Lafayette Building's top two floors subsiding?

**wolverine** · July-20-09, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · July-20-09, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

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** · July-21-09, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by EastSider

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?

**ghettopalmetto** · July-21-09, 07:19 AM

Davewindsor, unless you're a licensed Professional Engineer, you're not qualified to make the statements you're making.

Stop fomenting speculative theories, put the keyboard down, and listen to the people who actually have the education and experience to make these sorts of determinations. You're making yourself look like an ignorant ass.

Forgive me if I sound pissy, but I get pretty sick when lay people try to explain building failure to me--especially one where 3000 people died.

**davewindsor** · July-21-09, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Davewindsor, unless you're a licensed Professional Engineer, you're not qualified to make the statements you're making.

Says the guy with the ghetto name, huh? What's your interest in seeing the Lafayette's demise? Do you own property nearby? Do you have interest in one of those glass turds around Campus Martius?

**ghettopalmetto** · July-21-09, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by davewindsor

Says the guy with the ghetto name, huh? What's your interest in seeing the Lafayette's demise? Do you own property nearby? Do you have interest in one of those glass turds around Campus Martius?

I have no fiduciary interest in the Lafayette Building, one way or another.

I am, however, a structural engineer licensed in five states [[disclosure: Michigan is not one of them). Your insistence upon your ignorant, half-cocked theories as fact is simply preposterous.

With this in mind, do you care to explain fundamental concepts of building codes, and structural analysis and design to me? Or do you want to admit that perhaps you've greatly overstepped the boundaries of your knowledge and expertise?

**davewindsor** · July-21-09, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I have no fiduciary interest in the Lafayette Building, one way or another.

I am, however, a structural engineer licensed in five states [[disclosure: Michigan is not one of them). Your insistence upon your ignorant, half-cocked theories as fact is simply preposterous.

With this in mind, do you care to explain fundamental concepts of building codes, and structural analysis and design to me? Or do you want to admit that perhaps you've greatly overstepped the boundaries of your knowledge and expertise?

I've ordered structural engineering reports before that were different from other engineering reports on the same property. There's little consistency. One engineer will say something completely different from another. I wouldn't give two cents to your dismal interpretation on the Lafayette or why glass buildings are as safe as older buildings because common sense shows otherwise. I'll pass on your bs claims that these cheaply built glass buildings are just as safe as these older buildings. Just look at WTC 7 vs. the other older buldings during 9/11. Glass buildings are unsafe. That's a fact!

**rsa.313** · July-21-09, 10:50 AM

If one of those planes hit the ESB, I guarantee it would still be there by the way it was built.

absolutley not. the majority of the building might remain standing, but it would probably require billions of dollars and years to restore [[see your own examples referenced below).

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.

the crash was between two floors. there was no significant structural damage. fires were put out 40 minutes later because there was still water pressure to the building.

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.

if you'd look even closer, you'd notice that the hit was much lower on the south tower than the north. which meant the damaged/weakened portion had to support more weight than the north. they were both direct hits, just different locations. the more centrally located hit on the north tower gave more support surrounding the hole. if you punch a hole in a wall it stands a better chance of remaining standing than if you were to remove a corner.

The ESB crash proved the superiority of the older construction methods.

no it doesn't. you're using faulty logic. comparing a building that was hit with a plane that was 1/3 the size of a 767, cruised at less than half the speed of a 767, carried less fuel than a 767, and used less volatile fuel than a 767 does not mean one building is superior than the other. you might make the argument that one building SYSTEM is better than the other, but methods have nothing to do with this comparison. [by the way; the methods used to construct the ESB are still in practice today.]

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.

the limestone is not load bearing; it only supports it's own weight.

the columns were NOT encased in several inches of concrete.

there is NO concrete fire separation walls between units and hallways.

It was fireproofed with a thin layer of mineral fiber/cement that was sprayed on, which was easily dislodged.

i wouldn't call getting hit by a 160 foot jet travelling at .86 mach "easily dislodged."

here is a very good comparison of 90 west and 7 WTC: http://911guide.googlepages.com/90west

130 cedar is a reinforced concrete structure, which is different from the two types we've been discussing thus far. the fires it sustained were on the upper floors that did not support massive forces above them. it also is currently undergoing complete rebuilding.

no fires were observed in 140 west and it cost $1.4 billion to restore.

what about the world financial center? it was built in the mid '80's, received heavy damage, was restored, and is now viable again.

what about fiterman hall? it was built in the same method of the ESB, less than 20 years after it, received damage, and now cannot be restored and has to be demolished.

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?

my "funny numbers" are actual construction costs adjusted for inflation. and shown here it proves the ESB cost less than a quarter of the price of one of the WTC towers, not including foundation work. so there's nothing cheaper about it. and you still haven't proven that modern construction techniques are unsafe.

The newer buildings will not stand up the test of time like older buildings such as the Lafayette.

proof to back that up?

don't get me wrong, i'd love to see the lafayette building restored if it's structurally sound. i'm just trying to set the record straight with facts.

**davewindsor** · July-21-09, 08:53 PM