4 ms·

The phrasing from the report: > The failed waterproofing is causing major structural damage to the concrete structural slab below these areas. Failure to repla

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?
    - anonuser123456 5y ago
      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.
      - elliekelly 5y ago
        > 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.
        anonuser123456 5y ago
        >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.
        content_sesh 5y ago
        "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?
- mint2 5y ago
  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-investigation-clues.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/us/miami-building-investi...
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    Wikipedia suggests that is still ongoing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_University_pedestrian_bridge_collapse#Legal_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_Universi...
- jonahx 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. 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?
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    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.
    - jonahx 5y ago
      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.
- content_sesh 5y ago
  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: 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. If I get an audit of my production system and it says on page 7 "There are no database backups. Failure to take regular database backups will lead to permanent data loss in event of hard drive failure." and then two years later, the hard drive finally fails and I lose data, that's my fuckup, not the auditor's. And as others in this thread have mentioned, I don't even need to be licensed to do my job. 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?"
- nostrademons 5y ago
  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.

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?
  - anonuser123456 5y ago
    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.
    - elliekelly 5y ago
      > 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.
      - anonuser123456 5y ago
        >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.
        content_sesh 5y ago
        "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?
mint2 5y ago
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-investigation-clues.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/us/miami-building-investi...
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Wikipedia suggests that is still ongoing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_University_pedestrian_bridge_collapse#Legal_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_Universi...
jonahx 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. 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?
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  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.
  - jonahx 5y ago
    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.
content_sesh 5y ago
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: 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. If I get an audit of my production system and it says on page 7 "There are no database backups. Failure to take regular database backups will lead to permanent data loss in event of hard drive failure." and then two years later, the hard drive finally fails and I lose data, that's my fuckup, not the auditor's. And as others in this thread have mentioned, I don't even need to be licensed to do my job. 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?"
nostrademons 5y ago
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.