121–130 of 160 posts
Flipping it around, that due diligence can also result in amazing deals on places that non-engineers are too afraid to touch.
IMHO they make no sense and only seem to exist because either broken local economies or people getting unhealthy obsessed with showing power. I.e. both things which should be fixed without sky scrapers.
I mean sure "small" sky scrapers can make sense but there is a point where the additional cost and safety problems just by far outweigh any real benefits I believe.
I mean (ignoring ground price) it's as far as I know much cheaper to build two 100m sky scrapers then building a single 200m sky scraper.
So I would always prefer a view high but not supper high buildings over one or two super high buildings.
I mean the moment it's no longer rentable to put (non super high end) apartments into most floors of a building it IMHO should generally not be build.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Talking to the constructors it is normal for architects to specify the impossible If the drawings are indeed for regulators, then architects should be sued when they prove to be impossible impossible. Failing that, we should get rid of architects to begin with (if they draw impossible things, what good are they?), and have actual engineers draw something that can actually be built. (Of course, the engineer should r…
When we built, we had both, an architect and a construction engineer. The architect was a necessity to send plans for approval (you need a permission to hand in these plans, and an official stamp, both of which our engineer didn't have anymore since he was retired). Besides that, the architect was a complete waste of money. Unable to properly use his CAD software, made a ton planning mistakes. These mistakes had to b…
That's the problem I was trying to point at: you need to pay someone useless for the sake of bureaucracy. How is this not insane?
> Both, architects and engineers are liable for their designs so over here. Reason why the stamp is so important and expensive, you need quite a pricey insurance for that.
Ah, insurance: the reason why they're allowed to suck, and still be in business. That's not right. If the design is wrong, and it has consequences, whoever approved it should be personally liable for it, at least to a significant extent. A sufficiently serious blunder should bar them from approving designing buildings, or at least approving building designs, ever again. As should repeat offences.
Perhaps that's already the case, but the anecdotal evidence I amassed thus far (in France) doesn't isn't encouraging.
My first house was a condo in a building which had been built about ~2 years before I moved in; I joined the board as the developer was transitioning out and handing over responsibility to the tenants. This sounds exactly like what happened with us, just on a grander scale. Things like the post-tensioned concrete construction where the steel post-tensioner cables were left exposed to the elements, severe life-safety…
Buy old and renovate has been something I’ve been told by various people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Talking to the constructors it is normal for architects to specify the impossible If the drawings are indeed for regulators, then architects should be sued when they prove to be impossible impossible. Failing that, we should get rid of architects to begin with (if they draw impossible things, what good are they?), and have actual engineers draw something that can actually be built. (Of course, the engineer should r…
Calling someone an ‘engineer’ doesn’t make them magically a more practical person. I’ve been on the contractor’s side in arguments with structural engineers where they’ve designed details that were literally impossible to weld.
Does that mean we'd suddenly have a serious lack of engineer? Perhaps. That's only true to the extent that we already lack capable engineers now. It'd just be more visible.
I for one would like to be liable for my programming work (at least the part for which I'm paid). I could at least say to my boss "sorry, I can't risk approving that, we need more tests/refactoring for such and such part for such and such reason".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can make a living in organized crime. You can make a living polluting the environment. You can make a living defending corruption, helping the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. The problems of the wealthy are as the problems of a tick sucking the lifeblood from a host. Rest assured that extending them empathy and compassion will be a strictly one-sided arrangement when push comes to shove.
I've worked with and lived around both poor and relatively rich people, but I can't say that the rich stand out as lacking empathy or compassion specifically. From my experience I would say the opposite is true, creating "anti network-effects" for many poor people. There seems to be growing resentment of "the rich" recently, but I believe that's misplaced. Things will get worse for "the poor" until the cause is diagn…
Anecdotally my experience aligns with the findings in the studies - my richer friends seem far less likely to tip well or give money to a panhandler than my poorer friends who tend to be more inclined to share the wealth, when they have it.
[0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduce...
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01973533.2018.14...
My first house was a condo in a building which had been built about ~2 years before I moved in; I joined the board as the developer was transitioning out and handing over responsibility to the tenants. This sounds exactly like what happened with us, just on a grander scale. Things like the post-tensioned concrete construction where the steel post-tensioner cables were left exposed to the elements, severe life-safety…
The only time I saw the two owners was when I started and when the take me out to lunch when they abruptly (but not unexpectedly) let me go.
At that meal one of the two was really excited about a new project: some turn-key restaurant idea, and how he'd only hire "hot waitresses".
> Initial findings showed that 73 percent of mechanical, electrical and plumbing components observed failed to conform with the developers’ drawings How is that even legal? Let alone technically possible? How does construction of these monsters work? "Yo, Bert, I need some 5x5 high-elastic steel framing for the 72th floor!" "Sorry man, we ran out of that when we 'redesigned' the elevator shaft, how about you take thi…
It's not legal.
I work in an industry that monitors such things and recommends Banks/Lenders not pay if/when these discrepancies arise (Construction Risk Management).
The appropriate party will make revisions and then prove that that change won't affect the overall project.
> Let alone technically possible?
On larger projects, Subcontractors of Subcontractors of Subcontractors can become lazy, use materials not rated for their intended use, someone doesn't double check it since they're lazy, clicks a checkbox and calls it done; out of sight out of mind.
> How does construction of these monsters work?
Preconstruction Due Diligence, Funding via Banks, Approval/Contract Signing, Mobilization to Site, Construction of Building, Final Inspections & Warranties transfered, a Certificate of Occupancy issued, and people move in.
With mega projects, you have so many moving parts that something will fall through the cracks. Some material got substituted, the pent house staircase dimensions are 2-inches off creating a variance approval, but that dimension now affects the elevator machine room, they used Cast Iron Pipe on Floors 1-10 then PVC at 11-40 and there's issues at the different pipe connections; it just cascades. This is the main reason I also work in Building Information Modeling (BIM) to mitigate such problems.
The whole point of my industry is to act as a third party between the Developer & Bank/Lender, opine on the Preconstruction Documents (Contracts, Geotech, Budget, Schedule), document the Construction each month via photos, attend Meetings, review the application for payment, and flag the bank when something changes (No Energy Star appliances suddenly? Variance? Certain brand of vinyl flooring stock low so substitute it with vinyl tile? Change Orders about to deplete the Contingency?)
It becomes such an undertaking after a certain budget size or apartment unit amount. Eventually, people get stretched thing or get lazy, they're over budget, they've gone way past their scheduled completion date and just don't care since their next project is starting up and Permits are taking way longer to get; just happens.
Hope this gives a little perspective.
Why do we even build (high) sky scrapers? IMHO they make no sense and only seem to exist because either broken local economies or people getting unhealthy obsessed with showing power. I.e. both things which should be fixed without sky scrapers. I mean sure "small" sky scrapers can make sense but there is a point where the additional cost and safety problems just by far outweigh any real benefits I believe. I mean (ig…
Why do we even build (high) sky scrapers? IMHO they make no sense and only seem to exist because either broken local economies or people getting unhealthy obsessed with showing power. I.e. both things which should be fixed without sky scrapers. I mean sure "small" sky scrapers can make sense but there is a point where the additional cost and safety problems just by far outweigh any real benefits I believe. I mean (ig…
I’m seeing you fall into a common fallacy when discussing buildings. “Two buildings are cheaper than one” - sure, if you ignore the land, and all the processes of zoning, permitting, and construction management. If you want to understand all this better, start learning about those!
First I explicitly excluded the ground price so it should be obvious that I'm well aware of it.
Second if zoning and permitting make it more economical to build buildings which on itself are fundamentally problematic than maybe zoning and permitting needs to be changed.
Besides that the cost of construction management for one large building compared to multiple smaller buildings(1) should be larger because of additional requirements for material verification etc. due to having stricter requirements to materials and material quality which you simply don't have on smaller buildings. And sure as we can see from quite a bunch of (often by now older) sky scrapers the additional requirements where sometimes just ignored now leading to problems left and right.
EDIT: Just to be clear if you make it multiple projects instead of one it can very well be more expensive. But building multiple smaller (but not small) houses as one project using mostly the same blueprints for all of them, using the same contractors, same workers etc. is altogether a different matter.
EDIT2: The main drawback besides things like ground cost is the cost of creating a multiple fundaments. In turn simpler fundaments can normally be build but the cost can largely vary depending on the ground you are building on (like stability of the ground, ground water level etc.).