Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning(npr.org)
npr.org
Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-miami-area-condo-collapse/2021/06/27/1010710735/surfside-official-told-residents-their-building-was-safe-despite-engineers-warni
82 comments
So you'd be comfortable to live in a high rise building for which an independent engineering report contained the following text?
The joint sealant was observed to be beyond its useful life and are in need of complete replacement. However, the waterproofing below the Pool Deck & Entrance Drive as well as all of the planter waterproofing is beyond its useful life and therefore must all be completely removed and replaced. The failed waterproofing is causing major structural damage to the concrete structural slab below these areas. Failure to replace the waterproofing in the near future will cause the extent of the concrete deterioration to expand exponentially.
Edit - this is text from the actual report - not sure why the downvotes.
The joint sealant was observed to be beyond its useful life and are in need of complete replacement. However, the waterproofing below the Pool Deck & Entrance Drive as well as all of the planter waterproofing is beyond its useful life and therefore must all be completely removed and replaced. The failed waterproofing is causing major structural damage to the concrete structural slab below these areas. Failure to replace the waterproofing in the near future will cause the extent of the concrete deterioration to expand exponentially.
Edit - this is text from the actual report - not sure why the downvotes.
That statement is buried on page 7 of the report, no bold text. Yet, above it on page 6 a reminder to follow OSHA-approved window washing techniques is in bold.
Given the context and formatting, this warning seems more like a pro-forma CYA than anything else.
Given the context and formatting, this warning seems more like a pro-forma CYA than anything else.
The bold is in reference to specific regulations. Everything bolded in the document is a reference to another document. So it may not be for emphasis but rather reference.
Fair. Good observation.
I think when you pay an engineering firm thousands of dollars for a report you tend to read the whole thing. What is it that doesn't jive with the NPR article? The report does indeed call out major structural damage. The report warns that without remediation the damage will spread, exponentially.
It's hard for me to know because I don't know what the pool deck and entrance drive supports. But I do think rushing to proclaim possible causes is not very helpful, since that information is not actionable. No harm will be done by waiting until we have higher quality information.
From pictures, the pool deck seems to have survived the collapse; it wasn't under the towers.[0]
I wouldn't expect this paragraph to have anything to do with a tower collapsing. Pools-in-the-air (over a garage) are notoriously leaky. I read this section to say "the pool might leak if the bottom lacks structural integrity."
In no way would I think "the pool deck is holding up the towers next door."
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2021/06/24/florid...
I wouldn't expect this paragraph to have anything to do with a tower collapsing. Pools-in-the-air (over a garage) are notoriously leaky. I read this section to say "the pool might leak if the bottom lacks structural integrity."
In no way would I think "the pool deck is holding up the towers next door."
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2021/06/24/florid...
I didn't downvote you, but my guess is that people, like me, don't find that block of text that damning. The text talks about damage to the slab. It does not connect slab damage to damage that could risk the entire building.
If there is risk that a component failure leads to systematic failure, I would expect that a report would delineate that risk.
If there is risk that a component failure leads to systematic failure, I would expect that a report would delineate that risk.
But the pool and deck aren't within/under the residential units, so I'm not sure why that text would be so alarming.
It may be equally likely the next lot underground garage construction shifted the ground near the condo and caused it's collapse.
It may be equally likely the next lot underground garage construction shifted the ground near the condo and caused it's collapse.
It doesn't scream "Get Out", does it?
When I read those sentences as a layman, they don't tell me the building may collapse.
When I read those sentences as a layman, they don't tell me the building may collapse.
I want to know if an analytical monotone is typical for these reports. Would a report like this be expected to emphasize urgency or would the reader be assumed to know that "major structural damage" means urgent?
If I were writing a report on a piece of software for my boss and I found unsanitized inputs to an SQL database, I wouldn't highlight that any more than anything else I found as he would know that was severe.
If I were writing a report on a piece of software for my boss and I found unsanitized inputs to an SQL database, I wouldn't highlight that any more than anything else I found as he would know that was severe.
Quite typical from the ones I've seen (I'm not a StructE). This is actually quite alarming language for an engineering report, about one step below "imminent collapse" and "immediate evacuation".
[deleted]
The phrasing from the report:
> The failed waterproofing is causing major structural damage to the concrete structural slab below these areas. Failure to replace the waterproofing in the near future will cause the extent of the concrete deterioration to expand exponentially.
I agree that it doesn't say "it'll fall apart right this moment" (and well... it did take like 2 more years), but I would wonder why anyone would receive a report with the above phrasing and not seek clarification.
That all being said, we don't know if this specific thing was meaningfully involved in the collapse.
> The failed waterproofing is causing major structural damage to the concrete structural slab below these areas. Failure to replace the waterproofing in the near future will cause the extent of the concrete deterioration to expand exponentially.
I agree that it doesn't say "it'll fall apart right this moment" (and well... it did take like 2 more years), but I would wonder why anyone would receive a report with the above phrasing and not seek clarification.
That all being said, we don't know if this specific thing was meaningfully involved in the collapse.
I want to know if an analytical monotone is typical for these reports. Would a report like this be expected to emphasize urgency or would the reader be assumed to know that "major structural damage" means urgent?
If I were writing a report on a piece of software for my boss and I found unsanitized inputs to an SQL database, I wouldn't highlight that any more than anything else I found as he would know that was severe.
If I were writing a report on a piece of software for my boss and I found unsanitized inputs to an SQL database, I wouldn't highlight that any more than anything else I found as he would know that was severe.
Yeah while I’m not a structural engineer either but as a lay person, “major structural damage” sounds highly alarming and damage increasing at an “exponential rate” sounds like a very urgent matter.
If building managers don’t take rapid action to further assess and monitor the conditions after being told that, then it sounds like willful negligence.
And if this is not the case, then I am seriously questioning how safe buildings actually are.
Btw, what happened with that brand new bridge in Florida that collapsed and killed people a couple years ago. Were there any actual consequences to those responsible?
Edit: A NYT article on what’s currently known does make it seem like the pool and garage may have been the catalysis of the collapse. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/us/miami-building-investi...
If building managers don’t take rapid action to further assess and monitor the conditions after being told that, then it sounds like willful negligence.
And if this is not the case, then I am seriously questioning how safe buildings actually are.
Btw, what happened with that brand new bridge in Florida that collapsed and killed people a couple years ago. Were there any actual consequences to those responsible?
Edit: A NYT article on what’s currently known does make it seem like the pool and garage may have been the catalysis of the collapse. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/us/miami-building-investi...
Wikipedia suggests that is still ongoing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_Universi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_Universi...
I would like to know this as well.
I'm not a Civ E, but I have worked in aerospace and software and seen reports in both fields that contain warnings of potentially catastrophic problems use similar language as the report:
It takes an astounding lack of responsibility to say "well they never said the major structural deficiencies were going to cause an imminent collapse! And why was it buried on page 7, and not in bold font?"
I'm not a Civ E, but I have worked in aerospace and software and seen reports in both fields that contain warnings of potentially catastrophic problems use similar language as the report:
The joint sealant was observed to be beyond its useful life and are in need of complete replacement. However, the waterproofing below the Pool Deck & Entrance Drive as well as all of the planter waterproofing is beyond its useful life and therefore must all be completely removed and replaced. The failed waterproofing is causing major structural damage to the concrete structural slab below these areas. Failure to replace the waterproofing in the near future will cause the extent of the concrete deterioration to expand exponentially.
It takes an astounding lack of responsibility to say "well they never said the major structural deficiencies were going to cause an imminent collapse! And why was it buried on page 7, and not in bold font?"
I haven't read one for a 136-unit condo complex, but this is typical of most home inspections that you'd see in a SFH real-estate purchase. In general engineers & inspectors present facts, and it's up to the reader to add whatever emotive interpretation they feel is appropriate. There will often be multiple readers for such a report, and the appropriate emotion will often vary depending on who's reading it.
> If I were writing a report on a piece of software for my boss and I found unsanitized inputs to an SQL database, I wouldn't highlight that any more than anything else I found as he would know that was severe.
I would. And as someone reading the report, even as an expert, I would want and expect the person writing it to organize it by severity, and start by pointing out any urgent items.
What advantage is there to not doing that?
I would. And as someone reading the report, even as an expert, I would want and expect the person writing it to organize it by severity, and start by pointing out any urgent items.
What advantage is there to not doing that?
In my case because I have been told a few times it is patronizing to point out the "obvious." I would prefer (but not expect) the style you discuss as well (as I am not all that comfortable with an assumed base of knowledge for documentation), but I have faced far more negative reaction to that than positive.
That sucks. It's hard for me to imagine working with someone so insecure that they would find a convenient, hierarchical organization of report results by severity patronizing.
>If I were writing a report on a piece of software for my boss and I found unsanitized inputs to an SQL database, I wouldn't highlight that any more than anything else I found as he would know that was severe.
Sure, but as software people we don't have a licensing body that will revoke our license to practice for such an omission. The firm and the author are likely required by their license to operate to make such call outs.
*edit: Also I would add that an engineering firm that believed the building was in imminent danger would not go forward with a project without calling that out and pricing it. They wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because they would be on the hook if the building failed.
Sure, but as software people we don't have a licensing body that will revoke our license to practice for such an omission. The firm and the author are likely required by their license to operate to make such call outs.
*edit: Also I would add that an engineering firm that believed the building was in imminent danger would not go forward with a project without calling that out and pricing it. They wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because they would be on the hook if the building failed.
They call out that it is an extremely expensive systemic issue that will need to be repaired (bullet point "b" on page 7), and the first paragraph on page 1 indicates they attached an estimate of the overall costs of necessary repair (although it does not appear to be included in this copy of the document).
What omission are you talking about?
What omission are you talking about?
I don't think the document omitted anything; I don't believe the engineer thought the building was at risk of catastrophic collapse.
My point is that _if_ the engineer believed the building was at risk of catastrophic failure they would have stated as much.
My point is that _if_ the engineer believed the building was at risk of catastrophic failure they would have stated as much.
> My point is that _if_ the engineer believed the building was at risk of catastrophic failure they would have stated as much.
It seems like maybe the report author(s) did state as much when they said “major structural damage”. I don’t know anything about architecture but, for example, when an accounting firm issues an adverse audit opinion they don’t say “this company is totally screwed!” they say “these financial statements contain material and pervasive misstatements.” It sounds boring and benign to most people but it’s the CPA equivalent of a red alert.
It seems like maybe the report author(s) did state as much when they said “major structural damage”. I don’t know anything about architecture but, for example, when an accounting firm issues an adverse audit opinion they don’t say “this company is totally screwed!” they say “these financial statements contain material and pervasive misstatements.” It sounds boring and benign to most people but it’s the CPA equivalent of a red alert.
>It sounds boring and benign to most people but it’s the CPA equivalent of a red alert.
Exactly. Joe Blow building manager is not a structural engineer. The comment about "major structural damage" at the end of report was probably not even read. The beginning of the document is about paint bubbles and 'the tile makes the rail too short'. That sets the context.
The article casts a building department administrator as having some dire knowledge of the building condition and simultaneously telling residents everything is fine. But a close examining of the situation leads me to believe the building department administrator had no such indication.
Exactly. Joe Blow building manager is not a structural engineer. The comment about "major structural damage" at the end of report was probably not even read. The beginning of the document is about paint bubbles and 'the tile makes the rail too short'. That sets the context.
The article casts a building department administrator as having some dire knowledge of the building condition and simultaneously telling residents everything is fine. But a close examining of the situation leads me to believe the building department administrator had no such indication.
"An occupied building partially collapsed, killing multiple residents. But on the other hand, the report about its systemic structural issues was long and kind of a boring read"
Are you for real?
Are you for real?
It's not about the building. It's about the story casting aspersions on someone as if they were culpable when there is no indication they are. This was done by reading the document out of context.
Put yourself in the shoes of a building administrator responsible for oversight of hundreds to thousands of properties. You get a report like this, on a relatively young building and it looks very ho-hum.
But NPR is presenting it with hindsight bias and acting as if there was something ominous in the report. There simply wasn't... and the story is just gotcha journalism.
Put yourself in the shoes of a building administrator responsible for oversight of hundreds to thousands of properties. You get a report like this, on a relatively young building and it looks very ho-hum.
But NPR is presenting it with hindsight bias and acting as if there was something ominous in the report. There simply wasn't... and the story is just gotcha journalism.
Agreed. That report was absolutely not a call to urgent emergency action. The closest is a warning that the building was built wrong and will eventually need to be fixed, 2.5 pages in.
[deleted]
The good thing about NPR is, you can ask for clarification and they will provide it for you, if you are so inclined, and they will correct it if they are wrong.
However, such language about 'safety of the residents' is not present in his report.
The NPR article was just simplifying. True, the original report didn't use those exact 3 words - but what it did say:
Failure to replace the waterproofing in the near future will cause the extent of the concrete deterioration to expand exponentially.
Is quite damning, and essentially in line with the simplified version given in the NPR article. And in any case directly at odds by the town's building official:
"Structural engineer report was reviewed by Mr. Prieto. It appears the building is in very good shape."
Which may explain why Mr Prieto is "no longer employed by Surfside".
The NPR article was just simplifying. True, the original report didn't use those exact 3 words - but what it did say:
Failure to replace the waterproofing in the near future will cause the extent of the concrete deterioration to expand exponentially.
Is quite damning, and essentially in line with the simplified version given in the NPR article. And in any case directly at odds by the town's building official:
"Structural engineer report was reviewed by Mr. Prieto. It appears the building is in very good shape."
Which may explain why Mr Prieto is "no longer employed by Surfside".
The Washington Post's reporting seems to back you up:
> Kilsheimer said he didn’t believe the damage highlighted in the 2018 report could have led to the collapse of the building. “Nothing in it raised a red flag,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/condo-collapse-sunda...
> Kilsheimer said he didn’t believe the damage highlighted in the 2018 report could have led to the collapse of the building. “Nothing in it raised a red flag,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/condo-collapse-sunda...
As an uninformed outsider, from the grand scheme of things, I wouldn't consider any coastal Miami property to be 'safe' regardless of any reports or ratings.
The whole area is sinking, quite quickly overall. It's just common sense to disregard the results of any report deeming any building in the area 'safe', when the local government has been religiously denying that climate change even exists at all, and the insurance companies and report writers all have a short-term incentive to pretend nothing is wrong.
I have not read the report. But I also don't need the report to know that no building in the area is safe enough for me to want to live there.
The whole area is sinking, quite quickly overall. It's just common sense to disregard the results of any report deeming any building in the area 'safe', when the local government has been religiously denying that climate change even exists at all, and the insurance companies and report writers all have a short-term incentive to pretend nothing is wrong.
I have not read the report. But I also don't need the report to know that no building in the area is safe enough for me to want to live there.
Everyone is suddenly an expert on structural engineering and thinks that NPR should have one write their news, too.
Because it wasn't urgent at the time if the report, but the report is from 2018, more than 3 years ago.
Way to take a stand "anonuser123456"
[deleted]
Here's the report: https://www.townofsurfsidefl.gov/docs/default-source/default...
Page 7 talks about the parking garage: "Abundant cracking and spalling of varying degrees was observed concrete columns, beams, and walls. Several sizeable spalls were noted in both the topside of the entrance drive ramp underside of the pool / entrance drive / planter slabs, included instances with exposed, deteriorating rebar Though some of this damage is minor, most of the concrete deterioration needs to be repaired in a timely fashion."
Page 8 has relevant photos.
The NPR article seems to focus on the deck slabs, but they are not particularly load-bearing so are unlikely to be the cause of the building to collapse. Edit: I guess it is possible the failure of a deck slab could collapse the columns inwards, but my guess is that the columns failed (bending or collapsing).
Spalling on columns is a problem, especially if it is due to the column starting to fail.
Disclaimer: I am not a structural engineer.
Page 7 talks about the parking garage: "Abundant cracking and spalling of varying degrees was observed concrete columns, beams, and walls. Several sizeable spalls were noted in both the topside of the entrance drive ramp underside of the pool / entrance drive / planter slabs, included instances with exposed, deteriorating rebar Though some of this damage is minor, most of the concrete deterioration needs to be repaired in a timely fashion."
Page 8 has relevant photos.
The NPR article seems to focus on the deck slabs, but they are not particularly load-bearing so are unlikely to be the cause of the building to collapse. Edit: I guess it is possible the failure of a deck slab could collapse the columns inwards, but my guess is that the columns failed (bending or collapsing).
Spalling on columns is a problem, especially if it is due to the column starting to fail.
Disclaimer: I am not a structural engineer.
OMG why is this not searchable text?! (Instead of pictures of the report's pages)
On the same site there is a file "email-related-2018-structural-field-survey-report.pdf" which contains/embeds the same report in searchable format, and on page 18 includes a table "ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF THE PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST" whose bottom line is
TOTAL SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $9,128,433.60
TOTAL SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $9,128,433.60
That's a very specific number for an estimate :)
I have no idea how these things work - so I'd really like some data on what percent of reports come back with similar warnings?
Was this like the only building in the city to have such a bad report?
Or do a sizable amount of buildings get warnings like this?
Was this like the only building in the city to have such a bad report?
Or do a sizable amount of buildings get warnings like this?
A lot of buildings have similar warnings but since they don’t collapse typically they will be ignored.
The millennium tower in SF for instance, has been sinking and tilting for years, could probably just suddenly collapse one day not unlike this building in Surfside. The carnage would be immense though, as it is a massive building.
At the end of the day, if you want full peace of mind you need to live in your own detached home and be aware of your own buildings issues and correct them.
The millennium tower in SF for instance, has been sinking and tilting for years, could probably just suddenly collapse one day not unlike this building in Surfside. The carnage would be immense though, as it is a massive building.
At the end of the day, if you want full peace of mind you need to live in your own detached home and be aware of your own buildings issues and correct them.
This feels like "the front fell off".
Why did this building collapse?
Well, typically, they don't collapse.
Why did this building collapse?
Well, typically, they don't collapse.
Public records requests might get us this first info.
It's probably not the only one to get such a report.
I'm sure those have already been filed with the state if they exist, we'll see a fancy visualization from a major newspaper.
It's probably not the only one to get such a report.
I'm sure those have already been filed with the state if they exist, we'll see a fancy visualization from a major newspaper.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm sure every day in the US there are many, many reports of structures with damage that needs to be fixed immediately (my house was one of them). Almost all of them don't collapse. Obviously there is a problem with the credibility of the reports because of conflicting incentives. Inspectors are usually from construction companies who want to get work, so they will always find something wrong with a building.
Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. Care to explain where you disagree? If thousands of daily reports warn of damage that must be fixed immediately and most are of no consequences (obviously) then the problem is that the reports don't accurately reflect the severity of the damage and the consequences of ignoring it.
Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. Care to explain where you disagree? If thousands of daily reports warn of damage that must be fixed immediately and most are of no consequences (obviously) then the problem is that the reports don't accurately reflect the severity of the damage and the consequences of ignoring it.
That could be a bad assumption. In some circumstances, inspectors with ties to construction companies may have incentives to add to the sales funnel, but I believe, anecdotally, that inspection companies tend to have no ties with construction companies to avoid the optics of exactly what you are describing.
Anyone that's ever gone to a mechanic knows getting inspection come from the place that's supposed to do the work is a crap shoot.
Anyone that's ever gone to a mechanic knows getting inspection come from the place that's supposed to do the work is a crap shoot.
While I understand your concern your viewpoint is naive. Civil engineering is a relatively close knit field (as are many fields). Possibility for kickbacks is definitely there.
Something that has really put me off of license requirements is the relish that I have seen inspectors take in telling people they're going to need tens of thousands in renovations to bring a home up to code. Some of these items are things like "window sill does not go far enough inside."
Something that has really put me off of license requirements is the relish that I have seen inspectors take in telling people they're going to need tens of thousands in renovations to bring a home up to code. Some of these items are things like "window sill does not go far enough inside."
You're supposition and your anecdote don't tell the same story. Overly restrictive codes and under the table kick backs are two entirely different issues. They may stem from the same pot, but one is legal red tape and the other is clearly illegal.
That being said, you may be right, but I don't see anything that supports the parent comment's assertion about it being widespread enough to affect decisions around making repairs, especially in situations where the building is structurally not sound.
That being said, you may be right, but I don't see anything that supports the parent comment's assertion about it being widespread enough to affect decisions around making repairs, especially in situations where the building is structurally not sound.
I worked for a civil engineering firm. You are typically hired by and owner to draw up plans. You put jobs out for bid but the contracts are between the owner and the construction company.
Insurance and the threat of lawsuits keep the engineering part of the business pretty clean.
I think your conflating them with city inspectors which come by and make sure construction is up to code.
Insurance and the threat of lawsuits keep the engineering part of the business pretty clean.
I think your conflating them with city inspectors which come by and make sure construction is up to code.
I didn't downvote you, but I'm pretty sure it's this sentence that got you the downvotes:
> Obviously there is a problem with the credibility of the reports because of conflicting incentives. Inspectors are usually from construction companies who want to get work, so they will always find something wrong with a building.
Responding for myself: I have read many such reports, met inspectors, and never ever had the perception which you label an "obvious problem." In my experience, HN doesn't take well to aspersions cast without supporting evidence, much less unsubstantiated aspersions qualified as "obvious."
Hope that helps.
> Obviously there is a problem with the credibility of the reports because of conflicting incentives. Inspectors are usually from construction companies who want to get work, so they will always find something wrong with a building.
Responding for myself: I have read many such reports, met inspectors, and never ever had the perception which you label an "obvious problem." In my experience, HN doesn't take well to aspersions cast without supporting evidence, much less unsubstantiated aspersions qualified as "obvious."
Hope that helps.
You could just as easily argue that the owners of the building must be at fault because they have a financial incentive not to repair structural damage for as long as possible.
We can also look at this from the lens of outcomes if we lean too far one way or the other with our approach to safety standards - too strict, and we allocate money poorly. Too lax, and people die.
We can also look at this from the lens of outcomes if we lean too far one way or the other with our approach to safety standards - too strict, and we allocate money poorly. Too lax, and people die.
This was an independent report done on behalf of the condominium by an engineering firm they chose to do the report.
That does not contradict at all what I said. Why the downvote? Also, have you read the report?
The report is signed and stamped by the principal PE (professional engineer) not a construction company. These PEs are licensed by the state.
It’s linked in the thread and is very readable.
The report is rather matter of fact and lays out on page 7 what the problem was and what needs to happen to fix. This was 2018. Because a lot is unknowable these reports don’t tend to give a timeline for structural failure, but it does give some serious warnings.
It’s linked in the thread and is very readable.
The report is rather matter of fact and lays out on page 7 what the problem was and what needs to happen to fix. This was 2018. Because a lot is unknowable these reports don’t tend to give a timeline for structural failure, but it does give some serious warnings.
[deleted]
Your premise:
> If thousands of daily reports warn of damage that must be fixed immediately and most are of no consequences (obviously)
is correct, but your conclusion:
> then the problem is that the reports don't accurately reflect the severity of the damage and the consequences of ignoring it.
does not follow. To put this in probabilistic terms, you need to consider the expected value of the consequences, not just the probability.
Here one of the terms in that equation is the negative cost of killing 150 people. That cost is so high that even a fractional percent chance of building collapse means that the recommendation to fix immediately is credible, correct, and does accurately reflect the consequences of ignoring it.
> If thousands of daily reports warn of damage that must be fixed immediately and most are of no consequences (obviously)
is correct, but your conclusion:
> then the problem is that the reports don't accurately reflect the severity of the damage and the consequences of ignoring it.
does not follow. To put this in probabilistic terms, you need to consider the expected value of the consequences, not just the probability.
Here one of the terms in that equation is the negative cost of killing 150 people. That cost is so high that even a fractional percent chance of building collapse means that the recommendation to fix immediately is credible, correct, and does accurately reflect the consequences of ignoring it.
I didn’t downvote, but … this is just some claims and assertions with no reason to believe them. It’s fine that you think these things I guess, but it’s not a useful comment cause it’s just speculation and frankly it sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder about previous experiences with inspectors. Are there really “thousand of daily reports” like this, or is that just a feeling you have? Is the threshold of “urgently fix this for safety reasons” too low due to bad incentives? I don’t know, and though you think that, you haven’t backed it up so the comment is low quality and the downvotes are helpful imo.
I guarantee you, all houses and alertments will Eventually collapse.
Someone correct me here - the PE report identified multiple structural(?) concerns with the concrete in the parking garage, and this is conflated as evidence that the inspector knew the residential building was unsafe? Are they not separate structures? Did the garage collapse as well?
The report makes clear that the integrity of the balconies on the residential structure couldn't be verified due to additional flooring materials installed by condo owners.
The report makes clear that the integrity of the balconies on the residential structure couldn't be verified due to additional flooring materials installed by condo owners.
The owners were tax evaders and bribers. Truth had no place in their vocabulary. They are dead and gone, current owners have to cope with this shitstorm
A concrete slab, with water penetrated rebar will progressively fail in an exponential manner because rebar oxidizes = irrestible expansion and progressive expansion of the corroded area. Concrete and steel in these situations turn to dust and gravel with zero residual strength.
If the other building has a pool in the same relative position it needs inspection ASAP. If no pool, they may be OK as that mechanism of failure would be absent.
That said, the owners were such scumbags that other structural shortcuts may be hidden and will need to be dealt with
How do we know they were bribers and tax evaders? Who were the owners exactly?
They died a few years ago, and they were charged and settled.
Root among these...
https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+collapse+lawsuit&rlz...
[deleted]
Looks like the flat waterproofing was only applicable to the pool deck slab according to the report... is NPR's interpretation misleading here?
The report was issued in 2018 and warned that without expensive remediation the structural damage would expand exponentially. It may have started in the pool deck.
Does anyone have a copy of the report?
I can see why the condo didn't jump on this. There's not a lot of urgency on the repairs in the letter, and certainly no warning of "do this or the structure will collapse".
I was on a condo board. “Structual problems” in any report is a major red flag.
Most buildings like this hire a management company to deal talk with the engineers and beside the report let the building know what it happening.
a resident in the article says they took a 15 million dolllar assessment for repairs. So it’s not like it was being ignored.
Also I’m wondering how the building insurers were handled.
We had to replace a beam after extensive water damage in our 35 unit building. The units above were evacuated. Nothing collapsed but between the mold and water damage it was a nightmare.
The building that collapsed had an twin. Supposedly better maintained but it will be interesting to see what’s going on with it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/us/miami-building-collaps...
Most buildings like this hire a management company to deal talk with the engineers and beside the report let the building know what it happening.
a resident in the article says they took a 15 million dolllar assessment for repairs. So it’s not like it was being ignored.
Also I’m wondering how the building insurers were handled.
We had to replace a beam after extensive water damage in our 35 unit building. The units above were evacuated. Nothing collapsed but between the mold and water damage it was a nightmare.
The building that collapsed had an twin. Supposedly better maintained but it will be interesting to see what’s going on with it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/us/miami-building-collaps...
Would that normally be in such a document? Plenty of engineering type documents I have read don't lay out threats in plain English nor do they try to add emotional urgency to them.
Reminds me of this comment about how scientists sometimes understate how certain they are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG_s2PCH_c&t=785s.
Reminds me of this comment about how scientists sometimes understate how certain they are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG_s2PCH_c&t=785s.
It's interesting that the report begins by mentioning water infiltration issues in some units and that the part about structural damage only starts on page seven. I wonder if that's usual for this kind of report to put the major expensive structural repairs at the end.
Thank you.
I'm disappointed at the level of discourse on HN about the topic. This amount of inane argument about "but the report doesn't seem that urgent" is what I would expect from Reddit.
This is straight up quote mining as far as I'm concerned. Nothing in the report would lead me to believe the structure was in imminent danger if I were a resident / board member / inspector etc.
This is trash journalism.
Edit: I would like to note the following for people following this story:
The report author has stated:
“among other things, our report detailed significant cracks and breaks in the concrete, which required repairs to ensure the safety of the residents and the public.” [1]
However, such language about 'safety of the residents' is not present in his report. It has further been reported that the report author did not make such disclosures to residents at a condo board meeting.
"Not once did Morabito share with us any sense of urgency, at least not the residents," Alvarez said, who lived on the 10th floor. "He never said the building was falling apart. He said the repairs were to bring the building up to today's standards of beauty." [2]
1. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/surfside-condos-neighbors-...
2. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/surfside-official-was-sent...