6 ms·

Having read the report, I am stopping my monthly contributions to NPR. This is straight up quote mining as far as I'm concerned. Nothing in the report would l

Having read the report, I am stopping my monthly contributions to NPR. 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-fear-for-their-safety/ar-AALu6FO?ocid=uxbndlbing https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/surfside-condos-neighbors-... 2. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/surfside-official-was-sent-disturbing-report-he-told-board-condo-was-in-good-shape/ar-AALvTOq https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/surfside-official-was-sent...

cryptoz 5y ago
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.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cm2012 5y ago
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 5y ago
  [deleted]
mdoms 5y ago
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.
- flexie 5y ago
  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.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    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.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
      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".
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  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.
icegreentea2 5y ago
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.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  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.
  - anonuser123456 5y ago
    >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.
    - content_sesh 5y ago
      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?
yalogin 5y ago
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.
mshroyer 5y ago
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-sunday/2021/06/27/e5a53910-d798-11eb-8fb8-aea56b785b00_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/condo-collapse-sunda...
croes 5y ago
Because it wasn't urgent at the time if the report, but the report is from 2018, more than 3 years ago.
cratermoon 5y ago
Everyone is suddenly an expert on structural engineering and thinks that NPR should have one write their news, too.
dgeiser13 5y ago
Way to take a stand "anonuser123456"
vanusa 5y ago
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".

cryptoz 5y ago

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.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cm2012 5y ago

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 5y ago
[deleted]

mdoms 5y ago

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.

flexie 5y ago
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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  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.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
    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".
ARandomerDude 5y ago
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.

icegreentea2 5y ago

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.

MattGaiser 5y ago
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.
- anonuser123456 5y ago
  >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.
  - content_sesh 5y ago
    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?

yalogin 5y ago

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.

mshroyer 5y ago

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-sunday/2021/06/27/e5a53910-d798-11eb-8fb8-aea56b785b00_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/condo-collapse-sunda...

croes 5y ago

Because it wasn't urgent at the time if the report, but the report is from 2018, more than 3 years ago.

cratermoon 5y ago

Everyone is suddenly an expert on structural engineering and thinks that NPR should have one write their news, too.

dgeiser13 5y ago

Way to take a stand "anonuser123456"

vanusa 5y ago

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".