> it’s a reclaimed landfill!!it’s worse than they are letting the public know Yes, it uses friction piles into soil (far below the landfill) instead of down to

> it’s a reclaimed landfill!!it’s worse than they are letting the public know Yes, it uses friction piles into soil (far below the landfill) instead of down to bed rock. But this has become a not uncommon method around the world. In fact, Japan helped pioneer it in skyscrapers beginning several decades ago, albeit none as tall as the Millennium Tower. AFAIU, the Japanese experience, including across multiple severe earthquakes with post hoc analyses and in places much like San Francisco, lent it credibility wrt earthquake resilience. Clearly there's more to understand regarding failure modes and our ability to predict them, but AFAIU the choice was not eye brow raising except, perhaps, among the most conservative engineers. From what I've gathered, some engineers said they wouldn't have made the choice themselves, but none have said that choosing to do so was negligent. That's a gloss coming almost entirely from journalists, politicians, and social media commentary. And to be more precise, the issue with the Millennium Tower isn't subsidence per se[1], but asymmetric subsidence and rotation. [1] See https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Don-t-blame-the-high-rises-for-Bay-Area-s-16004643.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Don-t-...