2 ms·
Generally speaking, I think two things went wrong here. 1. Almost anyone seeing all the warning signs probably didn’t think an entire building could collapse o
by iJohnDoe 5y ago
Generally speaking, I think two things went wrong here.
1. Almost anyone seeing all the warning signs probably didn’t think an entire building could collapse or partially collapse. Things could look terrible, but maybe not enough to say, “I need to get out of here before this building collapses.” Yes, that is said in old building and homes but it just doesn’t compute in building this size. That is why a professional inspector needed to be involved.
2. Time was also a problem here. In the US, a modern city with a 40 year old building just doesn’t compute. It’s actually kind of old in the US, especially with problems like this. Similar to #1, it didn’t compute a building this size could collapse this way. That is why a professional inspector needed to be involved.
- slashdot2008 5y agohow can any engineer or inspector know that what they can see from a surface inspection means a building is about to collapse? How many buildings do they inspect with damage that don't collapse? all of them until this one. So when they see damage they say, this should be repaired, and then when the repair gets underway, maybe people see that it needs more than anticipated, and it all gets fixed. Probably by that point in time the inspector is out of the picture.
- slashdot2008 5y agoin fact: >also, when performing any concrete restoration work, it is impossible to know the extent of the damage to the underlying rebar until the concrete is opened up. Oftentimes the damage is more extensive than can be determined by inspection of the surface. from the HOA letter: https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/miamiletter0628.pdf https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/miamiletter0628...