79 pointsby mhb9 months ago5 comments
  • twelvechairs9 months ago
    One thing worth noting is lack of fire safety. Not only did the crystal palace burn down but also most of the similar steel and glass exhibition centres built internationally (of which the crystal palace was the first very large one)
    • bruce5119 months ago
      Not only that, but construction in general operated in a far different regulatory environment.

      Imagine King Charles today proposing a 990 000 square foot structure in Hyde Park. Get Design. Build structure. How hard could it be?

      Today there are more voices. Queen Victoria simply decreed, and it was done. Today building the structure would be fast. Getting permission to build it would take decades (even for the King) and cost a fortune.

      Savehydepark.com would be a domain in seconds.

      The mulberry harbours were built in a day with scant regard to the views of the locals.

      • rkosk9 months ago
        Victoria didn't decree anything. There was a commission set up by the government a year or two before the Great Exhibition to oversee things and the purchasing of land and funding for construction was subject to parliamentary debate and approval.

        Your comment about the Mulberry harbours is quite baffling. Are you seriously suggesting that a modern day military operation on the scale of Overlord would be subject to local consultations?

        • crop_rotation9 months ago
          > Victoria didn't decree anything.

          I think there is a tradition in the UK to assign all government actions to be by the crown. As if the crown takes decisions on everything and everyone else just recommends.

          • rsynnott9 months ago
            … No, insofar as anything like that exists it’s the _crown_, not the person, but no, no-one really thinks of it like that.
      • rsynnott9 months ago
        > Queen Victoria simply decreed, and it was done

        People seem to get incredibly confused about British constitutional history… No she didn’t, don’t be silly, she wasn’t a dictator. About the only European monarch who could got around decreeing stuff left right and center in this period was the Russian tsar; there just weren’t that many absolute monarchs left.

        You’re correct that they didn’t have, like, modern planning law, but it was nothing to do with Victoria.

      • tim3339 months ago
        >Opponents of the scheme lobbied strenuously against the use of Hyde Park (and they were strongly supported by The Times). The most outspoken critic was Charles Sibthorp; he denounced the exhibition as "one of the greatest humbugs, frauds and absurdities ever known"

        (reaction from 1851, wikipedia)

      • lostlogin9 months ago
        > The mulberry harbours were built in a day with scant regard to the views of the locals.

        One lasted just weeks before it was destroyed in a storm. The other did better, and was used for 10 months.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbours

      • ignoramous9 months ago
        > Savehydepark.com would be a domain in seconds

        Right... https://www.savewimbledonpark.org/

      • neilwilson9 months ago
        We retain the capacity in the UK to do just that.

        Parliament sits above the courts as effectively the Supreme Court of the UK, where everybody's interests are notionally represented (the current mis-named 'supreme court' is really just the Court of the United Kingdom). The King, via the Ministers of the Crown, could propose a building as a Bill in Parliament. If Parliament then passes that as an Act, then it will happen and nothing can stop it from happening. Including using the Army to detain and remove protestors if necessary. All it needs is the relevant sections in the Act.

        Recovering this power is why Brexit was so important. With it we can build the green infrastructure we need as we built the railways - via dictatorial Acts of Parliament that brook no opposition.

        Now all we need are MPs prepared to use that power to save us from oblivion.

        • thedavibob9 months ago
          > Recovering this power is why Brexit was so important. With it we can build the green infrastructure we need as we built the railways - via dictatorial Acts of Parliament that brook no opposition.

          Like, for example, the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Act, which passed in 2017 and was pootling through parliament from 2013? i.e. almost entirely before even the Brexit referendum, and definitely before Brexit?

          • MichaelZuo9 months ago
            Have you skimmed through the Act?

            It was passed, deliberately, with thousands of pages of legalese, riders, caveats, opt-outs, etc…

            Very different from a one page Act that would delegate supreme power to some HSR committee with the power to destroy anyone who resists.

        • jimnotgym9 months ago
          >Recovering this power is why Brexit was so important.

          Yet public infrastructure in Britain still costs 2-3 times what it costs in continental Europe. It strikes me that blaming the EU was a very convenient excuse.

          • rsynnott9 months ago
            To some extent that explains the current disarray of the Tory party. Almost since the UK was brought into Europe (by the Tories, mind you!), the British right, and parts of the left, have adopted a position of simply blaming Europe for everything (including entirely imaginary things; see euromyths). After Brexit, this is an increasingly implausible platform, so you see a casting around for new scapegoats (I’m pretty much convinced that’s where the Tories’ newfound obsession with trans people comes from, say), and new fantasies (see Liz Truss’s great economic plan).
        • youngNed9 months ago
          Mate, Britain can't lay 80 miles of rail track, brexit or no brexit
        • rsynnott9 months ago
          … I mean, if whoever proposes it never wants to be elected again, then sure. However, the EU in no way stopped the UK from doing that; common sense stops it from doing that. It would simply be politically untenable.

          The UK has a severe problem with NIMBYism; not being in Europe wouldn’t just make that magically go away. In practice, the UK leaving the EU will likely hurt infrastructural development; doing so has damaged the British economy, and the UK now simply can’t afford it (big, forward-thinking infra work is about the first thing to get defunded when budgets are tight, generally, and the British budget isn’t just tight, it’s a black hole).

          • neilwilson9 months ago
            Yet they would get elected again - since if it passed through Parliament it has the support of the majority of representatives and if it was done properly the consultation would have happened ahead of the decision.

            Once the decision is made the minorities objecting to it can be cleared out of the way - because they have already had their say in Parliament via their representatives.

            Also budgets in the U.K. are never tight and we can always afford anything we have the people to do.

        • badgersnake9 months ago
          Brexit was, and always will be utter folly.
        • hnlmorg9 months ago
          That power existed before the referendum too. The leave campaign was full of intentionally vague statements that were emotionally charged but lacked any factual substance.

          Our “sovereignty” hasn’t changed. The NHS didn’t get any additional funding. Trade deals have gotten worse not better. The whole thing was just smoke and mirrors.

          Literally the only thing the referendum was sincere about, was David Cameron’s desire to consolidate votes and reduce the number of his own MPs leaving for other right-wing parties.

          He succeeded at that, but its cost the economy literally billions.

          • neilwilson9 months ago
            It didn’t before. Any individual could appeal to European law via Judicial Review to overturn an act of parliament where it fell into the EU treaty ambit - particularly if they were European.

            Now we’re out of the EU that option no longer exists and we can now pass legislation that cannot be stopped by the courts

        • aryonoco9 months ago
          I see it's 2024 and fantasies are still going strong amongst brexiteers.
        • Angostura9 months ago
          Are you unfamiliar with the process known as judicial review?
    • lukasb9 months ago
      Odd. I wouldn't expect these buildings to be an above average fire risk ...
  • Simulacra9 months ago
    There's a great story about this in Bill Brysons book "At Home". That's how I learned in 1851 the glass window TAX was repealed.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax

  • fecal_henge9 months ago
    British standard whitworth lives on as the thread which attaches cameras to tripods I think.

    I once liberated some simmilar bolts from a broken out tunnel wall at Tottenham Court Road. We machined into tensile coupons and they just stretch out like pulling a toffee bar!

    It's amusing these days to think of imperial measurements as a great standardising force in the world in light of our inability to go metric.

    • bunabhucan9 months ago
      Hercules in India still sells roadster bikes with Withworth threads.
      • analog319 months ago
        Yup, and the eternal Sturmey-Archer AW 3-speed gear hub uses Whitworth threads too. I've got a couple on bikes. It's not a problem because the parts are unique anyway -- there's no other use in the world for an indicator rod, or guide nut, and the outside of the nut is close enough to 15 mm.
    • tim3339 months ago
      Also in the ending of Cars 2 https://youtu.be/9WSNKsgVsfk?t=5
    • jimnotgym9 months ago
      >It's amusing these days to think of imperial measurements as a great standardising force in the world in light of our inability to go metric.

      As always it is not quite so simple. Another early standard thread was the British Association. Proposed 1884, and adopted 1903. It was the recommended thread for small diameters (even by the British Standard institute), and is still seen in electrical terminals, and some small instruments.

      BA threads are metric!

      • fecal_henge9 months ago
        I didnt know that. I kept all my BA eyelet crimp terminals as they were a pretty good fit for metric threads, I see this is not a coincidence now!
    • _fizz_buzz_9 months ago
      > British standard whitworth lives on as the thread

      And pipe fittings

      • fecal_henge9 months ago
        Thats BSP no?
        • _fizz_buzz_9 months ago
          BSW is the basis for BSP. BSP is specifically for pipes but has a BSW thread.
  • jazzyjackson9 months ago
    Is the a good source for the complete blueprints of the palace? Digital models? I've always enjoyed visiting glass houses but never thought much about how the framework is put together
    • tim3339 months ago
      Not sure but it's quite similar to the palm house at Kew. David Attenborough on that https://youtu.be/-ChP6OeNmBE
    • Oarch9 months ago
      I was recently in Alexandra Palace in North London and couldn't help but think the foyer is very close to how the Crystal Palace must have looked. Complete with palm trees and everything.
  • cainxinth9 months ago
    > Screws were traditionally made by skilled craftsmen, such that no two were exactly alike and it was nearly impossible to replace lost or broken screws.

    Screw threads weren’t standardized until the 1840s! That blows my mind.