6 ms·

The collapse may be as much a local government failure as anything else. The building was constructed in 1981. By the early nineties scientists found the buil

by rmason 5y ago

The collapse may be as much a local government failure as anything else. The building was constructed in 1981. By the early nineties scientists found the building was sinking at what they called an 'alarming' rate. What was the problem? Local government rules stated that foundations were inspected every forty years. So the first inspection of this building was 2021 and had just begun when it collapsed. Why not inspect building foundations every twenty years (or sooner) if significant sinking was found?

gerdesj 5y ago
"The building was constructed in 1981 ... building was sinking" Sinking isn't always a problem - look at Venice! I studied Civ Eng at Plymouth Poly (now a university, Devon not MA) back in 1989ish. Back then concrete cancer was all the rage ... and gabions (but I digress.) The failure of the building in Miami was catastrophic and not gradual. I don't think that monitoring would have worked but it is possible that stresses/strains built up over time - we'll have to wait and see. If it was gradual then there is a good argument in favour of fitting buildings like that with strain gauges as many bridges are. I do a lot of IoT stuff and I estimate that something like £20,000 would get you strain gauges and a monitoring system for a structure like that. It might be £10,000 or £100,000 but a building that size in Miami is worth quite a lot. I'll bet rent on a flat was something like $2,000pm or more. Inspection of foundations is a tricky one. I am not a Civil Engineer but I trained for it but I don't have X ray eyes and nor do Miami's engineers. That's absolutely the wrong way to go about this sort of thing. I'm not even sure what an "inspection" even means. There was a fundamental error made at the initial design stage in my opinion. I don't know what but probably relating to the parameters of the ground that was built on. By that I mean that the architects/struct engrs. were promised certain properties of the geotechnics/geophysics - that basically means they were told how the ground would work in holding their structure up. When you design a structure, it needs to support itself and crucially, the thing it sits on needs to be able to support that structure. You also have to work to a timespan, so you use standard tables for wind strength, earthquake etc. You work to a 1 in n years events. This building collapsed catastrophically in seconds without warning. I think this will become a real lesson for Civ Eng and not a simple "I told you so" thing and certainly not "shit concrete".
- magicalist 5y ago
  > Sinking isn't always a problem - look at Venice! This seems like simultaneously survivorship bias (there have been plenty of buildings in Venice that have collapsed or have been irreparably damaged) and a good example of the dangers of sinking (how many billions on repairs and massive engineering projects to save the city?)
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  A civil engineer told me "settlement isn't a problem, differential settlement is a problem."
  - Haga 5y ago
    If that were the case wouldn't a pressure monitor system injecting hardening material be used instead of pillars?
  - jaclaz 5y ago
    Yes and no. Both statements are correct, but differential settlement is not an "instantaneous" problem, when a building, particularly a reinforced concrete one, is subject to differential settlement it deforms itself following the movements of the foundations or of the soil under the foundations, and this normally allows for several centimeters of deformation (in practice a building as seen from a side is made out of squares, when the foundations on one side lower, squares become a rhomb/diamond). All the rigid elements in the plane of the square (please read as walls, be them brick or other material) are forced "out of their natural shape" and start developing cracks. Nornally settlement is a process that is very, very slow, years, months or weeks, during which the cracks begin developing, long before the structure collapses. This must have been a form of failure of the soil that happened in a very short time, more similar to a landslide than to the kind of settlement common in soils (usually sands) near a waterfront.
    - R0b0t1 5y ago
      I never implied it was a fast problem, nor did I make two statements.
timbit42 5y ago
Money.
- is_dang_erect3 5y ago
  You don’t need a period after a single word, no matter how profound that single word is.
wumpus 5y ago
The NYT said that the author of the paper who found sinking did not expect, in hindsight, that anyone from the city would read the paper.
- CryptoBanker 5y ago
  So what? That’s not a reason to write a full and accurate report. Sounds like the guy who wrote the paper is a symptom of the state of their entire state bureaucracy
wheelinsupial 5y ago
People argue this building shouldn't have been constructed at all. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cause-miami-condo-collapse-unclear-experts-say-barrier-islands-present-n1272316 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cause-miami-condo-colla... "Another issue at hand for the Surfside community is one shared with all of Miami Beach: The towns are built on a barrier island. Climate scientists and geologists have long warned that these islands cannot be developed responsibly. They are made of a loose mixture of sand and mud and provide a natural protection for the shoreline. 'These are very dynamic features. We didn’t understand that these islands actually migrate until the 1970s,' said Orrin Pilkey, a professor emeritus of geology at Duke University who has long studied sea-level rise and the over-development of the coast. 'As sea level rises, they move back.'"
- plumeria 5y ago
  Perhaps unrelated, but how are artificial islands (e.g. Dubai's Palm Islands) engineered to support massive buildings? Edit: I think it is already answered in [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Islands#Risk_mitigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Islands#Risk_mitigation
- fuzzfactor 5y ago
  In the early 1960's portions of the pavement over a former route of beachfront highway A1A could stll be found underwater over a quarter mile off the coast in places.
Retric 5y ago
It’s the building owners job to insure it’s safe, the local government is simply there as backup. As to sinking, that is not inherently a problem as basically all buildings sink or rise over time, differential sinking on the other hand is a major problem.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  I thought this was a condo situation? In that case the building was owned by the people who owned the units in the building. Little wonder that the HOA wasn't investing enough in maintenance...
  - Retric 5y ago
    Both HOA’s and landlords are often a major problem when buildings have issues. It’s why local government is involved at all rather unlike single family homes which don’t get inspected. However, that doesn’t suddenly make it the governments sole responsibility.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Oh yeah I totally agree. I would never buy a condo in a building like this in a location like this, largely because of the impossible situation with respect to "big" maintenance. Americans don't know how to cooperate without the imposition of authority.
bryan0 5y ago
> By the early nineties scientists found the building was sinking at what they called an 'alarming' rate. I think “alarming” was the term used by USA Today which first reported the study. The scientist himself did not seem alarmed at all: > Wdownski said he doesn’t believe anybody in the city or state government would have had a reason to be aware of the findings of the study. The bulk of it focused on potential flooding hazards, not engineering concerns. The study’s mention of the “12-story condominium” was relegated to a single line. “We didn’t give it too much importance,” Wdowinski said.
brudgers 5y ago
The building owners didn't fix the problem when it was identified. That's the way people are. And there are many many miles of similar buildings owned by similar people up one side of Florida, down the other, and around the Big Bend. Each built on sand. Each sprayed with salt from the sea. And every one of them built to meet code..."meets code" being the worst possible legal construction. The only thing unusual about the building that collapsed is that it was the first.
fuzzfactor 5y ago
First of all it's largely not actual sand (silicon dioxide) like you get naturally in most of the places like up in Daytona, where they ran the stock-car endurance race on the beach for years before a paved track was built. Nope, common road vehicles have never been ideal way down on South Florida beaches, even back when there were no rules. The ATV's like the lifeguards have are the kind of thing that really works, or a dune buggy with the fat tires even in places where there were no dunes. Anything heavy just sinks more than you would want. Because the beach there is so soft you can feel the difference as you walk, and it consists more so of particles of eroded seashells (calcium carbonate) having much larger size, much more random and irregular shapes, and a much wider particle size distribution than the far more universal and familiar true sand elsewhere. And it all leads more steeply into the Atlantic Ocean, it's not the really wide sandy beach that sometimes is considered more desirable. Notwithstanding any replenishment which can can upset the balance for a period compared to naturally deposited or eroded material. The sandcastles that can be built have differences in limitations that can be felt by hand. And IIRC the building contrators were not all of the highest integrity. I would say my experiences exploring many of the hi-rises in nearby Broward as a teenager after-hours at the construction sites as they were being built in the late '60s & early '70s was not unique. All kinds of kids did this in South Florida . . . There just weren't that many kids when the bulk of the population is retired from up north. I'm sure I could come up with a word or 2,000 on the subject or even more now after the deadly collapse.

by rmason 5y ago

gerdesj 5y ago

"The building was constructed in 1981 ... building was sinking" Sinking isn't always a problem - look at Venice! I studied Civ Eng at Plymouth Poly (now a university, Devon not MA) back in 1989ish. Back then concrete cancer was all the rage ... and gabions (but I digress.) The failure of the building in Miami was catastrophic and not gradual. I don't think that monitoring would have worked but it is possible that stresses/strains built up over time - we'll have to wait and see. If it was gradual then there is a good argument in favour of fitting buildings like that with strain gauges as many bridges are. I do a lot of IoT stuff and I estimate that something like £20,000 would get you strain gauges and a monitoring system for a structure like that. It might be £10,000 or £100,000 but a building that size in Miami is worth quite a lot. I'll bet rent on a flat was something like $2,000pm or more. Inspection of foundations is a tricky one. I am not a Civil Engineer but I trained for it but I don't have X ray eyes and nor do Miami's engineers. That's absolutely the wrong way to go about this sort of thing. I'm not even sure what an "inspection" even means. There was a fundamental error made at the initial design stage in my opinion. I don't know what but probably relating to the parameters of the ground that was built on. By that I mean that the architects/struct engrs. were promised certain properties of the geotechnics/geophysics - that basically means they were told how the ground would work in holding their structure up. When you design a structure, it needs to support itself and crucially, the thing it sits on needs to be able to support that structure. You also have to work to a timespan, so you use standard tables for wind strength, earthquake etc. You work to a 1 in n years events. This building collapsed catastrophically in seconds without warning. I think this will become a real lesson for Civ Eng and not a simple "I told you so" thing and certainly not "shit concrete".

magicalist 5y ago
> Sinking isn't always a problem - look at Venice! This seems like simultaneously survivorship bias (there have been plenty of buildings in Venice that have collapsed or have been irreparably damaged) and a good example of the dangers of sinking (how many billions on repairs and massive engineering projects to save the city?)
R0b0t1 5y ago
A civil engineer told me "settlement isn't a problem, differential settlement is a problem."
- Haga 5y ago
  If that were the case wouldn't a pressure monitor system injecting hardening material be used instead of pillars?
- jaclaz 5y ago
  Yes and no. Both statements are correct, but differential settlement is not an "instantaneous" problem, when a building, particularly a reinforced concrete one, is subject to differential settlement it deforms itself following the movements of the foundations or of the soil under the foundations, and this normally allows for several centimeters of deformation (in practice a building as seen from a side is made out of squares, when the foundations on one side lower, squares become a rhomb/diamond). All the rigid elements in the plane of the square (please read as walls, be them brick or other material) are forced "out of their natural shape" and start developing cracks. Nornally settlement is a process that is very, very slow, years, months or weeks, during which the cracks begin developing, long before the structure collapses. This must have been a form of failure of the soil that happened in a very short time, more similar to a landslide than to the kind of settlement common in soils (usually sands) near a waterfront.
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    I never implied it was a fast problem, nor did I make two statements.

timbit42 5y ago

Money.

is_dang_erect3 5y ago
You don’t need a period after a single word, no matter how profound that single word is.

wumpus 5y ago

The NYT said that the author of the paper who found sinking did not expect, in hindsight, that anyone from the city would read the paper.

CryptoBanker 5y ago
So what? That’s not a reason to write a full and accurate report. Sounds like the guy who wrote the paper is a symptom of the state of their entire state bureaucracy

wheelinsupial 5y ago

People argue this building shouldn't have been constructed at all. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cause-miami-condo-collapse-unclear-experts-say-barrier-islands-present-n1272316 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cause-miami-condo-colla... "Another issue at hand for the Surfside community is one shared with all of Miami Beach: The towns are built on a barrier island. Climate scientists and geologists have long warned that these islands cannot be developed responsibly. They are made of a loose mixture of sand and mud and provide a natural protection for the shoreline. 'These are very dynamic features. We didn’t understand that these islands actually migrate until the 1970s,' said Orrin Pilkey, a professor emeritus of geology at Duke University who has long studied sea-level rise and the over-development of the coast. 'As sea level rises, they move back.'"

plumeria 5y ago
Perhaps unrelated, but how are artificial islands (e.g. Dubai's Palm Islands) engineered to support massive buildings? Edit: I think it is already answered in [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Islands#Risk_mitigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Islands#Risk_mitigation
fuzzfactor 5y ago
In the early 1960's portions of the pavement over a former route of beachfront highway A1A could stll be found underwater over a quarter mile off the coast in places.

Retric 5y ago

It’s the building owners job to insure it’s safe, the local government is simply there as backup. As to sinking, that is not inherently a problem as basically all buildings sink or rise over time, differential sinking on the other hand is a major problem.

jessaustin 5y ago
I thought this was a condo situation? In that case the building was owned by the people who owned the units in the building. Little wonder that the HOA wasn't investing enough in maintenance...
- Retric 5y ago
  Both HOA’s and landlords are often a major problem when buildings have issues. It’s why local government is involved at all rather unlike single family homes which don’t get inspected. However, that doesn’t suddenly make it the governments sole responsibility.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Oh yeah I totally agree. I would never buy a condo in a building like this in a location like this, largely because of the impossible situation with respect to "big" maintenance. Americans don't know how to cooperate without the imposition of authority.

bryan0 5y ago

> By the early nineties scientists found the building was sinking at what they called an 'alarming' rate. I think “alarming” was the term used by USA Today which first reported the study. The scientist himself did not seem alarmed at all: > Wdownski said he doesn’t believe anybody in the city or state government would have had a reason to be aware of the findings of the study. The bulk of it focused on potential flooding hazards, not engineering concerns. The study’s mention of the “12-story condominium” was relegated to a single line. “We didn’t give it too much importance,” Wdowinski said.

brudgers 5y ago

The building owners didn't fix the problem when it was identified. That's the way people are. And there are many many miles of similar buildings owned by similar people up one side of Florida, down the other, and around the Big Bend. Each built on sand. Each sprayed with salt from the sea. And every one of them built to meet code..."meets code" being the worst possible legal construction. The only thing unusual about the building that collapsed is that it was the first.

fuzzfactor 5y ago

First of all it's largely not actual sand (silicon dioxide) like you get naturally in most of the places like up in Daytona, where they ran the stock-car endurance race on the beach for years before a paved track was built. Nope, common road vehicles have never been ideal way down on South Florida beaches, even back when there were no rules. The ATV's like the lifeguards have are the kind of thing that really works, or a dune buggy with the fat tires even in places where there were no dunes. Anything heavy just sinks more than you would want. Because the beach there is so soft you can feel the difference as you walk, and it consists more so of particles of eroded seashells (calcium carbonate) having much larger size, much more random and irregular shapes, and a much wider particle size distribution than the far more universal and familiar true sand elsewhere. And it all leads more steeply into the Atlantic Ocean, it's not the really wide sandy beach that sometimes is considered more desirable. Notwithstanding any replenishment which can can upset the balance for a period compared to naturally deposited or eroded material. The sandcastles that can be built have differences in limitations that can be felt by hand. And IIRC the building contrators were not all of the highest integrity. I would say my experiences exploring many of the hi-rises in nearby Broward as a teenager after-hours at the construction sites as they were being built in the late '60s & early '70s was not unique. All kinds of kids did this in South Florida . . . There just weren't that many kids when the bulk of the population is retired from up north. I'm sure I could come up with a word or 2,000 on the subject or even more now after the deadly collapse.