I think the upsides for such a project always is the temporary character of the structure, the unified ownership of the land etc. For 'real' buildings, more time is usually spend in arguing and wiggling in red tape. And the fact that the structure is temporary, despite its imposing look means you could use basically any material for walls. It's like a sandwich where you put a steel frame in place, later side it with some sidings, pour some concrete inside and basically throw any junk between those outer and inner shells. Anyhow it would be demolished after the event. If not, anything can happen. For example, in Italy a hydroelectric dam was constructed in this method, without any structure in its filling, and it failed shortly after. So no, you cannot build real buildings and service objects using same methods. This is in a way similar to film stage construction. It is fairly known, that the Eiffel tower was constructed as a temporary structure, however, closer examination revealed that it is stable enough to be left in place. So it was left in place. Also, some buildings, probably, were constructed much in advance, whereas the main share of the pavillions were built later just in time for the event. I was visiting a Moscow Architecture Museum about five years ago or so, and we had there an exposition regarding Soviet participation in world expos in 1925 etc. They were constructed by very famous architects and engineers. Using limited resources and cheapest ones at that, they were able to capitalize on experimental construction techniques instead. For example, the spiral lattice tower of Shukhov's design was pionneered there and later it found widespread use to construct high and versatile towers from different materials all around the world. Latest example of such principle being the Shenzhen tower. Overall I agree that the topic of world expo's is very interesting, however, oversimplification and conspiracies are not the best way to inform people.
In today's fast-paced world, it can take up to two years to complete basic planning for construction projects 10 times smaller than these, let alone build 700+ acers of building in that time. As a person in the building industry, I find the architecture and decorative elements of buildings from the 1800s particularly impressive. These structures exhibit a level of craftsmanship and artistry that seems to have diminished over time, suggesting a significant loss of traditional knowledge and skills, almost like we had a reset. Unfortunately, due to the challenges in repairing or maintaining these historic buildings, many are often demolished rather than preserved. This situation highlights a concerning trend in the treatment of our architectural heritage and lack of knowledge and skills we are now left with. Sad.
I think the upsides for such a project always is the temporary character of the structure, the unified ownership of the land etc. For 'real' buildings, more time is usually spend in arguing and wiggling in red tape.
And the fact that the structure is temporary, despite its imposing look means you could use basically any material for walls. It's like a sandwich where you put a steel frame in place, later side it with some sidings, pour some concrete inside and basically throw any junk between those outer and inner shells. Anyhow it would be demolished after the event. If not, anything can happen. For example, in Italy a hydroelectric dam was constructed in this method, without any structure in its filling, and it failed shortly after. So no, you cannot build real buildings and service objects using same methods. This is in a way similar to film stage construction.
It is fairly known, that the Eiffel tower was constructed as a temporary structure, however, closer examination revealed that it is stable enough to be left in place. So it was left in place.
Also, some buildings, probably, were constructed much in advance, whereas the main share of the pavillions were built later just in time for the event.
I was visiting a Moscow Architecture Museum about five years ago or so, and we had there an exposition regarding Soviet participation in world expos in 1925 etc. They were constructed by very famous architects and engineers. Using limited resources and cheapest ones at that, they were able to capitalize on experimental construction techniques instead. For example, the spiral lattice tower of Shukhov's design was pionneered there and later it found widespread use to construct high and versatile towers from different materials all around the world. Latest example of such principle being the Shenzhen tower.
Overall I agree that the topic of world expo's is very interesting, however, oversimplification and conspiracies are not the best way to inform people.
In today's fast-paced world, it can take up to two years to complete basic planning for construction projects 10 times smaller than these, let alone build 700+ acers of building in that time. As a person in the building industry, I find the architecture and decorative elements of buildings from the 1800s particularly impressive. These structures exhibit a level of craftsmanship and artistry that seems to have diminished over time, suggesting a significant loss of traditional knowledge and skills, almost like we had a reset. Unfortunately, due to the challenges in repairing or maintaining these historic buildings, many are often demolished rather than preserved. This situation highlights a concerning trend in the treatment of our architectural heritage and lack of knowledge and skills we are now left with. Sad.