7 ms·

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 instil

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.
      - CamperBob2 5y ago
        Well, that probably wasn't necessary. That's basically what home equity loans were supposed to be for, back before people started treating their houses as ATMs.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        I used mine as a way to deposit, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. Banks have been pushing hard for people to mortgage against the property gain. It is easy to blame 'people' but banks were absolutely in on this and a major driver.
        lmm 5y ago
        He had the savings available (he'd been planning on retiring the next year), so I don't think getting a loan and keeping the savings would have made him any better off.
        maxbond 5y ago
        I believe the idea is, if you secure the loan against your house, and your house is beyond repair, you can default on the loan, surrender your house, and still have your savings. Though I'm skeptical of the terms you'd get on a loan secured by a badly damaged home.
        lmm 5y ago
        Well you're out the value of your house in that case, so I don't think that leaves you any better off. A loan might let you smooth out a sudden big expense, but it's not going to make it go away.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Bur another (third?) set of engineers was also wrong, not anticipating the impact that their work to fix the situation would have on actually accelerating the problem. It seems this is a chaotic environment that may defy the ability of experts to make accurate predictions.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    > Bur another (third?) set of engineers was also wrong, not anticipating the impact that their work to fix the situation would have on actually accelerating the problem. The leaning tower of Pisa has a similar history: most attempts at straightening the tower only made it worse. I've heard this about another leaning building, also in Europe I believe, but I cannot remember where.
    - egberts1 5y ago
      Big Ben of London. https://blog.architizer.com/inspiration/collections/ten-famous-tilted-buildings/ https://blog.architizer.com/inspiration/collections/ten-famo...
      - dotancohen 5y ago
        Thank you!
  - naikrovek 5y ago
    it's almost like humans don't know everything and are still learning.
- naikrovek 5y ago
  and/or, details about the soil layer topology which weren't known when the building was built now are known.
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.

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.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      Well, that probably wasn't necessary. That's basically what home equity loans were supposed to be for, back before people started treating their houses as ATMs.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        I used mine as a way to deposit, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. Banks have been pushing hard for people to mortgage against the property gain. It is easy to blame 'people' but banks were absolutely in on this and a major driver.
      - lmm 5y ago
        He had the savings available (he'd been planning on retiring the next year), so I don't think getting a loan and keeping the savings would have made him any better off.
        maxbond 5y ago
        I believe the idea is, if you secure the loan against your house, and your house is beyond repair, you can default on the loan, surrender your house, and still have your savings. Though I'm skeptical of the terms you'd get on a loan secured by a badly damaged home.
        lmm 5y ago
        Well you're out the value of your house in that case, so I don't think that leaves you any better off. A loan might let you smooth out a sudden big expense, but it's not going to make it go away.
ineedasername 5y ago
Bur another (third?) set of engineers was also wrong, not anticipating the impact that their work to fix the situation would have on actually accelerating the problem. It seems this is a chaotic environment that may defy the ability of experts to make accurate predictions.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  > Bur another (third?) set of engineers was also wrong, not anticipating the impact that their work to fix the situation would have on actually accelerating the problem. The leaning tower of Pisa has a similar history: most attempts at straightening the tower only made it worse. I've heard this about another leaning building, also in Europe I believe, but I cannot remember where.
  - egberts1 5y ago
    Big Ben of London. https://blog.architizer.com/inspiration/collections/ten-famous-tilted-buildings/ https://blog.architizer.com/inspiration/collections/ten-famo...
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      Thank you!
- naikrovek 5y ago
  it's almost like humans don't know everything and are still learning.
naikrovek 5y ago
and/or, details about the soil layer topology which weren't known when the building was built now are known.

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.