8 ms·

I liked the article but the last paragraph was just wrong. Implying that the public were being irrational for not buying apartments in the building, when the en

I liked the article but the last paragraph was just wrong. Implying that the public were being irrational for not buying apartments in the building, when the engineers said it was safe is incorrect. The engineers said it is currently safe but it was sinking so the safety would have to be periodically re-evaluated in the future. When you are buying an apartment, the value you get is not only its current value of living in it, but the ability to live in it for many years in the future and the ability to sell it or give it to your kids some time in the distant future. Considering the crazy SF prices, especially for new condo developments, the future is especially important when buying an apartment in SF. So it is perfectly rational for people to refuse to buy based on an engineering statement that the building is safe but may not be safe a couple of years from now.

khuey 5y ago
There's also the very real possibility of a massive special assessment on the condo owners to pay to fix the building that should be pushing down the property values.
- fragmede 5y ago
  Moreover, most people can't afford to buy a luxury condo without a mortgage, and banks won't give mortgages on condos where the HOA is in litigation with the builders.
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Nevermind the fact that the sinking was already three times worse or more what the same engineers that are assuring it is safe said it would do. Doesn't instill a lot of confidence in your future predictions when your past ones have been so completely wrong. I'm not buying the "we didn't know people would build and drill nearby" argument. It's downtown San Francisco for God's sake.
- CydeWeys 5y ago
  > Nevermind the fact that the sinking was already three times worse or more what the same engineers that are assuring it is safe said it would do. It's not the same engineers. The first ones may well be wrong and the later ones right.
  - EGreg 5y ago
    But how would anyone know which engineers would be guaranteed to be right? Who is to say any engineers would be for sure going to be right ahead of time, given how little we know?
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Maybe! Or they could both be wrong. If you'd like to bet that it's only one set of engineers, you can get in on the action for $0.7 - $3.4 million dollars: https://www.sanfranciscocondomania.com/condos/MILLENNIUM-TOWER-SAN-FRANCISCO.php https://www.sanfranciscocondomania.com/condos/MILLENNIUM-TOW... But given that most people buying a home are looking for a low-risk proposition, I get why prices dropped. Especially people buying condos; a big part of the point is that a lot of the hassles are taken care of for you.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      > Especially people buying condos; a big part of the point is that a lot of the hassles are taken care of for you. I sometimes wonder about that. For what it costs in ongoing condo fees, you could pay someone to provide exactly the same level of worry-free maintenance on a regular house.
      - lmm 5y ago
        The part that's worrying is the catastrophic cases. I had complex roof leak and while I had to yell and scream and threaten legal action, eventually the management company fixed it; my friend who had a similar problem in his house ended up wiping out his savings replacing the roof.
        5y ago
- mcguire 5y ago
  Then, there is "By that time, the building had settled another inch and was out-of-plumb by more than a foot or 30 centimeters. That’s not something you could notice by eye and was probably only discernible to the most perceptive residents, but it’s well beyond the 6 inches allowed by the building code." Twice the amount allowed by the building code sounds like a problem.
  - baggy_trough 5y ago
    That would depend on how cautious the building code was in this case.
  - Ballas 5y ago
    I find it strange that it would be quoted in a distance and not an angle. If at the time of writing, nobody anticipated a building this tall, the 6 inches might be very conservative.
    - wiredfool 5y ago
      Inches out of plumb are way easier to measure.
      - Denvercoder9 5y ago
        That's fine, since the height is well-known, you can convert that to an angle using nothing more than some high school trigonometry.
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      If the idea is to keep taller buildings straighter, then it makes sense. And that might be an important engineering consideration, considering that a taller building has more leverage.
    - bobthembuilder 5y ago
      Actually we use horizontal offset because it is more intuitive. Angles are deceptive for very tall buildings. You end up with a tiny angle eg 0.1deg that it sounds too small. Also what people don't realize that the swing at the top floor of such a tall building due to wind may be actually about also another foot at worst case.
- nikanj 5y ago
  > I'm not buying the "we didn't know people would build and drill nearby" argument. It's downtown San Francisco for God's sake. Downtown San Francisco is NIMBY central, and it is quite surprising people were actually able to build something new there. It's a reasonable assumption that the zoning etc gridlock continues, and very little new construction happens nearby.
  - maxcan 5y ago
    Actually, that neighborhood of SF is one of the very very few parts of the Bay Area that are not NIMBY central.
ergocoder 5y ago
Luckily this issue is not politicized. Otherwise, there would be army of people asking if you were an expert or if you has source backing up your claim. Just like when a small group of people didn't believe Fauci when he said masks didn't work.
pfortuny 5y ago
I’ll buy one when one of those engineers does and goes to live in it.
- eecc 5y ago
  Yeah, the Hammurabi Code…
- WJW 5y ago
  I don't think they pay most construction engineers enough to purchase even one of the cheaper condos in that building.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    Kind of like how high-end tailors can't afford one of their own suits.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
bell-cot 5y ago
Grady Hillhouse is (per his /about page) a professional civil engineer. He just did a YouTube video on a screw-up that has launched a fleet of big-money lawsuits. He has a wife and little kid. If he is making sure that he won't be the target of any deep-pocketed legal action...that sounds pretty rational to me. Also, I've noticed that we (computer professionals here on HN, roughly) don't always think that the general public is particularly rational in their choices about computers. Perhaps most professional civil engineers have similar feelings about the public being rational in their own area of expertise?
- masklinn 5y ago
  > Also, I've noticed that we (computer professionals here on HN, roughly) don't always think that the general public is particularly rational in their choices about computers. Hah, how’s that for an understatement. Most devs definitely see the general public much as Joe Wilkinson sees Fabio.
- MiddleEndian 5y ago
  After the article about how moving the mouse around actually made Windows 95 load faster[0], and modern computers that do irritate users by changing settings on their own, I would say that engineers should probably listen to users more often. 0. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/294907-why-moving-the-mouse-in-windows-95-made-the-os-faster https://www.extremetech.com/computing/294907-why-moving-the-...
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  From my limited experience Civil Engineers tend to find the public frustratingly shortsighted - although that was water infastructure which yeah, is underinvested as evidenced by the lead stories, let alone the taste.
Traster 5y ago
Yeah this topic is demonstrated in the UK. Long story short the UK failed to regulate building materials, resulting in lots of buildings being clad with inappropriate materials (really long story). A building burned to the ground (Grenfell) killing people. Now there are buildings all across the country with these unsafe materials, and they need to be replaced. There's a huge argument about who should pay - the government? It's their failure to regulate. The builders? They're ultimately responsible for what they built - but would go bankrupt immediately rather than pay? Individual owners? It's their property - but the costs are enormous, and they were sold something with the expectation it would be safe. So whilst they try and determine who pays, these properties are now basically worthless, banks won't give mortgages, no one will buy them.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  I'd say it's the builders' fault, but the lack of capital requirements are the governments fault. The gov should cover bankrupted build firms.
  - Traster 5y ago
    I very aggressively abridged that story, but the builders bought cladding material that suppliers told them conformed to the appropriate regulations. In reality the regulations weren't fit for purpose or enforced. There are questions around how aware of this they were.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  Sounds like the banks are just dumb at the surface level. If they take a collateraled loan and pay you get a paid loan. If they take it and fail to pay you either get paid by the proceeds of the sale or real estate for peanuts compared to the cost basis to hold and sell for a way better rate later.

khuey 5y ago

There's also the very real possibility of a massive special assessment on the condo owners to pay to fix the building that should be pushing down the property values.

fragmede 5y ago
Moreover, most people can't afford to buy a luxury condo without a mortgage, and banks won't give mortgages on condos where the HOA is in litigation with the builders.

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

Nevermind the fact that the sinking was already three times worse or more what the same engineers that are assuring it is safe said it would do. Doesn't instill a lot of confidence in your future predictions when your past ones have been so completely wrong. I'm not buying the "we didn't know people would build and drill nearby" argument. It's downtown San Francisco for God's sake.

CydeWeys 5y ago
> Nevermind the fact that the sinking was already three times worse or more what the same engineers that are assuring it is safe said it would do. It's not the same engineers. The first ones may well be wrong and the later ones right.
- EGreg 5y ago
  But how would anyone know which engineers would be guaranteed to be right? Who is to say any engineers would be for sure going to be right ahead of time, given how little we know?
- wpietri 5y ago
  Maybe! Or they could both be wrong. If you'd like to bet that it's only one set of engineers, you can get in on the action for $0.7 - $3.4 million dollars: https://www.sanfranciscocondomania.com/condos/MILLENNIUM-TOWER-SAN-FRANCISCO.php https://www.sanfranciscocondomania.com/condos/MILLENNIUM-TOW... But given that most people buying a home are looking for a low-risk proposition, I get why prices dropped. Especially people buying condos; a big part of the point is that a lot of the hassles are taken care of for you.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > Especially people buying condos; a big part of the point is that a lot of the hassles are taken care of for you. I sometimes wonder about that. For what it costs in ongoing condo fees, you could pay someone to provide exactly the same level of worry-free maintenance on a regular house.
    - lmm 5y ago
      The part that's worrying is the catastrophic cases. I had complex roof leak and while I had to yell and scream and threaten legal action, eventually the management company fixed it; my friend who had a similar problem in his house ended up wiping out his savings replacing the roof.
      - 5y ago
mcguire 5y ago
Then, there is "By that time, the building had settled another inch and was out-of-plumb by more than a foot or 30 centimeters. That’s not something you could notice by eye and was probably only discernible to the most perceptive residents, but it’s well beyond the 6 inches allowed by the building code." Twice the amount allowed by the building code sounds like a problem.
- baggy_trough 5y ago
  That would depend on how cautious the building code was in this case.
- Ballas 5y ago
  I find it strange that it would be quoted in a distance and not an angle. If at the time of writing, nobody anticipated a building this tall, the 6 inches might be very conservative.
  - wiredfool 5y ago
    Inches out of plumb are way easier to measure.
    - Denvercoder9 5y ago
      That's fine, since the height is well-known, you can convert that to an angle using nothing more than some high school trigonometry.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    If the idea is to keep taller buildings straighter, then it makes sense. And that might be an important engineering consideration, considering that a taller building has more leverage.
  - bobthembuilder 5y ago
    Actually we use horizontal offset because it is more intuitive. Angles are deceptive for very tall buildings. You end up with a tiny angle eg 0.1deg that it sounds too small. Also what people don't realize that the swing at the top floor of such a tall building due to wind may be actually about also another foot at worst case.
nikanj 5y ago
> I'm not buying the "we didn't know people would build and drill nearby" argument. It's downtown San Francisco for God's sake. Downtown San Francisco is NIMBY central, and it is quite surprising people were actually able to build something new there. It's a reasonable assumption that the zoning etc gridlock continues, and very little new construction happens nearby.
- maxcan 5y ago
  Actually, that neighborhood of SF is one of the very very few parts of the Bay Area that are not NIMBY central.

ergocoder 5y ago

Luckily this issue is not politicized. Otherwise, there would be army of people asking if you were an expert or if you has source backing up your claim. Just like when a small group of people didn't believe Fauci when he said masks didn't work.

pfortuny 5y ago

I’ll buy one when one of those engineers does and goes to live in it.

eecc 5y ago
Yeah, the Hammurabi Code…
WJW 5y ago
I don't think they pay most construction engineers enough to purchase even one of the cheaper condos in that building.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Kind of like how high-end tailors can't afford one of their own suits.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

bell-cot 5y ago

Grady Hillhouse is (per his /about page) a professional civil engineer. He just did a YouTube video on a screw-up that has launched a fleet of big-money lawsuits. He has a wife and little kid. If he is making sure that he won't be the target of any deep-pocketed legal action...that sounds pretty rational to me. Also, I've noticed that we (computer professionals here on HN, roughly) don't always think that the general public is particularly rational in their choices about computers. Perhaps most professional civil engineers have similar feelings about the public being rational in their own area of expertise?

masklinn 5y ago
> Also, I've noticed that we (computer professionals here on HN, roughly) don't always think that the general public is particularly rational in their choices about computers. Hah, how’s that for an understatement. Most devs definitely see the general public much as Joe Wilkinson sees Fabio.
MiddleEndian 5y ago
After the article about how moving the mouse around actually made Windows 95 load faster[0], and modern computers that do irritate users by changing settings on their own, I would say that engineers should probably listen to users more often. 0. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/294907-why-moving-the-mouse-in-windows-95-made-the-os-faster https://www.extremetech.com/computing/294907-why-moving-the-...
Nasrudith 5y ago
From my limited experience Civil Engineers tend to find the public frustratingly shortsighted - although that was water infastructure which yeah, is underinvested as evidenced by the lead stories, let alone the taste.

Traster 5y ago

Yeah this topic is demonstrated in the UK. Long story short the UK failed to regulate building materials, resulting in lots of buildings being clad with inappropriate materials (really long story). A building burned to the ground (Grenfell) killing people. Now there are buildings all across the country with these unsafe materials, and they need to be replaced. There's a huge argument about who should pay - the government? It's their failure to regulate. The builders? They're ultimately responsible for what they built - but would go bankrupt immediately rather than pay? Individual owners? It's their property - but the costs are enormous, and they were sold something with the expectation it would be safe. So whilst they try and determine who pays, these properties are now basically worthless, banks won't give mortgages, no one will buy them.

Chris2048 5y ago
I'd say it's the builders' fault, but the lack of capital requirements are the governments fault. The gov should cover bankrupted build firms.
- Traster 5y ago
  I very aggressively abridged that story, but the builders bought cladding material that suppliers told them conformed to the appropriate regulations. In reality the regulations weren't fit for purpose or enforced. There are questions around how aware of this they were.
Nasrudith 5y ago
Sounds like the banks are just dumb at the surface level. If they take a collateraled loan and pay you get a paid loan. If they take it and fail to pay you either get paid by the proceeds of the sale or real estate for peanuts compared to the cost basis to hold and sell for a way better rate later.