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

Miami orders evacuation of 156-unit as structurally and electrically unsafe

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: Miami orders evacuation of 156-unit as structurally and electrically unsafe

#71

Post by yomly »

dheera wrote: post #65
gumby wrote: post #57

> found that the 156-unit Crestview Towers had been deemed structurally and electrically unsafe in January Found unsafe but still inhabited until another building collapsed. Yet more third world conditions in the USA.

I imagine that due to simple laws of increasing entropy, any structure will eventually collapse, it's just a question of when, not if. What do people normally do to check if a building is facing a possibility of collapse in the near future? I don't think I've seen anyone poking around at most buildings I've occupied before to check for structural integrity.

While over any time frame a building will eventually collapse it's worth recalling that in europe many of the buildings are substantially older than those in the US.

I foresee collapsing buildings becoming more and more of an issue for fast erected buildings from the past 50 or so years

Slightly an aside but I believe that is part of the reason why leases in Singapore are often 99 years - because the government doesn't plan for them to last beyond then

Re: Miami orders evacuation of 156-unit as structurally and electrically unsafe

#72

Post by mortenjorck »

dheera wrote: post #65
gumby wrote: post #57

> found that the 156-unit Crestview Towers had been deemed structurally and electrically unsafe in January Found unsafe but still inhabited until another building collapsed. Yet more third world conditions in the USA.

I imagine that due to simple laws of increasing entropy, any structure will eventually collapse, it's just a question of when, not if. What do people normally do to check if a building is facing a possibility of collapse in the near future? I don't think I've seen anyone poking around at most buildings I've occupied before to check for structural integrity.

The best practice is to perform industry-standard inspections every few years such that the possibility of an actual collapse is logarithmically less likely than a prolonged FAANG outage, but it would appear that state guidelines in Florida do not mandate this level of due diligence.

Re: Miami orders evacuation of 156-unit as structurally and electrically unsafe

#73

Post by WalterBright »

lordnacho wrote: post #62
WalterBright wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The building was communally owned by its residents, and they squabbled for years about allocating money for the repairs. All economic systems begin and end with the lament "if only we had more money, we could do it right."

I think the idea is that the market is supposed to work by the principals having good information about their situation and thus being to choose the best decisions. That's at least my one line summary. In this case it's hard to say someone else was to blame, because the principals had mostly not delegated the decision, they were literally deciding with their own lives at stake. If it were some principal agent problem…

> questioning how useful it really is for people to decide these things themselves.

I suggest putting this into context of all the buildings in the US. This is an exceedingly rare event. Perhaps the very fact that buildings are so safe in the US lulled the residents into a false sense of security.

For example, when an earthquake hits a third world city, half the city falls down. When an earthquake hits a US city, the damage is light.

I remember the Nisqually quake here 20 years ago. The ground was rocking and rolling making it risky to walk, poles were swinging, and buildings were swaying. But there was very little damage.

Back in the 80's I was in Tokyo and woke up to an earthquake. I mentioned it at work the next day, and the reaction of the workers there was "so what".

Re: Miami orders evacuation of 156-unit as structurally and electrically unsafe

#74

Post by scoopertrooper »

lordnacho wrote: post #62
WalterBright wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The building was communally owned by its residents, and they squabbled for years about allocating money for the repairs. All economic systems begin and end with the lament "if only we had more money, we could do it right."

I think the idea is that the market is supposed to work by the principals having good information about their situation and thus being to choose the best decisions. That's at least my one line summary. In this case it's hard to say someone else was to blame, because the principals had mostly not delegated the decision, they were literally deciding with their own lives at stake. If it were some principal agent problem…

Maybe no system results in the best possible outcome every time? Government owned bridges have collapsed because warnings were ignored. Privately owned apartments collapsed because warnings were ignored.

The common factor here is that the warnings were ignored by humans. Creatures that reached the peak of their evolution on the plains of Africa.

Whilst masters of the earth, our cognition just isn’t tuned to dealing with low-probability high-consequence events that may occur on a time scale outside our life spans.

Re: Miami orders evacuation of 156-unit as structurally and electrically unsafe

#75

Post by shusaku »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #10

North Miami Beach commissioner Fortuna Smukler ... said authorities were working to help the evacuated residents find places to go. There may not be anywhere for them to go. Right now, FL rental ads are getting 400 applicants per day per property - and there aren't many new ads. source: I'm a FL renter whose rental is being sold.

The Washington Post article in this talks about them contacting homeless shelters.

> The city is working with Red Cross and a local homelessness organization to house those unable to find other shelter.

> She said the 156-unit complex was occupied primarily by Latino residents, some of whom were very elderly. “They’re crying, they’re afraid for their future, afraid about what to do with the furniture,” she said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/07/02/crestview-n...

This seems unnecessarily cruel

Re: Miami orders evacuation of 156-unit as structurally and electrically unsafe

#76

Post by bellyfullofbac »

dheera wrote: post #66
x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the same as it is in IT. Risk management and disaster prevention requires money, which people rarely want to spend. Boards for condos are elected, and they try to keep costs low. No one is going to elect someone who says the building should spend millions to prevent a collapse that they feel is theoretical.

And in healthcare. Doctors always shoo me away when I show warning signs. They're not interested in getting to the bottom of warning signs. They'd rather wait until shit happens before they're interested in taking my money and solving it. Oh and in a system where health insurance really cared about prevention, they'd pay for everyone's gym memberships.

Hah, nowadays there are mask mandates (more in Europe rather than in the Land of the Free). Makes me wonder what the world would be like with gym attendance mandates, or 10000 steps-a-day mandates.

Re: Miami orders evacuation of 156-unit as structurally and electrically unsafe

#77

Post by mcny »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #64
megablast wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want to pay higher taxes? You are in the minority.

Actually, I want the people that make more than me to pay their fair share. That alone would pay for pretty much everything the U.S. needs.

I am ok with it as long as the people with more money than me cannot simply create/find loopholes that allows them not to pay. The main argument against higher taxes to me is it becomes very easy for "them" to allocate a small portion of their vast wealths into creating more loopholes.

I can't believe we don't have any successful politicians who campaign on the promise of higher taxes and an end to all credits, deductions, and exclusions for everyone. It feels like it isn't sellable at all.

Re: Miami orders evacuation of 156-unit as structurally and electrically unsafe

#78

Post by MattGaiser »

nickff wrote: post #70
dheera wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in healthcare. Doctors always shoo me away when I show warning signs. They're not interested in getting to the bottom of warning signs. They'd rather wait until shit happens before they're interested in taking my money and solving it. Oh and in a system where health insurance really cared about prevention, they'd pay for everyone's gym memberships.

The problem with paying for gym memberships is that the marginal gym member won’t actually attend.

I would be interested in that question. Would free gym actually change the amount of exercise being done? I suspect not.

Re: Miami orders evacuation of 156-unit as structurally and electrically unsafe

#79

Post by axiosgunnar »

yomly wrote: post #71
dheera wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine that due to simple laws of increasing entropy, any structure will eventually collapse, it's just a question of when, not if. What do people normally do to check if a building is facing a possibility of collapse in the near future? I don't think I've seen anyone poking around at most buildings I've occupied before to check for structural integrity.

While over any time frame a building will eventually collapse it's worth recalling that in europe many of the buildings are substantially older than those in the US. I foresee collapsing buildings becoming more and more of an issue for fast erected buildings from the past 50 or so years Slightly an aside but I believe that is part of the reason why leases in Singapore are often 99 years - because the government doesn…

Who is „them“ referring to?

Re: Miami orders evacuation of 156-unit as structurally and electrically unsafe

#80

Post by bingidingi »

megablast wrote: post #40
profmonocle wrote: post #32

I live in Minneapolis. Back in 2007 the I-35W bridge collapsed, killing 13 people. Engineers had previously reported that the bridge had structural problems. And once the collapse became national headlines news, bridges nationwide were given special attention. It shouldn't take horrific accidents for us to suddenly decide to care about structural safety.

So you want to pay higher taxes? You are in the minority.

I would be happy to pay more taxes. I’d pay more on taxes than I currently do in insurance premiums to get everyone healthcare (though it seems likely I’d end up paying less).
Post reply on HN