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

61–70 of 83 posts

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

#61

Post by jonahx »

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.

I would. And as someone reading the report, even as an expert, I would want and expect the person writing it to organize it by severity, and start by pointing out any urgent items.

What advantage is there to not doing that?

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

#62

Post by content_sesh »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #55
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…

>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 ca…

They call out that it is an extremely expensive systemic issue that will need to be repaired (bullet point "b" on page 7), and the first paragraph on page 1 indicates they attached an estimate of the overall costs of necessary repair (although it does not appear to be included in this copy of the document).

What omission are you talking about?

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

#63

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

MattGaiser wrote: post #54
flexie wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quite typical from the ones I've seen (I'm not a StructE). This is actually quite alarming language for an engineering report, about one step below "imminent collapse" and "immediate evacuation".

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

#64

Post by anonuser123456 »

content_sesh wrote: post #62
anonuser123456 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ca…

They call out that it is an extremely expensive systemic issue that will need to be repaired (bullet point "b" on page 7), and the first paragraph on page 1 indicates they attached an estimate of the overall costs of necessary repair (although it does not appear to be included in this copy of the document). What omission are you talking about?

I don't think the document omitted anything; I don't believe the engineer thought the building was at risk of catastrophic collapse.

My point is that _if_ the engineer believed the building was at risk of catastrophic failure they would have stated as much.

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

#65

Post by cagey »

nielsbot wrote: post #53
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)

On the same site there is a file "email-related-2018-structural-field-survey-report.pdf" which contains/embeds the same report in searchable format, and on page 18 includes a table "ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF THE PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST" whose bottom line is

TOTAL SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $9,128,433.60

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

#66

Post by MattGaiser »

jonahx wrote: post #61
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…

> 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. I would. And as someone reading the report, even as an expert, I would want and expect the person writing it to organize it by severity, and start by pointing out any urgent items. What advantage is there to n…

In my case because I have been told a few times it is patronizing to point out the "obvious." I would prefer (but not expect) the style you discuss as well (as I am not all that comfortable with an assumed base of knowledge for documentation), but I have faced far more negative reaction to that than positive.

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

#67

Post by jonahx »

MattGaiser wrote: post #66
jonahx wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I would. And as someone reading the report, even as an expert, I would want and expect the person writing it to organize it by severity, and start by pointing out any urgent items. What advantage is there to n…

In my case because I have been told a few times it is patronizing to point out the "obvious." I would prefer (but not expect) the style you discuss as well (as I am not all that comfortable with an assumed base of knowledge for documentation), but I have faced far more negative reaction to that than positive.

That sucks. It's hard for me to imagine working with someone so insecure that they would find a convenient, hierarchical organization of report results by severity patronizing.

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

#68

Post by elliekelly »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #64
content_sesh wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They call out that it is an extremely expensive systemic issue that will need to be repaired (bullet point "b" on page 7), and the first paragraph on page 1 indicates they attached an estimate of the overall costs of necessary repair (although it does not appear to be included in this copy of the document). What omission are you talking about?

I don't think the document omitted anything; I don't believe the engineer thought the building was at risk of catastrophic collapse. My point is that _if_ the engineer believed the building was at risk of catastrophic failure they would have stated as much.

> My point is that _if_ the engineer believed the building was at risk of catastrophic failure they would have stated as much.

It seems like maybe the report author(s) did state as much when they said “major structural damage”. I don’t know anything about architecture but, for example, when an accounting firm issues an adverse audit opinion they don’t say “this company is totally screwed!” they say “these financial statements contain material and pervasive misstatements.” It sounds boring and benign to most people but it’s the CPA equivalent of a red alert.

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

#69

Post by content_sesh »

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…

I would like to know this as well.

I'm not a Civ E, but I have worked in aerospace and software and seen reports in both fields that contain warnings of potentially catastrophic problems use similar language as the report:

  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 replaced. 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.
If I get an audit of my production system and it says on page 7 "There are no database backups. Failure to take regular database backups will lead to permanent data loss in event of hard drive failure." and then two years later, the hard drive finally fails and I lose data, that's my fuckup, not the auditor's. And as others in this thread have mentioned, I don't even need to be licensed to do my job.

It takes an astounding lack of responsibility to say "well they never said the major structural deficiencies were going to cause an imminent collapse! And why was it buried on page 7, and not in bold font?"

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

cm2012 wrote: post #28
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…

Agreed. That report was absolutely not a call to urgent emergency action. The closest is a warning that the building was built wrong and will eventually need to be fixed, 2.5 pages in.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN