The Miami Tower Collapse: What are the Lessons?
A Wall Street Journal article came out last week that was reviewing the latest regarding the Champlain Towers South, located in a suburb of Miami, which collapsed in June 2021 and killed 98 people.
Since the collapse, I’ve been asked by a number of people “what caused the collapse?”, and “how could that happen?”.
Shortly after the collapse, I was able to review some primary source material, because I had the same questions. Most significantly, this included an engineering report that documented the state of the building structure in 2018, 3 years before the collapse.
Given that we’ve had a few months since this tragedy, there are many lessons that are worth discussing within the building profession and with the public at large.
“That doesn't look right”
For anyone who has ever looked at a building structure and said to themselves “that doesn't look right”, in a lot of cases, you may be right. In severe circumstances, it may be truly dangerous, or it may be a small issue that can become a major issue if it’s ignored.
In an AP article, they reference a 2018 engineering report that showed “abundant cracking and spalling” of concrete columns, beams, and walls in the parking garage. This engineering report is both remarkable and tragic, because so many of the issues are openly visible to the naked eye. Further, the report indicates explicitly that the visible concrete repairs were not done properly, and the water leaching that’s visible, will “continue to increase” until it’s repaired properly.
It’s pretty clearly spelled out that there’s an issue with the building structure in that report. They are specifically talking about the lowest levels of the building, and this is the area of the building that failed, and led to a progressive collapse, which took out the rest of the structure. This means that one smaller area fails first, which then leads to a much, much larger failure.
The AP also reports that the same engineering firm was hired again in 2020, to detail the work that would need to be done to recertify the structure, as required every 40 years. Less than a year later, part of a concrete slab dropped into the parking below, and within minutes, the 13 storey tower collapsed, killing 98 people.
In general, by the time something is an issue that’s visible, there’s a very real chance that the problem is worse on the inside. This can be true for structural deterioration, mold, rot, and many other issues in buildings.
In this case, the fact that there was concrete spalling (flaking or peeling that’s due to water being in the concrete), and there were visible repairs that were not done properly, and rebar was visibly deteriorating, all indicates that there were known issues being worked on, but had not been taken care of properly.
Miami’s Champlain Towers South - Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images
Building code is the minimum requirement:
It seems that 40 years ago, according to various reports, the people involved in the construction skipped waterproofing in key areas, which presumably would have been to save money and/ or time.
I haven’t seen anything that indicates the building wasn’t up to building code. Many references say that it in fact, was up to code, but these decisions clearly endangered the building's long term stability.
Building code is a guide for basic performance and life safety requirements, but there’s no guarantee that it can address each and every issue in every unique situation.
Designing a building to meet building code is the lowest bar to clear, but the ethical obligation of an Architect and Engineer is not just to meet minimum code, but to ensure the safety of the public.
That’s a very broad statement, and it’s also not practical to build every building like a bunker, so what do we do?
For better or worse, common sense has to play a part when we decide how we want to build a building.
Part of the job is to imagine what could happen, and how to plan for the future and a worst case scenario. In any project however, the people controlling the money are the ones deciding how their dollars are spent, so it’s not as simple as building professionals providing recommendations that are beyond the minimum code requirements. The recommendations have to be accepted, and when there’s an additional cost, it can be difficult for an Owner to stomach.
That means that the Architects, Engineers, and contractors need to be very strategic with how they put a building together at the most basic level, so that you get as much longevity out of a structure, without having to spend an additional premium.
Look at older buildings. Many times, they do a lot of basic things well, and that helps contribute to their longevity.
What could that mean when we’re talking about water?
Let's just assume that we’re not perfect, and it’s hard to build things to perfection, so we can slope surfaces generously to keep water from pooling and getting into areas that we don’t want it to. We can avoid relying on sealants as much as possible, and we can trust that good-ole-gravity will help us figure out how to shed water.
When we make smart design decisions, we can avoid major problems down the road, with minimal detailing and added cost.
Concrete 101:
There are reports coming out saying there was not enough concrete covering rebar in some areas, and not enough rebar in other areas. Further, the 2018 report cites visible deteriorating rebar.
In a concrete building, the concrete is effectively acting like rock, meaning that it’s good in compression only. That means that it’s good at carrying weight with gravity, just like putting something on top of a rock. We put steel reinforcing rods (rebar) into concrete, because the steel is particularly good at withstanding tension (being pulled on), so the steel within concrete is helping the concrete span between columns or walls, and also holding it together in many different ways. The 2 components work well together.
The concrete in turn, not only works to carry the weight of the building in compression, but it also protects and covers the steel inside from water and fire. When the concrete covering isn’t consistent, or breaks away, the rebar can rust, and weaken the whole structure over time.
In this particular case, the fact that the building was a concrete structure, means that the apparent lack of waterproofing allowed water into the concrete, creating an issue where the total structure was being deteriorated from the inside, leading to a fatal weakness in the part of the structure that broke apart and led to a progressive collapse of the larger structure.
Hyatt Regency - Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
Not the first time:
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time that this many people have been killed in a structural collapse in the USA.
In school, the catastrophe that I was always told about was the Hyatt Regency skybridge collapse that killed 114 people in 1981. Ironically, that was the same year that the Champlain Towers South were built in the Miami suburbs.
Strange.
In this particular case, there was an engineering change, related to the way the sky bridges were hung from the roof above. As it turns out, the new connection that was proposed during fabrication, and then installed, wasn’t checked well enough before it was approved and implemented.
Changes during construction:
This type of change during construction is very common.
In this particular case, the Engineers of the Hyatt were asked “did you check the details”, and the Architects were assured that they had. When it ended up in court, the Judge found that the engineers defrauded the Architects and the Owners of the Hyatt (since clearly something hadn’t been checked well enough), and the Engineers lost their licenses.
Things change all the time in construction, and it’s often because a fabricator suggests an easier, faster, or cheaper way to build something.
In many cases, it may be acceptable, but in some of these cases (as we’re seeing), it’s catastrophic if it’s not studied properly.
Who’s responsible?
As it stands, there are many questions regarding the obligation of various parties in the Champlain Towers situation.
The severity of the deterioration, and the communication to the condo board is being questioned. It’s pretty hard to know exactly if and when a building will collapse, so if that’s what’s required for a condo board to take action and initiate proper repairs, that’s going to be difficult.
In this particular instance, my feeling is that nobody will be pinned with the sole responsibility.
Why?
Partly because the chain of decision making involves so many people, and in this case, the issues that led to the collapse seem to be related more to the deterioration over time than the design and engineering, since I haven’t seen anyone say that it didn’t meet code when it was built.
It seems to me that the condo board was in the most actionable position, since they would presumably be organizing the repairs. The local building department should be involved in the 40 year recertification, but it seems like they hadn’t got to it yet.
One report points out that the laws in Florida continue to strip away these recertification’s further and further, in an effort to support development.
In any project, there’s just so much going on, that trust in our professionals involved is a key element, but what about the ongoing maintenance?
We do have to get elevators and fire extinguishers checked regularly, but how do we monitor that structures are safe? In particular, if recertification’s aren’t required or enforced?
If we don’t have requirements, then it’s up to all of us to pay attention. Everyone needs to ask questions and potentially take action when something doesn't look right.
If that’s the system, I’m just not sure how else to handle it.
What does this mean for Architects, building Owners, and the public?
When a building is being planned and constructed, there are many tiers of professionals and contractors involved. It all rolls up to the project Owner, who hires the Architect and Contractor, who then each hire people downstream that support their work. There are many versions of these arrangements, but the shortest explanation is that there is a chain that leads up to the owner.
When I’m on site as an Architect, my role isn’t to tell people how to build something. That can actually create a big issue, because contractors are responsible for their own “means and methods” of construction.
This means that we give them drawings, and they have to figure out how to build it.
I’m not a big fan of this, but it’s a reality of the legal system we’ve created. It’s also partly the reason why I’m such a proponent of the design + build processes, but more on that another time.
Since contractors are responsible for their own “means and methods” of construction, this is why they often suggest alternatives that they think will be better in some way. Sometimes it’s purely cost related, but very often, there’s a detail that’s on paper that just doesn't work well in the real world.
In a good team relationship, the communication and decision making that occurs is transparent and intentions are clear. In a less productive relationship, changes will show up on site, and the Owner and Architect end up playing babysitter, to make sure that the things that are in the drawings are what show up on site.
I’ve had that happen before, unfortunately, and you end up reviewing drawings to make sure that you’re not wrong, before having the delightful conversation that is something like “if we asked for apples, why did you give me oranges? And why didn’t you ask us before you did?”.
I’ve never had that answer be very satisfying, and it means there was a mistake, or a contractor's scruples aren’t up to the highest standards.
When I look at drawings from an engineer or a contractor, I may not understand them as well as they do, but I do rely on common sense to ask questions, and verify that it makes sense.
As we see in the Hyatt example, that isn’t always enough to ask those questions, so we have to continue to learn from these tragedies.
Conclusions:
People often see buildings as permanent objects in their environment, but that’s not the case. Even without major events like hurricanes, building materials are subject to natural deterioration over time, and water is a major issue
In every instance that’s been mentioned here, there were opportunities to resolve the problem in some way, before the loss of life. In many cases, this isn’t cheap, and it isn’t easy, but regular maintenance and awareness could have helped identify the problems before it gets to this point.
Like most aspects of life, there are good and bad solutions that generally do the same thing, but are not the same when you really look at it. Food, cars, jackets, whatever it is, they might do the same job, but we all know that you generally get what you pay for. This is the case in buildings as well, so just remember that as dollars are distributed within projects.
Ask questions if you see things that don’t look right, regardless of who you are. If you see things in buildings that look dangerous, they may actually be dangerous, and you may want to avoid them in some way. Be aware, and don’t trust that the Owners of a property are completely aware of their safety issues, as scary as that may be.
There are counter-examples, of people working together and solving major construction problems, without any lives being lost. That doesn't mean there wasn’t pain and tremendous effort, but that’s trivial compared to the loss of innocent lives. More on that another time...
In this case, it’s just really sad that a building that had so many visible issues was allowed to continue to deteriorate and eventually fail.
One of the reasons I like the design and construction world is because many complicated things can be fairly straightforward when you boil them down.
In this case, when there are critical structural components that are visibly in such bad shape, could it have been reported to authorities to spur more immediate action? Did the engineers have that obligation? Did the condo board? Someone visiting the building? Would that have solved the problem? It probably would have led to other problems, like potential evacuation until proper repairs.
Would that have been better than where we are today?
Probably.
Sincerely,
-Chris
Please consider joining my mailing list, for weekly posts like this one.
P.S. I offer a Project: Launch program to help get things going quickly, if you’re ready to go! If you’re interested in this process, please reach out to talk. I’m always looking to meet good people and learn about interesting businesses.
