HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Engineering

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2018, 8:03 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post


That really is shocking. My building is 36 years old and we have nothing like that in our garage.
ours is 100+, and we definitely have nothing like that! then again, we're on high ground/rock out of the water table.

that said, i'm not sure exactly what we're seeing there. looks like bad spalling and then some exploratory demo (the diagonal cuts, circular holes at the top?). the exposed rebar can't be the result of an actual failure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2018, 3:27 AM
deja vu's Avatar
deja vu deja vu is offline
somewhere in-between
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 1,237
It almost looks like the new, replacement rebar. That would help explain the rather large holes in the wall (caused by removing the old, rusted / damaged rebar). That's often what happens on these types of jobs - the old steel has to be completely removed until you are back to good steel. Then new steel is installed, bonding coats applied, and new concrete installed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2018, 11:44 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 7,131
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2018, 6:28 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 7,131
Quote:
TJPA: Ruling Limits Taxpayer Liability in Millennium Tower Legal Costs Fight
September 24, 2018 07:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time

SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) announced Monday that a court ruling last week may require the TJPA to pay in the future just a fraction of the legal costs sought by Mission Street Development (MSD), the developer of the sinking and tilting Millennium Tower.

On September 20, 2018, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow rejected MSD’s request that the Court require the TJPA to defend MSD in six lawsuits. Those lawsuits have been brought against MSD for the excessive settlement and tilt of the Tower, including numerous fraud claims asserted by Millennium Tower residents against MSD.

The ruling did not examine or determine who caused the excessive settlement and tilt of the Millennium Tower, which will not be determined until trial in June 2019. The ruling dealt only with the narrow issue of whether the TJPA has a duty to defend MSD (e.g., MSD’s reasonable attorneys’ fees) based solely on what has been alleged by plaintiffs in the various complaints. Any suggestion that the ruling opens the possibility that the TJPA must pay the plaintiffs’ alleged damages due to the excessive settlement and tilt of the Tower is incorrect and a misreading of the Court’s order.

MSD argued that the TJPA was required under an indemnity clause in a 2008 easement agreement to defend MSD in all six cases against all claims, including fraud claims that unit holders filed against MSD for failing to disclose the excessive settlement and tilt prior to the sale of units.

The Court rejected that argument and held that the TJPA only has a duty to defend MSD against two claims in one case filed by the Homeowners Association for the Tower . . . .
https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...llennium-Tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Engineering
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:24 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.