3 ms·
What is being learned in Surfside is this: - according to two recent independent structural model calculations based on the original plans, the building that c
by redis_mlc 5y ago
What is being learned in Surfside is this:
- according to two recent independent structural model calculations based on the original plans, the building that collapsed was deliberately designed to meet only 100% to 115% of the original static loads to save money, but not the dynamic loads of rolling vehicles or interior upgrades like granite counter tops and marble wall displays.
Also, there were a few 12" columns, no column caps, and not enough shear wall areas or elevator core tie-in to resist twisting from wind loads or prevent domino column failures.
- any number of events could have started the collapse because there was no safety margin, including water intrusion and previous hurricane wind loads, but it was probably vehicles rolling around the lobby level near the pool.
To answer your question, it would cost more than the building was worth to replace the columns and slabs. The 40-year review for that building really meant a teardown had they redone the structural model. The owners were already looking at a $100,000 to $200,000 bill each for cosmetic repairs. Because of absentee owners (lessors and airbnb), that level of investment for a rebuild doesn't fly.
It's believed that the former building inspector gave a positive building review speech so that cronies could continue selling units, as negative news would have to be reported to potential buyers, killing any sales.
Note that builders who looked at the post-collapse photos even one day afterwards all wrote, "Nothing looks right in those fotos." What bothered them the most were the columns that punched through with no debris stuck to the top (pejoratively called "those toothpicks"), and yards of rebar bundles that also looked too clean.
- comex 5y agoFYI, you're shadowbanned.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agoWhy can people see shadowbanned people anyway? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose? As is pointing out that they are.
- nathancahill 5y agoIt's a setting in your profile: showdead
- malinens 5y agoI can see his comment
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoBecause people have vouched for it it is no longer dead. Shadowbanned accounts' comments are dead by default.
- redis_mlc 5y ago[dead]
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoSo as usual the chain of failures is a lot longer and more complex than the "cheapskates ignoring maintenance to save a few pennies" narrative you get on the internet.
- redis_mlc 5y ago> more complex than the "cheapskates ignoring maintenance to save a few pennies" The unrepaired pool deck cutout (cheap to fix) and general water intrusion problems (not so cheap) were very serious maintenance problems that shouldn't have been bandaided with buckets, etc., and would have weakened slabs over time. The condo board and residents (many educated) themselves should have been more on top of those visible problems. If that caused the garage column strengths to reduce from 100% (as modelled) of required strength to 99%, then that's a factor in the collapse. Of course, there should have been a design safety margin. I would say the condo board and residents themselves should have noticed the 12" columns and started asking questions. Also, any structural engineer today, after looking at the plans, would have noticed the minimal use of shear walls and the discrepancy in concrete beams drawn in the parking area. The building code has changed since 1980, so that review should be done for all older buildings, esp. the other two Champlain projects. In fact, buyers are discounting those older buildings.