How long is a structure supposed to stand without any maintenance? Clearly it had some integrity because it survived for 40 years and through several hurricanes. Are the designers and builders on the hook for eternity?
In all the lawsuits who are the defendants? HOAs are comprised of the tenants. Who pays in these cases? Tenants can't get money from themselves.
They will sue anyone tangentially associated with inspecting and making recommendations about the building as well. I'm sure a major line of attack will be that the urgency was not appropriately communicated to the HOA or that the inspections were negligent and missed critical faults that should have been identified.In all the lawsuits who are the defendants? HOAs are comprised of the tenants. Who pays in these cases? Tenants can't get money from themselves.
The survivors are fighting each other tooth and nail over what to do. Some are demanding it be rebuilt as soon as possible so they can move back in. Others want a park or memorial on the site.There is going to be an insurance plan plus I doubt any are going to want to live on the same land run by the same condo association. The land could be sold.
That was a really cool link, thanks for posting.I haven't read it yet, but the New York Times has posted its investigation of the collapse:
The contractors also didn't adhere strictly to the original design plans. Usually in these types of catastrophic disasters, it'll be a chain of failures and the NYT points out the evidence so far. It doesn't make any firm conclusions, which is what NIST is working on and will take a long time.Sounds like there were defects in the original design.
Yeah, I think the drainage issue was on the construction contractor.The contractors also didn't adhere strictly to the original design plans. Usually in these types of catastrophic disasters, it'll be a chain of failures and the NYT points out the evidence so far. It doesn't make any firm conclusions, which is what NIST is working on and will take a long time.
If Twitter doesn't allow you to read the article, I can gift the interactive article here and I think everyone can access it freely. The Twitter thread captured a fair portion.
Saw a story on NBC network news last night about the Surfside collapse . They interviewed 3 female survivors. I think mother and two daughters. They barely made it out alive. The father didn't. Their condo was on the 9th floor and they fell 5 levels to the 4th floor and survived. They showed really bad scaring on one of the girl's legs where they repaired a broken femur. The interview was very emotional and unusual. The distraught mother explained that you just don't expect your building to collapse. She said she was just screaming "run, run, run!!!" One of the girls just said that she couldn't begin to explain what it was like. The PTSD was just monumental.Sounding like such a complicted multi-causal disaster at this point. Maybe a bit cold of me to think of it this way, but I'm intellectually really intrigued now as to what the explanation will turn out to be. Hopefully the investigation will be thorough?
Sounds quite similar to the Grenfell disaster, in how many different things may have contributed to it.
Sounds like there were defects in the original design.
Wait, there were actual survivors besides a teenage boy?!Saw a story on NBC network news last night about the Surfside collapse . They interviewed 3 female survivors. I think mother and two daughters. They barely made it out alive. The father didn't. Their condo was on the 9th floor and they fell 5 levels to the 4th floor and survived. They showed really bad scaring on one of the girl's legs where they repaired a broken femur. The interview was very emotional and unusual. The distraught mother explained that you just don't expect your building to collapse. She said she was just screaming "run, run, run!!!" One of the girls just said that she couldn't begin to explain what it was like. The PTSD was just monumental.
I'll gift the NYT interactive article here in case you want to get past the paywall:
The Surfside Condo Was Flawed and Failing. Here’s a Look Inside. (Published 2021)
A Times investigation shows how faulty design and construction could have contributed to the collapse of the building in South Florida.www.nytimes.com
Wait, there were actual survivors besides a teenage boy?!
i posted a video in the OT thread. the yt channel covers the collapse and did a full structural analysis. there was a revision of the original plans concerning the garage and a transition was removed for esthetic reasons, but they also removed some beams that were under the planter tubs for the above landscaping (trees and bushes). the live/dynamic loads from cars driving over wasnt accounted for so a bunch of supports were already at max loading.I don't doubt there were defects but I'm not sure how much the original engineer and contractor can be blamed for this. A building that is 40 years old just doesn't collapse suddenly because the original design was faulty.
My guess is the primary cause of collapse is modifications/alterations plus ignoring the warning signs. It seems like the structure exhibited plenty evidence of distress or issues but those problems were minimized or neglected.
Regardless, anyone that has liability insurance that had anything to do with this building is about to get sucked into the mess.
i came across this channel a few weeks ago. they cover the collapse and the engineering issues over a dozen videos or so. they pulled the filed plans and did a structural engineering review. he seems to have zeroed in on a key issue with the 'as built'. (tldr: some column/sections were at 100% load, live load wasnt addressed, beams under planters were removed.) beware highly technical.
i posted a video in the OT thread. the yt channel covers the collapse and did a full structural analysis. there was a revision of the original plans concerning the garage and a transition was removed for esthetic reasons, but they also removed some beams that were under the planter tubs for the above landscaping (trees and bushes). the live/dynamic loads from cars driving over wasnt accounted for so a bunch of supports were already at max loading.
whoever did the revision is absolutely liable.
there are always going to be more contributing factors to the failure of the building(maintenance, inspector review, weather, building materials used, etc) but if it started out with 100% loads and then someone removed the beams from the as-built, all those other factors are going to pale in comparison when it comes to the jury.I don't know the full history of the building.
The original engineer is only responsible for the loading conditions and building code at the time of design. If the loads (dead, live, etc.) were underestimated or the revisions during construction affected the structural integrity, then yes, he is liable.
The point is structural engineers can't be responsible for changes/modifications/additions by others after the fact if the loading condition is drastically different as long as the original design met the load requirements of the applicable building code in effect at the time.
[EDIT] The video was excellent. I don't disagree with any of his analysis but I'm not sure all the fault lies with the original designers.