A supposed waitlist whilst heavy marketing across all high influence channels. Do you think we are stupid? Are you stupid enough to believe this? And if you aren't, then are you deliberately throwing your loyal channel viewers under the bus for $$ ?
Ah don't start all that TOP 7 BLAHBLAH, 12 SUCH AND SUCH YOU NEED TO SEE clickbait shite videos. Proper focused videos are the content this channel has almost always had and they're far better for it.
@@SectorfiveYT Construction started in 2015 and it topped out in 2019. I kind of want to know what industry Nico Amatullo works in to afford real estate in Downtown Manhattan. Just affording to live in most parts of New York City is a feat all on its own.
The statement from the contractor (7:17) that "The details of the foundation system were never provided to Pizzarotti". Who starts a multi-million dollar project without knowing how a major part is going to be built?
Well, probably they assumed that they would have received the details after signing? Also, their lawyer may be dramatizing it a bit to stress that Pizzarotti was never involved in the foundation or in the evaluation of its adequacy.
The glaring explanation is in the history books: the Lower East Side of downtown Manhattan along the waterfront is all landfill from over 200-ish years ago. The Manhattan granite bedrock is there, but it's deeper than just a few blocks inland. As NYC population grew, they started using landfill to expand before they started to move developments north on the island. The lean is almost 100% the result of them not using pilings in the foundation and instead trying to create strong enough soil out of old landfill. VERY expensive lesson!
@@Privat2840 That could be. There's just nowhere near enough information in this video to determine anything relating to the building's construction and why it's leaning. And this area is loaded with tall buildings that appear to be standing just fine. Maybe this particular building design itself just isn't suitable for the site. Maybe we're both right... The ratio of height to footprint area of these tall skinny buildings has got to be a unique challenge all it's own.
Frankly I'm stunned that they were approved to use soil treatment for foundations so close to the waterfront - large parts of Manhattan go underwater when there's a storm surge, and there's a lot of subsurface infrastructure all over the island. Not using pilings is pure insanity.
7:13 - It's hard to believe the developer didn't have a supervisor on site who would notice the foundation process, and prior to that an engineering firm to insist the methods used "be revealed."
its possible someone on the developers team knew and ok'd it. But they can't sue an individual for a billion dollars. And even if they did send the poor bloke to jail they still wouldn't recuperate their financial losses. So the only way they get out of this without writing off the entire investment is suing the contracting company.
I think people often think that skyscrapers are a perfect science because they go up all the time unhindered, but this is an important reminder that it’s extremely challenging to get 60 stories of concrete and metal to stand perfectly straight, and is a massive achievement by developers. It’s just unfortunate that when a lean like this occurs, it’s so expensive to correct.
I build high rise apartments think 10 story to 60 story and theres 3 dudes out if 70 with a tape a level and a laser , and 1 of those guys always is an apprentice 1 guys always so foreign you don’t know what he’s says and the 3rd guys a dick. Trust me not me single thing is near perfect
well said. I live in Miami and its easy to get accustomed to high rises. But each tower is full science, engineering, and challenges that occurs behind the scenes. For me, I love when I see a tower under construction and all you see is concrete slabs cantilevered hundreds of feet in the air.
I see this from my office every morning, I thought it was a weird design choice. This part of downtown is all landfill in the river! You have to use piles, soil treatment/grout/etc, won’t work! (Solid ground is several blocks inland, the landfilling started all the way back when the Dutch were here.)
As a builder I never never ever cut corners on the foundation. That is the single most important thing period . If you want to cut corners put in cheap cabinets or floor covers . Something easily fixed .
I feel like your tone was a little off when describing the death of a worker as a "string of bad luck" for the development. I would be a lot more scathing of a development that allows that to happen.
As much as I DESPISE that building I do want a solution to be found. It’s been looking unfinished for awhile now and it’s embarrassing it’s being dragged out.
That building not being finished isn't embarrassing....the out of control crime rates and homelessness are embarrassing. They will eventually have to take the building down. This is what happens when you build on top of a landfill.
Wouldn't be the first time a company lied to get a project done with devastating effects. I don't know shit about dick when it comes to construction but my bs detector is intact and I don't believe them for a second.
UK....???? ! ASSURE THE AMERICANS AND LEAD LIKE IN THE PAST CENTURY TO ALL THE SHIT HELL AND DISASTER... ONLY WAY TO SHOW THEY ARE MORE THAN OTHERS .. THRUST THEM AS NO ONE ELSE IN THE WORLD DO IT ... OTHER THAN THAN THE MACRONE WIFE AND CO. OP
We actually have the same symtom with a building here in Copenhagen. It was due to a concrete foundation made of poor quality concrete. So now we have a tall building with some windows and a lot of open fronts.
A lot of lower Manhattan is landfill with no structural bearing capacity. In those cases, If you don't have foundations resting on bedrock, then you're probably building a disaster. Just ask the guys who developed Millenium Tower in San Francisco.
This is what I call justice. I am from NY.C., and (like many other people) I am sick of the over-building and ugly character-less glass boxes that are ruining our skyline. This is far from the only glass tower that has serious issues. We are on a seafront, of course these types of buildings are inappropriate.
Yo B1M - not just the vertical weight has to be borne by the foundation, but wind loads, seismic loads, etc., are also transferred to the foundation. I've had to argue with structural engineers in California about door openings in a house - imagine how that plays on a 60 story building.
The building's super structure also has an eccentric layout of core walls, which might cause differential shortening and leaning of the building to the direction of more shortening. All you have to do is investigate the shape of leaning because it is different whether the leaning comes from differential foundation settlement or from differential shortening.
100%. It's structural form means it will lean. This has to be compensated for during construction. Lots of tricky calculations and surveying, but it's not rocket science.
Even without the lean, I can't imagine anyone wanting to live in such a tall, skinny building. I mean, sure, the salespeople could have engineers on standby to educate potential buyers about its safety, but you really shouldn't need that. Frankly, the only point of even trying to keep it going, now, would be for it to be another empty, money-laundering building - which I suspect was the purpose from the start.
The sewers, drains and water mains, that is, any leaks or sources of subsurface erosion could undermine the foundation causing the lean. Not easy to check.
If you look up the history of the World Trade Center complex in lower Manhattan you would see that the whole area is basically reclaimed land from the Hudson River. The tallest building in the city sits on reclaimed land. Of course the building of the WTC complex they had to construct a retaining wall first to keep out the Hudson River and pile drive deep into bedrock.
The World Trade Center complex isn't sitting on reclaimed land, but the World Financial Center which is next to it to the west is. The land that the World Financial Center is sitting on was made from the soil that was dug up to create the bathtub in which the original World Trade Center complex's foundation sat.
@@jamesjohnson1050 And I believe any tall building in Manhatan is build on or tied to solid bedrock (which is exactly why they can build tall buildings in Manhattan). Maybe that was not the case wtih THIS building at the South Street Seaport....
@@jamesjohnson1050 The original Hudson colonial shoreline barely extended to where Greenwich St. is. The condo tower is on 'river lots' fill; OG shore around there was what is now inland almost as far as Pearl St. Take it from the famous "Viele Map" - Sanitary & Topographical Map of the City and Island of New York (1865), and surely on other old sources harder to access at a moments notice online. That is the approx. edge of where the 'bathtub' of the west part of OG WTC site which included the towers was.
Yeah. If you read about 1 Millennium in SF, some of the residents sank their retirement into buying the place they planned to live the rest of their lives.
@@craigpridemore7566 its not only case in high end apartment buildings, in my city 6 floors of the living room came crashing down one on top of other and the whole complex is deemed unfit as it was made with unpure water which had too much chlorine in it.
😱 " WHAT THE HELL WERE THE DEVELOPERS THINKING?.... Apparently, They didn't learn from ' The Leaning Tower of San Francisco ' boondoggle? I wouldn't go within a block of either one, until they're demolished. "
I really thought the skyscrapers normally required pilings extending down to solid bedrock below the island. Engineers have to include geological reports to ensure that all pilings stand on solid rock, avoiding having any resting on fissile or weaker rock layers that could potentially shift under the weight of the building.
Depends what part of the city they are being built. By lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, East and Hudson Rivers fronts and adjacent areas, buildings are all typically built on piles , as deep as 150 feet. Towards the center of Manhattan bedrock is relatively shallow, making piles a bad choice.
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area. Shortly after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Houses were built to standards that no longer exist because of expense. Our 1,700sqft one story has roughly 60 six foot deep 2’ wide concrete piers that the subfloor sit on top of. Giving a small crawl space to access plumbing and systems. Now all new homes in our area on a poured slab.
The city should consider requiring a completion bond in future from any developer before breaking ground on any such possible eyesore of this prominence.
As a construction worker myself (structural ironworker) I can tell you that a 3" lean is totally unacceptable, ESPECIALLY from such a narrow building. I'm willing to bet this has to do with the contractor not using pilings, as the narrator pointed out.
Many of the floors in NYC's Freedom Tower in are completely out of level. It is standard procedure to bring in floor leveling contractors to correct the situation. One of the floors I worked on in the 80's part part of the stack was out of level by 3" across the entire structure. Big problem is the workers have no real supervision and no accountability. Buildings only get this messed up when a lot of people are not doing their jobs and looking the other way.
It's interesting because I've seen documentaries about buildings in other parts of the world where leveling is checked on a daily basis to prevent any one issue compounding the situation. I have a retail space across from where I work. It's only a few stories high but they put in pilings. (noisy and the vibrations were something else). But it was done.
I hear you. My dad is a retired Concrete Finisher and a Legend in Boston union construction. I also was a laborer for years. It's amazing how sloppy some crews can get
As someone that worked in construction for 40 years and specialised in concrete and highrised buildings the last 25+ years, that building is finished, it needs demolishing and starting again.
I read before that New York has a limited amount of space where larger, taller buildings can be built due to much of the land being reclaimed and not with solid ground underneath but with stuff like landfill and old boats. I think I read about this when I was looking up why they demolished the beautiful huge hotel built by Astor after he perished in HMS Titanic. Such a huge luxurious building demolished after something like 40-50 years because the skyscrapers need the land with the solid rock deep below the foundations.
Poor scheduling of plannings, these buildings getting the green light depends entirely on investors backers and the likes which can vary and become unpredictable in which these circumstances can force developers to green light everything with out 100% surity that's everything is in place. It's almost as though the patients of the financiers and investors dictates the meticulous planning and schedule of these buildings. 4:06
This problem should never have happened. As both a Chartered Architect and Structural Engineer; PhD in Building Material Physics, I suggest that someone runs some old fashion hand-calculations over the imposed façade loadings related to compensating structural stiffness, respecting Castigliano's second theorem (deflection) and then delves into Rankine Gordon and Perry-Robertson formulae regarding one-end fixed encastré cantilevers; using the building as a vertical column/cantilever projected off the foundations. i.e. the fixed part in the ground. The opposite end; where the deflection occurs in the sky - in this case, the wind replacing gravity as the cantilever is exposed to super-load forces, perhaps not factored holistically into the original calculations - think laterally! This is really simple stuff and the design straight forward to fix; if you are old school with experience in designing 'slippery' air-foil façades - The fault appears to be embodied within two factual logics. (i) the encastré presumption of load transfer to ground has not been sufficiently researched, therefore, the foundations; as designed are unsatisfactory, and, (ii) the wind-load on the superstructure is producing a 'resultant' eccentric force that was not considered properly within the calculations, thus: inducing an overturning moment; as per the cantilever acting as a lever upon the foundations that have become the cantilever's fulcrum. Most young engineers would not know what I am talking about because they have never run a hand calculation in their lives nor researched materials fit-for-purpose through design. i.e. this building has to have a steel frame not reinforced concrete due to the risk of flexure. Many engineers these days have become little more than computer button monkeys having never run an 'eye-inspection' or hand-calculation as a structural analysis safeguard, taking for granted that software acts as a catch-all. If one reads ISO documentation it generally states in the preambles on page 1, that the recommendations are not a Code of Practice, and, that utilisation of such ISO's do not provide protection from professional liability. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the superstructure is causing issues with structural 'stiffness' that in-turn has influenced the foundations. Thus there are two solutions. (i) Knock the building down and turn the site into: a car park, McDonaldo's, Pizza-Hut or whatever the New York moneyed-class has to have, or, (ii) Stiffen the design of the building's spine; which should have been conceived as the service core, and built as aforementioned, in steel due to flexible acknowledging "tall-thin column theory". The trouble is that the world is full of arseholes who do not wish to listen or learn. If this project was managed using BIM to the ISO19650 series, then I expect that such risk elements would have been thrown-up during the Appointed Parties' Risk Evaluation Statement - that is, both Lead Parties supervising: Architecture and Engineering would assess the risk potential of such a design as a 'thin structures' liable to deflection due to 'slenderness ratio'. If not, then all parties involved are utterly stupid. On a well managed project; BIM or otherwise, this type of incident should just not happen. Currently, I work in South East Asia and this type thing would not happen as structural simulation respecting earthquake design would have flagged-up the issues as a problem. Also, many engineers are female Koreans who never let a presumption pass through their hands, as they listen, are vigilant, validate software calculation checks, and never assume to know-it-all. Still it's the Big Apple - Hasta La Vista Baby - That's the way the cookie crumbles baby! これが世の中というものさ．
I believe much of the land at the rivers edge is fill dirt , probably a hundred years ago. In order to put up a structure that tall safely one must install pylons which connect to solid bedrock. Lots of luck with fixing this monstrous mistake.
The idea that you can chemically treat a soil, especially on a riverbank, and then build a massive skyscraper on top of it, is ridiculous. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or an engineer, or architect, to see that. I'm schocked and horrified that the City would approve such a plan. Pilings, pilings, pilings, into bedrock, is the ONLY foundation that should be allowed for skyscrapers, ESPECIALLY on a waterfront. But, I guess they won't learn that lesson until one comes down. Only then will they look back, in hindsight, to see what was obvious from the start. So frustrating and frightening.
A testament to how cutting corners doesn’t work out. Ultimately this failure is a regulatory one. By allowing a cheaper, riskier option, it is only a matter of time before someone goes for it in the name of economic gain.
It's just gonna topple over. You can tell that just by looking. I'm no engineer, just an artist and writer and I have an intuitive feel for balance. I'd never write or paint a piece with this kind of balance. It would fall flat quite soon.
@@rinc_1013 I'm sorry no normal or even upper middle class person is sinking any money into NYC real estate. It's for the elites. They couldn't if they waned to. This is big banks, investors, tycoons who sell to filthy rich, high profile celebs or tinpot dictators/shady money.
Lots of mistakes were made. It starts with the planning commission. You have an existing tall building on land fill, and you start a huge project next door (trans bay), with lots of vibration. From there, a child can see what went wrong. The only solution is to stop vibrating the area, stop building so tall and heavy. If you are going to underpin, only augers (corkscrewing) should be done. Even then, it’s a gamble. To go big, you should go wide. Look at how the Marriott Marquis was built, and how Frank Lloyd Wright build foundations. Mr. Wright built the Imperal Palace in Japan that survived a huge earthquake, and the Marriott opened the day of Loma Prieta. Both of these cases should be required reading for anyone building on land fill.
I can well believe they have a problem. My local doctors surgery is about to close and be pulled down. It is a single story building that sits on "good" ground (I was there when a test trench was dug by an engineer who said as much when they looked in the hole). The fact I witnessed this gives a clue to the problem, its about eight years old and has suffered subsidence since the day it was completed. Cracks started appearing in the first two weeks it was open and are now 2 inches across. I remind you that this is a single story building on good ground. If they can screw that up I am sure a 60 story sky scrapper is a doddle to fubar.
It's nuts to build a skyscraper with such a ridiculous height to width ratio. Living in that would be like living at the top of a bamboo plant in the wind!
@@meltedicecreamsandwich The design does (or should) go through wind testing, but the building itself is another matter entirely. NYC can get *really* nasty weather from time to time (remember Hurricane Sandy?)
the next building foundation on the tilt side is the problem. If they had built the neighboring foundation properly, this wouldn't have happened. That building must be deconstructed.
I have been following this as I am in the NYC area. I am no construction engineer but if you see the soil there when there is an excavation it is awful and 100 year old filler. I can't believe that they would not go down to bedrock and I can't even think it would be possible to correct this with the building standing.
Bedrock or bust! They should've known better than to try and build a skyscraper in NYC on anything but solid bedrock with piles included. They'll need to tear down the building piece by piece, strengthen the foundation and start again, but that's expensive, so instead we get legal wrangling, finger pointing, and denial about the severity of the issue.
I used to live in Battery Park City. Tall building. Whenever you put a pen on the floor it rolled towards the direction of the Hudson River. Not sure if it it was just the floor which was not level or the building itself. But I never felt comfortable.
