4 dead, 159 missing in Miami building collapse

[DGuller]

Florida buildings codes are actually pretty stringent and strongly enforced, as a result of Hurricane Andrew.  During the hurricane, you could see some blocks completely demolished, and others largely standing, merely because different blocks were built by different contractors.  However, this condo building was built a decade before Andrew, so it may well have suffered from things that later building codes were attempting to fix.

[Monoriu]

At the very least, there should be emergency checks on similar buildings, i.e. buildings in the same area, built by the same contractor, with similar designs etc. 

[The Brain]

At the very least, there should be emergency checks on similar buildings, i.e. buildings in the same area, built by the same contractor, with similar designs etc.

Exactly.

[viper37]

How many other buildings are at risk, and what measures are being taken regarding those?

It's Florida, so almost all buildings are at risk of subsidence and collapse.

There are no building codes?

That socialism!

[viper37]

At the very least, there should be emergency checks on similar buildings, i.e. buildings in the same area, built by the same contractor, with similar designs etc. 

It's possibly a sinkhole that happened right under the building.  Or it wasn't build on solid ground to begin with and it was only a matter of time before something like this would happen.

Global warming means rising sea levels means more erosion means increased risk of sinkholes and soil degradation for near-water properties like these.  since it's totally anti-american to do anything about it, they'll adapt.

[Valmy]

How many other buildings are at risk, and what measures are being taken regarding those?

It's Florida, so almost all buildings are at risk of subsidence and collapse.

There are no building codes?

That socialism!

When we do socialism we don't call it socialism. We call it following the rules.

Unless we don't like the rules, then they are regulations.

[Jacob]

Is there a way to move the the related posts from the OT thread?  I didn't realize how bad the situation was when I first started a discussion there, it looked like a facade peeled away.

Done

[Berkut]

That video is terrifying.

We are all going to be making jokes about socialism, but does anyone remember that Joe Rogan podcast where he was talking to some moron righttard about regulations, and the guy was bitching at how many regulations there are around buildings and how stupid it all is, and how the market can just handle that?

Good times.

[Valmy]

That video is terrifying.

We are all going to be making jokes about socialism, but does anyone remember that Joe Rogan podcast where he was talking to some moron righttard about regulations, and the guy was bitching at how many regulations there are around buildings and how stupid it all is, and how the market can just handle that?

Good times.

I respect the market plenty but it is not as magical as eyepatch guy seems to think it is. It is very good at efficiently distributing resources but sometimes efficiency is not the only concern, hence why we need socialism communist central planning regulations.

The building probably should have been condemned, but doing inspections and condemning buildings is a pretty pricey proposition for a city government. But a total disaster can do wonders for politicians suddenly finding the political will, as I am finding out here in Texas.

[DGuller]

I wonder how tightly regulated a lot of modern day construction is.  I live in a new highrise constructed three years ago, and it seems clear to me that a lot of corners have been cut.  I don't know if any of these corners are of the "keep the building from falling down at some point" type, but I don't doubt that my landlord would cut that type of corner if he knew that the building inspector would be counting cash in his briefcase that day rather than doing his job.  The scary things is that this corner cutting may take many decades to surface, if it relates to resistance to elements over time.

[mongers]

I wonder how tightly regulated a lot of modern day construction is.  I live in a new highrise constructed three years ago, and it seems clear to me that a lot of corners have been cut.  I don't know if any of these corners are of the "keep the building from falling down at some point" type, but I don't doubt that my landlord would cut that type of corner if he knew that the building inspector would be counting cash in his briefcase that day rather than doing his job.  The scary things is that this corner cutting may take many decades to surface, if it relates to resistance to elements over time.

This could be America's 'Grenfell Tower' moment; I wonder if it'll be dealt with as well as we're handling our buildings problem?

[Sheilbh]

I wonder how tightly regulated a lot of modern day construction is.  I live in a new highrise constructed three years ago, and it seems clear to me that a lot of corners have been cut.  I don't know if any of these corners are of the "keep the building from falling down at some point" type, but I don't doubt that my landlord would cut that type of corner if he knew that the building inspector would be counting cash in his briefcase that day rather than doing his job.  The scary things is that this corner cutting may take many decades to surface, if it relates to resistance to elements over time.

In the UK with Grenfell - which is still being resolved - a big issue is that it's basically self-regulation and the nature of the industry. I really think construction needs tight, external regulation (but that costs money so....).

So with flammable cladding here the rule was that cladding can only be of "limited compustibility" which broadly meant you needed to get a compustibility grade of "A2" or better and there's a formal standard testing it. BUT local officials don't do building inspections any more and there's no single government regulator - rather companies are approved as "approved inspectors" and hired as a contractor, normally by the person paying for construction. Plus the key underlying thing is to build a safe building and there aren't detailed, regularly updated with best practice, technical regulations. So there's lots of industry bodies issuing advice on what that looks like instead - they sort of fill in the technical detail.

So for example on cladding in particular the industry guidance says that only using the A2 grade cladding is a route to compliance, but there's other options like if you get bespoke fire test for your cladding design that can be certified by a fire inspector even if the individual components would normally be allowed, or (cheaper still!) you commission a "desktop study". So basically you go to a fire inspector who has done multiple different fire tests of different designs and get them to say "based on the results in my experience" this cladding is safe without actually testing it.

And there was even an industry body (the National House Building Council) that issued guidance saying you didn't even need a desktop study. They basically said on the basis of their review of tests and desktop studies other materials were safe. When what the desktop studies and fire tests can legitimately test is whether specific designs for using those unsafe/sub-A2 materials were safe - for example if you build in enough gaps to stop fire spreading or include some A2 sections to block it - instead they've extrapolated to say the materials themselves are safe.

No idea if it's the same in the US - but I do not trust our regulations and I don't trust the construction industry to self-regulate. I think the cost pressures and the contracting model make it particularly vulnerable and risky for that sort of thing. I am thinking of looking to buy a flat in the next few years and I don't even look at new-builds or anything built since the 70s because I just don't trust them. There's a big fight over the cost of removing cladding from buildings here (4 years after Grenfell) but I also know that some banks won't give you a mortgage for buildings with certain types of cladding - so I just avoid looking at that entire market because I worry that I couldn't sell it because it's become unmortgageable so I'd be trapped in an unsafe flat

The footage from Florida is really awful though and, as you say, given the risks in Florida I would expect them to be pretty strict on this stuff.

Edit: And with construction specifically I think the very strong contracting/sub-contracting model is really good for managing risk from a financial perspective - and possibly even project management - but I'm not convinced it doesn't actually increase the risk around the construction itself.

[viper37]

the guy was bitching at how many regulations there are around buildings and how stupid it all is, and how the market can just handle that?

Good times.

According to Dguller, the new Florida building code is much more stringent and heavily enforced.  What's left to see is if such buildings, pre-dating the code, should be investigated.

It's not the first time I see images of building with a crater underneath it, or just beside it, but usually, it's only single-houses, so much less people per square feet.

It's terrible, but I am unsure if the problem can be fixed before another incident like this happens.  The government should be footing the bill to repair older buildings to bring up to current norms, but if we're talking about solidifying foundations, it's not gonna be easy and it will involve a lot of billions$.  Not sure the Floridian voters will agree to pay a lot more in taxes to finance that.

[viper37]

The building probably should have been condemned, but doing inspections and condemning buildings is a pretty pricey proposition for a city government. But a total disaster can do wonders for politicians suddenly finding the political will, as I am finding out here in Texas.

lots of beach front properties in Florida should be condemned, I suppose.  I am unsure that moving in the swampy center will be ideal either.

Ok, honestly, if it is, as I think, a sinkhole problem, I am at a loss of how to repair the damages done to the environment while not creating new ones, for Florida, at least.

[Savonarola]

the guy was bitching at how many regulations there are around buildings and how stupid it all is, and how the market can just handle that?

Good times.

According to Dguller, the new Florida building code is much more stringent and heavily enforced.  What's left to see is if such buildings, pre-dating the code, should be investigated.

It's not the first time I see images of building with a crater underneath it, or just beside it, but usually, it's only single-houses, so much less people per square feet.

It's terrible, but I am unsure if the problem can be fixed before another incident like this happens.  The government should be footing the bill to repair older buildings to bring up to current norms, but if we're talking about solidifying foundations, it's not gonna be easy and it will involve a lot of billions$.  Not sure the Floridian voters will agree to pay a lot more in taxes to finance that.

It's probably not a sinkhole.  Sinkholes usually occur in the middle or west part of the peninsula (which were ancient limestone deposits; while most of the rest of the peninsula is mostly sand.):



Dade County, where this occurred, is the southernmost county on the east side.