6 ms·
I've been following this pretty closely, both because I live in SF and an acquaintance owns a unit there. The situation is very bad. Around 2 weeks ago a city
by redis_mlc 5y ago
I've been following this pretty closely, both because I live in SF and an acquaintance owns a unit there.
The situation is very bad.
Around 2 weeks ago a city engineer for the first time mentioned "possibly dismantling the building", because logically you just can't have a skyscraper that's unsafe in the middle of downtown SF. It threatens numerous other tall buildings.
Based on videos I've seen of the Kobe earthquake, liquefaction would destroy the building even if tilting didn't decommission both the elevators and plumbing first. I wouldn't occupy anything in its shadow.
- tfe 5y agoWould you mind sharing where you saw that mentioned?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mikeyouse 5y agoAs a counterpoint, I know a couple who are both big-building architects for major firms who currently live worry-free in the Millennium Tower. I think the average person's perception isn't much use when evaluating things like this.
- Apes 5y agoMy understanding is it would be "safe", in that you're very unlikely to die, but would - with almost 100% certainty - be uninhabitable after a significant earthquake.
- ggcdn 5y agoIronically, that literally describes the intent of the building code, and seismic design philosophy of the past and present codes in the developed world
- quickthrower2 5y agoThe comment refers to a “city engineer” so not an average person but presumably someone qualified to comment.
- mikeyouse 5y agoWhen talking about architects not afraid to live in it, I was referring to OP's last sentence: I wouldn't occupy anything in its shadow. I also did briefly look to see if I could find any reference to a city engineer proposing dismantling the building, but couldn't find anything there.