Behold, the The Palace of the Soviets. A building to be built in Moscow as the capital building for the Soviet Union, holding within it the Congressional Hall and other government functions. They planned the construction holding a competition for the final project. The final project was to be a building taller than the Empire State Building, with a statue of V. Lenin on top ushering in communism to the world.

They tore down Cathedral of Christ the Savior, one of the most famous churches in Russia in 1931 to be the sight of the new building. However the building was delayed because of structural concerns. However they began construction of the Palace in 1939. They tore down pieces for the war effort against Nazi Germany and the Palace stood in limbo for the war years and after until they basically ended the development of the building altogether instead building a pool where the Cathedral once stood.

If completed the Palace of the Soviets would have been an incredible building to see.

Roman construction has something of a reputation for being sturdy and magisterial and their engineers are often idealized as practically minded and highly competent. This is understandable when one looks at ruins that still stand to this day, but is also something of a selection bias, because by necessity all of the buildings that survived were extremely well built. Luckily, the correspondence between the emperor Trajan and Pliny the Younger as governor of Bithynia gives us a different side this, as one of his many jobs is to make sure the locals aren't messing everything up. In particular, Epistulae XLVIII and XLIX contain an exchange between Pliny and Trajan about a particularly inept construction project.

First a little context to Pliny's letters. It can often seem, to the modern reader, that about 3/4 of Pliny's letters are incredibly petty and insignificant, almost to the point where it seems like he is pestering. It seems rather off to us to read a letter in which he says, basically, "I've arrived in Ephesus, but the wind is kind of bad so I will use rivers to get to Bithynia" or, like this one, "Here is a problem, what should I do, Trajan?" "Figure it out, Pliny, you are a big boy." For one, it is basically Pliny's job to keep Trajan informed of as much as possible. Particularly in an age where communication is slow, it is important to maintain a steady stream of reliable information. Furthermore, on Pliny's end it is important that he maintains himself as very visible to Trajan, who can be assured he is staying on the straight and narrow. Secondly, these letters are almost a guidebook on how to be a proper governor, particularly given that Pliny was appointed governor of Bithynia because the previous administration had mismanaged the finances. It is entirely likely that in almost every case Pliny has asked for Trajan's advice, he had already acted to implement more or less exactly what the emperor wanted, but by publishing these in letter format he can give a good indication of how a governor is supposed to act.

Anyway, the letters:

Pliny to Trajan:

The citizens of Nicea, Sir, are building a theatre, which, though it is not yet finished, has already exhausted, as I am informed (for I have not examined the account myself), above ten millions of sesterces; and, what is worse, I fear to no purpose. For either from the foundation being laid in soft, marshy ground, or that the stone itself is light and crumbling, the walls are sinking, and cracked from top to bottom. It deserves your consideration, therefore, whether it would be best to carry on this work, or entirely discontinue it, or rather, perhaps, whether it would not be most prudent absolutely to destroy it: for the buttresses and foundations by means of which it is from time to time kept up appear to me more expensive than solid. Several private persons have undertaken to build the compartments of this theatre at their own expense, some engaging to erect the portico, others the galleries over the pit: but this design cannot be executed, as the principal building which ought first to be completed is now at a stand. This city is also rebuilding, upon a far more enlarged plan, the gymnasium, which was burnt down before my arrival in the province. They have already been at some (and, I rather fear, a fruitless), expense. The structure is not only irregular and ill-proportioned, but the present architect (who, it must be owned, is a rival to the person who was first employed) asserts that the walls, although twenty-two feet in thickness, are not strong enough to support the superstructure, as the interstices are filled up with quarry stones, and the walls are not overlaid with brickwork. Also the inhabitants of Claudiopolis are sinking (I cannot call it erecting) a large public bath, upon a low spot of ground which lies at the foot of a mountain. The fund appropriated for the carrying on of this work arises from the money which those honorary members you were pleased to add to the senate paid (or, at least, are ready to pay whenever I call upon them) for their admission. As I am afraid, therefore, the public money in the city of Nicea, and (what is infinitely more valuable than any pecuniary consideration) your bounty in that of Nicopolis, should be ill applied, I must desire you to send hither an architect to inspect, not only the theatre, but the bath; in order to consider whether, after all the expense which has already been laid out, it will be better to finish them upon the present plan, or alter the one, and remove the other, in as far as may seem necessary: for otherwise we may perhaps throw away our future cost in endeavouring not to lose what we have already expended.

Trajan to Pliny:

You, who are upon the spot, will best be able to consider and determine what is proper to be done concerning the theatre which the inhabitants of Nicea are building; as for myself, it will be sufficient if you let me know your determination. With respect to the particular parts of this theatre which are to be raised at a private charge, you will see those engagements fulfilled when the body of the building to which they are to be annexed shall be finished. - These paltry Greeks are, I know, immoderately fond of gymnastic diversions, and therefore, perhaps, the citizens of Nicea have planned a more magnificent building for this purpose than is necessary; however, they must be content with such as will be sufficient to answer the purpose for which it is intended. I leave it entirely to you to persuade the Claudiopolitani as you shall think proper with regard to their bath, which they have placed, it seems, in a very improper situation. As there is no province that is not furnished with men of skill and ingenuity, you cannot possibly want architects; unless you think it the shortest way to procure them from Rome, when it is generally from Greece that they come to us.

Stupid Greeks, amirite? Incidentally, the theater at Nicea (modern Iznik) is actually in pretty good shape. I haven't been able to find any information on whether Pliny decided to shore up the theater or just start from stratch--any archaeological trace of such activity is either undetected, invisible, or I simply haven't seen it yet.

Someone posted a link to this thread in /r/architecture, as an architect you'd think I'd have an expansive knowledge of failed projects, but I struggled to think of an interesting one. Apologies in advance for any faux pas regarding your subreddit etiquette.

The Unbuilt Plans for London

London has always been a city that has grown and developed organically and has resisted any kind of 'grand masterplan'. The City of London seen here outlined poorly by a faint dotted red line, has largely retained the ad hoc street pattern of medieval London which grew from the occupation of the original Roman fort and settlement of Londinium, in fact the modern day motorway 'London Wall' follows the path of the original roman city wall.

Great Fire of London

In 1666 the city, consisting mainly of simple wooden buildings with thatched roofs, was burnt to the ground in the fire famously started in a bakery in pudding lane. The extent of the damage can be seen in this survey carried out by Wenceslaus Hollar in 1667

In the aftermath Charles II encouraged radical rebuilding schemes to be drawn up for a new city, 5 proposals were drawn up and they are as follows:

Christopher Wren's Plan for London

A combination of Renaissance planning and large-scale French garden design, the plan's central streets connect public squares and landmarks, while a narrower street grid fills the residual space. Wren's design, inspired by the Gardens of Versailles, imagined a well-ordered London with vistas and wide, straight streets.

John Evelyn's Plan for London

This plan was similar to Christopher Wren's and was designed with similar influences in mind and would have created a modern day London much more akin to today's Paris.

Richard Newcourt's Plan for London

This plan would have seen London split into a grid by a series of main roads. Small side roads would have lead off from the main roads into public squares in the center of each of the building plots which would all of contained a parish church.

Robert Hooke's Plan for London

Hooke's plan was similar to Newcourt's in that it proposed to reconstruct London on an efficient grid system that would have seen London transformed into something a lot closer to modern day Manhattan.

Valentine Knight's Plan for London

Knight's plan was perhaps the most ruthless, it proposed splitting london up into a series of highly profitable strips of land divided by lanes each the perfect width to accommodate a narrow block of houses. He also introduced a canal in a loop from Billingsgate to the River Fleet. He said the king could raise money by charging people fees for using the canal and through fines. This would finance the rebuilding. The King was most offended by the suggestion that he would want to 'draw a benefit to himself, from so publick a Calamity of his people' and had Knight arrested.

Conclusion

In the end non of the plans were adopted. Rebuilding was financed by private enterprise and the desire was to rebuild quickly. Without heavy government involvement to carve new roads across exisiting building plots and ancient routes, the possibility of organising building on such an enormous scale proved to be unfeasible. Much of the ancient layout of the City remained, but rebuilt in brick and stone.

But it is interesting to consider how close we came to having a London that is completely different to the one we have now. Perhaps one with baroque boulevards of Paris, or perhaps on with the efficient grid system of New York. Either way we could of lost the organic and historically rich and interesting city of the London we have today.

Please, someone tell the story of the warship Vasa, the dreadnought that was so well-armored and impressively armed (she could shoot 700 pounds of shot at once!) that she couldn't actually float and sank 100 feet under the cold, cold Baltic less than a mile into her maiden voyage.

Luckily for us, the cold, cold water was a great way to preserve a 17th-century ship and we were able to salvage the wreck, which is now the centerpiece of a museum in Stockholm.

But how angry do you think King Gustav Adolf was? Two years and a thousand oak trees to build this massive ship, beautiful summer morning, banners flying from the 15-story-tall masts, some of the 64 bronze cannons fire a salute, she rounds the cliffs of Södermalm, sailors climb the rigging and set four sails (of 10), she goes 1,300 meters, heels to port, the gunports start taking on water, and plunk.

Sweden spends the next three centuries trying to lift stuff up from the wreck. (They got the cannons using diving bells. Like, basically, giant upended buckets with weights attached.)

Three hours in and no mention yet of Galloping Gertie? I guess I'll do the honours.

The 1940 Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Washington was a suspension bridge that became famous for the odd bending and moving motion it made when the winds blew. The movement was first noticed during construction and various methods were used to try to make it stop, without much success. Somewhat amazingly to modern eyes, this thing was opened to the public. Around four months later, it collapsed dramatically and was caught on video. The only casualty was a dog called Tubby.

Possibly the most interesting thing about the Tacoma Narrows Bridge is that the exact reasons it fell are still being studied. I'm not an engineer and my understanding of physics is maybe rudimentary, so I'm not really going to try and explain what's known to have factored in.

The Amphitheater of Fidenae- According to the Annals of Tacitus, this wooden amphitheater collapsed, killing 50,000 people.... though Suetonius puts the figure at 20,000. Either way, you are looking at the worst non-dam failure related engineering disaster in history...and one that led to some of the world's earliest building construction codes.

What we know from Tacitus and Suetonius is (1) The amphitheater was wooden; (2) that it was hurriedly constructed to exploit the newly re-legalized gladiatorial games, and (3) "That he had failed to lay a solid foundation to frame the wooden super-structure with beams of sufficient strength"- IV.62

It's almost mundane except in the scale of the carnage. Profoundly stupid. I think I'll cite this disaster the next time I hear somebody kvetching about big government and building permits.

So most people who know a little about Jewish history know that the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. And those know know a little more know that a Third Temple is a major part of Jewish eschatology, though some more liberal sects don't believe in it anymore (Reform Judaism, mostly). And many people know that the modern consensus is that it shouldn't be built until the messiah arrives.

But that consensus exists for a reason--failed attempts at building the Third Temple. The first attempt was in 135, during the Bar Kochba revolt. It failed when the rebellion did.

A more interesting one is from the 4th century. Emperor Julian allowed the Jews to reconstruct it. However, there was an earthquake, which damaged the construction. There's also a lot of talk about weird supernatural fire of some sort burning things down/burning workers. The result was that it failed, and the basic concept that God doesn't want the Temple rebuild yet took hold.

I propose the Elephant of the Bastille.

In an effort to build around the area of the former Bastille, Napoleon aimed to build a giant elephant to commemorate his victories in 1808. It was to be twenty four meters tall and be made of bronze from the melted down cannons of his enemies. Construction started in 1810 and a plaster & wood model was finished by 1814 but the original idea was never completed due to Napoleon's defeat. From here, it would slowly decay into...

The House of Gavroche and other street urchins in Victor Hugo's Les Misérables. The novel immortalized this dying monster with this description:

It was falling into ruins; every season the plaster which detached itself from its sides formed hideous wounds upon it. "The aediles," as the expression ran in elegant dialect, had forgotten it ever since 1814. There it stood in its corner, melancholy, sick, crumbling, surrounded by a rotten palisade, soiled continually by drunken coachmen; cracks meandered athwart its belly, a lath projected from its tail, tall grass flourished between its legs; and, as the level of the place had been rising all around it for a space of thirty years, by that slow and continuous movement which insensibly elevates the soil of large towns, it stood in a hollow, and it looked as though the ground were giving way beneath it. It was unclean, despised, repulsive, and superb, ugly in the eyes of the bourgeois, melancholy in the eyes of the thinker. (Here I must thank Wikipedia for the ease of giving this quote).

It eventually was torn down in 1846 due to dilapidation.

First of all, we all know about the great successes of construction in the past - things like the Pyramids, the Great Wall, etc.

Interestingly, the Great Wall isn't that much of a success at all! To gauge how much of a success or a failure it was, it's a good idea to understand for why and how it was built. A word on terminology first: What we see today as "the Great Wall" was a Ming dynasty construction (the most famous stretches around Beijing were built in the 16th century), but nowadays we use the term "Great Wall" (or changcheng in Chinese) to refer to the various ramparts built in the north since the Qin dynasty (2nd century BC). The early Great Walls of the Qin and its predecessors were not walls of defense - they were built to wall off newly acquired territory. These walls never really worked out for them because when the Qin was hit with rebellions, these walls were abandoned and the nomads got back in to resettle the area. The take away point from this is that any wall needs to be manned adequately for it to be effective, no matter what purpose it serves.

The Ming dynasty walls did not rise out of a conscious concerted policy, rather, it was born out of a "failure of policy". Unable to eliminate the Mongol threat and unwilling to negotiate with them, the imperial court does not know how exactly to deal with the problem, so the commanders in charge of the northern frontier regions built walls to defend their areas of responsibility as they were an imperially acceptable compromise. The first walls in the Ordos region merely redirected the Mongol raids to other areas, and so the commanders of those other areas built walls of their own. These piecemeal constructions eventually joined together into the semi-continuous "Great Wall of China" today. There wasn't one emperor or one minister who one day decided to wrap China in wall and be done with it, the Great Wall was something that eventually came to be.

If there wasn't a "wall mentality" in the beginning, there certainly was after Altan Khan rode around the newly built walls and raided the suburbs of Beijing in 1550. Much effort was spent filling in the gaps in the already mountainous region, with a Ming official explaining that the goal should be to "not let a single horse in". Even so, some Mongol raiders climbed through treacherous terrain and killed a number of high ranking military officers in 1576, making the incident severe enough to warrant even more drastic measures, such as this confounding stretch of wall above a cliff called the Stairway to Heaven. Wall constructions continued all the way until the end of the Ming dynasty in 1644.

So how did it work out? The most famous episode of its "failure" is when Wu Sangui, the last defender of the Great Wall at Shanhai Pass, opened the gates and let the Manchus march into Beijing in 1644, beginning the Qing dynasty. Some people point to this and say the Great Wall was never tested and only fell to treachery, but the reality is that Beijing already fell to internal rebels and Wu Sangui was caught between two enemies within and without the Wall, so he essentially had to pick a side. More importantly, the Manchus had breached the Great Wall several times before 1644 and made raids around Beijing and as far south as the Shandong peninsula! How were the Manchus able to puncture the walled border, seemingly at will? I will again emphasize that any wall needs to be manned adequately for it to be effective. By the end of the Ming, fighting men were needed all over the empires to deal with internal revolts (as the Ming economy broke down due to various factors) and the Manchu threat. There simply wasn't enough men (or the money to pay them) to man the whole length of the Wall, so the bulk of the defenders were at Shanhai Pass. The Manchus simply rode around and attacked the lesser defended passes. In light of this, the Great Wall of China was certainly a failure as the resources spent on building the wall could well be used on other things like paying the soldiers, critically, and a unmanned wall was not going to defend itself.

In recent times the Great Wall had a revival of sorts and truly became "Great" due to western fascination with the wall (mixed with Orientalism) and recent Chinese propaganda. I wrote about the former in a previous Monday Mystery. Great Wall of defense it wasn't, but its new life as a tourist spot and national symbol sure is working out nicely!

The history of the early automobile is full of examples of engineering and construction failures, but I thought I'd share an example of a company who was able to turn it to their advantage.

In 1911, one of Cadillac's primary competitors for the luxury car market, Packard, introduced a car with a straight 6 engine. By 1914, Cadillac's dependable straight 4 was woefully out of date, so for the 1915 model year Cadillac introduced the first production V8 in America. It was a bit of a flop - the engine was prone to short circuits and fires. Packard made the most of this in their sales literature, touting the proven reliability of their 6 cylinder engine. Cadillac's reputation for quality and dependability was in serious question, and drastic action was needed.

Theodore MacManus, head of advertising for Cadillac, had a radical solution. He wrote an adver-torial (advertisement/editorial). It ran exactly once, in the Saturday Evening Post. In contrast to the full-color, illustrated advertisements of it's competitors, Cadillac's ad was black and white. Nowhere in the text of the ad are engines, reliability, Packard, or the industry mentioned. Except for a small Cadillac logo in the corner, one wouldn't even know what the advertisement was for.

But the ad was incredible. (Seriously. Read it. It sends shivers down my spine.)

The Penalty of Leadership is widely regarded as one of the greatest advertisements ever written. MacManus turns the mediocrity of the Cadillac V8 engine, and Packard's criticisms, into a tale of the conflict between pioneers and reactionaries. MacManus draws parallels between Cadillac and James McNiell Whistler, Richard Wagner, and Robert Fulton, and casts the Packard Motor Company and other detractors as "Spiteful Little Voices." The advertisement ends with the powerful line, "That which is good or great makes itself known, no matter how loud the clamor of denial. That which deserves to live—lives."

When talking about failed engineering feats, one of my favorites is the Maginot Line.

The Maginot Line was 320km of fortification, underground barracks, and retractable turrets designed to prevent (or hinder depending on your strategic perspective of its construction) the advance of a potential German invasion into France.

From an engineering and construction perspective, it was a pretty impressive feat, especially considering that France was still recovering from the depression and managed to leverage as much as 3 billion Francs for the effort.

From a strategic perspective, it was an enormous waste of money and never used for it's intended purpose. The design, like many military fortifications, was based on a reactive strategy devised from previous engagements, in this case the static lines of WWI, and was woefully unprepared for a more mobile invasion force. When Germany did invade, their armor and infantry simply went around the Maginot Line, taking advantage of a gap on the Belgium border that was supposed to be guarded by treaty and neutrality. Even had that boarder been guarded, however, the design had not anticipated the swift advances in air warfare since WWI, and the Luftwaffe simply flew over the line.

For modern towers there is the John Hancock building in Boston. It has had a number of different problems. The most famous is that the windows would pop out and crash to the sidewalk. Amazinly no one was ever killed. It also has had issues with how the building handles wind load. The building is still standing though, and many people now consider it a success.

For ancient constructions I like the Colossus of Rhodes. It has been described as similar to the Statue of Liberty in form, but only stood for 56 years before being toppled in an earthquake. That it fell isn't so strange, the fact that it was then left where it collapsed for hundreds of years is amazing to think about.

Fonthill Abbey was a relatively famous collapsing building.

It was a large folly / home built by William Beckford that aped the Gothic cathedrals in sicale and design. However was built badly and very quickly and eventually collapsed (just after being sold)

http://www.fonthill.co.uk/fonthill-history

The story has been exaggerated in parts, but the collapse must have been dramatic http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=186745

/Apologies if this is not in depth enough, i'm just visiting form r/architecture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauvais_Cathedral

Just couldn't get this thing to stay standing.