Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: 6.2+ earthquake in Seattle

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

I understand your point and I am certainly not being critical of you.
Unfortunately, I live with those same pressures everyday, just as you do.  To the
developer, owner or contractor, nothing ever fails and nothing ever will.  The
challenge for me is to avoid thinking the way they do.  If I start doing that, who
is going to protect the occupants of the buildings that I design.

With regard to the building where your recommendations were not followed 20 years
ago;  My only question is......would you have wanted your mother, wife or daughter
to be working there everyday?  If so, case is closed.  If not, then I think we all
know what should have been done, as hard as it would have been.  A job is not
worth risking a life.  Finally, I'll bet that the owner never informed the
seamstresses of your recommendation, so that they had a chance to evaluate the
risk.  They never do........

Monty Hart
Associated Design Consultants, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska

Rhkratzse(--nospam--at) wrote:

> Of course, and if I were in the driver's seat I would like to have made the
> same choice as you (I think).  But I wasn't--the engineer seldom is, are we?
> And of course the choice wasn't as you describe it.  Rather it was between
> the certainty of unemployment (if they weren't bluffing, and since this was a
> tiny little co. owned by a stack of multinational conglomerates, each one
> larger than the one before, I don't think they were) and the vague
> possibility, oh say maybe 67% chance of maybe a big eq. in oh say the next
> hundred years or so, which might or might not do significant damage which
> might or might not kill a few, or a lot.  Not quite the clear choice you
> present.
> I guess that's the type of decisions CEOs are paid to make.  And the type of
> political pressure they can present.
> Ralph
> In a message dated 2/28/01 4:19:39 PM, montyh(--nospam--at) writes:
> << Given the choice of several hundred unemployed seamstresses or several
> hundred
> dead seamstresses, I'd choose the former.  ;0)
> Monty Hart
> Associated Design Consultants, Inc.
> Anchorage, Alaska
> ___________________________________________
> Rhkratzse(--nospam--at) wrote:
> > In a message dated 2/28/01 3:19:38 PM, Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at) writes:
> >
> > << Does Seattle have an ordinance for the retrofit of URM buildings?
> >  >>
> >
> > Well, I don't have any current information but I do know that when I was
> > practicing there 20+ years ago we tried to get an old 4-story brick
> > commercial building upgraded seismically and the owner (a Connecticut firm)
> > said if they city required them to upgrade it they'd just shut down the firm
> > and throw several hundred seamstresses out of work, which quickly ended any
> > discussion of that.  The owner of another similar nearby  (Pioneer Square)
> > building said if the city tried to force him to upgrade his building he'd
> > lock it and leave it sit.  That worked too (to kill that idea).
> >
> > Just a little history lesson -- capitalism in action :)
> >
> > Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
> > Richmond CA
> > >>