An evaluation of the stadium’s “Bird’s Nest” by a structural engineer

Thread Content

“Is the \"Bird’s Nest\" a good design? My opinion: It’s a terrible design, whether in terms of architectural aesthetics, the structural stress on the building, or energy efficiency. 　　Biology is a very interesting and ancient field of study; through years of evolution and natural selection, animals and plants have retained many characteristics that are essential for their survival. Smart humans have gained a lot of inspiration from studying the structure, function, or behavior of these animals and plants. 　　Does imitating it mean success and perfection? Of course not; otherwise, animals wouldn’t need to evolve either. Moreover, when it comes to the models to be imitated, there are differences in quality; there is indeed a certain distinction between breaststroke and dog paddle. Furthermore, in terms of the imitator’s understanding or reproduction of the subject being imitated, it matters whether only the appearance is copied or both the appearance and essence are perfectly replicated; this also directly affects the ultimate outcome of the imitation. Snake boxing will surely be better than monkey boxing, and even when both imitate frog swimming, there are differences in speed. 　　As flying animals, when it comes to the skill of building nests, I think bees are more skilled than most birds. Anyone can pick up some branches and stack them together; at most, they might add leaves or feathers to create a sort of mattress-like structure. But to build nests in the hexagonal shape that saves material, makes efficient use of space, and is quite stable, one really needs a talent for physics and mathematics. Speaking specifically of birds, there are mainly three types of nesting methods: building nests using branches and leaves, or gathering mud and small fish to construct nests, or using existing caves or tree holes. **The structure of the stadium \"Bird’s Nest\" imitates this construction method. 　　**The designers of the stadium undoubtedly drew inspiration from bird nests in nature. However, I would say that bird nests are not a good model to imitate; they are too chaotic, and birds do not create building materials – they simply use whatever is available on site. To put it another way, if one really likes the shape of the Bird’s Nest, then as intelligent humans, we should design buildings that are even more ingenious than it in order to stand out. With the current level of technology, this is not difficult to achieve. My biggest criticism of the **stadium structure is that it is cluttered, with extremely poor reusability of its components. 　　Software development, architectural design, and many other industries place great emphasis on reusability: being able to reuse elements helps reduce waste, while complexity increases the likelihood of errors and makes maintenance more difficult. “The orientation of each component in the \"Bird’s Nest\" is almost different from one another, which not only causes a lot of unnecessary difficulties in structural design but also creates many unnecessary obstacles in processing, manufacturing, and installation. Worst of all, the complexity of the structure leads to intricate stress conditions, increasing the difficulty of node design; as a result, structural designers are forced to use more material to ensure a certain level of safety. 　　Aesthetically, some might think that chaos is beauty, but when considerable effort is invested to create such chaos, I can’t see where the beauty lies. **The stadium was built with taxpayers’ money, right? Have you seen the Bank of China office building next to the Xidan Book Building? The semi-circular, all-glass canopies at the entrance, each with a different shape, are said to be imported from Italy; the cost of each one is equivalent to that of a Mercedes sedan. What kind of behavior is this? Showoff or wastefulness? 　　Furthermore, energy conservation in buildings with such a structure is also a major issue. If energy-saving measures are not implemented properly, the operating costs of buildings become very high. Many girls like to show off their legs in the cold winter, but this comes at a cost – they may end up having to use wheelchairs as they get older. In China, buildings these days tend to be designed with exposed and transparent elements. The price to pay for this transparency is high energy consumption: air conditioning is needed when it’s unbearably hot, while heating is required when it’s bitterly cold. 　　Initially, only a few building designs were made public for citizens to vote on, so why do I have such strong objections to the design that received many votes in favor from citizens? It is perfectly reasonable to involve the public in voting on matters such as naming or choosing names for pandas, or selecting a mascot for a certain event. It’s absurd and ridiculous to let laypeople who lack sufficient professional knowledge vote on such highly specialized issues as whether to build the Three Gorges Dam or not, and what type of structural design to use. Professor Liu Xiliang, a senior professor in the Structural Engineering department of Tianjin University and a renowned expert in spatial structures in China, has mentioned on numerous occasions at professional conferences on building structures that many of the winning architectural designs pursue novelty to an excessive extent. Some of these designs have obvious structural flaws yet are still chosen for implementation. A key reason for this is that there are too few structural engineers among the judges – usually less than one-tenth of them. 　　In an era when architects dominate structural engineers, they should, while maintaining their artistic flair, pay more attention to the opinions of those structural engineers, who may seem unsophisticated. We don’t expect architects to be experts in mechanics or in building energy efficiency; however, since architecture is a product resulting from the combined efforts of multiple disciplines, listening to the insights of our partners can help us create fewer inferior designs and more outstanding works that will last for generations.