Terrible North Miami Beach condo collapse

[Dtail]

This should be no surprise.

A consultant engineer warned three years before the deadly collapse of a South Florida condominium building that there was evidence of “major structural damage” to the concrete slab below the pool deck and abundant cracking and crumbling in the underground parking garage, the New York Times reported on Saturday.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/26/miami-condo-collapse-warning-death-toll

Buildings just don't collapse out of the blue. The warning signs were obvious. Also in the past they use to mix concrete on site often using aggregate from the site. Another reason to avoid old high rise buildings in coastal areas. When we were condo hunting in 2011 around North Miami beach and downtown Miami, we avoided any building built before 2000. The trend over the past 10 years in Miami beach has been to tear down the old and build taller and new.

Plus all these older condos I would think are not up to current hurricane building codes in Florida.

 

[scrabbler1]

NW-Bound, thanks for posting those 2 pictures. They provide good perspective of the tragic collapse and the surrounding area.

I went to Google Maps to get some more perspective and saw that 87th Terrace runs along the wall which separates the building and the pool deck from the street, running east from Collins Avenue to a walkway to the ocean.

When I was a teenager in the 1970s, I went to Miami Beach 5 times to visit my grandparents, some of whom lived not far from the site of the building collapse. They lived on Harding Avenue and 83rd Street. Harding Avenue is the main road (A1A) which runs southbound, parallel to Collins Avenue.

We went to the beach every day, being such a short walk from it. However, in the 1970s, they extended the beach eastward from dredging, turning a short walk to the sand into a much longer one. I can remember seeing the dredging going on looking north from the 83rd Street area, which would line up the area in Surfside. It did not surprise me to learn that this building was opened in 1981, as that would correspond to a few years after the dredging was done, providing a wider beachfront area between a large building and the ocean.

 

[Nick12]

Plus all these older condos I would think are not up to current hurricane building codes in Florida.

There could be many building not up to code but who is going to pay for the needed improvements and will the condo owners fight the big increases in monthly dues at their regular association meetings with the mgt company? There are for sure improvements that need to be made at a cost of many thousands of dollars at the very least.

 

[MichaelB]

Not up to code does not mean unsafe. There is no requirement for existing structures to implement all changes to building codes, and to require (mandate) that could be financially destabilizing and impractical.

We still don’t know much about this incident. An engineering report may be meaningful, but we still need context - and much more information. No doubt, though, that South Florida has serious infrastructure issues.

 

[Amethyst]

Would be interesting to see condo association minutes for the doomed building, right after the 2018 engineer's report came out.

No matter how much the association might've had in reserves, it scarcely would have covered major concrete restoration, especially since a new roof was also needed (they had just started fixing the roof when the collapse occurred).

The Association would have been faced with "We can have a gigantic special assessment and do the repairs right away, or we can space it out over a few years...."

Guess which one the residents would've voted for.

There could be many building not up to code but who is going to pay for the needed improvements and will the condo owners fight the big increases in monthly dues at their regular association meetings with the mgt company?.

 

[Freedom56]

Plus all these older condos I would think are not up to current hurricane building codes in Florida.

The older buildings were not built to anything close to the current building codes. We looked at some buildings built in 1996 (after Hurricane Andrew) and we were not impressed. We then limited our search to newer buildings. In the days following this collapse our condo association has put out emails indicating that condo unit owners have been seen walking around our condo garage and the exterior looking for cracks. The age of our condo is approaching 14 years. The exterior and interior were last repainted in 2017.

 

[Nick12]

The older buildings were not built to anything close to the current building codes. We looked at some buildings built in 1996 (after Hurricane Andrew) and we were not impressed. We then limited our search to newer buildings. In the days following this collapse our condo association has put out emails indicating that condo unit owners have been seen walking around our condo garage and the exterior looking for cracks. The age of our condo is approaching 14 years. The exterior and interior were last repainted in 2017.

I'd expect more of the same. Residents who pay a lot in monthly condo fees looking at every area like a fine tooth comb that is of concern. But the bottom line is that the repairs will cost if not thousands but into the millions of dollars and what are the increases of condo monthly fees will look like moving forward.

 

[Scuba]

This tragic event is a wake-up call for condo boards everywhere. The fact is that most owners in condo complexes don’t want to see huge special assessments or large increases in monthly association fees, so condo Boards often end up deferring expensive projects. In our experience, this is especially true in older condo buildings.

There are many condo buildings across the country that have not been maintained all that well. We lived in one in Pasadena, CA that was built in 1960. It had a great location and fabulous mid-century design, but also had all kinds of deferred maintenance issues. Unfortunately many of the owners had either inherited their units or purchased a very long time ago. These owners said they couldn’t afford any improvements and always wanted to go the cheapest route on any repairs. In fact, the Board President’s son, who was not a licensed contractor, did much of the repair and maintenance work around the complex. We learned from that experience to avoid older buildings. The older the building, the more likely it is to have long-term owners who bought when the property was a lot cheaper to buy and maintain.

 

[latexman]

I thought it odd that the bent over exposed rebar was clean. No chunks attached.

A friend of mine, who is a Consulting Engineer specializing in Structural and Construction Forensics, explained this here.

The rebar was “bull whipped” out of the concrete in milliseconds, so it was not a gentle process. Had humans got in the way, it would not have been a pretty sight.

 

[omni550]

Short article quoting some residents of the 'sister' building, Champlain North.

Some mentions that the South bldg (the one that suffered the collapse) was not as well-maintained as the North.

https://news.yahoo.com/beach-residents-wondering-whether-building-150945957.html

omni

 

[Amethyst]

Lawsuits started being filed against the condo association almost immediately.

 

[NW-Bound]

Lawsuits started being filed against the condo association almost immediately...

, who is covered by liability insurance.

I wonder if the insurance coverage is enough to cover the entire building RE worth, let alone human lives.

 

[CardsFan]

Lawsuits started being filed against the condo association almost immediately.

I can't imagine lawyers rushing to a tragedy to make a buck .

Of course, these folks are actually suing themselves, but, of course, everyone wants to be first in line for the insurance settlement (assuming the condo association HAS insurance that would cover this).

I would not want to be a board member of that association even if all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed.

 

[NW-Bound]

It was mentioned in one of the earlier referenced articles that the assessment to raise funds to remedy the cracking and spalling slabs and columns found by the 2018 engineering report ran from $80,000 to $200,000 per unit. I guess it would vary with the square footage of each unit.

No wonder there was nothing much done until now. The roof work going on before the collapse was the first part of the total repair. It's too late and too little.

 

[NW-Bound]

I would not want to be a board member of that association even if all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed.

I would not want to be in the collapsed building when it happened.

Next, I would not want to be owning a unit there.

 

[MarieIG]

I would not want to be in the collapsed building when it happened.

Next, I would not want to be owning a unit there.

I would not be at all surprised if there are board members who are unit owners and were in the building . . .

We'll probably hear soon enough. I also would not want to be a Board Member, for the simple reason I would not want to be, in any measure, responsible for the collapse.

(Yes, I would not have wanted to have been in the building or a unit owner either. Wouldn't wish that on anyone.)

 

[ERD50]

It was mentioned in one of the earlier referenced articles that the assessment to raise funds to remedy the cracking and spalling slabs and columns found by the 2018 engineering report ran from $80,000 to $200,000 per unit. I guess it would vary with the square footage of each unit.

No wonder there was nothing much done until now. The roof work going on before the collapse was the first part of the total repair. It's too late and too little.

True, but if you don't pay for expensive repairs, they will just get more expensive as time goes on (or possibly end in tragedy if that was the case/cause for this building). And since these issues would have to be disclosed (I assume that is true in FL), the value of the condo w/o repairs is going to suffer. Though it sounds like these were going for big bucks?

Imagine someone who paid cash or has a paid up mortgage, and insufficient (or no) insurance. At least with a mortgage, you might be able to walk away from it (not that that's a reason to hold a mortgage, just thinking through the tragic possibilities here), and insurance would be required.

-ERD50

 

[Ronstar]

I did some deformation surveys of moving structures back in my working days. Very interesting work.

Our survey data was usually combined with a structural engineer’s analysis and recommended solution.

I usually didn’t follow up to see what if anything the client did to remedy the problem. I remember one several story structure having an elevator shaft that was sinking during construction. Engineer advised that it would stop sinking by itself and it did.

I suspect that engineers and surveyors are crawling all over the remains of the Miami building - if they are allowed to. Would be good to have some current data/info to supplement the previous engineering report.

 

[Koolau]

Not up to code does not mean unsafe. There is no requirement for existing structures to implement all changes to building codes, and to require (mandate) that could be financially destabilizing and impractical.

We still don’t know much about this incident. An engineering report may be meaningful, but we still need context - and much more information. No doubt, though, that South Florida has serious infrastructure issues.

How true. There was a condo fire on Oahu several months ago. Before the smoke cleared (literally) there were folks on the news (literally) jumping up and down complaining that the building did not meet current code - that is to say, did not have sprinklers installed. True enough, the building was built (IIRC) in the 70's and had no sprinklers.

But, even though the individual apartment was gutted - so much so they couldn't even determine how the fire started - the only damage to the REMAINDER of the building was smoke damage. I'm not against sprinklers and I would think most high rise buildings built now would have them. But NOT having sprinklers does not necessarily doom a building - even one with fire belching out both sides of an apartment. YMMV

 

[NW-Bound]

True, but if you don't pay for expensive repairs, they will just get more expensive as time goes on (or possibly end in tragedy if that was the case/cause for this building). And since these issues would have to be disclosed (I assume that is true in FL), the value of the condo w/o repairs is going to suffer. Though it sounds like these were going for big bucks?

Imagine someone who paid cash or has a paid up mortgage, and insufficient (or no) insurance. At least with a mortgage, you might be able to walk away from it (not that that's a reason to hold a mortgage, just thinking through the tragic possibilities here), and insurance would be required.

-ERD50

Well, people's nature is to deny the reality when it is too costly. Maybe things are not really that bad, maybe the deterioration takes time and I can sell and get out.

Of course, nobody expected the building to collapse 3 years later, not even the engineer who did the inspection.

 

[Koolau]

One of the condo bldgs. we looked at when we moved to Honolulu has serious spalling issues - apparently, they have put off repairs and now the building needs a $million top-to-bottom repair. Clearly, this will require the HOA to call for a (dreaded) assessment since the reserves will not cover the repairs.

Pay me now or pay me later, though YMMV.

 

[MarieIG]

I can't imagine lawyers rushing to a tragedy to make a buck .

Of course, these folks are actually suing themselves, but, of course, everyone wants to be first in line for the insurance settlement (assuming the condo association HAS insurance that would cover this).

I would not want to be a board member of that association even if all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed.

Those lawyers are not suing on behalf of themselves. They make money of course, but have to have clients who were willing to retain them.

In this situation, I suspect, this will NOT be a case of first come first serve. There are too many victims.

IMHO, the carrier(s) for the Condo will be looking for potential targets to share exposure, and may seek Court intervention (later on) to hammer out a settlement for all the injured parties. I expect that all the Condo's insurance coverage would be expended on this one.

 

[Koolau]

Those lawyers are not suing on behalf of themselves. They make money of course, but have to have clients who were willing to retain them.

In this situation, I suspect, this will NOT be a case of first come first serve. There are too many victims.

IMHO, the carrier(s) for the Condo will be looking for potential targets to share exposure, and may seek Court intervention (later on) to hammer out a settlement for all the injured parties. I expect that all the Condo's insurance coverage would be expended on this one.

I think it's fairly common that builders, suppliers contractors,etc., change ownership often enough that determining who to sue - and where to find the deep pocket - will be problematic. There is probably no "megacorp" out there that would make a tasty target. If the actual company who supplied, say, substandard rebar or defective concrete could be determined to be at fault, what would their complete financial destruction put in the victims' pockets? Probably not much. Typically these major disasters end up in some sort of governmental "pool" since anyone designated as "at fault" has so little value as to be a token. YMMV

 

[MarieIG]

, who is covered by liability insurance.

I wonder if the insurance coverage is enough to cover the entire building RE worth, let alone human lives.

Hopefully, they will have a reasonable amount of insurance. Some buildings have separate policies for general liability and property damage (damage to the building). The Condo Declaration may specify coverage requirements.

The coverage/ policies for larger buildings may be in layers.

 

[Amethyst]

My experience with condos was that the association insures the shared roof, the exterior (e.g. paint, stucco) and common area items (e.g., pool, tennis courts). Owners are responsible for everything from the walls in, even if caused by another owner (e.g. a washing machine that floods into adjacent units).

In a case like this, I don't see how individual owners' insurance companies would pay out, when the damage stems from failure of the main structure itself.

Liability, in this instance, is a complete mess. A cluck.

Hopefully, they will have a reasonable amount of insurance. Some buildings have separate policies for general liability and property damage (damage to the building). The Condo Declaration may specify coverage requirements.

The coverage/ policies for larger buildings may be in layers.