http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 2:02:28 AM UTC-4, Molly Brown wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html

I was wondering about code for high balconies like that.
I've seen wood joists used for balconies here that are two
stories up, but they are also exposed underneath so that
you can see if they are rotting. I'd really be worried about
a balcony, especially one that is 4 stories up, where it's
supported by wood joists and enclosed so you can't see the
condition. Also, enclosed like that one was, if water gets
in, it's perfect for rotting it out.

Also, wasn't there like 13 people on it? That's a small
balcony to have so many people. It's supposed to hold them....
I wonder if there was any indication that something was
wrong, like it having some movement, before it gave way?
I've been on plenty of hotel balconies up high, but AFAIK,
they were steel/concrete construction.

trader_4 writes:
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 2:02:28 AM UTC-4, Molly Brown wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html

I was wondering about code for high balconies like that.
I've seen wood joists used for balconies here that are two
stories up, but they are also exposed underneath so that
you can see if they are rotting. I'd really be worried about
a balcony, especially one that is 4 stories up, where it's
supported by wood joists and enclosed so you can't see the
condition. Also, enclosed like that one was, if water gets
in, it's perfect for rotting it out.

Also, wasn't there like 13 people on it? That's a small
balcony to have so many people. It's supposed to hold them....
I wonder if there was any indication that something was
wrong, like it having some movement, before it gave way?
I've been on plenty of hotel balconies up high, but AFAIK,
they were steel/concrete construction.

The balcony design live load (which it met) was 60 pounds per
square foot. _If_[*] the balcony were 8x4 (32 square feet), that
would then support a one-ton (1920 pounds) load.

13 people at an average weight of 154 pounds each (irish)
or 180[**] pounds each (american) works out to 2002 to 2340
pounds.
[*] Haven't seen the actual dimensions reported yet, yet the
design load of 60psf is only allowed if the balcony is
less than 100sq/ft, else the design load would be 100psf.

[**] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...u-compare.html

|
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html

The *design* is claimed to be sound. That's an odd
thing to say. It's based on looking at design plans
rather than looking at the deck! I'm guessing the
engineer is trying not to ruffle feathers.
The photo seems to clearly show dark gray wood
that should be almost white if it weren't rotted from
long exposure to water. The joists look punky from long
water exposure. There also seems to be fungus and
mildew on the bottom of the subfloor.

On 06/19/2015 7:36 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 2:02:28 AM UTC-4, Molly Brown wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html

I was wondering about code for high balconies like that.
I've seen wood joists used for balconies here that are two
stories up, but they are also exposed underneath so that
you can see if they are rotting. I'd really be worried about
a balcony, especially one that is 4 stories up, where it's
supported by wood joists and enclosed so you can't see the
condition. Also, enclosed like that one was, if water gets
in, it's perfect for rotting it out.

Also, wasn't there like 13 people on it? That's a small
balcony to have so many people. It's supposed to hold them....
I wonder if there was any indication that something was
wrong, like it having some movement, before it gave way?
I've been on plenty of hotel balconies up high, but AFAIK,
they were steel/concrete construction.

Well, the engineer's report says it wasn't overloaded per the initial
design...of course, clearly from the picture there wasn't but a few
inches of solid timber left so as it was, it was _way_ overloaded.

And, the story goes on to say that it passed all pertinent inspections
during construction. Code doesn't specify the construction materials,
only strength and such of the finished structure. It's up to the
engineer/architect to meet those and provide the details of installation
that meet the "workmanlike" standard of construction that covers all the
details of things like the flashing, etc., etc., etc., that aren't
actually given by Code per se.

As the story says, where the breakdown was is yet to be fully determined
but it looks like the preliminary conclusion is it wasn't design or
details. Hence it would almost have to be in installation/construction
or later modifications, perhaps that breached the initial flashing
details. As you note, that they were enclosed so couldn't see the
deterioration and that prevents drying once there is water intrusion was
a bad idea...doesn't indicate whether that was initial design or a
retrofit altho would presume was probably original.


This'll be a "two-lawyer deal" before this settles out, for sure as a
local old-timer is wont to say...

--

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 10:20:39 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
|
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html

The *design* is claimed to be sound. That's an odd
thing to say. It's based on looking at design plans
rather than looking at the deck! I'm guessing the
engineer is trying not to ruffle feathers.

Doesn't seem at all odd to me.
It's probably because the LA Times found some engineer
and all he has to go on is the plans. He can't just
show up and say "I'm here to see the failed deck....."
or if he does, little likelihood he's going to be
allowed to do so.

On 6/19/2015 8:36 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 2:02:28 AM UTC-4, Molly Brown wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html

I was wondering about code for high balconies like that.
I've seen wood joists used for balconies here that are two
stories up, but they are also exposed underneath so that
you can see if they are rotting. I'd really be worried about
a balcony, especially one that is 4 stories up, where it's
supported by wood joists and enclosed so you can't see the
condition. Also, enclosed like that one was, if water gets
in, it's perfect for rotting it out.

The engineer said the design was OK, but obviously, it was not. They
did not properly waterproof it or make provision for easy inspection.
If they did, it may have been OK.

Also possible it was designed to be open and the builder enclosed it and
did a poor job. In any case, if other building were built like that
they should be inspected too.

"Mayayana" wrote in message
...

|
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html

The *design* is claimed to be sound. That's an odd
thing to say. It's based on looking at design plans
rather than looking at the deck! I'm guessing the
engineer is trying not to ruffle feathers.
The photo seems to clearly show dark gray wood
that should be almost white if it weren't rotted from
long exposure to water. The joists look punky from long
water exposure. There also seems to be fungus and
mildew on the bottom of the subfloor.



The DESIGN is on paper. Looking at the deck will not tell you about the
DESIGN, it will tell you how it was actually built, and how it has
deteriorated.

| As the story says, where the breakdown was is yet to be fully determined
| but it looks like the preliminary conclusion is it wasn't design or
| details. Hence it would almost have to be in installation/construction
| or later modifications, perhaps that breached the initial flashing
| details.

Maybe not. There are plenty of construction
details that are perfectly legal but not a good
idea. If the seal depends on gluing or caulking
rather than natural shedding of water that's
never a good idea. Balconies that are part in,
part out are common in "modern" buildings. For
instance, I have customers who have "inset" decks
off their living rooms, with flat rubber rooves,
on top of garages. It's really interior construction
but with a rubber roof to seal the floor. If the
rubber is breached, or the glue fails, the joists
rot. But the garage has a plaster ceiling. Like these
balconies, it can get very bad before it's noticeable.
But it's all legal.

A great example of this kind of problem is the
MIT stata Center.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stata_Center
http://www.fastcompany.com/641146/lost-funhouse

MIT apparently wanted the glamour and gossip
that would go with hiring post-modern rockstar Frank
Geary to blurt out some of his whimsicality-as-art
on their computer science building facade. I saw the
building close up. In addition to being just plain
silly, and completely unrelated to the function of
the building itself, there seemed to be numerous
joints around windows and where walls met that
depended only on caulking. (Note the flat-top dormer
style windows.)

As with so many architects who want to think of
themselves as great artists, the pictures of the
Stata Center show a total disregard for common
sense and an apparent lack of familiarity with the
actual materials used. (Those tedious details are
for the visionless lackies to worry about.) I think
of it as "artist neurosis". Like the painter who paints
a dot on a giant canvas, or like John Cage writing a
musical piece with no sound, art itself is neglected
as the artist tries to prove themselves to be an artist,
which they do through a perverse attack on expectations:
"I'm a real artist, so if I call this dot art then it is art,
which proves I'm a real artist! So there!"

Geary is a famous darling of the architecture world
and probably had plenty of engineer's stamps to
satisfy building inspectors. (They never want to be
on the hook for any design that's the least bit unusual.)

Another great example is the ceiling panels in the
Boston Expressway tunnels. One night one of them fell
on a car and killed people. It was a panel more than
2 lanes wide and many yards long, made of
concrete. Many, many tons of weight. They were glued into
the ceiling above! I have no idea how anyone with
any common sense could design or put up such a structure
without setting it on ground-based support. Yet the experts
argued about whether the glue was applied properly, not
about the obvious problem of hanging a concrete panel
the size of a many-storey building wall from a ceiling,
with glue!

On 6/19/2015 10:22 AM, Mayayana wrote:
|
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html

The *design* is claimed to be sound. That's an odd
thing to say. It's based on looking at design plans
rather than looking at the deck! I'm guessing the
engineer is trying not to ruffle feathers.

The design may have been structurally sound and adequate if it was not
rotted. The blame goes to either improper design for waterproofing or
the installation of it.

On 06/19/2015 10:12 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| As the story says, where the breakdown was is yet to be fully determined
| but it looks like the preliminary conclusion is it wasn't design or
| details. Hence it would almost have to be in installation/construction
| or later modifications, perhaps that breached the initial flashing
| details.

Maybe not. There are plenty of construction
details that are perfectly legal but not a good
idea. ...

"The balcony was designed to keep water out of the support beams",
St. Onge said. That leaves the question of whether construction workers did
not complete the work according to the design drawings, or whether there
were defects in the materials used. If the building was constructed
according to the drawings, then there's a question of whether improper
maintenance contributed to the weakening of the balcony's wood beams.

"According to the drawings, it looks as though it was professionally
done. Whether it was completely done, whether there's something
missing that could've been missed in the field — I don't know," St.
Onge said.

Now maybe this guy is incompetent but it appears that from his
evaluation the fault wasn't with design/detailing...

--

| Now maybe this guy is incompetent but it appears that from his
| evaluation the fault wasn't with design/detailing...
|

Yes. I read it the same way. But even if the
design was properly implemented, my point was
that lots of designs are faulty, whether or not
they're legal or officially approved. That was what
I was getting at with my examples of the Geary
building, the condo decks, and the Boston tunnel
ceilings I described.

The expert they consulted was merely saying
that the design is officially acceptable. That
says nothing about whether that design was
implemented, nor does it necessarily mean the
design was truly serviceable. It's really just a
preliminary finding that means very little other
than to say the parade of officiality has begun
to address the event.

On 06/19/2015 11:36 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Now maybe this guy is incompetent but it appears that from his
| evaluation the fault wasn't with design/detailing...
|

Yes. I read it the same way. But even if the
design was properly implemented, my point was
that lots of designs are faulty, whether or not
they're legal or officially approved. That was what
I was getting at with my examples of the Geary
building, the condo decks, and the Boston tunnel
ceilings I described.


So why did you post it after my comment seemingly disagreeing? That's a
different subject/possibility; make that as a standalone point if desired.

The expert they consulted was merely saying
that the design is officially acceptable. That
says nothing about whether that design was
implemented, nor does it necessarily mean the
design was truly serviceable. It's really just a
preliminary finding that means very little other
than to say the parade of officiality has begun
to address the event.

Now I don't know which "expert" you're referring to; the one in the
article quoted said in his opinion it _was_ designed well.

--

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 1:12:24 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 06/19/2015 11:36 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Now maybe this guy is incompetent but it appears that from his
| evaluation the fault wasn't with design/detailing...
|

Yes. I read it the same way. But even if the
design was properly implemented, my point was
that lots of designs are faulty, whether or not
they're legal or officially approved. That was what
I was getting at with my examples of the Geary
building, the condo decks, and the Boston tunnel
ceilings I described.


So why did you post it after my comment seemingly disagreeing? That's a
different subject/possibility; make that as a standalone point if desired.


More to the point, if the engineer thought that design
was in anyway inadequate, fault prone, not a good way of
doing it, he could have said that. He didn't. He said that
if it was built to the design and properly maintained that
it would not have happened.



The expert they consulted was merely saying
that the design is officially acceptable. That
says nothing about whether that design was
implemented, nor does it necessarily mean the
design was truly serviceable. It's really just a
preliminary finding that means very little other
than to say the parade of officiality has begun
to address the event.

Now I don't know which "expert" you're referring to; the one in the
article quoted said in his opinion it _was_ designed well.

--

I didn't see him confining his remarks to just officially
acceptable. And if it was inherently unserviceable, a bad
idea, he sure had an opportunity to say that. This also
has nothing to do with the official parade, the engineer
in the article is unconnected to the investigation.

But that said, it still seems like a bad idea to rely on
wood support for balconies where the wood is enclosed and not
open for inspection. The thing was only 4 years old, water
must have gotten in there from the beginning. But how you
could count on that kind of design for 20, 30, 50 years, IDK.

| So why did you post it after my comment seemingly disagreeing? That's a
| different subject/possibility; make that as a standalone point if desired.
|

I don't see why this is so complicated for you. There
was only one expert. He said the *design* seems OK.
You then said:

"but it looks like the preliminary conclusion is it wasn't design or
details. Hence it would almost have to be in installation/construction
or later modifications"

I disagreed with your conclusion. I think it's an
important point. The construction *could* be faulty,
but it was not necessarily a problem with the
construction or later modifications. A design can
be legal and officially approved while still being bad
and prone to failure. I gave 3 examples. The pictures
of this apt building lead me to think that the balcony
collapse may very well be a similar case.

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 2:30:51 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| So why did you post it after my comment seemingly disagreeing? That's a
| different subject/possibility; make that as a standalone point if desired.
|

I don't see why this is so complicated for you. There
was only one expert. He said the *design* seems OK.
You then said:

"but it looks like the preliminary conclusion is it wasn't design or
details. Hence it would almost have to be in installation/construction
or later modifications"

I disagreed with your conclusion. I think it's an
important point. The construction *could* be faulty,
but it was not necessarily a problem with the
construction or later modifications.

How can construction be both faulty and not necessarily
a problem?


A design can
be legal and officially approved while still being bad
and prone to failure. I gave 3 examples. The pictures
of this apt building lead me to think that the balcony
collapse may very well be a similar case.

Again, the independent engineer that just reviewed it
and knowing what happened, would be pretty dumb to say that
he doesn't see anything wrong with the design if he
thought it was actually bad and prone to failure.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 10:20:39 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
|
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html

The *design* is claimed to be sound. That's an odd
thing to say. It's based on looking at design plans
rather than looking at the deck! I'm guessing the
engineer is trying not to ruffle feathers.

Doesn't seem at all odd to me.
It's probably because the LA Times found some engineer
and all he has to go on is the plans. He can't just
show up and say "I'm here to see the failed deck....."
or if he does, little likelihood he's going to be
allowed to do so.

He could rappel down from the roof.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:51:02 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 6/19/2015 8:36 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 2:02:28 AM UTC-4, Molly Brown wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html

I was wondering about code for high balconies like that.
I've seen wood joists used for balconies here that are two
stories up, but they are also exposed underneath so that
you can see if they are rotting. I'd really be worried about
a balcony, especially one that is 4 stories up, where it's
supported by wood joists and enclosed so you can't see the
condition. Also, enclosed like that one was, if water gets
in, it's perfect for rotting it out.

The engineer said the design was OK, but obviously, it was not. They
did not properly waterproof it or make provision for easy inspection.
If they did, it may have been OK.

Also possible it was designed to be open and the builder enclosed it and
did a poor job. In any case, if other building were built like that
they should be inspected too.

The news quoted someone, supposed to be formerly on the board of
directors of the building, who said they were only supposed to be
decorative. I bet they never told anyone that.

Still, don't be the last person to fill up a balcony, or the two before
that.

On 06/19/2015 10:18 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/19/2015 10:22 AM, Mayayana wrote:
|
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html


The *design* is claimed to be sound. That's an odd
thing to say. It's based on looking at design plans
rather than looking at the deck! I'm guessing the
engineer is trying not to ruffle feathers.

The design may have been structurally sound and adequate if it was not
rotted. The blame goes to either improper design for waterproofing or
the installation of it.




From the photo it sure looks like it was rotted

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 11:07:46 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:51:02 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 6/19/2015 8:36 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 2:02:28 AM UTC-4, Molly Brown wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html

I was wondering about code for high balconies like that.
I've seen wood joists used for balconies here that are two
stories up, but they are also exposed underneath so that
you can see if they are rotting. I'd really be worried about
a balcony, especially one that is 4 stories up, where it's
supported by wood joists and enclosed so you can't see the
condition. Also, enclosed like that one was, if water gets
in, it's perfect for rotting it out.

The engineer said the design was OK, but obviously, it was not. They
did not properly waterproof it or make provision for easy inspection.
If they did, it may have been OK.

Also possible it was designed to be open and the builder enclosed it and
did a poor job. In any case, if other building were built like that
they should be inspected too.

The news quoted someone, supposed to be formerly on the board of
directors of the building, who said they were only supposed to be
decorative. I bet they never told anyone that.

Still, don't be the last person to fill up a balcony, or the two before
that.

Whoever said that is full of baloney. You'd never be
allowed to have balconies that are accessible that don't meet
the building code for real balconies. Also, the engineer
who reviewed the plans for the LA Times in this thread surely
would have commented on that, if there were any truth to it.

"Molly Brown" wrote in message
...

http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...619-story.html


I say good riddance to all those liberal assholes.
May they all burn in the fires of Hell!