Lafayette Building's top two floors subsiding?

[Huggybear]

I don't want to reignite some flame war about the Lafayette Building, but has anyone else noticed the apparent [[and recent) collapse of the top floor into the next floor down?

If you stand on Shelby and look into the "V," you can see that at the vertex [[to the right, the Lafayette side), it looks like there is brick and debris filling up the second-to-the-top floor windows. Two weeks ago, it just looked like the mullion below the top window had come off; today it looked much worse.

Has anyone seen this with binoculars? Any ideas on what is going on up there?

[ASR89]

In before "Tear that schitt down!"

I haven't seen the area in question, but I wouldn't be surprised if portions of the roof have caved in.

[wolverine]

^ There was quite a bit of ponding on the roof. Most of the roof drains are likely clogged, and it's iced up over the winter months. Wouldn't surprise me if this was coming over the years. But if it's the next floor below that, I don't know what.

[Huggybear]

I couldn't really see anything but quasi-rubble from the ground. I'll check it out again today if I can.

[davewindsor]

I don't want to reignite some flame war about the Lafayette Building, but has anyone else noticed the apparent [[and recent) collapse of the top floor into the next floor down?

If you stand on Shelby and look into the "V," you can see that at the vertex [[to the right, the Lafayette side), it looks like there is brick and debris filling up the second-to-the-top floor windows. Two weeks ago, it just looked like the mullion below the top window had come off; today it looked much worse.

Has anyone seen this with binoculars? Any ideas on what is going on up there?

How about a picture with a $10 digital camera so I know what you're talking about.

[Bcscott]

Bummer. I'm staying at the Book Cadillac again this comming Friday. If nobody has snapped any pics before then I'll try and take a few and post them.

[Patrick]

Yep, I saw that the other day. The interior "V" section along the top few floors looks like it was hit with a small bomb.

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't want to reignite some flame war about the Lafayette Building, but has anyone else noticed the apparent [[and recent) collapse of the top floor into the next floor down?

If you stand on Shelby and look into the "V," you can see that at the vertex [[to the right, the Lafayette side), it looks like there is brick and debris filling up the second-to-the-top floor windows. Two weeks ago, it just looked like the mullion below the top window had come off; today it looked much worse.

Has anyone seen this with binoculars? Any ideas on what is going on up there?

I'm confused. If brick is piling up, how is that an indication of failure of the floor system? If the floors are collapsing in a pancake mechanism as you suggest, then you may want to report this to the building owner, lest a spontaneous progressive collapse [[think World Trade Center 1 and 2) occurs.

"Subsidence" refers to phenomenon associated with displacement of soil. Loose masonry doesn't fit this categorization.

Photos would be helpful. And the DEGC should have had an engineer look at the building years ago. Now they're going to use their own neglect as an excuse for demolition.

[digitalvision]

I have seen this a few times as I've walked by it and seen it get progressively worse. I went through some photos I took, but none of them show the issue well [[crappy camera phone) - I noticed this starting a couple months ago looking at when I took the photos and made the mental note.

It looked as if the facade is collapsing inward toward the building, to me.

[davewindsor]

I'm not going to comment on the roof prior to seeing a picture, but as for the comment below:

I'm confused. If brick is piling up, how is that an indication of failure of the floor system? If the floors are collapsing in a pancake mechanism as you suggest, then you may want to report this to the building owner, lest a spontaneous progressive collapse [[think World Trade Center 1 and 2) occurs.

WTC and Lafayette are a ridiculous comparison. That's an apples and oranges comparison. WTC collapsed due to an explosion and poor and lax building codes, not wear and tear. The building standards with older buildings such as the Lafayette were significantly higher, not including the better architecture. This wasn't cheaply built, so don't confuse the two. They are different in two ways: one was due to a fire which played a significant role, the other was not; and the building codes of the Lafayette were a lot higher and very different than that of the WTC.

As a contrast to the WTC, in 1945 a loaded US B-25 bomber accidently lost direction in the fog and slammed into the Empire State Building on the 79th and the 80th floor. The building caught fire. Because of the concrete fire seperation between the hallways and units and concrete cladding around the steel and all the concrete used in the building it did not collapse and the fire was contained and put out and the building still stands today. The WTC was cheaply built--mostly steel and glass. The inherent problem was with structural steel. If structural steel is heated at 2000 degrees for a couple minutes, which is easily done when a fire breaks out in an enclosed unit, the steel bends like licorice and the above floor ends up collapsing into the one below because the steel lost its ability to support the weight above. When you have a couple floors plus the weight of several dozen floors above it collapse on floor below it, the whole thing comes down. BUT, concrete can protect against the immediate effects of that heat that structural steel cannot, so you're not going to have the kind of "spontaneous progressive collapse" in the Empire State Building like you did with WTC. Had the WTC been built with the higher building standards of the Empire State Building, it wouldn't have collapsed. The Lafayette was built to the standards of the Empire State Building with concrete fire seperation and concrete cladding around structural steel because that was the code back then. The Lafayette was built to last. I'd choose leasing in one of these old buildings versus the poorly built and unsafe crap they build today any day of the week. The Lafayette could easily support the weight of another floor collapsing on it just by design [[not that it happened anyway because I have to see someone produce a picture). It doesn't need to be taken care of right away. But, in any case, it is fixable and worth saving.

[Sebastian]

The WTC was cheaply built--mostly steel and glass. The inherent problem was with structural steel. If structural steel is heated at 2000 degrees for a couple minutes, which is easily done when a fire breaks out in an enclosed unit, the steel bends like licorice and the above floor ends up collapsing into the one below because the steel lost its ability to support the weight above. When you have a couple floors plus the weight of several dozen floors above it collapse on floor below it, the whole thing comes down. BUT, concrete can protect against the immediate effects of that heat that structural steel cannot, so you're not going to have the kind of "spontaneous progressive collapse" in the Empire State Building like you did with WTC.

You need to do a reality check, since you don't know what you're talking about. The WTC didn't collapse, it *exploded*. Didn't you notice the billowing clouds of concrete dust? Does concrete just explode when it collapses? No, it doesn't. it fractures and makes a big pile of rubble; it doesn't get ejected a hundred feet in a lateral direction. And where was all the concrete from all those floors? In a pile of rubble on the ground? No--because it had all blown away in clouds of dust. Pulverized -- by what?

No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire, and yet we're supposed to believe that three of them collapsed on the same day - one of which had insignificant fire damage? Look at footage of WTC # 7 collapsing, and try to convince yourself that that building was not deliberately imploded. That's right, forget about the twin towers for a sec and just watch #7 coming down on that fateful day. And if you still believe that happened because of a couple small office fires, then I have nothing else to tell you.

[Trumpeteer]

You need to do a reality check, since you don't know what you're talking about. The WTC didn't collapse, it *exploded*. Didn't you notice the billowing clouds of concrete dust? Does concrete just explode when it collapses? No, it doesn't. it fractures and makes a big pile of rubble; it doesn't get ejected a hundred feet in a lateral direction. And where was all the concrete from all those floors? In a pile of rubble on the ground? No--because it had all blown away in clouds of dust. Pulverized -- by what?

No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire, and yet we're supposed to believe that three of them collapsed on the same day - one of which had insignificant fire damage? Look at footage of WTC # 7 collapsing, and try to convince yourself that that building was not deliberately imploded. That's right, forget about the twin towers for a sec and just watch #7 coming down on that fateful day. And if you still believe that happened because of a couple small office fires, then I have nothing else to tell you.

An airliner crashing into an office tower fully loaded with fuel does a tad more than cause " a couple small oddice fires". Now your thoughts on jet contrails?

[davewindsor]

You need to do a reality check, since you don't know what you're talking about. The WTC didn't collapse, it *exploded*. Didn't you notice the billowing clouds of concrete dust? Does concrete just explode when it collapses? No, it doesn't. it fractures and makes a big pile of rubble; it doesn't get ejected a hundred feet in a lateral direction. And where was all the concrete from all those floors? In a pile of rubble on the ground? No--because it had all blown away in clouds of dust. Pulverized -- by what?

No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire, and yet we're supposed to believe that three of them collapsed on the same day - one of which had insignificant fire damage? Look at footage of WTC # 7 collapsing, and try to convince yourself that that building was not deliberately imploded. That's right, forget about the twin towers for a sec and just watch #7 coming down on that fateful day. And if you still believe that happened because of a couple small office fires, then I have nothing else to tell you.

That's the most idiotic statement I heard yet. The NY Fire Chief determined caused of WTC 7's collapse was due to fire, not an exlposion. Why would I try to convince myself otherwise? Are you a Fire Marshall? Have you even bothered to read the articles posted in this thread posted by rsa and ghetto? RSA's diagram from the Science Times article showed a comparison between 70 West with WTC 7 and how the spray on fire proofing could have fallen off the steel support beams to lead to its collapse during a fire versus the 4-6 inch clay block tile that protected the steel support beams on 70 West. An unsafe and cheap modern building practice that caused WTC 7 to collapse while 70 West remained standing.

Ghetto's Popular Mechanic's article stated that the "one primary reason for the building's failure" were "the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor" and according to their "preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

One column is damaged by a piece debris from another building and the whole thing collapses. That is called modern ways of building on the cheap: engineers trying to find cheaper ways to build buildings that end up collapsing from their own weight. Quite unlike the older buildings which are many more times safer, solid and built to last.

[Sebastian]

As I said, watch any video of WTC 7 collapsing. And if you still believe it was not deliberately imploded, then I have nothing else to say. But buildings that collapse do not fall straight down in a few seconds.

And as for the other poster, the 'small office fires' I referred to were in WTC #7, if you had read my post carefully. Also, I'm sure you're aware that the jet fuel from the twin tower crashes burned off in a few minutes, leaving only office fires, which are not hot enough to deform steel. And no fire or ordinary collapse is capable of pulverizing concrete. Seriously, just look at the videos, while the towers are allegedly 'collapsing'. Compare the towers to a steel-and-concrete building that collapses in an earthquake. Then look at videos of imploded buildings. Do some research. You really shouldn't believe everything the government tells you.

[Huggybear]

Ghettopalmetto, I have no idea what is happening - it looks like piles of debris in there. I don't think that a building like this can do a WTC, but then again, this was a building built on the cheap during a speculative boom and then abused by its owners througout its entire existence.

I'm sure that whatever is causing this would have been noted when they did the asbestos abatement several months ago [[or did they only take bids for that?), and this may have been what we were all seeing in the news being called "instability" [[I think we all thought the reference was to the granite panels on the facade). Reporting this problem to the building's owner might actually result in its emergency demolition.

And on your grammatical point, I think that the generic "subside" is a good description. The geological "subsidence" that you mention is not a bad description for how it looks.

[ghettopalmetto]

It's not a ridiculous comparison, daveinwindsor. Look at ACI 318, Chapter 11. Shear failure is shear failure is shear failure. The World Trade Center failed because the steel joist connections failed in shear, but its very possible to fail a concrete slab in shear at its columns. Slabs are designed to resist "static" loads; if a concrete slab from above falls onto the slab below, the magnitude of force upon impact is amplified. Either failure mechanism can lead to progressive collapse.

You may want to do a comprehensive review on building codes before you write so extemporaneously on them. You're spreading a LOT of misinformation. Are you an engineer?

I'm sure that whatever is causing this would have been noted when they did the asbestos abatement several months ago [[or did they only take bids for that?), and this may have been what we were all seeing in the news being called "instability" [[I think we all thought the reference was to the granite panels on the facade). Reporting this problem to the building's owner might actually result in its emergency demolition.

And on your grammatical point, I think that the generic "subside" is a good description. The geological "subsidence" that you mention is not a bad description for how it looks.

Asbestos contractors are not qualified to conduct structural condition assessments. They would not have noticed a damned thing.

But if you think the building is collapsing on its own, you'd rather risk lives of innocent people rather than notify the owner? How do you justify that?

You can use your term "subsidence" to mean whatever you want. I'm just telling you that to an engineer, it means something quite different than what you describe.

[rsa.313]

GP's right dave; your post is full of inaccuracies.

WTC did not collapse from poor and lax building codes or poor design. it failed structurally from impact of plane collisions and the subsequent fires. the collisions 1) weakened the structure, 2) dislodged fireproofing from ceilings, and 3) severed fire sprinklers. this allowed the subsequent fire to heat the steel to the point of elasticity, where it ultimately failed.

the empire state building is not a concrete structure. it is a steel structure that supports concrete slab floors. steel members [[columns and beams) are not encased in concrete.

steel does not reach the point of elasticity in a couple of minutes if drastically heated. the steel at the south tower withstood fires of several thousand degrees for almost an hour. the north tower made it almost two. the structure at the ESB would've suffered the same fate eventually.

building codes and standards were not better in 1931 than they were in the late 60's [[when the WTC was being designed). they continue to make codes more stringent, not less, throughout the years.

the stairs and elevators at WTC were encased in concrete.

the difference between the two is not quality control or times that they were built in. the difference is structural systems. ESB is a standard post and beam system laid out in a grid. this system offers a lot of redundancy and would allow sturtural failures to be localized. [however, if one section collapsed on 80, then that section above it would collapse and result in that section below it would collapse. no structure on earth is designed to withstand more than 5x what it's designed to hold initially.] WTC is a structural tube system. this system is very strong and allows for open floor plates. WTC would never have been built in the same system as the ESB. even if it was, that's no garauntee it would've stood without harm.

and, for the record, the lafayette building is not suffering from wear and tear, but neglect. if the structural failure [[if there is one) occured a floor or two down, you can bet that the sections above and below it would come tumbling down as well.

also for the record, the B-25 that crashed into the ESB was not carrying any ordinance. this instance, in fact, led the designers of the WTC to design the building withstand an impact from a 707 [[one of the largest jets at the time). the jets that impacted the WTC were 767, roughly 3 times larger than a B-25. also fully fueled with jet fuel, not aviation fuel for piston engines the B-25 would've used.

and, as far as your ascertation of the ESB being more expensive, it would cost $346351312.99 in today's dollars to build. when completed in 1972, the two main towers of WTC cost over $900 million. if we're generous, we could assume site preparation and foundation work was a third, and the two towers each cost a third. in today's dollars then, one tower would've cost $1527500757.30. granted economic conditions were vastly different, but just because you don't like the materials, doesn't mean that makes them "cheaper."

[davewindsor]

GP's right dave; your post is full of inaccuracies.

WTC did not collapse from poor and lax building codes or poor design. it failed structurally from impact of plane collisions and the subsequent fires. the collisions 1) weakened the structure, 2) dislodged fireproofing from ceilings, and 3) severed fire sprinklers. this allowed the subsequent fire to heat the steel to the point of elasticity, where it ultimately failed.

the empire state building is not a concrete structure. it is a steel structure that supports concrete slab floors. steel members [[columns and beams) are not encased in concrete.

steel does not reach the point of elasticity in a couple of minutes if drastically heated. the steel at the south tower withstood fires of several thousand degrees for almost an hour. the north tower made it almost two. the structure at the ESB would've suffered the same fate eventually.

building codes and standards were not better in 1931 than they were in the late 60's [[when the WTC was being designed). they continue to make codes more stringent, not less, throughout the years.

the stairs and elevators at WTC were encased in concrete.

the difference between the two is not quality control or times that they were built in. the difference is structural systems. ESB is a standard post and beam system laid out in a grid. this system offers a lot of redundancy and would allow sturtural failures to be localized. [however, if one section collapsed on 80, then that section above it would collapse and result in that section below it would collapse. no structure on earth is designed to withstand more than 5x what it's designed to hold initially.] WTC is a structural tube system. this system is very strong and allows for open floor plates. WTC would never have been built in the same system as the ESB. even if it was, that's no garauntee it would've stood without harm.

and, for the record, the lafayette building is not suffering from wear and tear, but neglect. if the structural failure [[if there is one) occured a floor or two down, you can bet that the sections above and below it would come tumbling down as well.

also for the record, the B-25 that crashed into the ESB was not carrying any ordinance. this instance, in fact, led the designers of the WTC to design the building withstand an impact from a 707 [[one of the largest jets at the time). the jets that impacted the WTC were 767, roughly 3 times larger than a B-25. also fully fueled with jet fuel, not aviation fuel for piston engines the B-25 would've used.

and, as far as your ascertation of the ESB being more expensive, it would cost $346351312.99 in today's dollars to build. when completed in 1972, the two main towers of WTC cost over $900 million. if we're generous, we could assume site preparation and foundation work was a third, and the two towers each cost a third. in today's dollars then, one tower would've cost $1527500757.30. granted economic conditions were vastly different, but just because you don't like the materials, doesn't mean that makes them "cheaper."

Yes, those newer building makes them "cheaper" in quality. If one of those planes hit the ESB, I guarantee it would still be there by the way it was built. From the earlier ESB crash, there was also structural damage and fire due to a direct hit by a plane and yet the fires were put out 40 minutes later and the unaffected floors of the building were open for business a day later. Yet, if we look closer to the WTC South Tower hit, we see the plane entered off center at an angle--missing the inner core, yet the tower goes down just like the North Tower, which was a direct hit. What about the 47 storey Tower 7 that also went down that day due to structural damage and fire, yet no plane hit the building? Tower 7 was the first skyscraper in history to collapse from a fire.

In 55 years as we've advanced with higher standards and more advanced fire prevention building codes and fire fighting equipment compared to 1945, how is it that Tower 7 falls like a tower of cards?

The ESB crash proved the superiority of the older construction methods. The outer walls were made of quarried limestone, the interior used grid of steel columns were fireproofed with concrete several inches thick, and they even had a concrete fire seperation between the units and the hallways. A quarried limestone exterior versus a modern glass exterior curtain wall? The structural columns of the WTC were tubes. WTC had skin of steel lattices proving 40% of structural support inside was core of steel columns. It was fireproofed with a thin layer of mineral fiber/cement that was sprayed on, which was easily dislodged.

The older constructed buildings proved their worth on 9/11--several older building
90 West, 130 Cedar, 140 West were all struck by debris from WTC collapsing, and, while heavily damaged, survived to be rehabilated. Yet, the more modern WTC 7 was also struck by debris suffered severe damage and the resulting fires caused its collapse. 90 West burned for 2 days, yet suffered little fire damage and survived. Talk about poor building standards compared to the older buildings.

Who cares about your funny numbers of how much it would cost to build and that they've found cheaper and unsafer ways to build highrises? It cost a fortune to build these old buildings back then too. The newer buildings will not stand up the test of time like older buildings such as the Lafayette. But, building a new old style building is not the point. The point is whether it's worthwhile to rehab these old buildings because half the job is already done as it's still standing. I'd gladly pay the enhanced price to live in a classic, more safer older building like the Lafayette if I was choosing between modern vs. old.

[Huggybear]

Asbestos contractors are not qualified to conduct structural condition assessments. They would not have noticed a damned thing.

But if you think the building is collapsing on its own, you'd rather risk lives of innocent people rather than notify the owner? How do you justify that?

You can use your term "subsidence" to mean whatever you want. I'm just telling you that to an engineer, it means something quite different than what you describe.

No one's saying that an asbestos contractor would know how to do a structural assessment like an engineer or building inspector would. But someone doing that work [[which is not exactly done overnight) would notice that there was debris everywhere or that there was water coming in through the roof. And it surely would have been spotted by any demo contractors estimating the project, since assessing the structure in at least a superficial way actually does fit their job classification.

To address your second point, I only said that it would not seem to be a good idea to report it to the building's owner, which has already announced an intent to demolish the building [[as they say in Buckaroo Bonzai) "real soon." If I saw an imminent danger to human life, I obviously would report it to Buildings and Safety or the emergency authorities. If you are able to decode the situation as something that needs serious attention immediately, you'd be a better person to report it than I would.

And I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities by using an everyday definition of the word "subside" rather than an engineering one. Does this bulletin board software support equations?

[buildingsofdetroit]

This is definitely a recent development. Wonder if the forces who want it razed so badly might have "helped" their cause by doing damage on purpose. Seems too much of a co-inky-dink to have this happen when it did. I'll hush up my conspiracy theories now.

[EastSider]

This is definitely a recent development. Wonder if the forces who want it razed so badly might have "helped" their cause by doing damage on purpose. Seems too much of a co-inky-dink to have this happen when it did. I'll hush up my conspiracy theories now.

This might be the dumbest thing I've read today. Isn't it more likely that the "co-inky-dink" is that after a number of years of having a napkin for roof that the building collapses on its own?

[rsa.313]

no problem GP. i typed an even longer response earlier, but lost it somehow. i couldn't not respond to everything that was wrong in that post.

i am 90% sure that there has never been a code that requires encasing structural steel members in concrete. a two hour rating is usually acheived pretty sufficiently with plaster or drywall or spray on material, etc. i don't think even wood members were even required encasement of any kind [[these members are usually so overdesigned that they can burn for hours and still stand).

aside from what you mentioned, there is simply no need to encase structural members in concrete. when subjected to those kinds of temperatures, water trapped in concrete [[yes even after years of curing) turns to steam and has an explosive effect to large areas [[ref. channel tunnel fire of 1996). even concrete structures are not impervious. steel reinforcing inside would be a little more insulated, but would eventually hit moment of elasticity and cause the whole assembly to fail. so the marginal insulative qualities you might gain by concrete, is negated by unnecessary weight, space requirements, and cost.

it is dangerous territory to pass opinions off as fact when there are a lot of building lovers and building proffessionals on this forum...

[wolverine]

This is definitely a recent development. Wonder if the forces who want it razed so badly might have "helped" their cause by doing damage on purpose. Seems too much of a co-inky-dink to have this happen when it did. I'll hush up my conspiracy theories now.

Nah, the parapet wall had huge crumbling holes in it. Because the roof ponded so much, there were a bunch of freeze-thaw cycles going on and damage where the roof meets the wall. If this is the case, it's by no means a dooming scenario for the Lafayette. Alot of those debris would likely be brick or block infill that has come loose.

[EastSider]

Nah, the parapet wall had huge crumbling holes in it. Because the roof ponded so much, there were a bunch of freeze-thaw cycles going on and damage where the roof meets the wall. If this is the case, it's by no means a dooming scenario for the Lafayette. Alot of those debris would likely be brick or block infill that has come loose.

I wasn't suggesting that the roof itself was the cause of whatever damage we're all blathering about, but more the general idea that instead of some goofy theory that George Jackson hired some architectural hitman to damage the building, the lack of proper upkeep was the cause of the collapse.

[wolverine]

I wasn't suggesting that the roof itself was the cause of whatever damage we're all blathering about, but more the general idea that instead of some goofy theory that George Jackson hired some architectural hitman to damage the building, the lack of proper upkeep was the cause of the collapse.

That's cool. But why are you explaining that to me, as to quote my comment to buildingsofdetroit?