6 ms·

> The developer’s engineers and the City have shown that the building is perfectly safe through detailed modeling and investigation. And yet, the prices of thos

> The developer’s engineers and the City have shown that the building is perfectly safe through detailed modeling and investigation. And yet, the prices of those luxury condominiums plummeted with the frenzy of reporting about the settlement and tilting. Well, yeah... Living in a tall sinking/tilting building would give me huge anxiety no matter what experts say

bambax 5y ago
Doesn't it cause practical problems also, in addition to anxiety? Small problems, yes, but that accumulate over time. Water that accumulates in corners? Cooking with non-level pans is annoying. It reminds me of that famous French comic about a (false) superhero called "Superdupont" in charge of protecting all things French. In one story the enemies of France steal the standard meter, and as a result all buildings become askew. I can't find it online right now but it's extremely funny.
CamperBob2 5y ago
That, and the fact that those "detailed models" have been wrong at every step of the way. Conspicuous by its absence in the article is any mention of how much additional lean can be tolerated before occupancy of the building becomes hazardous.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  I think it’s about 18 inches before it’s a seismic risk. They have a very small budget for more mistakes. (The precise number is in an SF Chronicle article somewhere.)
  - mcguire 5y ago
    So code is 1/3 of that and the building is currently at 2/3 of that.
an-allen 5y ago
Safe at standstill. How about seismic resilience? Surely a leaning building isnt exactly well tested seismically.
- tragiclos 5y ago
  This is addressed in the article: “…the panel found that the building was completely safe, and the settlement had not compromised its ability to withstand strong earthquakes.”
  - kingkawn 5y ago
    We’ll see Someone confidently modeled the original construction too
    - tjr225 5y ago
      And it sounds like they were pretty much right on if it is still safe, no?
      - chii 5y ago
        remains to be seen if it is indeed safe. What other factors did they forget to include in the model? It's an unknown unknown, and doing an inquiry after the building's collapse is no comfort for those who lost value, or even lives if it were to happen.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        tjr225 5y ago
        You could say that about anything. The pros here are saying it is safe, and they said the same thing before.
      - organsnyder 5y ago
        Except presumably the initial modeling concluded that the building would not settle more than allowed by code, which we now know was not accurate.
rdw 5y ago
Settlement is one of the conditions that SF Bay realtors draw a very hard line around. I have on several occasions seen just the possibility of settlement kill deals and drive prices down by huge percentages. Similar to black mold. The explanation that makes sense to me is that settlement is a problem that could be very costly and disruptive over a long period of time, and it's expensive and complicated to prove otherwise. So in the case of the Millennium Tower, they did in fact attempt to prove that the settlement was not going to cause major long-term problems, but that seemingly had no impact on the price behavior. I think with such an ingrained pattern, there isn't really a way to force buyers to think unconventionally; everyone "knows" that you don't buy in a building with settlement, and no one "knows" that there are circumstances where it's OK to buy anyway.
chii 5y ago
> building is perfectly safe through detailed modeling and investigation but if they had this great model, which you would entrust your life to, why isn't it used to predict this settling in the first place?
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
> Well, yeah... Living in a tall sinking/tilting building would give me huge anxiety no matter what experts say especially, since the same experts said that it will barely sink at all.
wpietri 5y ago
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, though...
mcguire 5y ago
Maybe if the engineers lived there...

bambax 5y ago

Doesn't it cause practical problems also, in addition to anxiety? Small problems, yes, but that accumulate over time. Water that accumulates in corners? Cooking with non-level pans is annoying. It reminds me of that famous French comic about a (false) superhero called "Superdupont" in charge of protecting all things French. In one story the enemies of France steal the standard meter, and as a result all buildings become askew. I can't find it online right now but it's extremely funny.

CamperBob2 5y ago

That, and the fact that those "detailed models" have been wrong at every step of the way. Conspicuous by its absence in the article is any mention of how much additional lean can be tolerated before occupancy of the building becomes hazardous.

jdavis703 5y ago
I think it’s about 18 inches before it’s a seismic risk. They have a very small budget for more mistakes. (The precise number is in an SF Chronicle article somewhere.)
- mcguire 5y ago
  So code is 1/3 of that and the building is currently at 2/3 of that.

an-allen 5y ago

Safe at standstill. How about seismic resilience? Surely a leaning building isnt exactly well tested seismically.

tragiclos 5y ago
This is addressed in the article: “…the panel found that the building was completely safe, and the settlement had not compromised its ability to withstand strong earthquakes.”
- kingkawn 5y ago
  We’ll see Someone confidently modeled the original construction too
  - tjr225 5y ago
    And it sounds like they were pretty much right on if it is still safe, no?
    - chii 5y ago
      remains to be seen if it is indeed safe. What other factors did they forget to include in the model? It's an unknown unknown, and doing an inquiry after the building's collapse is no comfort for those who lost value, or even lives if it were to happen.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - tjr225 5y ago
        You could say that about anything. The pros here are saying it is safe, and they said the same thing before.
    - organsnyder 5y ago
      Except presumably the initial modeling concluded that the building would not settle more than allowed by code, which we now know was not accurate.

rdw 5y ago

Settlement is one of the conditions that SF Bay realtors draw a very hard line around. I have on several occasions seen just the possibility of settlement kill deals and drive prices down by huge percentages. Similar to black mold. The explanation that makes sense to me is that settlement is a problem that could be very costly and disruptive over a long period of time, and it's expensive and complicated to prove otherwise. So in the case of the Millennium Tower, they did in fact attempt to prove that the settlement was not going to cause major long-term problems, but that seemingly had no impact on the price behavior. I think with such an ingrained pattern, there isn't really a way to force buyers to think unconventionally; everyone "knows" that you don't buy in a building with settlement, and no one "knows" that there are circumstances where it's OK to buy anyway.

chii 5y ago

> building is perfectly safe through detailed modeling and investigation but if they had this great model, which you would entrust your life to, why isn't it used to predict this settling in the first place?

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

> Well, yeah... Living in a tall sinking/tilting building would give me huge anxiety no matter what experts say especially, since the same experts said that it will barely sink at all.

wpietri 5y ago

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, though...

mcguire 5y ago

Maybe if the engineers lived there...