Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Millennium Tower is tilting, sinking

sf.curbed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 187 posts

Re: Millennium Tower is tilting, sinking

#161

Post by _Codemonkeyism »

EliRivers wrote: post #152
WalterBright wrote: post #7

My house is on a steep hill, and Seattle has a reputation for hills sliding away under heavy rain. Before building it, I hired 3 separate geologists to evaluate the site. After digging holes, they said the site was sitting on "glacial till", which is clay that was compacted by about a mile of ice, and said there was nothing to worry about. Paying them was worth it for the peace of mind. (Turns out the till was so har…

Tangentially related, I have a chum who used to work for the UK's Environment Agency. As some may have noticed, the UK seems to be suffering flooding more than it used to. Part of his job was to speak at town halls and village church halls and the like during and after flooding. He'd take a backup man with him whose job was to sit in the car outside with the engine running. So he'd turn up at a newly built settlement…

Same here in Germany, people build in "big blue sections" because the nature is nice and the land is cheap, then they get flooded.

Re: Millennium Tower is tilting, sinking

#162

Post by chillydawg »

jordanlev wrote: post #110

> While the Millennium Tower’s sinkage into the earth is reportedly not a safety issue for residents, it does pose a problem for investors. This is confusing to me -- if it's not a safety issue, then why is it a problem?

Given the choice between two identical apartments in two buildings, one of which is rated "safe" but is tilting, you'd prefer the non-tilting one. I definitely would. Bollocks to the safety rating, I want my building straight and not sinking, please!

Re: Millennium Tower is tilting, sinking

#163

Post by irq11 »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #136
omegaworks wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...And allowing them to pass on 100% of the cost to their renters.

The fact that they're not able to pass 100% of the cost of whatever capital improvements they feel like on to their renters is part of a massive wealth transfer from landlords to long-established tenants. In other circumstances I'd accuse that of deterring investment and being a contributor to the terrible housing situation in the Bay Area in general, but honestly, the zoning / planning-permit situation is the first…

Instead of "massive wealth transfer", I think you meant to write "slight dent in disgustingly fat profit margins", because - just based on aggregate metrics - most landlords are making a stone-cold killing in this market.

Indeed, let's all shed a tear for the SF landlord. I don't know how those poor folks can stay in business when property taxes are capped and median rent rises at ten times the rate of inflation!

Re: Millennium Tower is tilting, sinking

#164

Post by vonmoltke »

205guy wrote: post #105
vonmoltke wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you think landlords should operate at a loss for the benefit of their tenants?

So you think that capital investments (in this case property) should have zero risk, in other words guaranteed returns?

I didn't say anything about zero risk. As the sibling comment indicates, if the cost is too high tenants will refuse to pay it by not renting the place. How long it takes the landlord to recoup the costs will depend on the local market for rentals.

Re: Millennium Tower is tilting, sinking

#165

Post by vonmoltke »

omegaworks wrote: post #113
vonmoltke wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you think landlords should operate at a loss for the benefit of their tenants?

Not at all. I do, however, feel there should be some incentive for him to shop around for a good price.

Landlords may be the only group outside of government who is notorious for always going with the lowest bidder for jobs. A landlord who doesn't shop around for everything isn't going to be in the real estate business for very long.

Re: Millennium Tower is tilting, sinking

#166

Post by tim333 »

neffy wrote: post #157
EliRivers wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangentially related, I have a chum who used to work for the UK's Environment Agency. As some may have noticed, the UK seems to be suffering flooding more than it used to. Part of his job was to speak at town halls and village church halls and the like during and after flooding. He'd take a backup man with him whose job was to sit in the car outside with the engine running. So he'd turn up at a newly built settlement…

Growing up in London, I remember reading at a young and impressionable age the sage advice to never buy property built on streets called Marsh Lane, and similar, so it's not a new problem. Geography would be a lot more interesting as a school subject if they taught this kind of stuff - although I rather fear for the results when the kids got home to explain it all to their parents.

Looks like you would have actually done ok on Marsh Lane NW7 http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/NW7/Marsh-Lane.html

Re: Millennium Tower is tilting, sinking

#167

Post by theoh »

whyenot wrote: post #101
wahern wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the Outer Richmond district of San Francisco, which was built on sand dunes. Most houses in my neighborhood were built in the 1920s and 1930s, +/- a decade. I was told by a contractor that it's extremely common for houses to have shifted considerably, sometimes by several feet. Mine certainly has, though not nearly that bad. Most of the houses are built on concrete foundation walls that go about 3 feet into…

I lived in SF's Inner Sunset for several years. When the old DeYoung museum was demolished and all the landscaping scraped away, the "soil" underneath was pure sand. I noticed the same thing at my home a few blocks away -- the city had to dig a trench in the street and after they got down a few feet, there was no soil, just beautiful beach sand. A little disconcerting with SF's earthquake history.

Aha!

"In Paris, the famous phrase Sous les pavés, la plage! ("under the cobblestones, the beach") was used by the May 1968 protesters to mean that it was possible to escape from a regimented life."

http://www.ruerude.com/2010/05/sous-les-pavés-la-plage.html

Re: Millennium Tower is tilting, sinking

#168

Post by webXL »

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #161
EliRivers wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangentially related, I have a chum who used to work for the UK's Environment Agency. As some may have noticed, the UK seems to be suffering flooding more than it used to. Part of his job was to speak at town halls and village church halls and the like during and after flooding. He'd take a backup man with him whose job was to sit in the car outside with the engine running. So he'd turn up at a newly built settlement…

Same here in Germany, people build in "big blue sections" because the nature is nice and the land is cheap, then they get flooded.

And don't forget to throw in some insurance, aka moral hazard.

Re: Millennium Tower is tilting, sinking

#170

Post by Gracana »

jonathankoren wrote: post #86
helmett wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the engineers ran the calculations and deemed it 'safe enough'

Or some investor did.

Investors will always want things cheaper, and they don't understand engineering. The responsibility of ensuring that the design is safe falls on the engineer who stamped the drawing. Situations like this are covered in engineering ethics classes, which most civil engineers in the US would have taken.
Post reply on HN