4 ms·

What is the risk? Does this make the building more dangerous because it's in an earthquake-prone area? Obviously this doesn't sound good, but the article mentio

by cheeze 10y ago

What is the risk? Does this make the building more dangerous because it's in an earthquake-prone area? Obviously this doesn't sound good, but the article mentions that there is no threat to safety of occupants. Is it merely aesthetic?

simulate 10y ago
This other article discusses how uneven sinking of the tower causes cracks and elevator issues: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-s-landmark-tower-for-rich-and-famous-is-8896563.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-s-landmark-tow... > And while Stanford’s Deierlein doesn’t consider the sink or tilt a safety issue, he did say, “I would be concerned for my investment.” That’s because a shifting building can cause walls to crack, elevators to malfunction and all manner of other annoyances.
erdevs 10y ago
How much stock should one put in that declaration of safety? It is from an "independent" analysis... but who paid the analysts? Or, suppose absolute freedom from bias... how many times have expert opinions of safety been wrong in the face of mother nature. Picture Fukushima. The risks in a tilting building are many. From a market value standpoint, homeowner value has already been destroyed simply by perception. If remediation is necessary here, homeowner fees could dramatically increase. Tilting buildings often see cracks in walls, malfunctioning elevators and other ills which also lower value. There will be lawsuits here-- you can see all sides rattling sabers with legalistic language and positioning already just from these articles -- and those will carry costs as well. Taxpayers may well be pulled into the fray and suffer as well in these situations. From a pure safety standpoint, experience dictates that we should discount expert declarations of safety in many such matters. Residents of the tower and the towers' neighbors may do well to heed caution. At the end of the day, it is hubris to expect to predict with any high degree of confidence what might happen here. After all, none of the experts from any side involved foresaw even the current predicament, where no grand act of nature is even involved. The building simply stands there, yet already reacts in unpredicted ways. How likely are the experts then to foresee predicaments in even more complex situations?
- marcusgarvey 10y ago
  >Taxpayers may well be pulled into the fray and suffer as well in these situations. How might this happen - do you mean via the Transbay Dev.?
  - erdevs 10y ago
    Yes, that for sure is mentioned as a distinct possibility. Sometimes in such matters the city can also be sued for approving plans if they are subsequently found to be faulty or inadequate as well. And if there is any other construction going on nearby besides this Transbay Terminal that was mentioned, that could be called into question as well.
Artlav 10y ago
Uneven sinking is not good - doors/windows won't close, walls would crack, and so on. It does not take much to seize things, however buildings are usually designed to take a little of it. The rate at which it's sinking is the alarming part. But i would be mostly alarmed about earthquakes - the thing sits on sand. Proverbial or not, that would make it very susceptible to soil liquification. Imagine a stick with a weight on top of it. On solid ground it stands still. But if the ground was to turn into a liquid, the stick would tilt and sink rapidly. If the soil were to liquify for a second, it would end up at an angle half-sunk. And a building can't tolerate side loads, so it won't stay at an angle - it would collapse down.
- aidenn0 10y ago
  When I read that it was built on fill, liquification was my first thought. Doesn't SF have limits to building sizes in liquification zones?

by cheeze 10y ago

simulate 10y ago

This other article discusses how uneven sinking of the tower causes cracks and elevator issues: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-s-landmark-tower-for-rich-and-famous-is-8896563.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-s-landmark-tow... > And while Stanford’s Deierlein doesn’t consider the sink or tilt a safety issue, he did say, “I would be concerned for my investment.” That’s because a shifting building can cause walls to crack, elevators to malfunction and all manner of other annoyances.

erdevs 10y ago

How much stock should one put in that declaration of safety? It is from an "independent" analysis... but who paid the analysts? Or, suppose absolute freedom from bias... how many times have expert opinions of safety been wrong in the face of mother nature. Picture Fukushima. The risks in a tilting building are many. From a market value standpoint, homeowner value has already been destroyed simply by perception. If remediation is necessary here, homeowner fees could dramatically increase. Tilting buildings often see cracks in walls, malfunctioning elevators and other ills which also lower value. There will be lawsuits here-- you can see all sides rattling sabers with legalistic language and positioning already just from these articles -- and those will carry costs as well. Taxpayers may well be pulled into the fray and suffer as well in these situations. From a pure safety standpoint, experience dictates that we should discount expert declarations of safety in many such matters. Residents of the tower and the towers' neighbors may do well to heed caution. At the end of the day, it is hubris to expect to predict with any high degree of confidence what might happen here. After all, none of the experts from any side involved foresaw even the current predicament, where no grand act of nature is even involved. The building simply stands there, yet already reacts in unpredicted ways. How likely are the experts then to foresee predicaments in even more complex situations?

marcusgarvey 10y ago
>Taxpayers may well be pulled into the fray and suffer as well in these situations. How might this happen - do you mean via the Transbay Dev.?
- erdevs 10y ago
  Yes, that for sure is mentioned as a distinct possibility. Sometimes in such matters the city can also be sued for approving plans if they are subsequently found to be faulty or inadequate as well. And if there is any other construction going on nearby besides this Transbay Terminal that was mentioned, that could be called into question as well.

Artlav 10y ago

Uneven sinking is not good - doors/windows won't close, walls would crack, and so on. It does not take much to seize things, however buildings are usually designed to take a little of it. The rate at which it's sinking is the alarming part. But i would be mostly alarmed about earthquakes - the thing sits on sand. Proverbial or not, that would make it very susceptible to soil liquification. Imagine a stick with a weight on top of it. On solid ground it stands still. But if the ground was to turn into a liquid, the stick would tilt and sink rapidly. If the soil were to liquify for a second, it would end up at an angle half-sunk. And a building can't tolerate side loads, so it won't stay at an angle - it would collapse down.

aidenn0 10y ago
When I read that it was built on fill, liquification was my first thought. Doesn't SF have limits to building sizes in liquification zones?