• 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

Just about every Victorian house in Alameda you could probably roll a marble on the floor but they aren't high rises.
 
Cyclesuzy said:
Calling Lou out in threads is not going unnoticed by the mod core. I'd like us all to please remember that Lou is a member of the board as well and is under the same protections as the rest of us in regards to baiting and trolling. It goes both ways.
Click to expand...

So Correct I Get such pleasure, seeing your posts...
They are a study in right thinking, and that's a complex thing :thumbup
 
VicTim said:
Just about every Victorian house in Alameda you could probably roll a marble on the floor but they aren't high rises.
Click to expand...

You can roll a marble on the floor in my house (50s military housing in concord), and depending on the time of year it'll go several ways. The front of the house shifts an inch or so up or down depending on the water table. Front door fits better in the winter than it does in the summer.
 
Hahaha the last post kills it. ^^^
Yeah in theory the rolling marble doesn't prove extremely much for the tall building in SF-- and it stands for reason why disgruntled owners let months and months go by and did NOT go public with how their floors can actually roll small balls..... maybe this was a random occurrence.

Or maybe it just suddenly worsened in the past 4 months...? :rolleyes. I don't believe so but maybe we should have 10 videos of 10 condos in this case.
 
Last edited:
Climber said:
Makes me wonder what would happen to that building during a long hard earthquake when the landfill under them liquifies and has shock waves running through it.

I'm glad I don't live or work within (height of the building plus 50 feet) of this building!

Good thing it isn't that building that is within spitting distance of 80!
Click to expand...

Typically very dense sands don't liquefy during earthquakes. Also the depth of the very dense Colma sands (where the piles are founded) are working in its favor. But given the immense load of the Tower, all bets are off as the added pressure of the building can make the sands liquefy. Also, the residual soils above can liquefy which may induce more settlement/lateral movement.

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that building if a 7.0 or greater quake hit.
 
Terminal_G said:
Many people paid more than that. I have been in the very top apartment that takes up, literally, half the floor. No way that thing went for less than $12.
Click to expand...
In a large earthquake, they might quite literally get taken for a ride.
 
Change the name to Faulty Tower and call it a day....

fawlty-towers-cast.jpg
 
I was talking to a friend who was on that project back in '07 and he said that by the time they got the steel up to the 7th floor the structure was over .25" short because of construction/design issues. The iron workers had to shim it up to get it back into spec. A quarter inch may not seem like much but when you've got 51 more floors to go, it's a real problem.

He said the project was all downhill from there: lots of issues with corner-cutting, unapproved / un-permitted changes.
 
Last edited:
HeatXfer said:
I was talking to a friend who was on that project back in '07 and he said that by the time they got the steel up to the 7th floor the structure was over .25" short because of construction/design issues. The iron workers had to shim it up to get it back into spec. A quarter inch may not seem like much but when you've got 51 more floors to go, it's a real problem.

He said the project was all downhill from there: lots of issues with corner-cutting, unapproved / un-permitted changes.
Click to expand...
That's about what I'd expect from the same group that chose to not sink the piling down to bedrock to save money.

I've found that many developers in CA don't care about the long term issues with their developments, they're only concerned about things holding up long enough for them to sell all the units then to go on their merry way with a big bundle of cash.
 
Last edited:
Well, let's just hope the balconies are well maintained...
 
Blankpage said:
That trait in developers isn't unique to California
Click to expand...
Just much more extreme in CA developers than others.

I'm sick of hearing the 'both sides are the same' type arguments. It's not all black and white. I've lived in a number of places and CA developers are by far the worst I've run across in all of those places, it's not even in the same ballpark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top