Originally published at: Millennium Partners seeks to build a Los Angeles skyscraper on a faultline, also San Francisco tower worsening "in a dramatic fashion" | Boing Boing
…
4 Likes
10 Likes
I was surveying in downtown LA in the summer of 1971 and the recent nothing-much quake had left bricks all over sidewalks and quite a few older buildings were boarded up. Construction standards have improved since [1] but quake-tolerant building practices are a field in themselves and by no means mature. If nothing else they’re a nasty computational problem to simulate, and then you have to inspect for even tiny variations from the approved design.
[1] Spare me the “Well, DUH!,” please.
13 Likes
The combined height of these buildings is dwarfed by the towering arrogance of their greedpig developer.
18 Likes
developers will get what developers want, collect the money, close up shop and eschew all liability. good times.
4 Likes
What insurance company is going to be willing to insure that skyscraper?
4 Likes
Coming next, “Welcome to Hubris Plaza!” 
13 Likes
10 Likes
I’m curious what will happen if they have to tear down Millennium tower because they can’t stabilize it - who’s going to be left holding the bag? I’m guessing none of that will end up on the developers, given how willing they are to risk the lives of the occupants of their proposed LA building. (I can’t wrap my head around that mindset - arguing there’s no fault strand, not necessarily because they believe their position is true, but because that’s how they’re going to make money, knowing if they’re wrong it’s highly likely to result in a large number of deaths.)
10 Likes
With luck, none.
1 Like
How can you get the LA City Council to ignore fault line warnings when proposing to build a high-rise building in a populated area? It just doesn’t make… oh.
11 Likes
And if the standard calls for a nail every four inches, you’ll probably get one ever six when installed.
4 Likes
Assuming that welds aren’t replaced by bolts.
4 Likes
I kinda liked their Pisa project.
2 Likes
5 Likes
These big name developers shield themselves from liability by using their name as a marketing or project management banner, but the builder is a numbered company (frequently owned by them) that vanishes once the construction is complete. I’ve seen some of the best names in the construction industry devolve into this status. The new up-and-comers in my city are often building crappy billion dollar projects that I won’t associate myself with because the stink rubs off on all the consultants, trades and contractors.
8 Likes
Can’t be any worse than building Century City on top of the Santa Monica fault.
Pop-up skyscrapers. Great.
3 Likes
That’s easy- tax payers. The news coverage has said that the repair costs have already exceeded the developer’s liability insurance so the rest will bankrupt them and then it is on the city to pay for the rest (a shortfall of $20M is expected). That’s just for the repairs. In the unlikely event the building needs to come down (that is unlikely, to be clear), the city would definitely be paying 100% of that.
This is American Capitalism working as designed. Companies protect their owners and investors from any liability, and companies can simply go bankrupt and reform as another entity when costs get too high. Privatized profits and socialized losses. The American Way.
5 Likes
