Impending collapse in NYC

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Shocking image in today’s News

.

.

MichaelG.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

A building still under construction… not an old one that has deteriorated over many years, then.

Ye Gods.

 

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Actually an existing office building that is in the process of being converted into Apartments.

The potential scenarios are terrifying … at least they’ve spotted it early.

MichaelG.

[howardbParticipant @howardb]

Not only being converted into apartments.

“With more than 1,600 units, the developers say the project is the largest office-to-residential conversion in the city’s history. Gensler, the architectural firm leading the project, says on its website that it is transforming a pair of 1970s-era office buildings by adding more than a dozen stories and redesigning an adjoining tower”

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2026-07-07/falling-bricks-and-buckling-columns-at-a-manhattan-high-rise-force-evacuations

I’ll bet the developer is checking their liability insurance contract, and the contract with their structural engineer with a magnifying glass right now.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Hopefully a UC rather than a beam but it looks to have corroded rather than just buckled under load as there is a big bit of the flange missing. Hard to think this would not have been visible unless the column was concrete clad or boxed in and the concrete/cladding was removed as part of the conversion or possibly to inspect for possible signs of corrosion. Must have been something leaking on it for an internal steel to rust through. Or is the light grey some coating (fireproofing) on the steel that has spalled off with the deflection?

Just hope they were not intending to put a swimming pool on the roof!

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

A bit more than a swimming pool, Jason !

here’s a clipping from The Gothamist

.

.

MichaelG.

[JasonB]

On JasonB Said:

[…]

Or is the light grey some coating (fireproofing) on the steel that has spalled off with the deflection?

[…]

Most likely an intumescent coating, I would think.

ABC has some video of the scene

MichaelG.

[JasonB]

On JasonB Said:

Hopefully a UC rather than a beam but it looks to have corroded rather than just buckled under load as there is a big bit of the flange missing. Hard to think this would not have been visible unless the column was concrete clad or boxed in and the concrete/cladding was removed as part of the conversion or possibly to inspect for possible signs of corrosion. Must have been something leaking on it for an internal steel to rust through. Or is the light grey some coating (fireproofing) on the steel that has spalled off with the deflection?

Just hope they were not intending to put a swimming pool on the roof!

UC, I’m guessing not universal credit? Maybe universal column, after a further more detailed search?

Tony

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Yes Universal Column, more stable in all directions than a UB (you can work that out) when used vertically.

I did see the other floors going on to from Howard’s link, just thought a pool would top it off nicely.

I suppose it is possible that the top column of the existing structure had a lower bearing capacity than the ones below it as it would have originally only needed to support roof loads not floors. That is assuming it is an original column and they have not had to run new all the way down to new foundations.

When I worked for a main contractor we put a 8th floor onto a 7 floor building in a turning opposite Hyde Park. The Structural engineers worked out that the existing structure would take the additional loads. That gave 2 more appartments, probably £10m each today. We also did an additional mezanine in a large BT (British Telecom) building but had to diamond saw lots of squares out of the concrete floor to put in new pad foundations for the columns that supported the new floor.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

For context … Some info and photos here:

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/pfizer-building/11898

MichaelG.

[Kiwi BlokeParticipant @kiwibloke62605]

Just musing here, so ignore at will… I don’t like high-rise buildings. I certainly don’t like being high up in one, and the higher I am, the less I like it. I wonder whether it will continue to stand, and note that it’s a long way down. But I suppose, in the event of a collapse, it may be more dangerous to be low in the building. I wonder whether anyone has determined the height where the risk is least. (OK, no doubt it depends whether the building collapses from the top down or the bottom up. Does anyone know which is the commoner less rare?).

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Kiwi Bloke, I doubt anyone could tell you with any degree of certainty where the best place for survival in a collapsed building would be, as there are probably too many variables, I’ve often thought of where the safest place to travel on a train, bus or aeroplane would be, knowing my luck, the very place I would sit would be the very place a possible collision would be. However, being at the bottom might be a possible place to survive a building collapsed, but you may perish if it takes too long to remove enough rubble to get you free, so would it be better to get perished from the start, or wait in agony for what seems forever, and then perish. It doesn’t bear thinking about such things too much, but I do remember my father waking me up one night when I was about four or five, when a large area of the ceiling plaster had fallen right over my bed, and although there were several lumps of plaster on my pillow and bed and the floor, not one lump had hit me.

Regards Nick.

[Alan JacksonParticipant @alanjackson47790]

I would have thought that the previous owner Pfizer would have a suitable product to stiffen up the limp beams.

Alan

[Kiwi Bloke]

On Kiwi Bloke Said:

Just musing here, so ignore at will… I don’t like high-rise buildings. I certainly don’t like being high up in one, and the higher I am, the less I like it. I wonder whether it will continue to stand, and note that it’s a long way down. But I suppose, in the event of a collapse, it may be more dangerous to be low in the building. I wonder whether anyone has determined the height where the risk is least. (OK, no doubt it depends whether the building collapses from the top down or the bottom up. Does anyone know which is the commoner less rare?).

The safest placeto be is at least 3 blocks away.

Martin

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Interesting analysis in this video. He says similar to what I did that the columns were meant for roof loadings only and also mentions a proposed swimming pool.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

It rather looks as if the developers failed to have their intentions analysed, or they would have realised the very severe overloading while it is still all images on screens.

Very awkward questions…

With that, and the poor condition of some of its existing components, I would not be surprised if in the end the entire building has to be condemned before it actually does collapse onto anyone.

++++

I have to rely on the subtitles as my system often now will play the sound on videos. So I found the lack of editing of the words very annoying.

[Dave HalfordParticipant @davehalford22513]

The BT building I used to work in had an extra floor added for a staff restaurant. There was a plaque on the wall which listed the floor loading at just over 100lb per sq foot. Someone was trying to make sure no one was stupid enough to put equipment up there.

[vintagengineerParticipant @vintagengineer]

100lb per square foot? Wouldn’t want any large Americans in there then.

 

[vintagengineer]

On vintagengineer Said:

100lb per square foot? Wouldn’t want any large Americans in there then.

 

Which neatly shows the difference between point load and distributed load. If it was a point load the whole queue for tea would have disappeared into the tender mercies of the 200 girls in the switch room below.

[Martin Johnson 1Participant @martinjohnson1]

If I remember correctly, the determination of buckling strength relies on an assumption of how “imperfect” the system is.  Typically, how far out of straight is the strut or how far off axis is the loading.

Seems to me that refurbing an old building is going to be a very imperfect situation.  So is this a case of applying “the formula” without actually understanding what assumptions went into it and not thinking it through?

Martin

[Ches Green UKParticipant @chesgreenuk]

Interesting analysis in this video. He says similar to what I did that the columns were meant for roof loadings only and also mentions a proposed swimming pool.

I guess the folks that approved the Pfizer building extension are offski sailing around foreign lands in their new yachts.

Pfizer isn’t exactly a small company so I’d have thought they’d have gone through any changes with a fine tooth comb, so it is ‘unusual’ that this project got the go-ahead.

The YouTuber’s images of the ground floor are also a bit scary….I’m not a civil engineer but that building looks in a poor condition.

IMO the best way to resolve the issue is to tear the building down, and start afresh. But who will pay for that? And what happens to the current tenants?

Ches

[Ches Green UKParticipant @chesgreenuk]

Correction: I believe it is a former Pfizer building.

Apparently it was built in 1910 and renovated in 1963. Pfizer sold the building around 2018 …. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer_Building

Ches

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

There’s nowt like greed to blinker the vision !

MichaelG.

[Author]

Posts