Fatal wall collapse during restoration after engineer says demo it 6

[ACtrafficengr]

Engineers Warned Landmarks Commission Salvaging a Synagogue Would Be Dangerous. Then a Worker Got Crushed to Death.

"the general counsel for the landmarks commission had “instructed” him not to again bring up his recommendation for a full demolition so as not to “offend” the commissioners who were insisting that parts of the deteriorating building must be retained."

FSCK the commissioners' feelings. The general counsel should get fscked, too.

Sorry about the chloride content.


My glass has a v/c ratio of 0.5

Maybe the tyranny of Murphy is the penalty for hubris. -

http://xkcd.com/319/

 

[Sym P. le]

Google Street View location or this side view.

The gable end looks particularly hazardous. It shouldn't have taken much of an evaluation to recognize it's lack of stability.

Debris resting against the side is also easily recognized as particularly hazardous even to shore up.

ny.curbed.com

 

[phamENG]

That is terrible. As one who works on these sorts of projects fairly often, I wonder if anyone ever suggested reconstruction rather than direct preservation. It's expensive, but when the goal is to retain as much of the "historical fabric" as possible but it's not possible to maintain stability during restoration it can be the 'next best' option rather than a complete loss of the historical structure/landmark.

It's a method I've used successfully on portions of brick buildings in the past. If it's really bad, we shore up what can and needs to be shored, then the masons use boom lifts to start at the top and work their way down, removing material carefully and storing it for later prep work and reuse in rebuilding the wall.

 

[Tomfh]

As a profession we need to start aggressively pushing back against the heritage people. They are a bloody minded law unto themselves. It's always the same directive: all existing fabric to be maintained. It's all they care about.

 

[GregLocock]

OTOH, coming from an industry that takes safety seriously, if a job looks dangerous we have to go through an exhaustive process to capture the risks and then mitigate them. There are still some tests we are not able to get down to an acceptable safety level, so we test them on rigs or by simulation. Obviously that's not an option here.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[3DDave]

It does not appear to be an engineering problem as it is a low-bidder, get-er-done problem; similar to the Davenport collapse. This is the same sort of problem that sees firms failing to put shoring into excavations because it slows them down and costs them money and getting workers buried alive, for a while.

The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) can insist all they want, but contractors willing to risk their worker's lives is the core of the problem as is a weak building department unwilling to issue a demolition demand in view of engineering reports on limited stability.

No-bid is the correct answer, not railing about the situation after accepting a contract that is clearly unsafe and then acting in an unsafe manner.

In order, most to least, of responsibility:

Contractor
Contractor law firm for not ensuring the contract could be terminated or work 100% stopped for safety reasons
DOB for allowing the hazard to remain unabated and only required a fence
<Some politicians that have not been identified>
LPC
Engineers

 

[dik]

I disagree... top of the list should be the Landmarks Commission. These guys should be charged with criminal negligence. Same with the owner for the Davenport collapse. Until you start holding these guy's 'feet to the fire', fatalities will continue.

The contractor should not be responsible to know that a building is structurally sound. This is the job of the engineer.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[3DDave]

Look at the article - the DOB knew, 100%, immediately after the fire that the building remains were a lethal threat. LPC doesn't issue permits.

The contractor claimed over the previous year they also 100% knew it was unsafe to do the work and are now trying to shift blame to LPC. Before accepting the contract they need 100% to read and understand the engineering report and the assessed dangers and this contractor did.

 

[dik]

top of the list should be the Landmarks Commission.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[3DDave]

What specifically did LPC do to force the workers to the unsafe job site?

 

[dik]

Against the recommendations of an expert in construction, they allowed the work to proceed.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[phamENG]

dik, I disagree here. Yes, they overwhelmingly stated their opinion that work should proceed. But the contractor (specifically their superintendent and onsite head of safety, however they have their COC set up) and the building department are the ones that allowed work to proceed. I've never seen an instance where a landmark committee, department of historic resources, or whatever your local flavor of government conservators is called had any actual authority on a job site.

Do they need better training in understanding the risks of maintaining some of these structures? Absolutely. Was their behavior morally questionable? Maybe. Was it illegal? I would say no. But I guess we'll see what the courts decide. That is their purview, after all.

 

[SwinnyGG]

Hate to say it, but this is on the Contractor. Without a shadow of a doubt in my opinion.

The LPC cannot force the contractor at gunpoint to execute the work unsafely.

As a contractor, I have the safety trump card to play. Per my contract, without exception, a legitimate safety concern overrules any other issue on the site, whether that's schedule or added cost or whatever.

From the contractor's point of view, if I think repair in lieu of demo represents a credible threat to worker safety without any reasonable mitigation available, AND I have very clear support from the EOR that agrees with that assessment (which it appears was the case here) I am contractually protected when I tell the owner that what they want can't be done. Beyond that, I'm actually contractually bound not to proceed if a method of installing the work which is safe, and has been assessed as safe by all relevant parties, cannot be found.

Contractor is on the hook here.

 

[dik]

I guess we have a difference in opinion.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[spsalso]

Who sent the workers into the building?

Did that person have reason to believe it was unsafe?


spsalso

 

[CWB1]

Is an EoR typically required to approve site safety plans for demolition, or is that left up to the contractor's (assuming trades-only) discretion? Seems like if left to the trades' discretion then tragedy would be inevitable and regular.

 

[LittleInch]

From the outside it looks to me like multiple failures and under pressure from a seemingly non statutory body (the LMC) who applied pressure on the statutory body (DOB) who then somehow persuaded a clearly reluctant contractor to try and maintain some parts of the building.

Once started then the failure of the demolition contractor and his asbestos removal sub contractor to realise that the situation was untenable and a significant risk to their workers resulted in the death and serious injury to two men.

So yes, the GC bears a heavy burden, but the root cause lies further back and no should be held blameless here. IMHO.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[SwinnyGG]

is that left up to the contractor's (assuming trades-only) discretion? Seems like if left to the trades' discretion then tragedy would be inevitable and regular.

Contractor typically owns this type of planning.

Contractors are more invested than EORs are in not killing people during construction, so not sure what the second part of your quote is about. Contractors know (or, are the ones duty bound to know) how to perform their work safely, not the EOR. Means & methods.

 

[phamENG]

I agree with SwinnyGG about the responsibility, though I have no more desire to see somebody killed than a contractor (I know you're not saying we do, but I want to be sure the "EOR Position" is clear on that).

There are engineers that specialize in this kind of demolition and consult with contractors to ensure safety. It's usually when only part of a building is being demolished or if it has to be done in stages due to nearby property, size of the building, etc. "If I remove X, Y, and Z, is the remaining structure still stable?" It gets more complicated when working with deteriorated masonry, of course.

In those cases, I've either provided that support to the contractor (design build or pre-selected contractor type arrangements) or I write into the specs that the contractor is required to hire a specialist to do it.

 

[SwinnyGG]

I've either provided that support to the contractor (design build or pre-selected contractor type arrangements) or I write into the specs that the contractor is required to hire a specialist to do it.

Yep. I've worked in this type of scenario before.

Where I'm coming from on this is not that the EOR doesn't care at all - definitely not saying that. But the fact of the matter is that if the EOR says something is unsafe, and I proceed with the work without the proper plan in place and someone gets killed, I'm the one who's going to prison.

On my jobsite, whatever happens good or bad is ultimately my responsibility. The buck stops with me. I'm the last line of defense. However you want to phrase it. So in this scenario while the various administrative stakeholders have some culpability for pushing unsafe work to be completed, damn the torpedoes, in my opinion the contractor should have told them all to pound sand if there was a known safety concern. They failed to do so, and as a result they are the party that bears the majority of responsibility here.