Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Old Crank

(7,479 posts)
3. The questions would have are
Thu Jul 9, 2026, 08:44 AM
10 hrs ago

Was there a redesign and engineering study of the beems that were holdong up 3 floor of load strengthen or modified to carry the added floors directly on those beems? If not, why not.

Was the inspection company inspecting based on the, I assume, approved plans? If those plans were approved and the company can show that they checked the work against teh plans then they are off the hook. If they didn't check them correctly against the plans they are liable.

It is really hard to blame a middle man for what appears to be errors made in planning.

I saw one good solution for the independent checkers. That would be the city picks the inspection service, not the builder.

I think some one decided to cheap out on the structural engineering needed to support a much greater load than the original beems were meant to carry. That might be true for all the beems below the new construction.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Structural engineers at work bucolic_frolic 12 hrs ago #1
Money. mwmisses4289 12 hrs ago #2
The questions would have are Old Crank 10 hrs ago #3
Muultiple failures? So WHY THE FUCK was this company STILL niyad 9 hrs ago #4
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Inspector of Buckling Bui...»Reply #3