As a structural engineer, I've been watching this closely. Many lessons to be learned.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:

I agree with this. Like the story of the retired fellow that billed $1 for banging a spot with a hammer and $999,999 for knowing where to hang to fix the machine nobody else knew how to fix.

Kudos for them (politicians) doing it right.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz, General Electric's Wizard of Schenectady, was credited with that ($1/$9999) in Life Magazine in 1965. When General Electric sent him to help Henry Ford in Dearborn, Michigan, he figured out the solution to the generator problem but Ford balked at the price and asked for an itemized bill. He paid it after Steinmetz sent the basic two line itemization that chongosuerte alluded to. Knowledge is a valuable resource, as it was in this Florida case, too.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com...chenectady-51912022/

quote:

Originally posted by ryan81986:
Yeah it was a big cost to bring the rest of the building down but you have to figure the amount of care and expertise that would be required in this very specific circumstance. This isn't a vacant building that is structurally sound and needs to be taken down. That and if they are assuming that there are still people alive on the other side that need to be found. The amount of precision to keep the building from falling on the area that needs to be searched.

Now take that and figure how much it would cost if the state cheaped out and something went wrong.

The cost is very reasonable for this area. $1 million would buy you 1.4 of the most basic units in that building (before it collapsed). To mobilize and get everything wired up and get it done that quickly requires a lot of trained personel. I think $1 million is pretty reasonable, especially if it includes removing all of the debris.

A lot of condo owners don't have insurance on their units, here in FL. They figure the building is insured, so why carry coverage. Nobody really requires it, and NOBODY imagined something like this would happen. I'd say only 1 in 8 people probably had their unit insured in that building.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

A lot of condo owners don't have insurance on their units, here in FL. They figure the building is insured, so why carry coverage. Nobody really requires it, and NOBODY imagined something like this would happen. I'd say only 1 in 8 people probably had their unit insured in that building.

I find that hard to believe.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balzé Halzé,

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

A lot of condo owners don't have insurance on their units, here in FL. They figure the building is insured, so why carry coverage. Nobody really requires it, and NOBODY imagined something like this would happen. I'd say only 1 in 8 people probably had their unit insured in that building.

I find that hard to believe.

It's not required by Florida law, most mortgages don't ask for it, and a lot of these condo units are owned outright. The national statistic is that 68% of residential properties in the U.S. are insured (houses included). The percentage of condo's insured here is much much less. The condo building are required and have insurance which covers everything outside of your unit: liability, fire, rebuilding the building, windows, common areas, exterior walls, etc., basically everything outside of your door. The unit owners homeowners insurance only covers stuff inside of the exterior walls like appliances, interior walls, personal belongings etc....... What happened here is unheard of, all of the buildings have fire sprinklers and you rarely hear of a building that has gotten damage inside of the exterior walls. I only know of 2 (this being one of them), and have lived here in South Florida 44 years. Most people feel there is very little risk to a condo building. I can't find any statistics on it. The other issue is the building itself is under-insured with only $48 million in coverage.

A lot of resident owned apartment building require the owners to have homeowners insurance, so that if there's liability (think a leak) that gets into another apartment, there's insurance other than the building's policy to pay the damages.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

A lot of condo owners don't have insurance on their units, here in FL. They figure the building is insured, so why carry coverage. Nobody really requires it, and NOBODY imagined something like this would happen. I'd say only 1 in 8 people probably had their unit insured in that building.

I find that hard to believe.

One of the best detailed analyses I've seen.

Its long, but well worth the viewing.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
A lot of resident owned apartment building require the owners to have homeowners insurance, so that if there's liability (think a leak) that gets into another apartment, there's insurance other than the building's policy to pay the damages.

That is my experience. My condo association requires everyone to carry insurance. Renters as well must carry renter's insurance.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

A lot of condo owners don't have insurance on their units, here in FL. They figure the building is insured, so why carry coverage. Nobody really requires it, and NOBODY imagined something like this would happen. I'd say only 1 in 8 people probably had their unit insured in that building.

I find that hard to believe.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/f...do%20insurance%20isn't%20required,require%20you%20to%20purchase%20coverage.&text=A%20condo%20insurance%20policy%20in,amount%20of%20coverage%20you%20purchase.

Florida Condo Insurance (HO6) Coverage and Rates

Condo insurance isn't required in Florida, but your condo association may still require you to purchase coverage. While condo associations must carry a certain amount of their own insurance, these policies often don't cover damage to your personal property, your personal liability or damage to your condo's structural elements.

Condo insurance offers financial protection by providing coverage for these risks. A condo insurance policy in Florida may cost as little as $20 to $50 per month, depending on your condo's location, structure and the amount of coverage you purchase.

Condo owners in Florida used to be required to purchase condo insurance by state law, but this is no longer the case. However, you may be required by your condo association to:

Have a condo insurance policy.
Demonstrate proof that your condo insurance policy meets the association's minimum limits.
Purchase your condo insurance policy from a particular company.
While condo associations are generally required to carry insurance, Florida statutes don't require your association's policy to include most fixtures and systems specific to your condo. You're not required to carry insurance for these items, but it may be a simple way to protect yourself financially.

Otherwise, you could be responsible for damage to and replacement of any personal property, the condo's floors and walls, electrical fixtures and appliances, water heaters and filters, built-in fixtures and window treatments.

A condo association's insurance policy typically covers:

Exterior of the building and condo.
Land the condos are located on.
Damage in common areas, such as pools, hallways and lobbies.
Liability in case someone is injured on the property or in certain common areas.
Shared amenities and equipment, such as elevators and other building systems.

In some cases, condo associations have much more extensive insurance policies, which can include coverage for fixtures and structural components inside your condo as well. Therefore, we recommend confirming what's included in your condo association's policy before purchasing your own coverage.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
A lot of resident owned apartment building require the owners to have homeowners insurance, so that if there's liability (think a leak) that gets into another apartment, there's insurance other than the building's policy to pay the damages. Plus when the developers sell the new units, they want maintenance as low as possibly (falsely low) to attract buyers. The newer buildings (2000 or newer) have found it's best to have a reserve set up and so forth a few years after the buildings completely sold.

That is my experience. My condo association requires everyone to carry insurance. Renters as well must carry renter's insurance.

You have to understand that many or maybe even the majority of these condo's in South Florida were built before 1980. Many in the 50's-70's, before insurance on contents was really a thing. Most of these buildings don't even have a provision to have enough reserves to cover something like roof replacement. The by-laws simply didn't have a homeowner insurance requirement in them. Plus who's going to take the time to keep track of each unit owners insurance? The condo president who is a voted in as an un-paid volunteer? Now, a lot of the owners are the same owners as they were when they bought the places new, so the majority is now very old, cheap, retired, on fixed income, and the buildings have been through X amount of hurricanes with no damage, so aren't going to get a majority to vote that owners "need" HO6 insurance. A friend of mine owns 7 rental units in 6 different condo buildings and only has 1 with insurance because the mortgage on that one requires it. Many are like this.

probable

I don't know FL law, but here, the board can pass a rule like this as a house rule change on a simple majority vote. And they have a management company actually running the building, dealing with the owners/tenants (condos tend to have a lot of renters.) Them management company can collect the owners proof of insurance.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
A lot of resident owned apartment building require the owners to have homeowners insurance, so that if there's liability (think a leak) that gets into another apartment, there's insurance other than the building's policy to pay the damages. Plus when the developers sell the new units, they want maintenance as low as possibly (falsely low) to attract buyers. The newer buildings (2000 or newer) have found it's best to have a reserve set up and so forth a few years after the buildings completely sold.

That is my experience. My condo association requires everyone to carry insurance. Renters as well must carry renter's insurance.

You have to understand that many or maybe even the majority of these condo's in South Florida were built before 1980. Many in the 50's-70's, before insurance on contents was really a thing. Most of these buildings don't even have a provision to have enough reserves to cover something like roof replacement. The by-laws simply didn't have a homeowner insurance requirement in them. Plus who's going to take the time to keep track of each unit owners insurance? The condo president who is a voted in as an un-paid volunteer? Now, a lot of the owners are the same owners as they were when they bought the places new, so the majority is now very old, cheap, retired, on fixed income, and the buildings have been through X amount of hurricanes with no damage, so aren't going to get a majority to vote that owners "need" HO6 insurance. A friend of mine owns 7 rental units in 6 different condo buildings and only has 1 with insurance because the mortgage on that one requires it. Many are like this.

This is just a sheer guess. But I think they built the building in 3 stages, the ocean side section first, the middle section 2nd, and the street section (that was still standing third). This was so they could get equipment and building supplies in and equipment out. It might be plausible that the rebar where they tied the sections together was rusted pretty good from being exposed to salt air for months, awaiting for the next section to be built (and they covered it up with concrete). NOW, this is simply sheer speculation, but could explain why it sheered in those places in straight lines. The code is that all the rebar in a deck like the one that collapsed, be welded together, basically as one structure (the roof of the parking garage/pool deck/first floor of building). This was the first condo built after a 10 year moratorium of not being able to build condos in Miami Beach and the Surfside sewer plant had to be upgraded to handle the additional units of this (and future) buildings.

I’ve taken some training taught by CDI engineers for a demolition class when I was working on my MS in Explosives Engineering. They are amongst the best in the world at what they do. As for why they were subcontracted, the answer is simple economics. CDI, and other explosives demolition experts have a very limited niche market. They concentrate on explosive demolition and the know how to do it right. They don’t own massive fleets of heavy equipment, dump trucks, etc. as their business model doesn’t really allow for it. They handle the engineering of demolition and that’s it. So basically a big GC firm gets a job to do a demolition and they hire CDI to figure out how to safely bring the building down, set charges, place cables to control how the building falls, etc. and then once the building goes boom their job is done. Explosive demolition is really such a nice market with astronomical insurance costs that there probably isn’t a good way for explosive demolition contractors to be profitable as general demolition contractors. They would have to mobilize massive fleets of heavy equipment to go to where the jobs are which would be prohibitively expensive, or concentrate on working in areas where they could economically move their equipment which would be too limiting for them to be profitable. By operating the way in which they do, explosive demolition contractors are able to be profitable at just explosive demolition, which is probably the best way to ensure that they do explosive demolition well.

Not to get into the middle of heavy discourse, but most people in the building did have insurance. To state otherwise is pure guess, and is factually wrong.

Unfortunately, I'm not only involved with the collapse from the EOC side, i know a lot of the victims families, and some of the victims.
Insurance is the last thing they care about right now (except for one individual who has been on TV a lot, and I know). There has been a tremendous amount of money raised for the families outside of insurance. The building, although old, is in a very affluent area, on the ocean.

The collapse was due to a major structural failure underground, as most of those here have surmised, correctly so - at least according to every one of the engineers running around. It will change they way buildings are insured, how mortgages are given, and how inspections are done. Even though the cause is remote and not common place.

Its unbelievably difficult and agonizing to sit around with victims families, USAR and other responders. Every single responder is spending time with on-site therapists yet still working alpha-bravo shifts non-stop.

A question about the explosive demolition of the remaining structure - How were the charges placed? Did they allow people to access what was left standing? Were robots used? Drones? Cherry pickers?

I assume the placement of the charges to bring down the structure in a very controlled manner must be very precise. But I also have a hard time believing anyone was allowed access for even a reason this important.

I think the article I linked said they used a combination of people and drones to make sure there was no one still in the building. None of the owners or residents where allowed in, but actual people set the charges for demolition. My posting of the cost wasn’t meant to say I thought it was too high. I can’t imagine the insurance costs both from a liability stand point if the building goes the wrong way and say falls in the building next door or for the workers placing the charges.

Watching the implosion video, it looks like there was very little explosive needed to drop what was still standing. It makes sense, given that the building was already structurally compromised.

I'm betting half the contract cost was liability insurance coverage.

Even as recently as a few years ago HO6 was not required. Any condo loan originated in the last several years has needed it required. May not be state law but your bank will need to justify to regulatory people why not. Definitely needed if FNMA or other fed agency bought the loan. Because for years we made Laos. And nobody GAF about HO6 then one day it came down that all condo loans needed it and we had to explain to people what it was. Then the coverage was a joke. Usually 96$ a square foot in insurance. It just covers your personal stuff inside the unit and probably a hotel for a few months while your building is repaired if it burns down. Not sure about collapse. Older loans were grandfathered in and we didn’t go back and ask them to obtain HO6. If you didn’t refi in the last half decade or so you may be in that window of people.

The sad thing is that lot will likely be empty for a decade as lawsuits wind their way through the courts.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Watching the implosion video, it looks like there was very little explosive needed to drop what was still standing. It makes sense, given that the building was already structurally compromised.

I'm betting half the contract cost was liability insurance coverage.

Probably not much more than about 20 pounds of explosives. I remember my blast plan for a similar sized building that was a little shorter at maybe 8 stories and I remember it requiring about 11 pounds of explosives.

I haven’t seen the exact layout of the building but generally the supports are a mixture of concrete and steel. Steel has high tensile strength and concrete has high compressive strength. You only need enough explosives to blast away the concrete and the steel can’t hold the weight without the concrete and the support fails. Wrap the column in geotextile fabric and repeat with appropriate delays and you can very reliably and predictably bring a building down.

Also, if you’re interested check out a show called, “The Detonators.” It featured Dr. Paul Worsey ans Dr. Braden Lusk. Dr. Worsey was my advisor in grad school, and I guess technically still is if I decide to finish my PhD. Dr. Lusk was actually a TA and finishing his PhD when I started my MS degree.

Bringing this back up because I earlier referenced the Millennium Tower in San Francisco ...

Sometimes you have to throw in the towel, take it down, and stick to low-rises ...

A $100 million fix to stop a San Francisco luxury high-rise from sinking and tilting even more is on hold while engineers try to learn why the building has sunk another inch during the repair

https://abcnews.go.com/Busines...alts-repair-79663088