[icegreentea2]

The Hyatt walkway collapse could be interpreted as you said, but I think the specific phrasing ("built another so it would be easier and cheaper to build") shifts the blame onto suppliers and manufacturers a bit too much. The wiki article states that the architectural/engineering firm signed off on the suggestion of their supplier/manufacturer. While yes, it's easy to point the finger at cost cutting, we should also remember the point of engineering. It's to problem solve under constraints, and saving cost is absolutely a valid constraint. It's also worth noting that the original, unmodified design was already under-strength (relative to code).

For I-35, the NTSB report indicates that the design itself was undersized.

Designs need to be be accommodate for imperfect (and sometimes somewhat negligent) manufacturing, but these two examples aren't the best given the relative impact of flawed design, or design/change control process.

[ianai]

Can you come up with some examples that you’d grade well?

[icegreentea2]

Not really off the top of my head, especially in North America.

I suspect you if you really go through (https://www.osha.gov/construction/engineering) you'll find some good examples of construction time problems. By it's nature, the vast majority of these are going to be "during construction time", so it'll be biased. They're also typically smaller scale operations... but that's also reflective of reality. Most construction is not the scale of 100+ unit condo buildings.

From my skimming through it there's a pretty even mix of:

a) Designer dominant (note there are a significant number of so called "design-build" entities present as well).

b) Construction/contractor supervisor/company dominant

c) Construction/contractor crew on the ground dominant

The NTSB also has a set of building related investigations to read through. Unfortunately, I seem to be having problems figuring out their search.