I found it fascinating that you for some reason left out the fact that another of Paul Andreu's designs failed during construction due to design errors - September 28 2004 Dubai international Airport. The same year and only months apart from the Charles de Gaulle warnings were ignored during design and construction on both it seems that he was painted in a much better light in this documentary than he should have been.
I totally agree! It seems to me the guy was "so famous" it was like George Lucas with Episode I where nobody questioned his designs (that and he looks to have been getting on in years.) He was the LEAD engineer; I still can't believe this happened. Either a century ago or in a developing nation _maybe_ but 2004?
Even before the causes of this accident were given, the narrator said one line "...this was his last airport design" ... If that wasn't foreshadowing I don't know what is. I picked up on that as soon as he said it.
Time and time again, those in charge of making structures expected to house and/or protect humans cut corners and rush construction so that they can save money. It's absolutely criminal.
@Leila Pereira 😩" YOU KNOW IT!.... On top of that, most international legal systems rarely convict those criminally liable or responsible. The most frightening aspect of it all is the public never knows which small or great structures may collapse upon or beneath them, at any given moment, resulting in their death or severe injury. "
I work for french public transportations, and I absolutly hate the fact that this disaster doesn't have a french page on wikipedia, and It's difficult to find articles about this incident and the prosecutions that happened in 2018 in my language. I'm not saying that the truth was hidden, but everybody forgot about what could have been one of the worst disaster in France since the Mont Blanc tunnel blaze.
Thank you for this video. I was there at the terminal and had just boarded the plane from terminal 2E to fly back to South Africa. We had just taken off when the pilot announced that the terminal had just collapsed. I still remember the heavy rain that night and that our flight had been delayed.
Did I get this correctly? The cleaning staff found the ceiling crumbling, but still the terminal has been opened on that day? If concrete slowly cracks over time, it's one thing, but if you can noticeably see it evolving (e.g. when concrete dust is coming from the ceiling), then it's absolutely not acceptable to open the terminal. You don't need to be an expert on this to take such precautionary measures.
Yup. It would've been a lot more work than just 'keep that section closed', tho. People don't enter airports just from the main entrance. To make sure people don't go in the at-risk section, they'd have to redirect all ground traffic to other terminals; for a busy airport like this one, it's easier said than done and might result in some in-air diversions. Just putting up a bit of caution tape and turning people away wouldn't cut it.
as they said they quickly evaluated the situation and started evacuation but : - You don't empty such a big airport with people with luggahges or who refuse not to miss their flight. - You must first send someone to ensure that there is a problem, you can't just close one of the world busiest airport because a cleaner reported dust falling from the ceilling. That would lead to gigantic money lost but also a huge security risk, it could be a way to facilitate a sabotage, create a dangerous panic mouvement or a terrorist might use the evacuation to sneak and plant a bomb. I'm not even speaking of waiting for the crowd to accumulate in front of the batiment, outside of the security filters and start shooting in the mass. What happen is that it took a lot of time for the cleaners to head to their superiors, do a report, for them to head to the place, ensure there was a problem, come back and declare the emergency and so the evacuation. Its not just screaming "everybody out and run for your lives".... BTW these terminals are never closed, cleaners do their duty while passengers walk around. They didn't "finished then someone decided to open the terminal"
@@justeunfan3364 That is not what I heard. And yes: It should be possible to evacuate an airport quickly. If that is not possible, there is something seriously wrong. And also yes: You can absolutely close such an airport. People just need to have the guts to value life over money. And if that poses a security risk, then there is something wrong in the airport design and/or evacuation procedures. Also, you would be surprised how many terminals close over night even at major airports. That depends mostly on the traffic. If there happens to be no traffic at that night, it's just convenient to close and it saves money.
@@fr89k As I said the longest part is to ensure there is a problem. Things like that are extremly rare, even more in a new structure so it took time to inspect the ceiling. You can close a terminal, but you wont do it 10 time a day everytime a passenger find someone looking suspicious or a cleaner finding concrete dust. It could have been someone installing a new equipment with a drilll the previous day and not cleaning its dust. Then the took mesures but sadly it was too late
I was there in 2017, i have traveled the world and i have to say - Charles De Gaulle is a shitshow of an airport. They messed up so many things , making passengers run around in circles ending up missing their flight.
Try to get to Terminal 2 at the Salt Lake International Airport. They definitely made it look pretty, but have a nice jog! (or sprint, if you're making a connection from T1)
I think LAX is pretty bad to. Unfinished construction, heavy traffic, lots of passangers...and its even harder to get out of the airport because transportation so expensive.
@@weltonvillegal6258 You beat me to it. I was going to comment on the same thing. I once knew a person who worked in TSA and Chicago is where you went if the agency was trying to get rid of you. But having travelled through O'Hare myself I can say that its issue comes down to one thing. It is just too damn big. Way too much traffic in and out of that air port. You couldn't pay me enough to work air traffic control there.
I went through this terminal in the middle of the summer and it was miserable. Not sure if they have air conditioning or not, but with all the light coming in the windows it was hot and smelly inside.
It was found that a contributing cause of the collapse was that the walkway tubes on the backside of the construction weakened the rigidity of the overall structure. Those walkways were an afterthought and were not calculated into the original plans .
Nothing at all to do with those. Did you actually listen to the article and what was reported? There were inherent faults in the construction the ceiling collapsed.
Your production quality is so high it shocks me that your views aren't in the 6 digits. Your focus on finding and telling these stories from all around the world is something I massively appreciate!!
I was waiting for that flight to Prague. Craziest, scariest moment of my life was running from that collapse. Started about 100 ft behind where I was standing at the time.
All building design drafts are sent to structural engineers who do the engineering. They can fully put the kibosh on a proposed plan if it is unrealistic, unsafe, or just doesn't meet standards. Also, we are trained in basic structural engineering and material sciences; at least I was. People educated decades ago, like him? I don't know. In my opinion, blame for nearly any and all structural failures like this land on the shoulders of everyone involved in the process. Engineers have a responsibility to design a capable support structure, builders have a responsibility to build it with safe materials and through safe practices, and architects have the responsibility to oversee and manage the entire design process as we are the only ones who are present through every step. The real systemic failure is the priority of profits and cost cutting above human safety. That actually seems to be a theme in Dark History's videos.
@@Tadesan Do you work within the Architectural field or even adjacent? The whole design process is extremely rigorous requiring the production of hundreds of drawings and design schematics that dictate specifications on nearly any and all aspects of a building's design that you can think of; which makes this failure even more damning for all involved in each step of construction, at least in my opinion. Every element of this building that led to the failure was likely a written, drawn, or indicated value on a construction document and the architect should know about what the hell they're designing. But that also means that the deficiencies were right there on paper and should have been caught by the engineers during the structural review of the proposed design.
This was a good informative video, but calling the collapse not “a full-scale tragedy” at 03:47 because “only” four people were killed is a dangerous mindset to settle in. Four deaths is four too many deaths.
I imagine this architect putting hundreds of pictures of this really cool looking terminal in his portfolio and when you ask him if that's the one that collapsed, he just scoffs "not completely, I mean like, only FOUR people died, so it wasn't even really important. HIRE ME"
its also not a full scale tragedy in the way only a small part collapsed du to the general shape. When such huge buildings fail the entire structure cant collapse and disintegrate, killing everyone inside and close outside. Here most of the building was intact and even some people who were buried under the concrete survived because the concrete arches kept their shapes and didn't failed. So compared to what it could have been its " not a full scale tragedy".
The design reminds me of the airport Leipzig/Halle in Germany. There is also a long tube with the check-in-counters and access to the parking areas. This airport construction does have support pillars in it.The airport in Leipzig, Germany was opened in 1924 and rebuilt after WW2. Then 1993 the Terminal A was remodeled, a few years later Terminal B was opened. In 2003 the new central terminal that reminds me of the here shown CDG terminal was finisehd and opened. There you also have access to a train station that's used by long-distance and commuter trains.
VIDEO: The futuristic construction looked amazing and was awe inspiring. (Then shows a picture of the inside of said terminal). ME: Meh...looks pretty basic, actually.
That's what I thought too. It's nice, but not really amazing. Modern architecture is rather boring. In contrast, look at medieval... well, medieval anything. Gothic, Japan, China. Or go to the old quarters of Colombia's capital, etc. Modern architecture isn't bad, but it isn't that great either.
It was in 2004, the horrible concrete towers of suburbs looked as impressive in 1980/1990 as things like the burj kalifa or modern suspended briges look today.
Thank You for the documentary - but Please - its Aeroport Paris-Charles-de-Gaulle. De Gaulle, not du Gaulle. Im not french, but the repeated mispronunciation hurts. Its like calling the JFK Airport "John E. Kennedy"
Really appreciate this fascinating/tragic series. I like to watch this sort of content a lot but there's still loads in your channel I've never heard of. Great editing, great work - can't believe you don't have more subscribers (now you definitely have one more). Keep it up! 💪
When he said "instead of consulting the construction engineers, the management increased the pressure to finish the job earlier and at a lesser cost" all I could think of was, oh great, another one of those.
That was very odd. A number of RU-vid videos have strange phrasing like this, even when English seems to be the native language of the narrator. Maybe language is just dying online.
750 million Euro in 2004 is the equivalent to over 1 billion Euro today. All so some passengers who are just passing through. I can understand spending on a hotel or a resort where people would stay for days, but why waste this kind of money an airport terminal? I use to travel by air quite a lot and did it to and from at least 7 international airports and I could not care less what they looked like. All I wanted was to be on my way from the airport to my destination.
The billion didn' go into the style, but just the building. Its way bigger and must be way more secure than a regular hotel. You have to take into account the managing of huge crowds, the vibration from the planes etc. Plus its was a state command and seing how much money tourism bring to France is a very low investisment. We shuld never look at the abolute price, but the ratio between the price and the money it will bring back.
Exactly, for large projects like this it seems unlikely the lead architect had much to do with the structure. Architects can and do design the structure regularly for houses and other smaller or less complex buildings though.
@@CrazyMazapan I had architect friends and I had civil engineer friend. Trust me I never recalled my architect friend did civil engineering mathematic. I mean my roommate is architect and me engineer myself so I sit with them often.
Part of me thinks this was all done within the same company. And this architect was both the CEO and the lead architect. If I'm right, it would still come down to the engineers within the firm not double checking their numbers to make sure it could hold its own weight. If there is a blessing here, it is that only one section collapsed.
Please don't use this type of transition anymore. It's extremely annoying. I've seen it in other videos and it's like being repeatedly slapped in the face.
I was a kid at that time about 8 years old , everywhere every news channel was showing this , it was like something big has happened this was after 9/11 so it was seen in the same way , i didn't knew anything but today I remember what was going on after watching your video
I must say i’ve been to some airports and Charles de Gaulle airport was the ugliest one of them. Even with all these “fancy” designs the place just looks boring. Plain concrete walls with no coating whatsoever. These are the things you notice way more when you’re trying to catch a flight than some tunnel shaped terminals.
The design was stupid in many ways... My favorite was the incoming passengers going up the escalators directly to passport control.. no holding area.. people had to walk backwards whi!e the escalator moved under their feet
This is why the *profit motive* of capitalism should not be involved where health, life and safety could be an issue. It only cares about short term gains, not long term consequences.
Starting 2:15 and later, these are pictures of the rebuilt tube, not the crashed original one ! Each time there's a wooden layer inside, it is the rebuilt one, not the original one !
Sorry, but this one doesn't work for me. The flashing/shaking photos during the drumming sound made me feel dizzy. I can't imagine what effect it would have on someone with a severe disability, maybe it would help having a Warning at the beginning of the video. The microphone this guy is using makes his voice come out with a metallic edge, like a robot in a science fiction film. I like robots, but don't want to take lessons from them. The video is kind of unfinished, it would be good to know how this tragedy affected and changed the building rules and regulations and what has been done to prevent it from happening again. In other words, the legacy of this event. The lack of research led to the misrepresentation of the architect and calling the Dubai airport collapse his 'masterpiece' is grotesque. I'm not commenting on the mispronunciation, we all make mistakes with foreign names and places (but at least we don't do it on YT). The photos in general were a bit confusing, rarely showing what he was talking about. The rest was ok, interesting, not too fast, not too long, lots of technical information, perfectly balanced: sometimes professional, sometimes funny. Good effort with room for improvement. I'll watch his next video and see how it goes 😊
I've watched this before but the description of the terminal as 'modern, sleek, airy and full of light' (not exact words) sounded familiar and it suddenly struck me why: A very similar description was applied to the atrium of the Hyatt Regency hotel before the two walkways collapsed back in 1980, and for a similar reason - except in the case it wasn't built as designed, but a minor change that went unnoticed had far worse consequences in the deaths of over a hundred people, something that could easily have happened at Charles de Gaulle had this disaster taken place later in the day.
Could you make more videos about the U.S.? I'm enjoying your channel. I've been to this airport on my way back from 🇹🇷 in 2008... nice place but didn't know this happened.... 😱
At the risk of other people's lives is absolutely insane and disgusting in so many uncountable ways. The loss of just one life cannot be ignored or compared. Of course I'm very glad that more people were not injured or killed.
I've been to that airport, but it was way before this terminal that collapsed had even been built. What can I say? It was an airport. The rest of Paris was better than its airport but that's probably true of most of our airports in the world. The airport is just there for you to get on and off of planes and you do that, not because you want to see the airport, but because you want to see the place that the airport is in.
I like how when there's a large mass of people who loose their lives its considered as a tragedy, however... When its just four people, its not considered as a tragedy. Loss of life, especially when unnessary is still a tragedy.
To this day, pretty architecture engineers don't consult with actual building engineers all the time. Looks are everything... to heck with safety. O know so many apartment building that look great on the grounds and in the main buildings with offices or the office area itself but structurally they let them run into the ground and put pretty tape on everything. It's pathetic how little integrity people actually have.
I can't see how this thing is structurally sound. Strong winds could produce so much force on a curved surface that none should ever build a wing-like roof. I'm quite confident that it was the winds that produce aerodynamic forces exceeding the supporting limit of the thing and it eventually failed.
I'm a huge fan of this channel! However, I wanted to give some advice to maybe consider being a little more sensitive to the wording when describing tragedies, like in this video. It sort of sounded like the tragedy was downplayed since "only" four passengers died. Four is still a lot if you think about it... And if my family died in an accident and someone said, "Oh, it's only just x amount of people, that's not that bad compared to whatever" I would feel upset. Just some constructive input to help this channel improve more and more. No bad vibes and I hope this doesn't hurt your feelings, I come from a good place and I know you do too. Thanks again for the video and keep up the rest of the great work!
Lately we've seen a number of expensive architectural flights of fancy that have proven to be less functional or less structurally sound than a more conventional approach. This airport joins the list of structures that were innovative and impressive at first, but proved to have flaws that resulted in financial or usefulness costs.
Your inability to pronounce names and places correctly, combined with your stock footage and pictures that are not related to the actual events, make your videos unwatchable
As with ALL these structural failures from all over the world you always see one consistent fact, there is no oversight by the one's that check and approve/disapprove the work of all involved. This is always the case when a disaster occurs and there is an investigation. The one's that will tell you if it will work or not are always absent in the planning and construction process but are always brought in after a disaster to render a judgement against those involved.
Best french........ wow. that sets the bar low. I thought it was ugly like some disco nightmare from the 70's. Prayers for those hurt and for the families of those killed by this monstrosity.
Well done video. Having just finished Churchill 's 6 part series on WW2 (a MUST read) the most amazing part of this story is that anyone would name anything after that prima Donna degualle!
I've seen a bunch of videos like this, and what bugs me the most is that nearly ALL of them have a common theme; cutting corners or using cheap materials to lower the cost. Okay, so KNOWING that this is a problem, why continue to do it?? It's like "this building collapsed, this plane crashed, this (I sent tragedy here) because they didn't follow protocol. Cool! Let's not follow protocol!" 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️ How tf does that make sense? Why do we keep making mistakes like this?
The problem is that there is not a "sure" cost to invest. You can put billions in ecess in a projet and still having it to fail because of a forgotten parrameter, or a unthinkable event. In general they cut corner while still keeping a margin and allowing the building to survive some mistake or event, but they put a limit somewere. I don't try to cover those who illegaly cut corners and fall under legal requirement, just that you will always go for the cheapest option. We will never heard that a building failed but the constructors had spend more money to keep a margin, even if its the case all the time, and also here. Its less sentational and easier to blame constructor than the bad luck
in french in most cases the final "e" is silent, you only prononce the last consomn. The plural "s" too, for exemple "tables" is pronounced "tabl". the "e" is barely pronouced, and sound like "eu"
😧Paris is more known to me for Lady Diana's death than any other building or architecture. I still cant believe she died that day in the tunnel. Probably she escaped in 1997?
Structural engineers are to blame. The structural design was deficient and possibly their supervision of installed work. The architect always gets all the blame or all the glory.
Ok they attempted an evacuation as soon as they could. I’ve watched a few docs, for example of a case in India where a gas leak was involved where the staff decided to have a tea break rather than take immediate action.
