4 ms·

The building in question is in Sydney Olympic Park, a relatively sparsely populated area far from the city center that used to be industrial wasteland and is no

The building in question is in Sydney Olympic Park, a relatively sparsely populated area far from the city center that used to be industrial wasteland and is now mostly sports facilities (surprise!): https://maps.app.goo.gl/uZDA8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/uZDA8 However, there have been quite a few shiny new apartments going up lately, including this one. And as is the case for almost all residential construction in Sydney lately, the quality tends to be shocking. Update: the wide evacuation has been cancelled and most tower residents can now return. However, 51 units have been declared structurally unsafe: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/olympic-park-residents-make-new-sleeping-arrangements-after-christmas-eve-evacuation-20181224-p50o5h.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/olympic-park-residents-m...

userbinator 8y ago
and most tower residents can now return. However, 51 units have been declared structurally unsafe How does that work? That's a very strange statement to make. They're implying those 51 units may collapse and leave the rest intact...? Even if I wasn't in those 51, I wouldn't go back except perhaps to quickly get some stuff and move out.
- jfoster 8y ago
  That's a good point. > NSW Police Acting Assistant Commissioner Julie Boon said "an internal support wall failed" in the building. If one failed, though, is there any reason why others won't?
- cyphar 8y ago
  The article in the Sydney Morning Herald states that they were only allowed back in (and were escorted) to get their stuff and get out. The 51 figure is saying that the NSW Police believe that those units are structurally unsound, but the rest of the building is still evacuated all the same. I imagine GP misunderstood one of the article edits.