Comments on: A Potentially Disastrous Design Error http://www.damninteresting.com/a-potentially-disastrous-design-error A collection of Damn Interesting things Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:18:47 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Architect http://www.damninteresting.com/a-potentially-disastrous-design-error#comment-24282 Architect Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:08:04 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=500#comment-24282 I made a correction. Happens. I made a correction. Happens.

]]> By: Architect http://www.damninteresting.com/a-potentially-disastrous-design-error#comment-24281 Architect Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:04:48 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=500#comment-24281 [quote]Architect said: "Let me suggest reading some of the literature available to the public from the American Institute of Architects, or the Associated General Contractors, beginning with standard contract forms A101 and A201. There is a lot more to construction projects than what you seem to be inferring. If the Construction Documents are sound, there is nothing wrong with having it built by the Lowest Qualified Bidder. Most things are. On any project of any substantial scale, "shortcuts" are not taken lightly by a good builder, who has a lot to lose if something isn't right. His best approach is to do prepare his bid thoroughly, seeking all possible clarifications to the Drawings amd Specifications during the Bidding Period. If he gets the job, he should continue to seek clarifications, and if there are necessary changes adding to the cost, there is a standard process by which he is paid for them. He does not actually stand to gain much at all by installing less than what he is under Contract to do. In fact he would be guilty of fraud. If the Contractor proposes a substitution and it is accepted, he would be required to provide a credit. It does not go into anyone's "profit", it goes back into the Budget for Construction. Otherwise, there is malfeasance. The vast majority of contractors win their contracts by being the Lowest Qualified Bidder. What you seem to be saying is that the vast majority of contractors are criminals in collusion with the building owners. Unfortunately, that view is common among people whose ideas are formed primarily by the mass entertainment outlets. I personally believe that competition fosters innovation and counters inflation. As for profit, it is a clearly delineated feature of accounting (with the exception of a few criminals) and it allows people in this country to remain employed and for taxes to be paid."[/quote] [quote]Architect said: “Let me suggest reading some of the literature available to the public from the American Institute of Architects, or the Associated General Contractors, beginning with standard contract forms A101 and A201. There is a lot more to construction projects than what you seem to be inferring. If the Construction Documents are sound, there is nothing wrong with having it built by the Lowest Qualified Bidder. Most things are. On any project of any substantial scale, “shortcuts” are not taken lightly by a good builder, who has a lot to lose if something isn’t right. His best approach is to do prepare his bid thoroughly, seeking all possible clarifications to the Drawings amd Specifications during the Bidding Period. If he gets the job, he should continue to seek clarifications, and if there are necessary changes adding to the cost, there is a standard process by which he is paid for them. He does not actually stand to gain much at all by installing less than what he is under Contract to do. In fact he would be guilty of fraud. If the Contractor proposes a substitution and it is accepted, he would be required to provide a credit. It does not go into anyone’s “profit”, it goes back into the Budget for Construction. Otherwise, there is malfeasance. The vast majority of contractors win their contracts by being the Lowest Qualified Bidder. What you seem to be saying is that the vast majority of contractors are criminals in collusion with the building owners. Unfortunately, that view is common among people whose ideas are formed primarily by the mass entertainment outlets. I personally believe that competition fosters innovation and counters inflation. As for profit, it is a clearly delineated feature of accounting (with the exception of a few criminals) and it allows people in this country to remain employed and for taxes to be paid.”[/quote]

]]> By: Architect http://www.damninteresting.com/a-potentially-disastrous-design-error#comment-24280 Architect Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:00:48 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=500#comment-24280 [quote]another viewpoint said: "While this was an engineering failure that in the end was made right… what about all the other projects that end up being built by…"the lowest bidder"? You better believe they are going to take short cuts along the way to maximize their profit margin. After all, profits are what drive business (not to mention that profits are what shareholders want)!"[/quote] Let me suggest reading some of the literature available to the public from the American Institute of Architects, or the Associated General Contractors, beginning with standard contract forms A201 and A201. There is a lot more to construction projects than what you seem to be inferring. If the Construction Documents are sound, there is nothing wrong with having it built by the Lowest Qualified Bidder. Most things are. On any project of any substantial scale, "shortcuts" are not taken lightly by a good builder, who has a lot to lose if something isn't right. His best approach is to do prepare his bid thoroughly, seeking all possible clarifications to the Drawings amd Specifications during the Bidding Period. If he gets the job, he should continue to seek clarifications, and if there are necessary changes adding to the cost, there is a standard process by which he is paid for them. He does not actually stand to gain much at all by installing less than what he is under Contract to do. In fact he would be guilty of fraud. If the Contractor proposes a substitution and it is accepted, he would be required to provide a credit. It does not go into anyone's "profit", it goes back into the Budget for Construction. Otherwise, there is malfeasance. The vast majority of contractors win their contracts by being the Lowest Qualified Bidder. What you seem to be saying is that the vast majority of contractors are criminals in collusion with the building owners. Unfortunately, that view is common among people whose ideas are formed primarily by the mass entertainment outlets. I personally believe that competition fosters innovation and counters inflation. As for profit, it is a clearly delineated feature of accounting (with the exception of a few criminals) and it allows people in this country to remain employed and for taxes to be paid. [quote]another viewpoint said: “While this was an engineering failure that in the end was made right… what about all the other projects that end up being built by…”the lowest bidder”? You better believe they are going to take short cuts along the way to maximize their profit margin. After all, profits are what drive business (not to mention that profits are what shareholders want)!”[/quote]

Let me suggest reading some of the literature available to the public from the American Institute of Architects, or the Associated General Contractors, beginning with standard contract forms A201 and A201. There is a lot more to construction projects than what you seem to be inferring. If the Construction Documents are sound, there is nothing wrong with having it built by the Lowest Qualified Bidder. Most things are. On any project of any substantial scale, “shortcuts” are not taken lightly by a good builder, who has a lot to lose if something isn’t right. His best approach is to do prepare his bid thoroughly, seeking all possible clarifications to the Drawings amd Specifications during the Bidding Period. If he gets the job, he should continue to seek clarifications, and if there are necessary changes adding to the cost, there is a standard process by which he is paid for them. He does not actually stand to gain much at all by installing less than what he is under Contract to do. In fact he would be guilty of fraud. If the Contractor proposes a substitution and it is accepted, he would be required to provide a credit. It does not go into anyone’s “profit”, it goes back into the Budget for Construction. Otherwise, there is malfeasance. The vast majority of contractors win their contracts by being the Lowest Qualified Bidder. What you seem to be saying is that the vast majority of contractors are criminals in collusion with the building owners. Unfortunately, that view is common among people whose ideas are formed primarily by the mass entertainment outlets. I personally believe that competition fosters innovation and counters inflation. As for profit, it is a clearly delineated feature of accounting (with the exception of a few criminals) and it allows people in this country to remain employed and for taxes to be paid.

]]> By: Mirage_GSM http://www.damninteresting.com/a-potentially-disastrous-design-error#comment-22859 Mirage_GSM Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:42:45 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=500#comment-22859 [quote]brienhopkins said: "The building collapsing would be inevitable. The consequences catching up with the architect would be inevitable. He was protecting himself. Anyone would do the same."[/quote] For certain values of "inevitable"... On what do you base your claim that it would have been inevitable? Sufficiently powerful storms were due only every 17 years and even then an accident would not have been assured. Many people would have tried to sit it out - in fact this site is teeming with stories of desasters where people tried to sit it out, blame others or simply deny responsibility. I'd use the title "Hero" a bit more sparingly, but what he did was very courageous and deserving of respect! [quote]brienhopkins said: “The building collapsing would be inevitable. The consequences catching up with the architect would be inevitable. He was protecting himself. Anyone would do the same.”[/quote]
For certain values of “inevitable”…
On what do you base your claim that it would have been inevitable? Sufficiently powerful storms were due only every 17 years and even then an accident would not have been assured.
Many people would have tried to sit it out – in fact this site is teeming with stories of desasters where people tried to sit it out, blame others or simply deny responsibility.
I’d use the title “Hero” a bit more sparingly, but what he did was very courageous and deserving of respect!

]]> By: Remarque http://www.damninteresting.com/a-potentially-disastrous-design-error#comment-22612 Remarque Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:41:12 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=500#comment-22612 How interesting that the press was on strike at the same time the repairs were being made. Oh, and Scharneeigh, though your comment was off-topic, I loved it and I totally agree with you. How interesting that the press was on strike at the same time the repairs were being made.

Oh, and Scharneeigh, though your comment was off-topic, I loved it and I totally agree with you.

]]> By: piper http://www.damninteresting.com/a-potentially-disastrous-design-error#comment-14823 piper Sun, 13 May 2007 07:45:05 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=500#comment-14823 <p><i>This unusual architecture was one of necessity– the structure had to be built around St. Peter's Church</i></p><p>For one other example of downtown construction taking an existing church into consideration see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promenades_Cath%C3%A9drale" rel="nofollow">Promenades de la Cathedrale</a> in Montreal. <a href="http://www.promenadescathedrale.com/images/photo2.jpg" rel="nofollow">Picture taken during construction</a>.</p> This unusual architecture was one of necessity– the structure had to be built around St. Peter’s Church

For one other example of downtown construction taking an existing church into consideration see Promenades de la Cathedrale in Montreal. Picture taken during construction.

]]> By: Jeffrey93 http://www.damninteresting.com/a-potentially-disastrous-design-error#comment-13377 Jeffrey93 Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:50:17 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=500#comment-13377 <p><span class='quote'>tonnes said: "Let's wait for the next big earthquake shall we?"</span></p><p> In New York?? We'll be waiting a while. </p> tonnes said: “Let’s wait for the next big earthquake shall we?”

In New York?? We’ll be waiting a while.

]]> By: RSeery http://www.damninteresting.com/a-potentially-disastrous-design-error#comment-11051 RSeery Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:50:45 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=500#comment-11051 <p>This story was made into a Numb3rs episode. Season 1, episode 4. They moved it to LA but modified very little of the story.</p> This story was made into a Numb3rs episode. Season 1, episode 4. They moved it to LA but modified very little of the story.

]]>