If I were writing a report on a piece of software for my boss and I found unsanitized inputs to an SQL database, I wouldn't highlight that any more than anything else I found as he would know that was severe.
If building managers don’t take rapid action to further assess and monitor the conditions after being told that, then it sounds like willful negligence.
And if this is not the case, then I am seriously questioning how safe buildings actually are.
Btw, what happened with that brand new bridge in Florida that collapsed and killed people a couple years ago. Were there any actual consequences to those responsible?
Edit: A NYT article on what’s currently known does make it seem like the pool and garage may have been the catalysis of the collapse. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/us/miami-building-investi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_Universi...
I'm not a Civ E, but I have worked in aerospace and software and seen reports in both fields that contain warnings of potentially catastrophic problems use similar language as the report:
The joint sealant was observed to be beyond its useful life and are in need of complete replacement. However, the waterproofing below the Pool Deck & Entrance Drive as well as all of the planter waterproofing is beyond its useful life and therefore must all be completely removed and replaced. The failed waterproofing is causing major structural damage to the concrete structural slab below these areas. Failure to replace the waterproofing in the near future will cause the extent of the concrete deterioration to expand exponentially.
It takes an astounding lack of responsibility to say "well they never said the major structural deficiencies were going to cause an imminent collapse! And why was it buried on page 7, and not in bold font?"
I would. And as someone reading the report, even as an expert, I would want and expect the person writing it to organize it by severity, and start by pointing out any urgent items.
What advantage is there to not doing that?
Sure, but as software people we don't have a licensing body that will revoke our license to practice for such an omission. The firm and the author are likely required by their license to operate to make such call outs.
*edit: Also I would add that an engineering firm that believed the building was in imminent danger would not go forward with a project without calling that out and pricing it. They wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because they would be on the hook if the building failed.
What omission are you talking about?
My point is that _if_ the engineer believed the building was at risk of catastrophic failure they would have stated as much.
It seems like maybe the report author(s) did state as much when they said “major structural damage”. I don’t know anything about architecture but, for example, when an accounting firm issues an adverse audit opinion they don’t say “this company is totally screwed!” they say “these financial statements contain material and pervasive misstatements.” It sounds boring and benign to most people but it’s the CPA equivalent of a red alert.
Exactly. Joe Blow building manager is not a structural engineer. The comment about "major structural damage" at the end of report was probably not even read. The beginning of the document is about paint bubbles and 'the tile makes the rail too short'. That sets the context.
The article casts a building department administrator as having some dire knowledge of the building condition and simultaneously telling residents everything is fine. But a close examining of the situation leads me to believe the building department administrator had no such indication.
Are you for real?
Put yourself in the shoes of a building administrator responsible for oversight of hundreds to thousands of properties. You get a report like this, on a relatively young building and it looks very ho-hum.
But NPR is presenting it with hindsight bias and acting as if there was something ominous in the report. There simply wasn't... and the story is just gotcha journalism.