Sinking scraper in San francisco


where can i get the plans & soil analysis?

Sep 12, 18 7:07 pm
Non Sequitur

Ask trump and FoI it.

Sep 12, 18 7:18 pm

Probably nowhere considering they are privileged information to begin with and now there are multiple lawsuits.

Sep 13, 18 11:22 am

Doesn't that info become public record, once the permits are released? I believe it is where I work.


This one's sticky for some reason. If you can't find it on the internet, it's not available. You can almost guarantee the Chronicle would have published it otherwise...


was there an E.I.R. or negative declaration for this project? If there was, there most likely would have been a public review period...

I think most cities don't make floor plans available for major buildings like skyscrapers, stadiums and theaters for security reasons. The drawings are also not public property but belong to either the architect or the owner.


Now that I think about it, it's likely that one needs permission from the owner. Hmmmmm

Why do you want this info?

Sep 13, 18 11:59 am

i want to have a crack at it

Sep 13, 18 1:43 pm
Non Sequitur

they need experts and loads of lawyers not amateur electricians and terrible musicians.


A crack at it? Has plenty of cracks already.


have you been to the beach in the pacific ocean and sunk your heels with the recessing tide? that's your soil analysis....

Have you tried asking the people who made the plans?


so i assume i'd have to go downtown and pull the permits



Yes you would. They may want to verify if you have a contractual relationship with the owner of the building by contacting the property owner(s). Some owners of buildings have their documents marked for not being distributed or otherwise made available to people. Take for example, a bank may or may not want full disclosure of their building's layout to be publicly known or other details that maybe helpful to parties. It maybe restricted to the general public for security reasons (as Peter Normand said) for a wide range of reasons. I know that some Federal buildings, there is no way in hell you are getting documents of any kind for some of those buildings without a national security clearance of sufficient level to be authorized to that information. There, they will outright shoot you because they are licensed to kill and they are licensed to use lethal force in their armed security defense. I hope that skyscraper isn't an NSA owned skyscraper because I'd be confident that we will never hear from you again if that's the case. 



thanks that was actually really helpful


*raised eyebrow*


Start with San Francisco's building department. If not there.... check the California state archives or something like that where those things might be stored on microfilm.

Good luck.

Sep 13, 18 2:54 pm

soils analysis for san francisco, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Sep 13, 18 4:02 pm

Not my problem. Not yours. :)


The soils under SF have been analyzed in depth. I've attended talks at Arup where they explain the work they've done. Other than smartassery, what do you know about soils?


I know it's dirty


Peter is correct.  Nobody is going to make a full set of architectural & structural plans for a major skyscraper publicly available, and you almost always have to be associated with the project (i.e. paid by the owner) to get permission to look at them. 

Besides, a single recent AE grad like yourself is not going to solve a problem that teams of licensed structural and geotechnical engineers have been struggling with for years. 

Sep 13, 18 5:18 pm

You don't have to be associated with the original project but you should be associated with a project involving the building with the current owners. Even where I am, the building department may contact the current owners. Another thing, I'm with what Schoon said in the second paragraph above. Besides, unless this is a bonafide academic assignment for a school program involving engineering or you are instructed by your employer who is a licensed architect or engineer to obtain this information, I would highly suggest you (Jawknee) to cease any further activity right now. I seriously mean it. You are about to walk yourself right into being slapped with a fine for unlawful practice of architecture or engineering (which ever or both). 

The reason the building is sinking is because the ground underneath it can not support the weight of the building and the only way to fix that is to underpin the foundation to a depth until the ground can support the weight and the underpinning will need to be stout enough to not buckle. This can be harder in reality than being said like how the f--- are you going to support it. In short, the skyscraper was a bad idea and the ground isn't supporting it. It might be easier to tear it down and rebuild it somewhere else or build a building on the site the ground can support. They F---ed up and now it is a problem. 

Now, you can't fix it. I'm sure engineers had proposed solutions but they probably all resulted in costs that the owners of the building rejected and don't want to spend that much. Unless you are licensed, you aren't authorized under California law to give a professional opinion or suggestions on how to fix the issues with the building to property owner or the general public in any way or form that gives the impression that you are giving a professional advice. In short, STFU is what the licensing board will tell you in a politically correct way.

I'd be very careful about proceeding any further with this building. To be clear, I won't be reporting you but the building department or even the property owners or even their architect or engineers on retainer or others may file a complaint to those licensing boards.


I know I was simplifying the issue to basics about the building sinking and it is particularly complicated but it is obvious. If any building sinks, it is because the weight exceeds the grounds soil bearing capacity and whatever deep foundation system that is likely used was not sufficient to stop the building from sinking because the friction of soil pressuring against the pile seems to not be enough to halt the building slipping any further. If the soil loosened from what was determined by geological soil study indicated prior to the building or simply, there wasn't a sufficient number of deep bore testing throughout the area to get a proper sense of the geological profile under the proposed location of the building, then there is all kinds of issues. It's easier to f--- up and fix the f--- up before buildings are built than after they been built.

The building is sinking and I doubt some sniffling snot nose kid is going to magically solve the solution that numerous experienced professionals haven't already figured out or been dealing with. The biggest problem isn't the engineers or the architects. They all had probably proposed solutions that would solve the problem but the price tag came in too high and the property owner(s) over the years never wanted to spend the money for such an undertaking.


Jawknee and Balkins should start a company together.

Sep 14, 18 6:28 pm

no thank you but thanks for the humor.


tduds: <3 +++

Sep 14, 18 7:08 pm

then it's a matter of bracing the buildings against the other buildings

Sep 14, 18 7:49 pm

although if they could fuck it up that bad already it needs to be deconstructed because the bracings will probably fall on a pedestrian


if the beams are pinned in neighboring buildings change their angle to calibrate for the moment.  when it's secure and all buildings are calculated use motorized cable lengthers for what each building can stand and lift the building with cranes and pump in the right soil

Sep 14, 18 7:59 pm
Non Sequitur

...and this is why no one will ever take you seriously. Might as well recommend propping it up with shipping containers.


LOL! That was good N.S.

The problem with using neighboring buildings to lift the building is those neighboring buildings' foundations were never designed to hold that much weight. Not a viable option, please try again.


or calibrate the soils for leveled slabs that attach across the street under

Sep 14, 18 8:06 pm

Let me get this straight. You're proposing that a multi-million dollar building simply prop itself up against other multi-million dollar buildings (owned by other corporate entities who by nature are extremely risk averse)?

Aside from that, there are four problems with your idea: Fremont Street, Mission Street, the Transbay Terminal, and the building at the SW corner of Mission and Beale. None of these things are tall and only two of them are buildings. 

Sep 14, 18 8:09 pm

Here ya go, cuz I'm in a Friday mood:

Sep 14, 18 8:11 pm

Thanks exactly what needed

An adjacent support structure ... in an earthquake zone.

the adjacent structure is basically jello


removing every pile & pier in the basement and placing them each on a pyramid

Sep 23, 18 5:39 am

You go first into that cave

How about dismantling levels from the top down until it reaches a more stable position? Sort of a hair cut.

Sep 23, 18 8:43 am

What would Hammurabi do?

Sep 23, 18 12:11 pm

"If a builder build a house for a man and do not make its construction firm, and the house which he has built collapse and cause the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death." supposedly

wurdan freo

That's only residential code... this would fall under commercial.

"A mixed-use, primarily residential development"

Block this user

Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: