neubilder
Banned
This your pattern Doug, you lash out in a petulant manner, call people stupid, and tell them what you think they don't know.
You have no idea what I know about construction.
- Thread starter BMyers
- Start date
This your pattern Doug, you lash out in a petulant manner, call people stupid, and tell them what you think they don't know.
You have no idea what I know about construction.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
What Doug said was uncalled for and disrespectful.
However, neubilder, it would be helpful if you could say more to explain your stance than just "bricks don't fall..." etc... Because most of us know physics to tell a different story than the one you are telling. Fill us in!
However, neubilder, it would be helpful if you could say more to explain your stance than just "bricks don't fall..." etc... Because most of us know physics to tell a different story than the one you are telling. Fill us in!
neubilder
Banned
This building wasn't in such an advanced state of decay. If there was no roof coverage (which there was) and if these bricks had fallen in winter after an ice thaw, then the theory about frost heave might have some merit. But the windows and eaves were not exposed to ice accumulation. The bricks (which allegedly flew 1.5 metres out onto the sidewalk) fell at the end of summer on a calm day. Not straight down, but 1.5 metres out onto the sidewalk. Bricks don't bounce very well.
The biggest threat to load-bearing masonry structures is seismic movement. I was in Santa Cruz after the 7.1 scale earthquake of 1989. Most of the significant damage to historic brick structures was caused by owners after the earthquake. The majority of the damage to brick structures was partial cracking and destabilization. Except in the case which I described earlier, wherein collapsing floor beams, which are let into the masonry, act as levers and break the walls apart. The nature of brick construction is that it can absorb (some) movement - brick walls are composite, not rigid sheets of glass. Masonry walls behave more like sandbag structures than they do ice houses.
A bit of trivia: Most of the ruins of the world are ruins because they were exspoliated by people stealing the bricks and stones from the unattended buildings, not because the bricks just launched themselves. The colosseum would still be standing if it hadn't been ransacked.
Last edited:
Automation Gallery
Superstar
So in other words, you think there has been a conspiracy here
neubilder
Banned
If you consider a developer wanting to rid himself of a pesky historic structure but unwilling to wait several hundred years for it to fall apart by itself a conspiracy.
As I mentioned before, several hundred years could be reduced to a few decades or even several years if the roof was allowed to cave in. Once weather gets inside the building it's game over.
Last edited:
AHK
Senior Member
There was an instance last year of an older building on King Street (485 King Street West) in which several bricks in the front facade were clearly working themselves loose at the top of the building - week by week they were protruding increasingly - easily visible. After an inspection by the city (arranged through Jen in Adam's office) a work order was issued, and the facade was repaired. At some point, without the repairs, they would have come down on the King Street sidewalk. Now whether a few bricks at the top would have caused the entire building, or even the front wall to collapse I would doubt, but definitely, without the intervention from the city, this building was about to shed some bricks.
Old Edison Hotel at Yonge and Gould where part of the wall came down on its own. Most certainly they can fall down.
neubilder
Banned
What !?
Ha, you had me for a second there.
Yes, the Empress is a perfect case in point for falsified 'collapse' in order to attempt to justify demolition.
Tragically a year after the 'collapse' the Lalani's, in their greed and corruption, torched the place anyways.
Last edited:
kkgg7
Banned
the roof of the OPG building (college/University) just collapsed today for no obvious reason. so yes, walls do come down on their own sometimes.
neubilder
Banned
I can offer an explanation: Possibly condensation issues in a poorly ventilated soffit caused the suspended ceiling anchors to corrode and finally give way.
This however has nothing to do with the topic of projectile bricks popping out of neglected buildings, whose owners see them as obstacles to their retirement.
k10ery
Senior Member
I'm not sure how that proves neubilder wrong. Given the corruption in awarding the Hydro Building construction contract back in the 70s, I am surprised it's stayed up as long as it has.
neubilder
Banned
485 King is another example of attempted demolition by neglect. We need laws to force owners to maintain such buildings or have them expropriated and auctioned off on the owner's behalf. At least the city intervened in ensuring maintenance took place.
In the case of 485 that parapet flashing had completely rusted away in some places, exposing the top surface of the brick parapet to full weather. This exposure will certainly result in damage due to freeze/thaw cycling and indeed did cause some of the top bricks to become loose. I noticed these myself and I'm relieved to hear the city took initiative. I was worried about that little gem of a building.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
Keep in mind, too, that there've been many instances over many, many years (and that's made plain and clear through various then-and-now images in the UT photos forum) of commercial rows that have had Victorian parapets, etc shaved off--and not just due to "aesthetic preference"; more often than not, safety concerns played a primary part. To play a building landlord's devil's advocate, it's all too easy to take parapets for granted until they start raining pieces down on you, a la the Empress Block's facade pre-fire...
neubilder
Banned
/\
The Empress pre-fire facade collapse was deliberate. It was sabotage. I don't have proof but I'd bet my right arm on it.
And the Walnut Hall didn't have a parapet along its street elevation. The top of the brick wall was protected by eaves.
The Empress pre-fire facade collapse was deliberate. It was sabotage. I don't have proof but I'd bet my right arm on it.
And the Walnut Hall didn't have a parapet along its street elevation. The top of the brick wall was protected by eaves.
Last edited:
DSC
Superstar
I do not think that anyone disagrees that the Empress fire was deliberately set and one can certainly see that the removal of the hotel might be a benefit to the owner - who had done minimal maintenance for years but I do not think we can assume that the owner set the fire, or paid someone to do so. No charges have ever been laid and there are certainly 'free-lance" arsonists, or cold homeless folk, around. The owner now has an empty site with no income coming in.
The Walnut Hall case is a bit different as the long-time owner (who had bought it from the RCMP) had done virtually no maintenance since buying it and, unlike the Empress, the building was empty, for 20 years, and brought in no income. The City had forced the owner to do some minor repair or at least "bracing" about a year before it all finally fell in, or out. In this case I think it's clear that the owner's hope was that the building would deteriorate so much that it would have to be demolished and, unfortunately, he was right.
The Walnut Hall case is a bit different as the long-time owner (who had bought it from the RCMP) had done virtually no maintenance since buying it and, unlike the Empress, the building was empty, for 20 years, and brought in no income. The City had forced the owner to do some minor repair or at least "bracing" about a year before it all finally fell in, or out. In this case I think it's clear that the owner's hope was that the building would deteriorate so much that it would have to be demolished and, unfortunately, he was right.