Giantaxe

Perhaps the original design had a step down to create a physical separation between the pool deck and what was essentially a walkway to the entrance lobby of one of the towers? As for why it was eliminated, I am going to guess "money".

That's the key take away, I think. It would certainly be interesting to know how much scrutiny those plan modifications had from the building dept. of the city of Surfside.

Steerpike

The other thing they noted in the video (or it may have been in the comments - I read a ton of those too!) was that the building 'happened' in the midst of a big building boom in Miami, so there was a shortage of engineers (and presumably everyone else - inspectors, etc). When things get really busy, corners easily get cut. There was also a mention of 'self-certifying' designs; that is, engineers could do their own calculations of load, stress, etc and then certify those calcs themselves.

To my 'amateur' mind, every building of this nature out there is somewhat unique - has to be, to adapt to 'site conditions' - and thus, requires careful review. From the video (or comments) they note that Champlain Towers North may have different risk factors, despite being very close in design.

scrubbedexpat091

We lived in a condo for a year in 2016 that was built during a building boom, they neglected to build it correctly, so bad actually they turned to rentals, and banks refused to issue mortgages once they found out the deficiencies so the builder couldn't sell the units. Things like in adequate heating and insulation, we literally had ice forming inside and cold air coming through the outlets on the exterior walls, and they put in just 1 baseboard in the bedroom for the entire 650sq feet, the baseboard was only rated to 250sq feet, you know bedroom size or smaller.

One of the recent buildings in Vancouver has a slew of deficiencies, and concrete issues, along with a major gasket blowing a few months ago causing massive water damage across many floors and flooding the elevator shafts too, and these units sell into the millions depending on size.

But massive building boom, lack of skilled trades leads to problems down the road.



Sounds like the Florida building was a ticking time bomb just waiting silently to collapse, doubt many if any of the original engineers and such are still around after 40 years, likely long dead or out of businesses.

Steerpike

The project to save the sinking tower in SF - The Millennium Tower - has been abruptly halted due to accelerated sinking / leaning - $100M Project To Fix San Francisco’s Sinking Millennium Tower Abruptly Halted (msn.com)

Also - did anyone else notice in the video above (by the structural engineer) that they made a big deal about speed-limits in multi-level parking structures?! Apparently, those '10mph' signs aren't just for accident safety; they are to minimize the 'live load' forces associated with braking and cornering. A vehicle travelling fast exerts far more strain on a structure when brakes are applied. I shall try to remember this, next time I'm in a multi-story structure!

scrubbedexpat091

I would pass on that building, I would never feel comfortable in it after all the issues.

The structural engineer in that article seems concerned, but then the spokesperson for the building seems to kind of downplay it a bit.

This is why its very important to make sure its done right the first time, kids.

Steerpike

And .... another article today, where an 'expert' claims the current 'fix' is actually a really bad idea!
Repairs of Leaning San Francisco Skyscraper on Hold; Engineering Expert Blasts Plan (msn.com)

Here's a Guardian article about it also - San Francisco luxury tower still sinking even as engineers work on $100m fix | San Francisco | The Guardian .

I drive past this building every time I drive into the city ... perhaps it is time to find a new route ...

scrubbedexpat091

So it was tilting 14" but now with the work being done its up to 22", almost seems the work is making the situation worse.

I tend to lean towards thinking maybe the experts who said this was a bad idea are correct, and being the geotechnical engineer in the one article also a professor at UC Berkeley, I tend to lean in his direction and that he knows what he is talking about.

So it seems they had 2 options an internal fix and external fix, the engineer in the article who was asked by the city to study both plans, he told the city the internal fix was the superior option, and that the external fix was the incorrect plan and was fraught with all sorts of difficulties

And this external fix is happening on the weak side of the building in the direction its already leaning, and apparently the piles or piers should be 9 feet apart but are only 5 feet apart, not only all that apparently those in charge convinced the city the more inferior plan would have better seismic response however that may not be true and this fix may create a worse problem in an earthquake.

Maybe cut loses and tear it down. Fix or not, I would never feel comfortable in that building.