are to be economically and structurally suc-
cessful and aesthetically satisfying as well. Finally, these papers
almost completely ignore the fundamental flaws due to design, con-
struction, and maintenance neglect and carelessness that can spoil
the appearance of a bridge, even one that has been well designed in
most other respects.
Consequently, this paper suggests that the attention of highway
bridge designers should not be concerned primarily with the achieve-
ment of beauty, a uniquely personal, evanescent, ephemeral, mental
image, the characteristics of which would be impossible to define.
Instead, attention should first be focused on the elimination of well-
defined and easily recognizable bridge aesthetic flaws, the presence
of which would make the achievement of aesthetically appealing
highway bridges difficult, if not impossible to realize.
Following such preliminary work, attention can then be given to
those various structure characteristics and visible aspects that will
fulfill not only proposed functional requirements and cost limitations
but aesthetic expectations as well.
Many of the fundamental aesthetic flaws that detract from the
appearance of bridges are described and discussed here. Based on
these elaborations, it becomes abundantly clear that the basic causes
of many of these flaws are due to decisions made not only by bridge
design and construction engineers but by other transportation agency
staff members and staff administrators as well. And because most
nonbridge staff decisions are beyond the control of bridge designers,
they are currently being forced to participate in a game with marked
cards and a stacked deck.
Another problem with administrative staff decisions concerning
proposed aesthetic characteristics of bridges is that those executives
least endowed to make aesthetic design decisions believe they are
particularly well-blessed in this respect. Unfortunately, many of these
naive administrators generally do not hesitate to force their opinions
on design engineers and architects who have learned from their own
study and experience to know better. Consequently, this paper also
urges that staff decisions that will affect the characteristics of
bridges be made tentative until after bridge designers have had a
chance to evaluate the effect of these decisions not only on the cost
Burke
and functional aspects of a structure but on its visual characteristics
as well.
Finally, it is suggested that all members of bridge design, con-
struction, and maintenance staffs should be made aware of how
some of their decisions can have an adverse effect on the appearance
of bridges and how their cooperation with other staff members can
have a beneficial effect on the appearance of structures produced
and maintained by that staff.
On the basis of a heightened awareness of the potential effect of
staff decisions on bridge costs, on functional and aesthetic charac-
teristics, and on the elimination of the fundamental bridge aesthetic
flaws, bridge designers attention can be devoted almost exclusively
to the adjustment of a bridges structural characteristics and visible
aspects to satisfy both functional requirements and cost limitations
and to simultaneously achieve improved visual qualities and what
some observers may be provoked to exclaim beautiful when first
viewing a designers work.
Paper No. 03-2053 9
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author expresses his appreciation to the staff of Burgess & Niple,
Limited, for help in the preparation of this paper for publication.
REFERENCES
1. Ardrey, R. The Social Contract. Atheneum, New York, 1970.
2. Johnson, W. People in Quandaries. Harper & Row, New York, 1946.
3. Postman, N. Conscientious Objections. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York,
1988.
4. Watzlawick, P., J. H. Weakland, and R. Fisch. Change. W. W. Norton &
Company, New York, 1974.
5. Burke, M. P., Jr. Aesthetically Notorious Bridges. Civil Engineering,
Proc., Institute of Civil Engineers, London, Feb. 1998.
6. Bridge Aesthetics Around the World. TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1991.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on General Structures.