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

Re: Now I am in a REAL jamb!!

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Lynn,

Do not compound the problem!  The building code provides for a minimum level
of safety.  Anything less than the building code requirements can be
considered unsafe (the Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings aside).

Much of what was permitted in the 1950s is, for good reasons, not permitted
in the 1990s.  If there are structural inadequacies, gravity and/or seismic,
then there is the probability of poor performance of the structure. (And as
we all know, "poor performance" is a structural engineering euphemism for
distress, unserviceability, or failure.)

If you felt that the building was safe, then the action that you took was
wrong, but your original post indicated that you considered otherwise.
Imminent failure is when a building or part of a building is already unsafe
and on the verge of collapse.

Engineers, thankfully, don't have business training, or we would put $$$
ahead of life safety.

A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona

Lynn Howard wrote:

. > Thanks to those of you who replied to my "jamb".  I
. > need to clarify a few things.

. > 1.  We did contact the Engineer first about many of
. > the issues we had problems with.  There response
. > was, yeah we already took care of that, or, yeah we
. > know about that and are in the process of taking
. > care of that, or, yeah that looks like it could be a
. > problem we will get to that.  So they were not
. > hostile, and seemed to be designing as the project
. > was under construction.  We only brought to their
. > attention issues that were directly related to the
. > tenant improvements we were doing.  We did not bring
. > to their attention issues that were concerns with
. > the overall building design.

. > 2.  The Tenant is the one who threatened to sue us.
. > They are afraid that if the building department gets
. > a hold of this letter, they will shut the project
. > down until all issues are resolved.  This could
. > delay their move in date, and by the nature of their
. > business, they would be out of business unable to
. > make any money for any period they are without
. > offices.

. > 3.  The thing that makes this a difficult call is
. > that the issues we had with the building are not
. > necessarily life-safety issues.  Even if the
. > building was completed as shown on the plans, I am
. > not sure it would be any more un-safe than a similar
. > building constructed in the 1950's.  So  I don't
. > think I can fall back on the eminent threat to the
. > life or safety of the occupants of the building.
. > There could indeed be Code violations, but I am not
. > sure it rises to the level that would require me to
. > act.

. > I really do appreciate all of the input I have
. > received.  We are going to contact our insurance
. > company and see what advice they give us.

. > Thanks.

. > Lynn

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********