- Foundations of tall building must go to bedrock - not true.
- Large buildings settling is unusual - not true.
- Earthquake safety has been compromised in this case - not true.
The structural engineering of tall buildings is complex. Multiple large engineering firms were involved in the design and construction of this building.
Curbed (owned by Vox BTW) took the SF Cronicle article and cut out the more reasonable paragraphs (such as that same Stanford they quoted saying he "doesn’t consider the sink or tilt a safety issue".).. And of course the Chron article already probably skewed it to make it more exciting.
I always shake my head when I read article on a subject that I happen to be be an expert. I'm sure experts in the engineering of these sorts of projects could teach us alot about this situation.
It seems that you need to read more carefully and perhaps with more generosity.
> A few examples:
- Foundations of tall building must go to bedrock - not true.
I see few if any comments here asserting, let alone asserting without qualification, that buildings must be built to bedrock. Further, heeding your own advice that expertise should be bidden, note that the apparently expert sources in the article said themselves that not building to bedrock can be a problem.
I see people here noting and reflecting that expert opinion. Few if anyone going beyond it. And you're not reading the source material carefully enough if you miss the take that not building to bedrock can carry some risk.
> - Large buildings settling is unusual - not true.
Again, I see no one or very few people here saying this. Of course buildings settle over time. And here in this thread, contrary to your blithe and dismissive assertion, we even have people pointing out that settling happens not just in towers but in buildings of most any kind.
Note as well, again, that the very experts you appeal to say that this tower's settling is both comparatively fast and that its magnitude is unexpected. These are the experts talking, so you come off as hypocritical at best here. The nature and particulars of the settling in this particular case appears noteworthy and to be a reasonable cause for concern.
> - Earthquake safety has been compromised in this case - not true.
Ahh... so, now you are the expert and capable of refuting this possibility so entirely-- upon merely a cursory examination of second- or third-hand information, rather than a primary analysis, no less-- that it is somehow faulty for people to question whether this might have an impact on earthquake safety? My, my; odd that you called for caution in drawing conclusions until experts had weighed in, then turned around and flatly conclude that which I doubt even experts would leave completely unqualified, and certainly not universally and unanimously so.
The comments here so far are not much of the chicken-little or even rabble-rousing type. Try being more respectful toward your fellow community members.
