Well, yeah... Living in a tall sinking/tilting building would give me huge anxiety no matter what experts say
The explanation that makes sense to me is that settlement is a problem that could be very costly and disruptive over a long period of time, and it's expensive and complicated to prove otherwise. So in the case of the Millennium Tower, they did in fact attempt to prove that the settlement was not going to cause major long-term problems, but that seemingly had no impact on the price behavior. I think with such an ingrained pattern, there isn't really a way to force buyers to think unconventionally; everyone "knows" that you don't buy in a building with settlement, and no one "knows" that there are circumstances where it's OK to buy anyway.
but if they had this great model, which you would entrust your life to, why isn't it used to predict this settling in the first place?
Conspicuous by its absence in the article is any mention of how much additional lean can be tolerated before occupancy of the building becomes hazardous.
especially, since the same experts said that it will barely sink at all.
Someone confidently modeled the original construction too
Later, thoroughly on notice that things were screwed up, they designed a solution to fix the problem. But they couldn’t predict that the vibrations from drilling would cause more sinking.
Now we’re supposed to believe they can accurately predict what the vibrations of an earthquake will do?
If this building is a pile of rubble, somewhere geotechnical engineers will be saying that it couldn’t possibly be predicted.
Here’s hoping the big one doesn’t hit while this exciting experiment in foundation installation is ongoing!
It reminds me of that famous French comic about a (false) superhero called "Superdupont" in charge of protecting all things French. In one story the enemies of France steal the standard meter, and as a result all buildings become askew. I can't find it online right now but it's extremely funny.