The Collapse of Champlain Towers South

  

Champlain Towers South collapse (photo by the Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Department. The original uploader was TheEpicGhosty at English Wikipedia., Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

The news of a building-related tragedy never fails to command my attention. Such was the case when I learned of last Thursday’s partial collapse of Champlain Towers South, a 12-story, 136-unit beachfront condominium building in the Miami suburb of Surfside, Florida.

My first thought upon seeing images in the immediate aftermath of the event was for the victims. Given the disaster occurred at 1:30 AM when most residents may have been in their beds sleeping, surely many were killed or trapped within the rubble. As of this writing, authorities have confirmed nine deaths, eleven injuries among 37 rescued individuals, and as many as 156 people who remain unaccounted for. Urgent rescue operations continue.

My second thought was to ask why this happened. The possibility of an act of terrorism crossed my mind, so much did photos of the calamity remind me of the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. News accounts quickly dispelled that notion: There was no bomb or explosion. Clearly, the Champlain Towers South building suffered a massive, cascading structural failure. What caused it to happen? Something so catastrophic does not occur without a reason.

There was some initial speculation suggesting the culprit may have been a growing sinkhole beneath the tower’s foundations. Indeed, analysis by Florida International University revealed the building had been sinking since the 1980s at a rate of 2 millimeters per year. This is a significant amount; however, other nearby locations (such as on artificial islands in Biscayne Bay) indicated rates of sinking as much as 3.8 millimeters per year without a similar occurrence (yet). We could attribute the steady sinking to solution-type or cover-subsidence sinkholes, which form gradually, but investigators quickly shifted their attention to previously observed deficiencies in the building’s design and construction.

For an architect like me, this is where the story becomes especially consequential and germane to the work I do. To what extent are the original architects and engineers culpable for the structural failure of Champlain Towers South? Was there something inherent in the building’s design and detailing that ultimately led to its collapse? What about the quality of its construction? Was shoddy workmanship to blame? And how much can we attribute to the condominium association’s failure to respond in a timely and responsible manner to oversee necessary building maintenance and repairs?

A structural engineering report and field survey conducted by Morabito Consultants in 2018 identified serious water infiltration problems in the building, some of which had resulted in subsurface deterioration of the concrete structure. Failed waterproofing caused major damage to the concrete slab below the pool deck and entrance drive. Morabito recommended immediate (and costly) replacement of the waterproofing system to prevent concrete weakening from expanding “exponentially.” Evidence of the damage water infiltration was doing to the concrete—such as extensive spalling (sometimes exposing the rebar) and cracking—was readily visible in the columns, beams, and walls before the building’s collapse. The condominium association’s failure to promptly address the obvious need for repairs and remediation of the water infiltration was clearly a factor contributing to the devastating structural failure.

The choice of reinforced concrete for much of the building’s structure and exterior finish may fundamentally be cause for blame as well. Water entering through tiny cracks creates an electrochemical reaction, which powers the conversion of reinforcing steel to rust. Rust is flaky and friable, affording no protection to the underlying metal, unlike the formation of patina on copper surfaces. Rust causes the rebar to expand, enlarging cracks and forcing the concrete to fracture apart (spall). In the case of the Champlain Towers South building, it didn’t help that coastal Florida’s hurricanes, storm surges, and the corrosive salty air readily exploit concrete’s weaknesses.

Of course, the use of reinforced concrete exposed to the elements is far from uncommon. The architectural expression of raw, unfinished concrete gained favor among designers during the 20th century, especially during the 1950s-1970s heyday of Brutalism. The abundant legacy of that period is all around us today, and much of that legacy is literally crumbling. It’s natural to think of concrete as being durable, and of using the material in construction as “building for the ages.” After all, the 1,900-years-old Pantheon in Rome is in excellent condition, right? The difference is the Pantheon’s concrete does not rely upon steel reinforcing to hold it up. Under vulnerable conditions, reinforced concrete is a ticking time bomb. Unfortunately, the stock of reinforced concrete buildings and infrastructure requiring significant repairs is immense, and the expense to address all deficiencies may be well beyond manageable levels.

The implications are clear: Is the collapse of Champlain Towers South a harbinger of more to come? Will unfortunate news of the failures of other reinforced concrete structures become ever more commonplace as much of this building stock continues to age? Will all owners be able to afford what is necessary to secure the safety of their properties?

From my perspective as an architect, it’s time to rethink the widespread use of reinforced concrete. Despite its attractive properties, we now understand the material simply comes with many downsides, not the least of which is its environmental impact. When we do use reinforced concrete, we should do so sparingly and appropriately (protecting it from water’s deleterious effects). We should also exercise a standard of care consistent with the architectural profession’s evolving understanding of construction materials and their properties. That standard of care presumes a responsibility to employ all necessary measures in our designs to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. If this means limiting the use of reinforced concrete, so be it.

The collapse of Champlain Towers South should also be a wakeup call for developers, contractors, and facility managers. No design can withstand poor execution and years of neglect. Everyone with a role to play in the life of a building has a duty to ensure its safety and resilience.  

The New Jet Age: The Future of the Eugene Airport

Proposed Eugene Airport Concourse C addition (screenshot from June 18 City Club of Eugene presentation)

The City Club of Eugene’s most recent Friday Forum featured a series of presentations and a roundtable discussion about the future of southwestern Oregon’s airports. Now that air passenger volumes are rebounding back to pre-pandemic levels, the subject was timely and very interesting. The roundtable participants were: 

• Shelly Humble – Airport Manager, Hobby Field, Creswell 
• Betty Stansbury – Director, Oregon Department of Aviation
• Cathryn Stephens – Acting Airport Director, Eugene Airport 

Current City Club of Eugene president Kitty Piercy moderated the forum. 

Cathryn Stephens provided an update on plans to implement substantial facility enhancements necessary to support the Eugene Airport’s expected long-term growth. The unwelcome advent of COVID-19 in 2020 precipitated a steep decline in air traffic worldwide, which in turn jeopardized the original timeline for several planned large-scale improvements at the Eugene Airport. Surprisingly, EUG is poised to emerge from the downturn stronger than ever. Both Southwest Airlines and Avelo Airlines—a new low-cost carrier—will soon operate to and from Eugene, joining Allegiant Air, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and United Airlines. Prospects for smaller hub airports like EUG are generally trending upward as passengers are increasingly attracted to the level of convenience they offer and the growing number of carriers they attract. Accordingly, the Eugene Airport Master Plan’s assessment of facility requirements and “blueprint” for future development assumes renewed urgency as COVID-19 recedes and activity at EUG ramps up. 

(screenshot from June 18 City Club of Eugene presentation)

Eugene Airport’s footprint is a byproduct of its historical infrastructure. Today, it consists of two parallel runways and a system of taxiways that includes remnant pavement sections from previous airfield configurations. Most of the existing facilities are oriented in line with the historical airstrips, which has resulted in awkward angles and inefficient use of available land. Additionally, the passenger terminal bisects two well-defined areas of general aviation activity. The bottom line is the airport’s existing infrastructure is ill-suited to meet its projected future needs. 

My firm, Robertson/Sherwood/Architects, has worked on numerous small projects at the airport over the years.(1) I was aware of the Eugene Airport Master Plan but I was not familiar with its contents. A team led by RS&H, a large architecture & engineering firm headquartered in Jacksonville, FL developed the plan, completing it in 2018. The voluminous and comprehensive study is comprised of six key elements: 

1. Airport stakeholder visioning. 
2. An inventory of existing conditions.
3. An FAA-approved forecast of future aviation demand.
4. An assessment of facility requirements necessary to meet that projected demand.
5. Development and evaluation of alternative options for the required facilities.
6. A description of proposed phasing, timing, estimated costs, and funding mechanisms.

RS&H defined three Planning Activity Levels (PALs) in the Master Plan: 

PAL 1 focuses on airfield safety projects, including immediately required improvements to Taxiway A and the Runway 16R-34L taxiway connectors. Additionally, PAL 1 prioritizes preparations for the construction of the proposed terminal Concourse C, and expansions of the terminal airline ticketing and outbound baggage handling areas. Land-side projects include roadway safety improvements, expansion of parking capacity, and fuel storage security enhancements. 

PAL 2 projects further improve airfield safety through a pull-off runup pad located near the threshold of Runway 34L and taxiway connector improvements serving the secondary runway. New general aviation development will move to a dedicated area north of Taxiway C, separated from commercial airline activity. PAL 2 also includes various land-side improvements (including additional parking capacity, expanded rental car facilities, and improved roadway safety), land acquisition, and a master plan update. The Airport anticipates undertaking the PAL 2 “mid-term development” projects during the 2028-2037 timeframe. 

PAL 3 continues the Airport’s investment in airfield safety through routine pavement rehabilitation, various airfield geometry improvements, a ground vehicle tunnel under Taxiways C and M, and land acquisition to create the Runway 16L Protection Zone (RPZ). Future development of the new concourse and surrounding apron is programmed to meet expected demand levels and begin the reorientation of terminal facilities to align with the parallel runway system. Additional long-term projects include navigational aid enhancements, parking and rental car infrastructure investments, and deicing facilities. The Airport proposes to execute the PAL 3 “long-term development” projects in parallel with the PAL 2 projects. 

RS&H estimated the total cost of the PAL 1, 2, and 3 capital improvements projects as $227 million (in 2018 dollars). 

The pandemic delayed several of the PAL 1 projects, but its effects have not otherwise required tweaking of the Master Plan. Implementation will be a 20-plus-years-long process, moving forward in phases prompted by attainment of benchmarks tied to factors such as passenger volume and project funding rather than specific calendar milestones. 

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) paid for last year’s taxiway improvements, but funding for other projects identified by the Master Plan is not yet entirely in place. The largest projects will likely require a combination of monies from FAA grants, airport revenues, passenger fees, municipal bonding, and external private funds. 

The rendering of the future Concourse C (see top of post above) commanded my attention. When completed, it will dramatically increase aircraft and passenger capacity at the airport. Looking beyond the 20-year horizon, RS&H’s ultimate vision for the Eugene Airport ambitiously reimagines the entire facility. Though this vision will undoubtedly evolve as the years pass, it presently proposes the complete replacement of the existing commercial terminal with a new 50-gate(!) complex oriented to align with the parallel runway system. 

Long-Term vision for the Eugene Airport. Note the omission of the current terminal and its replacement with an entirely new commercial terminal aligned with the runways (image from RS&H's Eugene Airport Master Plan).

Cathryn Stephens did address the elephant in the room, which is flying’s substantial carbon footprint. Reducing the environmental impact of air travel is an imperative for the entire aviation industry if it is to survive. Given the way it operates today, flying is not truly sustainable. Planes are becoming more efficient every day, and electric-powered flight is becoming a reality, but other modes of travel (such as trains) emit much less CO2. One of the benefits of using the Eugene Airport rather than driving to Portland is the associated reduction in the passenger’s carbon footprint: Per passenger mile, the level of emissions is less when flying directly to and from EUG versus adding the trek by car both ways between Eugene and PDX. 

The Eugene Airport Master Plan does include an overview of the environmental considerations and impacts associated with current and future development at the airport, as well as a detailed feasibility study examining the potential of green energy generated by substantial solar photovoltaic installations at EUG. 

Additionally, the Eugene Airport is partnered with The Good Traveler carbon offset program, which provides passengers with a means to personally mitigate the impacts of flying. For example, if I flew a round-trip itinerary between Eugene and Vancouver, Canada, I could offset the 688 pounds of carbon dioxide associated with my 700 passenger miles of travel by purchasing carbon offsets worth $3.50. That money goes toward projects devoted to restoring the climate balance, such as methane capture, refrigerant reclamation, carbon sequestration, emissions reduction, and improved forest management initiatives. 

If past and recent history are any guide, the airline industry is resilient, with growth trending upward overall despite unprecedented disruptions of global scale and consequence. By necessity, it is also adapting to changing realities. I like the Eugene Airport’s prospects. EUG’s proactive planning for the future provides it, and by extension all of Lane County, with a leg up in a volatile and competitive marketplace. 

 

(1)        Our office is currently working on providing Southwest Airlines with office space within the existing terminal. Our past work for the airport includes an expansion of Gate A, renovation of the administrative office building, the terminal gift shop, the airfield equipment storage building, and an assortment of maintenance and repair projects. I hold a SIDA (Security Identification Display Area) badge, for which I must retrain and retest annually to maintain the privilege of access to the flight ramp and other sensitive operational areas.

 

Reopening the Office

 

Photo by Marten Bjork on Unsplash.

The proverbial light at the end of the tunnel is shining brighter and brighter as the country cautiously emerges from life during a pandemic. The past year-plus has seemingly passed in the blink of an eye and yet been interminable. It has been tragic, and at once both memorable and forgettable. There is a sense of lost time, of lives placed on hold, and of opportunities forever missed. COVID-19 upended everything, necessarily placing strict limits on our behavior. For those of us fortunate enough to keep our jobs throughout this period, the disruptions have been a reason to rethink how we work. They have prompted questions regarding whether white-collar workplaces should change in response. 

My firm, Robertson/Sherwood/Architects, returned to in-office work on June 1. Prior to doing so, we disseminated guidelines to our staff based on the recommendations of state and local health officials and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These recommendations include measures intended to foster a clean and safe work setting, such as requiring employees to self-assess for potential signs and symptoms of coronavirus infection (regardless of the fact all of us are fully vaccinated) and discouraging in-office meetings with non-vaccinated clients and guests. 

Our guidelines do support continued remote work depending on personal needs. When it may make sense for me, I can choose to do so.   

The first two weeks since returning to the office have gone well. There has been a remarkable sense of normalcy about our day-to-day interaction and activities. In many respects, it is as if our banishment to working from home never happened. Was it all just a dream? 

I did have mixed feelings about transitioning back to days in the office. I found remote-working effective. I was unexpectedly productive. Connecting only virtually with my coworkers and other project collaborators was not a significant hinderance. My wife, who retired several years ago, certainly enjoyed my company throughout the day. If it were entirely up to her, I would continue to work from home, at least for part of the week or each day. 

On the other hand, my professional life had taken over my personal territory and time. The absence of structure and routine during my workdays hampered my ability to effectively manage my work-induced stress and anxiety. Looking back, it’s clear I failed to adequately set boundaries between work and life. If my computer was on and available, I was too—an unhealthy recipe for burnout. 

Since returning to the office my level of stress and anxiety has markedly lessened. Not so coincidentally, the persistent headaches that tormented me for months have largely abated since reestablishing the workday routine and clearly separating work from home life. The importance of that separation wasn’t clear to me before, but it is now.    

I am fortunate to live close enough to our office that heading home for lunch to visit my wife is a practical possibility, so this is part of my daily routine. Admittedly, these visits are rushed but physically leaving the office provides a useful break and opportunity for a mid-day mental reboot. 

Earlier this year I questioned whether COVID-19 has really changed the future of the office. I postulated the pandemic may have pushed us past a tipping point and the future of the office could be radically unlike what it was before. While many employers are eager to get their employees back on-site full-time, it is true a substantial number of others are considering extending remote work indefinitely or the possibility of shifting to a hybrid model combining in-person and at-home work. This latter group includes some of our clients, who have asked us to help them reimagine their offices as flexible environments capable of supporting a wide range of working preferences (such as hoteling and hot-desking). One thing is certain: the cat is most definitely out of the bag.   

If the early returns are any indication, Robertson/Sherwood/Architects will be among those employers who primarily embrace working in-office as opposed to collaborating virtually (while not precluding remote work). Given our current projects examining alternative work arrangements and my musings on the subject, there is some irony in our preference for doing things the old-fashioned way. Each business will come to its own conclusion about what makes the most sense, operationally and for its employees. Somewhat to my surprise, I think our choice to favor working together in our physical office is the right one for us.

 

Eugene/Architecture/Alphabet: E

Eugene Hotel (circa 1927); note the huge sign on the roof, no longer there.

This is the next in my Eugene/Architecture/Alphabet series of blog posts, the focus of each being a landmark building here in Eugene. Many of these will be familiar to most who live here but there are likely to be a few buildings that are less so. My selection criteria for each will be threefold: 

• The building must be of architectural interest, local importance, or historically significant. 
• The building must be extant so you or I can visit it in person.
• Each building’s name will begin with a particular letter of the alphabet, and I must select one (and only one) for each of the twenty-six letters. This is easier said than done for some letters, whereas for other characters there is a surfeit of worthy candidates (so I’ll be discriminating and explain my choice in those instances). 

This week’s selection begins with the letter E, for which my choice is the Eugene Hotel.

Eugene Hotel

When it was completed in 1925, the Eugene Hotel was unquestionably the premier facility for local events and an inviting stopover for guests traveling the then-new Pacific Highway 99. Designed by local architect John Hunzicker in an early Modern fashion with California Mission and Italian Romanesque flourishes, the seven-story, reinforced concrete structure was among Eugene’s tallest, visible from every vantage point around the city. No expense was spared, as prominent business leaders, community boosters, the social elite, and average citizens alike enthusiastically supported the important project by underwriting its construction. 

During its storied history, the Eugene Hotel attracted countless conventions, banquets, balls, weddings, and meetings of civic groups, while providing first-class, full-service accommodations for travelers. Notable visitors to the hotel included presidential candidates (Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, Robert Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan) and entertainment celebrities (among them actors Jimmy Stewart, William Holden, Robert Mitchum, Edgar Bergen, and even Rin Tin Tin, the canine TV star). The Eugene Hotel enjoyed unmatched stature as the hub of social life in Eugene. 

The hotel remained Eugene’s largest until being eclipsed in the 1970s by the Valley River Inn and later the Eugene Hilton (now the Graduate Eugene Hotel). Ironically, while it was the advent of widespread motoring during the early years of the 1920s that would give it rise, the post-World War Two era’s development of the “motor hotel” and commercial decline of Eugene’s downtown ultimately prompted the Eugene Hotel’s closure in 1980. Fortunately, rather than suffering the same ignoble fate wrought by urban renewal as many of downtown Eugene’s historic buildings, its new owners would rekindle the Eugene Hotel as an elegant retirement center. This adaptive reuse ensured much of the hotel’s original configuration and functions would be retained, and its historical appeal preserved. 

Another historical view of the Eugene Hotel, looking west past its Broadway façade to the Miner Building (also designed by John Hunzicker) in the distance.

Today, the Eugene Hotel is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and appears much as it did when it was first constructed. The National Register nomination document describes its configuration as typical of hotels of the period, having a front-facing light court created by its U-shaped plan. Narrow stringcourses divide the building horizontally, while low-relief pilaster strips divide the facades vertically. A Tuscan palette accentuates these divisions; the original color scheme wasn't as multihued. Postcards dating from shortly after its completion depict a monochromatic design comprised of shades of ivory cream embellished with dark-red tile accents near the building’s cornice and at street-level. Large street-level windows within an implied portico provide inviting glimpses inside, while the upper-story openings are frameless, double-hung windows providing light and fresh air to the residents’ apartments. 

Inside, as much as possible of the detail and character remains from the initial design. Interestingly, the original lobby extended across the north section of the building, all the way from the main entrance on Broadway to a secondary entrance in the center of the Pearl Street façade. Today, the northwest corner is a retail space most recently occupied by the now shuttered Uki Uki tiki bar and before that a Starbucks outlet. Nevertheless, the remaining lobby space, main dining room, and other shared amenity spaces emulate the original design. It is easy to imagine how elegant the Eugene Hotel must have been during its heyday. 

Eugene Hotel lobby (photo from the Eugene Hotel website)

The Eugene Hotel provides an attractive housing option for active seniors who prefer to live close by everything downtown Eugene has to offer. It is also a decidedly urban building, confidently occupying its block and bringing life to the sidewalks outside its generous ground-level windows. It served for generations as a prominent figure on Eugene’s community scene. Barring a cataclysmic earthquake, I see no reason why the Eugene Hotel will not continue to stand for many generations to come.