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

Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 83 posts

Re: Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning

#51

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

mdoms wrote: post #30
anonuser123456 wrote: post #19

Having read the report, I am stopping my monthly contributions to NPR. This is straight up quote mining as far as I'm concerned. Nothing in the report would lead me to believe the structure was in imminent danger if I were a resident / board member / inspector etc. This is trash journalism. Edit: I would like to note the following for people following this story: The report author has stated: “among other things, our…

So you'd be comfortable to live in a high rise building for which an independent engineering report contained the following text? The joint sealant was observed to be beyond its useful life and are in need of complete replacement. However, the waterproofing below the Pool Deck & Entrance Drive as well as all of the planter waterproofing is beyond its useful life and therefore must all be completely removed and replac…

It's hard for me to know because I don't know what the pool deck and entrance drive supports. But I do think rushing to proclaim possible causes is not very helpful, since that information is not actionable. No harm will be done by waiting until we have higher quality information.

Re: Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning

#52

Post by [deleted] »

flexie wrote: post #38
mdoms wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you'd be comfortable to live in a high rise building for which an independent engineering report contained the following text? The joint sealant was observed to be beyond its useful life and are in need of complete replacement. However, the waterproofing below the Pool Deck & Entrance Drive as well as all of the planter waterproofing is beyond its useful life and therefore must all be completely removed and replac…

It doesn't scream "Get Out", does it? When I read those sentences as a layman, they don't tell me the building may collapse.

[deleted]

Re: Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning

#53

Post by nielsbot »

robocat wrote: post #43

Here's the report: https://www.townofsurfsidefl.gov/docs/default-source/default... Page 7 talks about the parking garage: "Abundant cracking and spalling of varying degrees was observed concrete columns, beams, and walls. Several sizeable spalls were noted in both the topside of the entrance drive ramp underside of the pool / entrance drive / planter slabs, included instances with exposed, deteriorating rebar Though…

OMG why is this not searchable text?! (Instead of pictures of the report's pages)

Re: Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning

#54

Post by MattGaiser »

flexie wrote: post #38
mdoms wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you'd be comfortable to live in a high rise building for which an independent engineering report contained the following text? The joint sealant was observed to be beyond its useful life and are in need of complete replacement. However, the waterproofing below the Pool Deck & Entrance Drive as well as all of the planter waterproofing is beyond its useful life and therefore must all be completely removed and replac…

It doesn't scream "Get Out", does it? When I read those sentences as a layman, they don't tell me the building may collapse.

I want to know if an analytical monotone is typical for these reports. Would a report like this be expected to emphasize urgency or would the reader be assumed to know that "major structural damage" means urgent?

If I were writing a report on a piece of software for my boss and I found unsanitized inputs to an SQL database, I wouldn't highlight that any more than anything else I found as he would know that was severe.

Re: Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning

#55

Post by anonuser123456 »

MattGaiser wrote: post #46
icegreentea2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrasing from the report: > The failed waterproofing is causing major structural damage to the concrete structural slab below these areas. Failure to replace the waterproofing in the near future will cause the extent of the concrete deterioration to expand exponentially. I agree that it doesn't say "it'll fall apart right this moment" (and well... it did take like 2 more years), but I would wonder why anyone woul…

I want to know if an analytical monotone is typical for these reports. Would a report like this be expected to emphasize urgency or would the reader be assumed to know that "major structural damage" means urgent? If I were writing a report on a piece of software for my boss and I found unsanitized inputs to an SQL database, I wouldn't highlight that any more than anything else I found as he would know that was severe…

>If I were writing a report on a piece of software for my boss and I found unsanitized inputs to an SQL database, I wouldn't highlight that any more than anything else I found as he would know that was severe.

Sure, but as software people we don't have a licensing body that will revoke our license to practice for such an omission. The firm and the author are likely required by their license to operate to make such call outs.

*edit: Also I would add that an engineering firm that believed the building was in imminent danger would not go forward with a project without calling that out and pricing it. They wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because they would be on the hook if the building failed.

Re: Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning

#56

Post by jonahx »

diego wrote: post #7

I'm sure every day in the US there are many, many reports of structures with damage that needs to be fixed immediately (my house was one of them). Almost all of them don't collapse. Obviously there is a problem with the credibility of the reports because of conflicting incentives. Inspectors are usually from construction companies who want to get work, so they will always find something wrong with a building. Edit: I…

Your premise:

> If thousands of daily reports warn of damage that must be fixed immediately and most are of no consequences (obviously)

is correct, but your conclusion:

> then the problem is that the reports don't accurately reflect the severity of the damage and the consequences of ignoring it.

does not follow. To put this in probabilistic terms, you need to consider the expected value of the consequences, not just the probability.

Here one of the terms in that equation is the negative cost of killing 150 people. That cost is so high that even a fractional percent chance of building collapse means that the recommendation to fix immediately is credible, correct, and does accurately reflect the consequences of ignoring it.

Re: Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning

#57

Post by mint2 »

MattGaiser wrote: post #46
icegreentea2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrasing from the report: > The failed waterproofing is causing major structural damage to the concrete structural slab below these areas. Failure to replace the waterproofing in the near future will cause the extent of the concrete deterioration to expand exponentially. I agree that it doesn't say "it'll fall apart right this moment" (and well... it did take like 2 more years), but I would wonder why anyone woul…

I want to know if an analytical monotone is typical for these reports. Would a report like this be expected to emphasize urgency or would the reader be assumed to know that "major structural damage" means urgent? If I were writing a report on a piece of software for my boss and I found unsanitized inputs to an SQL database, I wouldn't highlight that any more than anything else I found as he would know that was severe…

Yeah while I’m not a structural engineer either but as a lay person, “major structural damage” sounds highly alarming and damage increasing at an “exponential rate” sounds like a very urgent matter.

If building managers don’t take rapid action to further assess and monitor the conditions after being told that, then it sounds like willful negligence.

And if this is not the case, then I am seriously questioning how safe buildings actually are.

Btw, what happened with that brand new bridge in Florida that collapsed and killed people a couple years ago. Were there any actual consequences to those responsible?

Edit: A NYT article on what’s currently known does make it seem like the pool and garage may have been the catalysis of the collapse. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/us/miami-building-investi...

Re: Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning

#58

Post by ARandomerDude »

MattGaiser wrote: post #49
ARandomerDude wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That statement is buried on page 7 of the report, no bold text. Yet, above it on page 6 a reminder to follow OSHA-approved window washing techniques is in bold. Given the context and formatting, this warning seems more like a pro-forma CYA than anything else.

The bold is in reference to specific regulations. Everything bolded in the document is a reference to another document. So it may not be for emphasis but rather reference.

Fair. Good observation.

Re: Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning

#59

Post by Digory »

mdoms wrote: post #30
anonuser123456 wrote: post #19

Having read the report, I am stopping my monthly contributions to NPR. This is straight up quote mining as far as I'm concerned. Nothing in the report would lead me to believe the structure was in imminent danger if I were a resident / board member / inspector etc. This is trash journalism. Edit: I would like to note the following for people following this story: The report author has stated: “among other things, our…

So you'd be comfortable to live in a high rise building for which an independent engineering report contained the following text? The joint sealant was observed to be beyond its useful life and are in need of complete replacement. However, the waterproofing below the Pool Deck & Entrance Drive as well as all of the planter waterproofing is beyond its useful life and therefore must all be completely removed and replac…

From pictures, the pool deck seems to have survived the collapse; it wasn't under the towers.[0]

I wouldn't expect this paragraph to have anything to do with a tower collapsing. Pools-in-the-air (over a garage) are notoriously leaky. I read this section to say "the pool might leak if the bottom lacks structural integrity."

In no way would I think "the pool deck is holding up the towers next door."

[0] https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2021/06/24/florid...

Re: Surfside official told residents building was safe, despite engineer's warning

#60

Post by MattGaiser »

mint2 wrote: post #57
MattGaiser wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to know if an analytical monotone is typical for these reports. Would a report like this be expected to emphasize urgency or would the reader be assumed to know that "major structural damage" means urgent? If I were writing a report on a piece of software for my boss and I found unsanitized inputs to an SQL database, I wouldn't highlight that any more than anything else I found as he would know that was severe…

Yeah while I’m not a structural engineer either but as a lay person, “major structural damage” sounds highly alarming and damage increasing at an “exponential rate” sounds like a very urgent matter. If building managers don’t take rapid action to further assess and monitor the conditions after being told that, then it sounds like willful negligence. And if this is not the case, then I am seriously questioning how saf…

Wikipedia suggests that is still ongoing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_Universi...

Post reply on HN