In retrospect, we naturally feel that the building should have been evacuated, and it seems perverted for the mayor not to have felt "philosophically comfortable" with ordering evacuation.
But how many mayors right now are on notice of major structural damage equivalent to that 2018 report on Champlain Towers? Will they order people to evacuate? Or will the "philosophical comfort" remain on the side of letting people stay in their homes?
We're built to feel secure in the sense that things will remain as they are. We get into our bed at night and — most of us — trust that we'll arise in the morning. A meteorite or tornado or heart attack might make this night drastically different, but we need to expect another typical night. What a mess we'd be if we didn't. We'd be full of cracks and crumbling.
So do you think now the mayors of America will be ordering the condo dwellers out of their homes whenever there are reports of cracks and crumbling at the level Burkett saw in the Champlain Towers?
Reading your post about the mayor’s comments, I thought his opposition to evacuation came before the tower’s collapse. But reading the article, it seems he is opposed to now evacuating a nearby tower built at the same time that is nearly identical to the one that collapsed. I’m not sure if the mistake is just mine but thought it was worth mentioning.Wow! You are right, and I am surprised to see that. I guess that answers my questions. Mayors will not be ordering evacuations.
पोस्ट्स
१० टिप्पण्या:
Joseph writes:
You wrote " So do you think now the mayors of America will be ordering the condo dwellers out of their homes whenever there are reports of cracks and crumbling at the level Burkett saw in the Champlain Towers?"
Pity the poor mayors faced with such a decision. What would be the 'level' as seen at Burkett? All floors? Most floors? How big are the cracks? All greater than (say) 1 mm? Most greater than 1 mm? Every floor has at least 1 crack?
Different engineers would have different recommendations, based on their experience and training. How to reconcile conflicting recommendations?
Consider also the risk (to the mayor's reputation) of false positives (ordering evacuation where no collapse occurs) and of false negatives (not ordering evacuation and then subsequent collapse).
I have no answers, only noting the difficulties in quantifying the risks.
It reminds me of the decision to order the lockdown for the pandemic. The decisionmakers see the worst case scenario, but how much can we change everything we're doing? If the worst case happens, they will be blamed, but how can we go forward taking extreme measures for fear of a risk that then does not happen? You see how horrible it is when one building falls, but what if there are thousands evacuations and then no other building falls?
WK writes:
“ So do you think now the mayors of America will be ordering the condo dwellers out of their homes whenever there are reports of cracks and crumbling at the level Burkett saw in the Champlain Towers? ”
COVID opened government eyes to how compliant people will be to any orders to protect them. I fully expect mayors/governors/federal level will leverage this ability to protect people to continue to increase their power and control. When they see they have the ability they never not use it.
But it also opened OUR eyes to the way they can do things like that. Some people will be compliant next time but others will be more skeptical and defiant in the face of government restraints based on purported safety risks.
Lloyd writes:
"The Mayor in Jaws: My own kids were swimming on that beach."
Owen writes:
You said ‘It reminds me of the decision to order the lockdown for the pandemic.’ Bingo. This is a very similar Problem From Hell, with (1) a threat that is rare but catastrophic (2) whose emergence is ambiguous or hidden (3) which if it happens will be blamed on authorities (4) who face few costs in ordering massive precautions. (See also climate change). Facing this problem, what authority can resist the temptation to over-cook the “safety program”?
It’s going to be a busy year or ten for structural engineers, and not just in beachfront towns.
Mitch writes:
Crazy. Not one week ago, I watched the final episode of the sixth series of the BBC's Endeavour, a prequel to the beloved Inspector Morse series of thirty years ago.
In the episode, set in 1969, there is a building collapse, affordable housing, not condos. The collapse is foreshadowed by tenants noticing discoloration of the walls and cracking, which they ascribe to "damp." It turns out that there was a conspiracy between a corrupt politician and a building firm (run by a powerful and violent Freemason!) to use concrete made with sand tainted by saltwater, which corrodes the rebar frame of the tower and causes the collapse.
The corrupt politician's name? Burkitt.
Life imitates art and vice versa. I'm not saying there was a criminal conspiracy; it was probably just incompetence and lax building codes. But I'd be curious to know where the concrete came from.
JamesL writes:
Wings don’t fly off of airplanes because … aviation is a highly regulated industry. Techs (formerly called mechanics) are trained, licensed and supervised (as in their work is signed-off) by trained and licensed inspectors. Inspections are required at intervals based on time and/or hours flown.
There are hard and fast rules about what is airworthy and what is not airworthy. Violators lose their licenses and are put out of business.
I know of no similar regulations for apartment operation. On the other hand, how many apartments collapse per year in the US?
JamesL writes:
A WSJ article covers a number of reports from various sources over the last two plus years. No hard facts and no barking dogs. But there is one interesting bit …
Alberto and Isabel Aguero, who bought a one-bedroom unit on the 11th floor in 2019, said they received word a few months ago that they would have to pay an $80,000 assessment for a range of building repairs and upgrades. Ms. Aguero, 67, said owners of larger units were told they would owe more than $100,000.
Ms. Aguero said they hadn’t known about the Morabito reports or about any structural concerns, until seeing news reports Saturday.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/engineering-firm-warned-of-systemic-issues-with-miami-area-condo-building-before-deadly-collapse-11624720688
Between $80,000 and $100,000 per unit is millions of dollars for a building that size (136 units = $13 million +/-). More than a coat of paint and new carpet in the halls.
Someone knew.
A note for Ann ... assuming she will see a comment posted to a more-than-three-year-old post ...
Today's WSJ
New Florida Law Roils Its Condo Market Three Years After Surfside Collapse
More units are being dumped on the market because of six-figure special assessments tied to repairs for older buildings
New Florida Law Roils Its Condo Market Three Years After Surfside Collapse
I write because I believe that this was my first Althouse comment. No longer JamesL, now typingtalker.
It's also an interesting follow-up.
Thanks, typingtalker!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा