• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Sinking San Francisco building

Mr. White said:
From what I've read, current building code in SF does not require the foundation to meet bedrock. In my opinion, code should require it given that the tower is on bay fill, but it doesn't. The builder followed the code requirement for the foundation

The developers are blaming the transbay terminal construction, as they pumped millions of gallons of water out of the ground, which lowered the water table and made the ground sink.

Everything comes back to the building code.
Click to expand...
The building code isn't going to solve every construction problem, especially for the heaviest fucking building ever built there!

I don't agree that since building code allowed it, that taxpayers should be required to pay. That's just fucked up thinking! The building code wasn't created to act as a guideline (and liability for taxpayers if it isn't sufficient) for how to build building, it was created to apply a minimum standard, but the burden should be on the builders to properly design and build their building.

When you push the fucking envelope and it doesn't work out, you shouldn't be able to push your losses onto other people.
 
CoorsLight said:
Again. "I was riding within the speed limit, and I still crashed. The DOT is at fault."
Click to expand...

The foundation design was approved by the city, they would not have issued a building permit if it wasn't. It was also inspected. I'm not familiar with large scale developments like this, but I would imagine many different people at the city (or hired 3rd party inspectors) inspected the foundation. So the builder constructed the foundation to meet the approved plans, which meet current building code.

The whole point of building code is to prevent issues like this. The building code failed in this situation.
 
Mr. White said:
The foundation design was approved by the city, they would not have issued a building permit if it wasn't. It was also inspected. I'm not familiar with large scale developments like this, but I would imagine many different people at the city (or hired 3rd party inspectors) inspected the foundation. So the builder constructed the foundation to meet the approved plans, which meet current building code.

The whole point of building code is to prevent issues like this. The building code failed in this situation.
Click to expand...
Why are you trying to force the taxpayers to foot the bill? :wtf
 
Climber said:
The building code wasn't created to act as a guideline (and liability for taxpayers if it isn't sufficient) for how to build building, it was created to apply a minimum standard, but the burden should be on the builders to properly design and build their building.
Click to expand...

Seriously. If building codes are supposed to be some substitute for proficient engineering, then this is REALLY a nanny state.
 
Mr. White said:
I never said taxpayers should pay to fix the problem.
Click to expand...
The kind of thinking that you're buying into is going to accomplish exactly that if the jurors think like you do. :afm199

People need to stop buying into lawyer BS that is solely being thrown out there to shift the cost of dealing with this fuck up onto the taxpayers.

The Code was never created to solve engineering problems. Period.

That's like going back and blaming the education standards for failing in college. Just a deeply flawed logical thought process invented by lawyers.
 
Builder might have a case against the city if the city was the client. The city provided code, they didn't design the structure.
Soil samples would have been taken to determine footing design required. Designers fucked up. Building owner needs to sue them.
 
Blankpage said:
Builder might have a case against the city if the city was the client. The city provided code, they didn't design the structure.
Soil samples would have been taken to determine footing design required. Designers fucked up. Building owner needs to sue them.
Click to expand...
The designers wouldn't have the deep pockets to pay the bills that are going to come up. The city didn't select the designers, nor did they choose to not put the footings down to bedrock. Nor did the city get the profit from the project, the developers did and now they want to hang onto their profits despite having made bad decisions.
 
I bet the developer against the advice of the architect and structural engineer pushed for 1 or 2 more floors for the Penthouse major top floor $$$$. This extra weight coupled with the friction piles is taxing the design and the building is shifting and sinking.

Something like:

Engineer "Well mathematically is possible but...."

Developer "Perfect, let's do it then!"
 
Maybe the designers can sue the colleges that issued their engineering degrees, since it turns out they weren't very good engineers after all.
 
:laughing

Maybe the taxpayers can sue the engineers' parents for failing to use contraception at what has turned out to be a critical point in SF's history.
 
Climber said:
The designers wouldn't have the deep pockets to pay the bills that are going to come up. The city didn't select the designers, nor did they choose to not put the footings down to bedrock. Nor did the city get the profit from the project, the developers did and now they want to hang onto their profits despite having made bad decisions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for sure not the city's fault. The designer doesn't have deep pockets but they have to have insurance to cover such screw ups.
 
CoorsLight said:
:laughing

Maybe the taxpayers can sue the engineers' parents for failing to use contraception at what has turned out to be a critical point in SF's history.
Click to expand...

Better yet, sue the high school for not getting him them education they needed to get into a better engineering school. Someone's at fault but the ones that made the decision to build of course.
 
Blankpage said:
Yeah, for sure not the city's fault. The designer doesn't have deep pockets but they have to have insurance to cover such screw ups.
Click to expand...
The insurance company(s) will not want to pay what will likely be a $Billion fuck up, they are in the business of collecting money, not paying it out. I'll bet that a bundle of that cash that hired the lawyers to put the blame on the city came from the insurance company.
 
DTM74 said:
I guess the Engineer forgot to carry the '1' when determining the loads of the building.

Someone dropped the ball there. Foundations should extend down to bedrock (~220ft+) The foundations at Transbay and Sales Force Tower do...
Click to expand...

Right. There is no bedrock there. Believe it or not, there are some buildings where piles were driven and no "solid" soil or rock is found: they just keep driving until the engineer says stop. I worked a building in Brisbane where some piles were driven over 300ft and never hit anything but "old bay mud".

Geological reports of the area around 301 Mission show soil types 'D' & 'E':

Soil Type D - Includes some Quaternary muds, sands, gravels, silts and mud.

Soil Type E - Includes water-saturated mud and artificial fill.
 
I used to work next door and could see the giant 3 story deep hole the city excavated right next to it for the new Trans bay Terminal. One off the developer's claims is that the TBT project significantly changed the water table saturation (to keep their hole dry) and this led to some of the excess settlement.
 
SFSV650 said:
They'd have to demonstrate the building is dangerous. There's no indication as of yet that it is.

Many floors in many buildings are waaaay less plumb than y'all seem to think they are. :laughing
Click to expand...

I used to think "military precision" applied to everything in the military...till I joined and saw just how much spit, duct tape, hopes, and prayers are actually holding our vehicles and equipment together.

I'd imagine it's much the same for other professions - looks great from the outside, but if you actually work in the field you know how much of a shitshow facade is actually being presented.
 
And on the flip side to that, I think many people would be amazed at just how far off spec something can be and still function. And just how sturdy seemingly unsafe buildings can actually turn out to be sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top