"Endangered the lives of 200,000 people, luckily, there was a press strike so no one reported on it" Damn That was almost a disaster for their quarterly revenue
It’s like how the Government put a gag on the Nuclear waste issue that occurred in October last year which people didn’t learn about until late February this year when the damage was already done. The government obviously hates us.
It was a disaster for them but similar to that time someone bought a winning lottery ticket only to find their transaction had been denied when they bought it because their account didn't have enough money.
The design of the stilts wasn't the problem; it's that they riveted/bolted the girders together instead of welding them, allowing too much movement in the tower. This video was poorly researched.
@@LS-Gaming101agreed they blow story's up for clicks and views and make them sound way worse than they actually are seen a older gentleman hit the gas instead of the brake while Parking and literally bumped the side of the building no damage watching the news later that day see the headline elderly man rams side of store sending people fleeing for there lives lmao
Apparently one of the problems was the architect had specified certain fasteners on all the beams, these allowed the building to wobble in the wind, the contractor changed them out without consulting the architect, to a more standard, sturdier fasterner, but it would cause the building to "snap." Some people did actually figure it out while the building was being repaired. There were so many welding teams working on the building, from the outside that the welding torches traced out the structure of the building., tipping people that there was a structural issue. Also people wondered why there were NO welding crews available in three states. They also had big crews for sheet-rocking and painting. They would go in after people left their offices, ripping out the walls, welding the beams, then putting up new sheetrock and repainting, so people wouldn't realize there was work going on.
@@yuioyup You mean ... why do people make changes to a structural concept without asking the structural engineer first? Savage. But not in a good way.
@@neatwheat That too, of course! Just as importantly, once that disastrous oversight was made, denying hundreds of thousands of people the right to make an informed decision on behalf of their own safety is also problematic, and the “always lying” part they were referring to. Those people had a right to know what was going on, and choose to stay away or come in and work anyway. They were lucky it worked out but it could’ve easily gone awry.
Some blame the architect, some blame the contractor But none of this would have happened if they didn't make that strange real estate deal in the first place
@RU-vid is Trash I mean, anything is more important than this generic, lazy ass designed building that looks about as structurally stable at the bottom as a Jenga set after 20 stacks.
@@sailingsam3815 I don’t recall ever feeling it sway and I had a window office. Of course it was over 30 years ago at this point, so perhaps it did and I just don’t remember.
nah, people think they want an all traditional architecture skyline but they don't, it gets gaudy and overcomplicated quick, also postmodernism executes the wedding cake form/ setback as you go up form of the skyscraper much better, the modernism and postmodernism is as much as part of city character as traditional designs, if you really cant handle a building being more simplistic than its neighbor then don't look at architecture, people also want to act like old architecture is objecitevly better yet if that were true then the ppg palace wouldn't be talked about more than the cathedral of learning or chicagos old buildings wouldn't be taking side seats to the sears tower and john hancock center, Except it is like that, funny huh? maybe you should just tolerate something you don't like that isint actually as harmful as you want to believe it is, almost every argument for puritisiam from traditionalists AND modernists (form follows function is a bunch of bullshit, minimalist midcentury design is cool but a lot of reasons for it were bullshit and sometimes racist) and it follows the same style of arguments made for the objectivity of music/art/movies/games people want their taste to be objectively true, its part of being human, also they wouldn't have torn down everything before 1950 like they did in the 60s in america if these buildings were so objectively better
@@circleinforthecube5170pretty building = good and inspiring. Raw Concrete box = omg just looking at that I wanna kms. I want to be in places that are interesting and inviting not places that are overpowering, foreboding and refuse organic forms. Modernism and postmodernism came about as a rebellion against tradition. Which is ultimately good however now that those styles along with contemporary have become the defacto default for new buildings they represent the exact opposite... conformity. And now ornamentalism and organic structures are rebellious.
Yes, we all know. While that was a horrific intentional act, at least some people had time to escape with their lives. Imagine that building filled with many, MANY more people who have absolutely zero warning as the entire building suddenly tips over and collapses onto other adjacent buildings filled with people who also had zero warning, all because one architect royally screwed up.
It wasn’t some random student crying, I don’t know the name but they ended up being a talented architect, they calculated the structural issues of the building alone and came up with the plan to fix them while still studying.
a student was looking at the as built structure vs the original plan and inquired about the change which is how it got caught the student didn’t fix it
It wasn't a design flaw, but a flaw with the standards. The wind code at the time only required winds at the cardinal directions to be checked. This is an important point as it's a key reason why the building owner couldn't sue LeMessurier for negligence. It didn't have a 1/16th risk of collapsing. It had a risk of the steel connections exceeding their design capacity in a 1 in 16 year wind event. This design capacity has a number of material and load safety factors built in, so even if a 1 in 16 year wind event happened the building would probably be fine. The code required the building to resist a 1 in 50 year wind event which was the issue. You also left out some other key points such as mentioning Diane Hartley who was the student who raised the question to LeMessurier. It's disappointing that you left her name out of the facts but still found space to mention the architect who played a relatively minor role in the story. I'd recommend reading the original New Yorker article as well as the paper by Eugene Kremer on the topic to gain a better understanding. It's disappointing that people will watch your video and not grasp the facts of the case incorrectly. (Edit:Typo)
@@revolvency - NIST - which did the simulation analysis mentioned by Repleh - recommended reanalyzing the building structure to see if it had adequate strength - since NIST determined that the NYC code was adequate to withstand high winds - it's likely that even with the bolts (replacing welds) - the building would probably not have collapsed the chief engineer LeMessurier never spoke with Diane Hartley who had warned of quartering wind loads - it was his phone call with student Lee DeCarolis that prompted him to recalc the wind loads - and after comparing them to the building's construction - determined that it could collapse if the electricity was cut and disabled the dampers used to control the building's sway - so he reinforced it - - but the NIST reanalysis suggests it may have been unnecessary
Imagine if that student didn’t believe in themselves… It would’ve been very easy to look at that huge billion dollar building, look at all the well respected architecture and engineering firms involved, look at all the senior engineers and tradesmen, and say to yourself “Surely they can’t _ALL_ have missed this, I’m just a student. They know much more than me, I’m probably the one whose wrong.”
also the engineer who designed this was perfectly confident but some ass changed his design in the construction and when he redid the calculation after knowing that, he aint so confident, in fact, he knew for a fact then it was a disaster waiting to fall bro got so depressed he considered committing suicide because this would ruin his career and he be in jail or some shit but in the end he gave up suicide and told the citicorp instead basically bro chose hero instead of villain and fixed the building, and even reimbursed watever costs for that
IIRC there were two issues. The wind direction issue is what the student figured out, but it wouldn't have necessarily caused a collapse. It did mean the margins were much smaller than the engineers had believed, so they decided to review everything. That's when they discovered the second issue: a contractor had swapped out one type of fastener for another, which made the building's unusual structure too rigid. The two issues combined dropped the safety margins for lower than is acceptable.
Diane Hartley's calculations determined that quartering winds would be high enuf to collapse the building - made weaker by the placement of the columns chief engineer LeMessurier (who never spoke with Hartley) recalced the wind loads after a phone call with another architectural student Lee DeCarolis - and thought they could be a danger if the electricity goes out - causing the damper system that reduces the building's sway to stop - he then learned that critical braces in the building were joined by bolts rather than welded - and he thought that the NYC code which the building met was inadequate - so he instituted the reinforcement ironically - recently NIST has reanalyzed the wind loads using modern technology - and found the wind loads were not a problem - and that meeting the NYC code was sufficient - they recommended a reanalysis of the original design to determine if it needed to be reinforced after all in short - both Hartley and LeMessurier were wrong about the wind loads - there was likely no danger of the building toppling
There is a happy ending because rare thing 2 happened. A student wasn't afraid to question her teacher, and the teacher was humble enough to accept that he was wrong.
afaik the student was like "I can't see anything wrong with my calculations, what did they do that I missed?" and the engineer was like "well, fuck she didn't miss anything."
And the teacher was willing to loose his livelyhood by admitting he built an unstable skyscraper. There was a very real threat that he could have been screwed. Luckily engineers are decently intelligent so they praised him for it to encourage people self reporting issues instead of hiding mistakes. Nowadays we call that a blameless culture and it's commonly used in aviation, architecture, infrastructure etc
@@Viki1999you guys have the story all wrong. The architect of the building is LeMessurier, and he wasn’t a teacher. It was a Princeton student that discovered the structural flaw and informed her professor, who in turn informed LeMessurier’s firm. He assured them the calculations were correct until a second student later called him up and convinced him to check on his calculations.
@@AndorranStairwayYou have most of it. Just missing the correct ending. The plans and calculations were 100% correct. However the engineer checked the final plans anyway and noticed the contractor had made last minute changes with the material used which altered the calculations and made it unsafe because of the weight and type of screw/weld used. So he wasn’t wrong, the contractor was by not having anyone recheck for the new accurate measurements. So really the engineer and that student were both hero’s! But yeah no one ever gets this story correct.
It wasn’t a design flaw. More like a construction flaw. This building was designed with a chevron system and each chevron was in multiple pieces and was suppose to be welded on site. In order make construction easier these were bolted instead. This was overlooked and the building was built with bolts. The repair include them adding steel plate snifters that were welded at each bolted connection.
The key failure was in the analysis of the fastening change. They analyzed the building for wind loading but only looked at face wind loads which are usually the worst case for square buildings. With this unique design the cornering wind load was the worst case condition. So while the change was fine for face winds, it wasn't for cornering winds.
Sounds like the Hyatt Regency walkway in Kansas City; a change to what the architect drew during construction led to an unintentional massive reduction in the load it could carry and its later collapse.
This building has a huge weight at the very top floor which moves from side to side to balance out the building when there are heavy winds. I believe there is a video here on RU-vid explaining how the citibank building was saved.
You should include more dates! I mean, most people don’t know when hurricane Ella came through! And I know that you can look it up! But your videos are informative, dates are everything! Love your videos keep it up !
@@Repleh - Diane Hartley never spoke with LeMessurier - she spoke with an engineer at the NYC office while LeMessurier was in his office near Boston architectural student Lee DeCarolis spoke with LeMessurier via phone - he simply asked questions - but that got LeMessurier to recalc the wind loads - and his calcs determined that if the electricity failed and the building's damper failed - the bracing might not hold the building together due to bolts replacing the welding originally planned NIST reanalysis has determined that LeMessurier's recalc was wrong - that the wind loads would not have been as severe as his calcs said - they recommend a reanalysis of the building structure to determine if the expensive reinforcement was even necessary
@@goomba8170Nope. Johneyon up there has it correct. Diane just wrote a paper. Lee DeCarolis' questions were what made William LeMessurier realize she was correct.
I'd rather know about the building's issues and worry about it falling than having it fall and create a domino effect on multiple skyscrapers, not having any idea what was taking place, and thinking Manhattan was experiencing some sort of second 9/11.
The exterior curtainwall was built by Flour City Architectural Metals. I worked there from 1990 to 1995. My boss was the lead engineer on the curtainwall (curtainwall is the glass and aluminum unitized panels with all the structural supporting sub-girts, mullions, and anchors. But not the main structure). Flour City built curtainwall for many of NY's monumental structures in the 1980's and 1990's. Citibank building in LIC Queens, Trump World Tower by the UN building (not Trump Tower on 5th ave), Foley Square Southern District Courthouse, NY Hospital addition over FDR Drive, etc...
@@edelquinn3265 i understand some people like modern arch but bro aside from the stilts and sloped roof it was a pretty average bulding, theres actually one not incredibly different from it in chicago and new york city
The original St. Peter’s Lutheran church was beautiful . The ultramodern new one was/ is amazing. They held Jazz vespers where the best jazz musicians would perform. My parents were among them .
@@bobmarley2140Oh yeah, surely it's the catholic church the one that owns a big part of NYC and not that other religious and ethnic group that many people are afraid to talk about.
The student was doing a case study and called up the engineer. During the phone call, the engineer realized one of the details on the joints or something is done by mistake. And the building can fall if there is a big gust of wind that visits the area periodically and was way over due. So came out to claim that the building was dangerous. This story is then a case study of ethics in engineering schools.
They replaced the welds with bolts because it’s a lot easier to construct. LeMessurier only found out later when he was working with the same contractor on a later project, and they asked if they would also be able to do the same swap.
the student was Lee DeCarolis - his talk with LeMessurier prompted LeMessurier to recalc the wind loads - and the building's ability to withstand them - and he determined that IF the building's dampers were stopped due to electrical failure - then the structure might fail - due to bolts being used to hold together the V bracing that directed the weight to the beams - instead of the welding that was planned for now we have the technology to measure wind loads - and LeMessurier was wrong in his recalculations - the wind loads were less severe than he (and a woman student named Diane Hartley) thought - there was likely no threat of collapse at any time
I commented one this buildings story before on another video,.. I really don’t think this building was ever a threat,.. the calculations are wrong, this needs to be looked at further.. but what the heck now it’s never going to fall,.. weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!! 🤣
"Nearly destroyed the whole skyline of NY, almost killed hundreds of thousands..." gosh how meaningless are words nowadays with the pressing need to impress. "Almost one of the worst disasters in history!"
Read the New Yorker article about it. It's actually a case study on how to do things right -- everyone involved put aside their egos, red tape, concerns about reputation, etc., and jumped in to quickly remedy the situation with a minimum of friction or delay.
@@ddichny - the new yorker article was published in 1995 - a lot has been learned about the situation since - such as a NIST reanalysis which determined that the winds were not the threat that the engineer thought they would be
it was probably more than safe since it was reinforced - a NIST study determined the wind loads weren't going to be as bad as thought - and the reinforcement may not have been necessary
What a disgusting building. The trend towards to concrete and glass really cements the American appeal for money over art. A damn shame, as there were/are many talented American architects.
a NIST reanalysis using modern technology - says the wind loads weren't the danger that they thought back then - the building may not have needed to be reinforced at all
The main architect was not at fault and the student that discovered the issue was also an architect. That's why the inside jokes should stay inside, Architects and Engineers don't hate each other but people think there are fundamental conflicts between them simply because of an inside joke of one hating the other
They aren't stilts they are columns my friend. If you look at most of our skyscrapers they were very popular during the 20's and 30's. Architects were influenced by the French and liked to create atriums and courtyards with fountains ⛲️ and the French presented us a huge metal lady who actually lives in Jersy not NY.
no one was in danger - NIST reanalysis using modern technology has determined that the wind loads weren't going to be an issue that the engineer thought - so the reinforcement may not even have been necessary - a reanalysis of the original structure needs to be done to be sure - - besides - using the calculations they had at the time - they determined that the triggering event would be high winds - it wasn't going to collapse at a random time - the Red Cross had plans to evacuate that building & surrounding buildings should high winds hit (and there was a hurricane headed up the coast during the reinforcement - but it diverted)
Why aren’t we talking about the government agency that approved the construction to ensure that the building is safe, structurally sound and is build according to all local law and environmental requirements? You know… the people that supposed to regulate and keep people safe from collapsing building?
