• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Surfside Condo Collapse Update

I think all building code officials should have to go through that article. Very well put together.
 
Can't say I enjoyed watching/reading it but very interesting and great graphics. Thanks for posting link.
 
Back in those days the inspector maybe ;) stopped at the job site shack and reviewed the approved drawings before proceeding with the inspection if he had time. In todays world with I-Pads and electronic drawings in his/her hand there should never be a reason the inspector is not looking at the details while doing the inspection thus insuring it is being built as designed even if it is a bad design.
 
By focusing on the collapse process the presentation ignores what was the real reason the building collapsed.

Accepting that there were likely problems with the original design, the structure was not built as permitted, and the building departments review and inspection were likely deficient I do not believe this was the initiating cause of the collapse. Yes, a deficient building would be more likely to collapse given a certain set of conditions. But remember the building survived 40 years and experienced several hurricanes.

My theory is that the collapse was initiated as a result of the fact that the owners of the building did not maintain the building and address the well documented problems with water leaks. This resulted in deterioration of the structural strength to the point where the structure could not support normal loads.

Yes a better structural design with the building being built as designed would have delayed the collapse but even if we had a better building and the owners continued to ignore the problems the collapse would still have occurred\, just later. On the other hand if the owners had addressed the problems when they became aware of them the building would still be standing.

I propose that the board members of the Condominium Association be presented with the Darwin Award.
 
Typical. Developers build something for maximum profit, trying to cutvasvmany corners as possible. Then they sell to an investor and move on.
 
Mark K said:
By focusing on the collapse process the presentation ignores what was the real reason the building collapsed.

Accepting that there were likely problems with the original design, the structure was not built as permitted, and the building departments review and inspection were likely deficient I do not believe this was the initiating cause of the collapse. Yes, a deficient building would be more likely to collapse given a certain set of conditions. But remember the building survived 40 years and experienced several hurricanes.

My theory is that the collapse was initiated as a result of the fact that the owners of the building did not maintain the building and address the well documented problems with water leaks. This resulted in deterioration of the structural strength to the point where the structure could not support normal loads.

Yes a better structural design with the building being built as designed would have delayed the collapse but even if we had a better building and the owners continued to ignore the problems the collapse would still have occurred\, just later. On the other hand if the owners had addressed the problems when they became aware of them the building would still be standing.

I propose that the board members of the Condominium Association be presented with the Darwin Award.
Click to expand...
This building was the trifecta of bad construction.
1) Poor design & engineering oversight
2) Poor construction, not following plans/cutting corners
3) Inadequate building department oversight

When you add all three of these, this is the outcome. Yes lack of maintenance is to blame too, but it was the final blow of an already poorly constructed building.
 
In our system the building department's role is not to provide assurance for the building owners. Any director that assured the association the building was in good condition should be fired.

This could change if the building department and the building official are expected to be liable if there are problems
 
Mark K said:
In our system the building department's role is not to provide assurance for the building owners. Any director that assured the association the building was in good condition should be fired.

This could change if the building department and the building official are expected to be liable if there are problems
Click to expand...
iirc he got his pension, even though he told them it was fine when an engineers report said it wasn't. My point is the victims should not be blamed.
 
In short the victims where also the owners via the condo association and like most owners are ignorant when it comes to the complexity of maintaining a building of this size. They heard what they wanted to hear from a government employee which was "The building is safe and you don't need to spend any money at this time on the recommended repairs."
 
mtlogcabin said:
In short the victims where also the owners via the condo association and like most owners are ignorant when it comes to the complexity of maintaining a building of this size. They heard what they wanted to hear from a government employee which was "The building is safe and you don't need to spend any money at this time on the recommended repairs."
Click to expand...
Yes. And they are not to blame.
 
mtlogcabin said:
In short the victims where also the owners via the condo association and like most owners are ignorant when it comes to the complexity of maintaining a building of this size. They heard what they wanted to hear from a government employee which was "The building is safe and you don't need to spend any money at this time on the recommended repairs."
Click to expand...
I find it incredulous that a government employee told the owners that the structure was sound. Where is the proof of that?
 
jar546 said:
Because the report from the engineer was legit and they did not want to hear it so they took the word of someone else because he told them what they wanted to hear. Shopping.
Click to expand...
How would a condo owner know the engineer's report was any more legit than the director of the building department?
 
jar546 said:
Because the report from the engineer was legit and they did not want to hear it so they took the word of someone else because he told them what they wanted to hear. Shopping.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Answer shopping. I keep asking different people until someone gives me the answer I want.

Also confirmation bias. We believe this one because they are telling me what I want to hear.
 
bill1952 said:
So they took the word of someone from the building department and that was a mistake.
Click to expand...
The mistake was the building department even commenting for or against the engineers report.
There is enough culpability on this disaster for everyone, architects, engineers, building department and staff along with past and present owners and HOA boards. The owners and HOA board is probably a very small percentage compared to the others.
 
So do you think the engineer who reported the problems, the only expert since the original design and construction, should have done anymore than just deliver their report to the owners? I don't know timeline but on those occasions I've done inspections, if the entity I did it for and reported to choses to ignore my serious safety concerns, I start up the chain. (And if I don't get near immediate action to chained, bolted, blocked egress doors anywhere - cinemas and convention centers usually, I go to the fire department!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top