Talk:Surfside condominium collapse/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

"Tunnels"

"Colonel Golan Vach, the leader of an Israeli search and rescue unit" was quoted as talking on July 30 about "tunnels" in and/or under the material in the debris field. I think what was meant were void spaces, but most of us think of "tunnels" as something created by people, not randomly by the collapse or shifting of debris, possibly creating misunderstanding and/or hope on the part of readers that they were created by survivors. This may simply be a poor English word choice by Colonel Vach (who I presume speaks Hebrew as a first language). I think we should be vigilant for opportunities to clarify this. General Ization Talk 21:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This explainer helps, I think, to address the issue and has been added to the June 30 report. General Ization Talk 12:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Causes section placement

@FT2: Since you have taken an interest in expanding the Possible causes section, would like your thoughts on an earlier question (see Talk:Surfside condominium building collapse/Archive 1#"Possible causes" before "Collapse"?) about where in the article the section should reside. It was originally located below the Aftermath section, because it exclusively contained sourced speculation rather than the documented facts that make up the bulk of the article. It was then, rather abruptly, moved before Collapse. As a compromise, it was demoted under Background, and eventually moved to its present location, demoted under Collapse. Kahlores, who was part of that earlier conversation, recently contacted me to ask whether we should revisit the question of placement now that the section has grown and the character of its contents has changed somewhat. General Ization Talk 13:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Note - I edited the title of this part of the talk for ease, hopefully you're okay with that.
I see what you mean. It is a bit unintuitive at the moment. I'll gladly take a look later on at this, see if the sections can be reorganised a bit, and either comment here or WP:BRD.
I see one other issue about section organisation that's not typical (other than for fairly new developing events) - the "Response" section is still mainly a day by day timeline rather than a collated description, as people just append the latest key developments from the news and other sources. Typical of early articles about significant unfolding events. What I'd like to see (and may do) is to move the detailed timeline to a section called "timeline of events", and summarise it in a textual rather than list format under "response". That should help a lot when the main section organisation is revisited too.
What do you think? FT2 (Talk | email) 14:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@FT2: I would wait to change the structure of the Response section at least until the rescue phase of the disaster shifts to recovery. As one of the folks regularly contributing to that section (and the one who journalized its format by date, versus just an unstructured series of paragraphs), it is much easier to be able to mostly ignore the contents of previous days' entries and focus on what are truly new developments as they are announced, versus having to re-read the entire section every day or multiple times a day to verify what some other editor may have added or changed, and where. I'm anticipating that a very large proportion of those missing will soon be found in the ruins, probably over the span of one or two days, and once that occurs I think it would make more sense to consider reorganization. General Ization Talk 15:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
good point. let's leave it all a few days and then shape it right? FT2 (Talk | email) 15:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, daily pageviews will probably drop significantly below the current 60k/day or so once the rescue phase comes to an end, making it easier on some number of readers who have adapted to the current structure. General Ization Talk 15:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I see that Kahlores has promoted and moved the Possible causes section, invoking WP:BRD. (I'm fine with it, just noting for the record.) General Ization Talk 15:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

me too. whether or not its how it finally ends up, its certainly a sensible position. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Number of condo units destroyed is 81, not 55.

Lots of sources are quoting that 55 of 136 units were destroyed, but this incorrect. 55 units survived. 81 units were destroyed. 7 units per floor on 11 floors, plus the upper penthouse (on the 13th floor of a "12 floor" building) and 3 units on the ground floor. This is detailed in the NY Times article, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/30/us/miami-building-missing-dead.html

Note: I'm posting this here so someone else can make a proper edit to the article; I'm not versed in Wiki-editing etiquette, so I apologize if I'm doing this wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:4300:12ca:314e:12b6:6983:2dfb (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Since we have, and have had for almost 10 days, multiple cited sources that stated that 55 units were destroyed, I'd like to locate additional (preferably local) reliable sources for this before the information is changed in the article. General Ization Talk 16:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I suspect the Times may have expanded the definition of "destroyed" to include units in the standing portion of the building, including the penthouse, that lost rooms when the wing collapsed but were not wholly enclosed within the collapsed portion of the structure. This is more than I want to try to explain in the article without seeing some agreement among sources. General Ization Talk 16:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Please see the section immediately below. General Ization Talk 17:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
According to the 1979 blueprints, posted on the Surfside municipal website, all floors from 2 to 11 and the penthouse floor had the same layout. Units x05, x06, x07, x08, x09 are all intact. Units x01, x02, x03, x11, x12, the three ground units and the upper penthouse unit were all completely in the collapsed portion of the building. Units x10 and x04 are the two units per floor which could be argued partially survived... however, the only part of x10 which survived was sheetrock and items attached to the shear wall. X04 units were effectively torn in half, kitchen and living room survived, bedrooms and bathrooms destroyed. I would say any housing unit that was 50% missing is destroyed... especially considering the number of missing and dead from x04 units.
I cannot find any citable sources that mention more than 55 units destroyed, but the number can be determined from looking at the floor plans in the 1979 blueprints and by looking at any of the photographs of the eastern side of the remaining structure. I imagine the local officials have better things to do right now than revisit the number of units destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:4300:12ca:314e:12b6:6983:2dfb (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and for us as editors to do so, or for us to try to come up with alternative numbers to publish in the article based on our own review of blueprints, is prohibited here as Original research. As I note in the section below, if the discrepancy is significant, we should record it in a footnote, but we should primarily use the numbers and terms reported by the majority of our sources (continuing to watch them in case they should change). General Ization Talk 17:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing the Times link you cited above, I do not see the number "81" anywhere at that link (nor that 55 was the number of units that survived), so I assume those numbers were synthesized based on your review of the content at the link. The only way in which that content explicitly disagrees with the local reporting (so far) of 55 units destroyed is the statement "At least half of the 135 units of the Champlain Towers South in Surfside, Fla., disintegrated...", but that is so vague as to not be particularly useful, and certainly not of sufficient weight to override the majority of sources already cited. General Ization Talk 18:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The media has so little thinking and original content sometimes, all the 55s were probably copied from a small number of original sources (admittedly they're probably rushing to beat deadlines 24/7). Journalists are not "left-brained" people, they don't enjoy looking at floor plans and once they find their apartment count they probably wouldn't wonder if there's partial apartments and add clarificatory parentheticals. I was wondering why there were so many dead and missing per $600K condo on a low non-residents (partiers, snowbirds etc) time of day and week and why so few units collapsed compared to how much of the building collapsed, this answers that (the ones with direct sea views might've been bigger than average but still). Why is adding a footnote referenced to online blueprints and photos original research? Arithmetic is an exception to original research and reading a map well enough to say 22 others partly collapsed sparing 11 kitchens, 11 living rooms and 11 west walls is hardly complex analysis. Or I guess someone could send a Miami newspaper an email and hope they care enough to update their numbers. As when something is obviously wrong or incomplete asking something that can be used as a source if they overlooked this is better than not giving a fuck about truth and sucking the dick of verifiability. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Sagittarian Milky Way: I didn't say that adding a footnote was original research (in fact, I suggested it, if the discrepancy is significant and relevant to report); I said that changing the content of the article itself (i.e., the number of units destroyed) based on our own investigation of blueprints, floor plans, or other documents is, and therefore is not permitted by our policies. General Ization Talk 18:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for not reading better, yes agree a footnote is sufficient. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
You may speculate if you like about why a majority of published, reliable sources might inadvertently all report an erroneous number, but, as an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, if they did we would be obligated to follow suit. General Ization Talk 18:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as an unavoidable cost of an encyclopedia better than paper in most ways it needs policy restrictions the paper ones didn't have, though reports with more detail than anyone would care to put in should come out and fix things eventually (NTSB-like final reports trump newspapers and TV channels right?). In niches with few very knowledgeable persons and low reader interest for expert interviews (like eclipses) I have noticed that no matter how many Pulitzers or how local the astronomical event an RS article sometimes has small spot(s) that are worded bad (possibly up to dead wrong) cause they don't know any better when they reword their source(s) enough to avoid plagiarism. Non-subject matter experts are not gods. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The blueprints (page 10) show that floors 2 through 12 each had 12 apartments. Six were in the section that is still standing and six in the section that collapsed. That's 6*11=66, plus the three on the main floor, plus the penthouse, for a total of 70 suites destroyed, plus eleven partially destroyed (the unit on the NE corner labeled as "H" on the blueprint would be partially destroyed on each floor, losing its master bath, dressing room, and walk-in closet). this source says the number 55 came from Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Assistant Chief Raide Jadallah. What to do? It's obviously incorrect. Should we remove perhaps, until someone publishes correct data? Comment it out? I am not comfortable leaving it in if it's incorrect.— Diannaa (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
My opinion: A footnote is what, and probably the best, we can do. See above. General Ization Talk 21:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
We could change it to say "at least 55" and cite one of the sources that backs it up. I gotta go, my new glasses are ready, ttyl.— Diannaa (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Architectural terms and building practices vary by region

I have seen now several cases in which reporting by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, specifically, disagreed with the majority of sources, including those local to the collapse, on certain points of this narrative: the number of units "destroyed" (versus those fully contained in the destroyed structure), and whether the penthouse unit on the South Tower was a "floor", making the building 13 stories rather than 12 as indicated by most of our sources. It's important to keep in mind that the definitions of these terms can vary by region and local government. (I speculate that New York City may have local ordinances declaring that rooftop penthouse units are always a "floor", and that certain associated fees are required to be paid for their construction; such local laws, and usage, cannot and should not be assumed to universal.) Whenever practical, we should always give preference to local sources (e.g., the Miami Herald) in order to reflect local laws and terminology. In any case, we should go with the facts as reported by the majority of cited sources, rather than a minority that may use different criteria, perhaps noting the discrepancy in an {{efn}} (footnote) if warranted. General Ization Talk 17:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In an article about the Champlain Towers developer, it is noted that Surfside municipality realized the upper penthouse was in violation of the local 12 floor limit after approvals were given, and that reversing the approval would expose the municipality to lawsuits, so it was allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:4300:12CA:314E:12B6:6983:2DFB (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Exact floor counts in tall buildings is notoriously fuzzy, one shouldn't expect universal agreement. Agree that local sources for floor counts are more likely to get it right (if there even is a local terminology consensus) and should be used. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Reports of floor counts (hence stories) can even be skewed by something as ridiculous as triskaidecaphobia. If you see that the top button in an elevator says 15, that doesn't necessarily mean the building has 15 floors. General Ization Talk 18:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Maybe the penthouse address had a 14 in it lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

From Floridaparcels.com, it appears units on the 12th floor used a 'PH' prefix, PH-1 through PH-12, and the upper penthouse used PH-A. The upper penthouse had it's own elevator stop. Triskaidekaphobia, indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:4300:12ca:8ce2:2ba7:2901:8674 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That explains why the Washington Post reported that one of the surviving residents had looked at "Penthouse 4" before selecting a ground floor unit. I was just wondering how that had worked. - Donald Albury 23:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Naming

"Apartment block" is a phrase virtually unknown in American English. Per Wiki policy, the article should be in the variety of English of the location of the event, or in the most neutral language possible. I would never have thought to search for this article by this title. Recommend changing to "apartment building," or perhaps "residential building" if they were condos. The latter term is what the New York Times is using, for example. Moncrief (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree that we should rename the article to fall in line with American English per Wiki policy. However, here in Miami where the event has taken place, we refer to this building as a "condominium" or a "condo building". I believe that would be more appropriate than "apartment building", as that would imply a different type of building and ownership. --ItsGrrreat (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Eg., Google search gives the following, condo seems to be “obligatory” part... — Pietadè (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Condo building would be more accurate. I didn't realize at first that they were condos. I can imagine "residential building" being agreed on as a more neutral term. At any rate, it's clear that "apartment block" is awful and has to go. It sounds like a city block of apartments (as in, bounded by four streets) collapsed, to an American ear. Moncrief (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the article per strong consensus here. I have no objection if consensus changes to move it to "Champlain Towers South collapse" or something similar, it really depends on what the news media start calling it. Abductive (reasoning) 16:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Moncrief (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Addition of year

I think the title is still off. Should probably have the year at the start of the title. SecretName101 (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
changed this. Now it is in-line with the titling of similar articles. SecretName101 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
That probably should have been proposed and discussed here before the move. Are there other condominium collapses in Surfside to be disambiguated? General Ization Talk 17:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
And has now been moved back, in line with my thinking on the question. General Ization Talk 17:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
And one has to be especially vigilant with roof-repairers...;-) — Pietadè (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
By the way, started the article in etwi at first, on the wave of BBC World News, as "Miami building collapse", checking at first were/are there any earlier events of similar kind, didn't find...
So, if there are any similar events (in the same (broad) area) anticipated, a number in front of the heading would be appropriate, IMHO (like in Italian Wars), otherwise, what's the point? — Pietadè (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly the BBC website uses "residential complex" and "apartment building", but neither "flats" nor "condominium". So American English. kencf0618 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I initially created the page with the year. However, there has never been a collapse in Surfside of any significance before this event. So why exactly is it needed? TheEpicGhosty (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe that including the year in an article is always a good practice. While there may not have been other collapses in Surfside, Wikipedia does not just cater just to the United States. Unfortunately, building collapses are not rare throughout the world and including the date in this title would ensure that the article is clear in years to come. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed name

Eliminate condominium. Too complex. Unnecessary. Not supported by reliable sources as the title. CNN and TV news do not say "condominium" or even "condo". Likewise, we wouldn't have a "San Francisco rental apartment building collapse" or a "Miami time share building collapse". A building is a building. Corona80 (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe important to note that people lived there, and the term condominium conveys that idea. ie it wasn't a generic building used for warehousing, storage, etc. Slinde99 (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Surfside building collapse.

  • Support. I wouldn't oppose an addition of Florida or USA. Corona80 (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Additional comment: What if the building was converted to rentals (usually rentals to condo, not vice versa). Would the title be Surfside Rental Building collapse"? No. So leave out condo. Corona80 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The headline at this moment at CNN.com is "51 missing after condo partly collapses" and the subhead is "At least one person is dead and 51 who are assumed to reside in the Florida condo are unaccounted for, official says" (emphasis added). General Ization Talk 18:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Likewise at cbsnews.com: "Video shows boy being pulled from rubble after Florida condo building collapse". [1] General Ization Talk 18:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    • And AP: "Many feared dead after Florida beachfront condo collapses". [2] The title is sourced and follows conventions in media sources. We do not need to disambiguate Miami to avoid confusion with Miami, Ohio, which has no beachfront properties, or one outside the US; it is linked. General Ization Talk 18:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support (were there any, say, bistros, heel bars, etc., on the ground floor/ground storey...?) — Pietadè (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    And, accordingly, should there be categories à la Condo(minium) collapses by year, state, continent, death toll, etc....? ;-) — Pietadè (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support taking out "condominium." And also support adding "Florida" as is common in US place names that are not widely known. So, I'm voting specifically for "2021 Surfside, Florida building collapse" or some minor variation of that. Moncrief (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Edited to add: Neutral. It looks now as if the death toll is going to be pretty high -- higher than expected when I wrote the above. The year will probably not be necessary. And possibly not the state either, depending on how infamous this gets. I think I'd say for now that I don't know what the right name should be. (One hopes we won't still be voting and arguing about the best name six months from now, a la the article about January 6th at the Capitol...) Moncrief (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
„2021 Surfside“ — seems particularly confusing, at least for me (surf+side). — Pietadè (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Surfside is the name of the town within which the structure is located. General Ization Talk 19:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Y, made an article on this in etwi, yet for "untrained" eyes (and hind) behind, this (1921, 2021, etc.) can hint on whatsoever (say, if one is going to transfer this article via translate.google.com into some other language)... — Pietadè (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In American English, and particularly with regard to the architecture of Miami and other resort cities, "condominium" is as much a noun as it is an adjective. An entire, large building primarily containing condominium units (even if possibly containing retail, restaurant and other uses as well) is generally known as a condominium or condo (as are its individual units). Hence the widespread use of the term in US media to refer to the structure. The title correctly identifies the building type, as opposed to an apartment building, or a commercial or industrial structure. It also conveys that it is a large, hence high-density, structure with the potential for a high death toll in a collapse. General Ization Talk 19:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
cf. eg. with a more general term (for general audience) as "building" (Lexico / MW / Collins / Cambridge, etc.)... — Pietadè (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is a building, but commercial, industrial and low-density residential structures (also buildings) generally don't have the same potential for loss of life in a collapse (excluding large office towers, and this building is more comparable to those than typical residential structures in the US). General Ization Talk 19:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
(As an illustration, an ocean liner is a type of boat (or ship), but in the context of a disaster a boat sinking implies something less.) General Ization Talk 20:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Depends on language and cultural space too, etwi version in the title/heading covers both condo(minium)/building, and specifies à la with multiple/more than one entrance(s). — Pietadè (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
What is "etwi"? You keep using that word as if people here know what you're talking about. Moncrief (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Estonian Wikipedia. General Ization Talk 20:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Besides, earlier it is linked.
Seems appropriate to ask for some kind of protection to this page/article. — Pietadè (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Surfside CONDOMINIUM collapse has the right amount of words, syllables and alliteration. But three words beats four words, whatever the title. A weak oppose to what's proposed. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. kencf0618 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Extremely generic.  🐱💬 05:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not only is this too generic, it will possibly mislead people. It seems there is already confusion over the city name "Surfside" and this makes it seem like that's the name of the building. You wouldn't name the article "Miami building collapse" if it were a few miles away, right? A quick search for other building collapse articles has either the name of the building or the year and city it happened in. I feel the same should be done here. lukini (talk | contribs) 19:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support InedibleHulk's proposal for conciseness and accuracy. Love of Corey (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way too generic. UserTwoSix (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion of "building" (redundant) per User:InedibleHulk. Is there any condominium, anywhere, that isn't by definition a building? To me the issue isn't "condominium" but "building". Retitle as "Surfside condominium collapse" or some variant of it, because as InedibleHulk said, shorter is better if nothings lost. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Also noting that even though condo isn't internationally widely used, at least some major UK media headline it as "condo collapse", eg Independent "Surfside condo collapse", and also Ground Engineering and Architects professional journals. So I'm comfortable that shortening for simplicity trumps the benefits of keeping a redundant word. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Second name proposal

What about Champlain Towers collapse or Champlain Towers South collapse? In line with for example Grenfell Tower fire. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It's too early to say if that name will be the WP:COMMONNAME. Currently it's not even in the running. Moncrief (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed - that should only become the title if it becomes the common name. Jim Michael (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
M' poor eyesight can read it as "Champaign" (Ls and ls, Is and is). — Pietadè (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Why is that relevant to anything? Moncrief (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The answer is simple: "Champlain" (especially in red font) is/was not so easy to read correctly, perhaps I'm not the only one (the simpler the better?) — Pietadè (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
You are truly one of the oddest Wikipedia editors I've encountered in my 17 years here. Moncrief (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, indeed! Shall cover the topic on Y'r talk page, if Y don't mind (how can Y, technically)22:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed - comfortable with, and prefer this, to the present title, if it becomes a viable name under WP:COMMONNAME. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Not clear enough: 2021, Florida, Miami?

Suggest 2021 Surfside, Florida condominium building collapse or Surfside, Florida condominium building collapse, but probably best to leave it as is for a week or so to avoid too many redirects. Facts707 (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Way too wordy at this point. Plus, "Surfside" isn't exactly well known as a city/town name, so distinguishing this from, say, the one in California isn't all that necessary. Love of Corey (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking for this article I wasn't even sure I had reached the right page. I did not know the town of "Surfside", I knew it was in Florida and I thought I heard something about "Miami". So without the year I even had to start reading to make sure it was current. UserTwoSix (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Article titles are generally intended to be as short as possible while not requiring disambiguation. There is no single title for this article that will satisfy all search criteria a reader might supply. This is generally (and can be here) handled by redirects rather than making the title excessively long. E.g., 2021 condominium building collapse, Florida condo collapse and Miami condo collapse are already redirects to the article. General Ization Talk 17:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with those users who state that the year, or the word "Florida", should not be in the title, because the title doesn't need disambiguating from other Surfside collapses, and same reasons given for the state. I would instead prefer to look at renaming via the block name.
Would anyone else be comfortable with Champlain Towers, Surfside, condominium collapse? Or variants? FT2 (Talk | email) 10:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Champlain Towers is meaningless to almost all readers. WWGB (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, even with the large amount of international media coverage every day since it happened, the large majority of people don't know the building's name. Jim Michael (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Is there a Champlain Towers located somewhere other than Surfside, Florida, that has collapsed? See my comment above about redirects. Champlain Towers collapse is already a redirect to this article. General Ization Talk 11:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the intro

This sentence could be a record-breaker for the longest sentence in a Wikipedia intro: "Initial analysis of the causes of the collapse suggested that unremedied defects that had previously been documented, including defective waterproofing below the deck of the swimming pool at construction and the possible excessive ingress of salt water[18] (which causes more aggressive deterioration), had led to water penetration and pooling, leading over time to severe cracking and breaking away (spalling) of reinforced concrete and severe corrosion of the reinforcing steel rebar within it."

Yikes. That's a lot to digest in one sentence. Intros are supposed to be broad overviews of the topic. I'm not sure why the second paragraph morphed from an overview into a very detailed description of possible causes -- something that would be more appropriate for a later section. And considering these possible causes are just conjecture at this point, it also doesn't belong in the intro, which is meant to lay out known facts. Any insight? I would work on fixing, but I wanted to put it out there for discussion first. Moncrief (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree that it is excessively detailed for the lead section and potentially misplaced. General Ization Talk 18:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Propose replacement with Long-term degradation of reinforced concrete support structures in the underground garage were was being considered as a potential cause of the collapse. General Ization Talk 18:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I like that. Moncrief (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I've made that edit, though we can discuss restoring some of the content I've removed elsewhere if needed. General Ization Talk 19:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
A lot of things have to go wrong for a building of this type and age to collapse. Sorry if this sounds like OR on my part but that new video showing water pouring into the parking garage from above? It looks like the initial collapse happened right there, and it's directly below one of the large planters located on the pool deck. It looks like one or more of the heavy dirt-filled planters might have collapsed into the parking garage, triggering a cascade of failures due to the poor maintenance and design of the rest of the pool deck area. So I've changed the recent lead edit from "potential cause of the collapse" to "potential factor in the collapse". — Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Yup, I'm with you on that. General Ization Talk 20:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
@Diannaa: If your theory was borderline OR at the time you expressed it above, it isn't anymore. General Ization Talk 14:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I am sending you some more thoughts on the planters via email.— Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

As the person who wrote that sentence, thanks for the thoughtful discussion, and consensus seeking. The core material does seem relevant and should be there somewhere, and perhaps a little of it belongs in the intro. I'll have a go, and if its wrong again I'm comfortable to leave that to others to decide. Thanks agaon. For this discussion. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I've edited the "Causes" section to improve 2 aspects:
  • First, causes should present an outline of causes, not just a timeline of evidence. So I've collated the 28 June images and 30 June video, into one paragraph - their relevance is they both support the "water leak leading to spalling/deterioration" theory, so let's present them that way.
  • Second, some info from the removed intro paragraph wasn't in the "Causes" section, as User:General Ization stated. That user said some might benefit from restoring within "causes" so I've had a go. but cleaned up readability.
Hopefully this isn't a bad edit, please see what you think. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference between "Potential factor" and "Possible underlying cause" ?

I'm wondering why one of these descriptors can't be removed? UserTwoSix (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer that directly as it pertains to this article, because I'm not the one who introduced that wording (pinging @Diannaa, who I think may have done so). But I'll give you some examples of why they are not the same thing: the fact that the water, and hence the air, in south Florida is extremely saline, and hence rapidly corrosive to steel, is a factor. It will not be a cause (in part because buildings don't fall down in south Florida due to the incursion of salt water with regularity). The fact that concrete may require more regular maintenance in Florida as a result is a factor, not a cause. If it was found that inadequate maintenance was performed over a long period of time, that could eventually be determined to be a proximate cause (not so much a factor). If they were to determine that a concrete slab cracked and split at a support column because of highly deteriorated steel reinforcement and overloading, in turn causing the structure resting on it (and of a design incapable of remaining standing without it) to become unstable and collapse, that would be a direct cause (not a factor). General Ization Talk 21:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) Oxford says that "cause" is "a person or thing that produces an effect". They say a "factor" is "a circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to a result". This particular building collapse will likely turn out to have several contributing factors, and not a sole cause. I am changing it to read Long-term degradation of reinforced concrete support structures in the underground garage due to water penetration and corrosion of the reinforcing steel is being considered as a potential factor in the collapse.— Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree., sorry. The difference is that a factor is one element that contributes to the outcome. A cause is something that is largely or wholly responsible for that outcome. By analogy, the use of kerosene in aircraft is a factor in the scale of global warming (it contributes but by itself isn't the only thing responsible), but human production of CO2 overall, from all sources, is a probable cause (it's assessed as the likely item that with it, warming happened, without it, warming probably wouldn't).
I should say that they are grey terms, in that you can always argue what's a factor and what's actually a cause. One way to think about it is that factors prime the situation, and contribute to the dangerous scenario existing; causes are somehow more direct, they ultimately changed it from "high risk of problem" to "actual problem" and trigger the issue when you look back. Causes trigger a feeling of inevitability rather than of mere increased risk. To describe a cause as a factor suggests by itself it wasn't the only/real issue. To describe a factor as a cause is to promote it as directly responsible in a more inevitable sense.
The sources suggest that the poor design and saline air and pooling were factors. They laid the groundwork for it, but if all that happened was salty air and pooling water, it would have been harmless. But the water penetration is seen as a cause. Water penetrated over the years, causing weakening and ultimately collapse. Once serious penetration and corrosion of the supports occurred and continued lkng enough without prevention, collapse feels inevitable, all by itself. But the fact that Surfside merely has saline air or that the waterproof layer was wrong, doesn't trigger that same feeling. They could have happened but not led to collapse.
These seem to be fairly broad media and expert consensus. I'm reverting, but open to discussion. But this feels technically more correct. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I have removed it again. You've not included any sources, and your explanation is technically incorrect. Water (whether salt water or fresh) penetrates concrete. The more time the concrete is immersed in water, the further into the column it reaches. (Special high-density concretes are used for underwater applications to prevent penetration.) It eventually reaches the rebar. If the water has nowhere to go, trapped by an improperly designed waterproofing layer, it will just sit there indefinitely. If the waterproofing layer is properly sloped, the water drains off, doing no harm. If the rebar is constantly wet it will start to rust. Rust takes up more space than steel, so the rebar expands. That causes the visible part of the spalling. In other words, the concrete is pushed off the rebar by the rust. The concrete itself does not deteriorate by being immersed in water unless it sits there for a long time. Please don't re-add unsourced technical information again, especially incorrect technical information. Summarizing media reports is not appropriate here either, if they have their science wrong. We cannot at this point make assumptions or draw conclusions about the cascade of events that brought this building down; we will have to wait for the forensic engineering reports. That process could take years. It is very important that we get this right. People's lives may depend on it, so please don't re-add any unsourced analysis.— Diannaa (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Note: I have made a couple of corrections to the above information.— Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Number of people rescued from un-collapsed portion of building

Does the article sentence "One person was rescued from the rubble,[9] and about 35 people were rescued from the un-collapsed portion of the building.", include anyone who may have self-rescued, or walked away from the un-collapsed portion of the building themselves? Did any of the residents self rescue from the un-collapsed part of the building (after the collapse)? This would make it very easy to make a rough estimate of the casualties: (Total # of survivors in un-collapsed part of building)/(# of un-collapsed units)*(# of collapsed units). Of course, I am not saying this "rough estimate" should be included in the article, but the # of people who may have self-rescued (if there were any) is important information.Arty32 (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any such data in the media as of yet. We can't add such a tally until we are able to source it. — Diannaa (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Further to Diannaa's comment, "make a rough estimate of the casualties" followed by a proposed formula sounds an awful lot like a plan to publish original research, something we cannot do here. General Ization Talk 21:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I made a typo and wrote "shouldn't" instead of "should" (corrected), sorry. I specifically said I didn't want to include that in the article, and was only interested in whether someone self rescued.Arty32 (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Arty32: That wasn't meant to sound accusatory, but was primarily for the benefit of others who may be contemplating the same kind of research and are not aware of the policy. It's perfectly fine to do this to satisfy your own curiosity, or even to help locate a source by using the estimated number to refine a Web search, but not to add the product of the research to the article without a published source. I've been hammering on a few others who have actually attempted this, so I'm trying to be an equal opportunity hammerer. General Ization Talk 00:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
There are several stories of people who were able to escape down the stairs, but there's no way to make a comprehensive tally at this point. Such data may be available some time in the future. Like General Ization says, making estimates or guesses or doing calculations is not something we do.— Diannaa (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I made a typo and wrote "shouldn't" instead of "should" (corrected), sorry. I specifically said I didn't want to include that in the article, and was only interested in whether someone self rescued.Arty32 (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
According to the blueprints on the town website going down the stairs would require passing within a few feet of the collapsed portion at each landing and some people might feel safer waiting as far from the collapsy parts as they can instead. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Fox news interview on 6/29 with Steve Rosenthal, who was rescued from the 7th floor of the standing part of the building and verifies he did not feel the stairs were a safe route to evacuate (was rescued from his balcony). Apparently also the first to sue. General Ization Talk 04:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Elsa

"BREAKING UPDATE: Tropical Storm Elsa continued to strengthen Tuesday afternoon, prompting hurricane warnings for Florida’s west coast and an upgraded prediction that Elsa will strike Florida as a [category 1] hurricane." — Miami Herald via Twitter General Ization Talk 19:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Foundation and ground water

Can someone cover the foundation integrity and ingress of seawater? I would like to know if these factors play a role in the collapse. If above ground concrete members can deteriorate badly, imagine the condition of the concrete piles which have submerged in seawater for 40 years. (The site is reclaimed land. The tower would be supported by end-bearing concrete piles.) Also, why the garage floor always has pools of water? Is the water brine? Is the sump-pump working properly? Is there a chance that a leaking sewer pipe would cause loss of ground? I am just wondering. 166.48.109.105 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As discussed in the section just above, unless a published, reliable source decides to try to ask and answer these questions, we cannot do so here. Also, please see WP:NOTFORUM. General Ization Talk 20:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, too early to tell. Have to wait and see what engineering reports state. – The Grid (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Inspections of other buildings

I think the article should or could include the 3 detailed maps in this article, and some of the information from this article. This can be mentioned under the "July 5" section, and then under the "Investigations" section, which already discusses the North Miami condo that was just evacuated on July 2.

New York Times: "Lax Enforcement Let South Florida Towers Skirt Inspections for Years - The collapse of Champlain Towers South has prompted a review of hundreds of older high-rises. Some buildings ignored or delayed action on serious maintenance issues."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/04/us/south-florida-condo-maintenance-violations.html

Backup copy, in case that one is blocked for you: https://archive.ph/NuW1u

And you can see it on today's front page here:

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/07/05/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf InternetUser25 (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Just added a sentence about it myself. If anyone would like to add more, go ahead. Ideally, the article should include those 3 maps. InternetUser25 (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Those maps are copyright. We would have to create our own. Regardless, it's a bit off-topic for this particular article.— Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree; it's very much on-topic and would be of interest to people reading this article who may live near Champlain Towers or in other marshland-built high-rises in the region. The article talks about neighboring towers being evacuated, and about the North Miami tower being evacuated, so the ongoing consensus that has been writing, editing, and supervising this article has already determined that information about those other buildings is relevant and on-topic, and that front-page New York Times piece is very much relevant, considering that this is potentially a life-or-death matter for residents of southeast Florida. InternetUser25 (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The article is about the specific event. While a brief mention of the consequential loss of confidence in similar buildings is reasonable, an extended discussion shouldn't be in this article. Maybe there will eventually be enough material from disparate sources for a more generalized stand-alone article on the loss of confidence in similar structures. And as Dianaa noted, the maps are emphatically copyrighted, Acroterion (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Right now we really only have one source (the NY Times), but these revelations will likely lead to a lot more investigation and reporting. We will need an article on the general subject of lax regulation/enforcement of building codes in Miami-Dade eventually, as more details come out as to the extent of the problem and a wide range of sources become available. But this particular article it not the place for a lot of content on the wider issue; it needs to stay focused on the one event.— Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Seems/appears to be suit to limit the range of editors to some higher standard, at least for some time. — Pietadè (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pietadè:, you can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP (as easily as any of us). 15:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know — Pietadè (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

...doesn't reflect the current situation (after 2021-07-04), but a "time lapse" in a specified time limit... — Pietadè (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. I think that is what the infobox image should show for this subject. VQuakr (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
An image before intentional clearing should get top billing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. The image that most accurately reflects the scene as it appeared immediately after the collapse should remain the key image for this article. The current view, of a large field of rubble, conveys relatively little about the disaster. General Ization Talk 16:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Yet, the current view (no idea of this, here) should be also presented, IMHO. — Pietadè (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
In a lower section Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
No, this "fresh" image is not yet in a "common property". — Pietadè (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I haven't checked but WP:FAIRUSE of copyrighted images probably doesn't cover this. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Images produced by government agencies (in this case Miami-Dade Fire) are generally considered public domain immediately upon release. It bears looking into, but we should assume the current image (possibly not what you were referring to) is free to use for now. General Ization Talk 17:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
But not a copyrighted "current pic" (as in pic of current appearance)? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Right, I figured out that's probably what you meant. Chances are images by photogs for the Herald, Sun-Sentinel, etc. are off-limits. General Ization Talk 18:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I have used the image_upright parameter to increase the scaling of the current image, to fit the width of the infobox and because it is, at least for now, the most compelling view of the disaster we have. (The fact that it is barely daylight in the image also conveys that the collapse occurred in the middle of the night, reflecting a key fact of the tragedy.) General Ization Talk 16:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Rescue and relief operations spilt into new article

I was thinking that we could eventually spilt the rescue and relief operations section into a new article. I was thinking this about because eventually the timeline might get too long. Cwater1 (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Too soon, I think, to even speculate about this. Given its significance and international exposure, the article is not currently overlong (in my opinion). When and if a split is needed, I would think the portion that would move to a new article would be the multiple tracks of investigation and technical analysis, along with multiple legal actions resulting from the collapse. The search and rescue are part of the immediate aftermath of the disaster, and I assume readers would expect to find information on that phase here as part of the explanation of the timeline of the collapse and emergency response. General Ization Talk 03:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Also bear in mind that, after the emergency is ended, what often happens is that one or more local media will publish a retrospective timeline that capsulizes events from the inception of the disaster to the declaration that emergency response is over. This will allow us to replace many of the citations that support the current day-by-day breakdown of events with only a handful of citations. At this point, it is the reflist (about 40% of the page length on my screen), not the cited content, that makes the article appear to be quite long. General Ization Talk 03:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Number of survivors

I recall an earlier discussion about how many survivors of the collapse there were. The Washington Post says here that 126 people escaped from the building. Is it appropriate to add this new? - Donald Albury 12:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but with inline attribution to the Post since it is unclear whether that number was based on an official report or based on their own research. General Ization Talk 12:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Transition to recovery operations

Chief Jadallah and other authorities informed family members, and now the press, this afternoon that operations are shifting from rescue to recovery. We should reasonably expect that the toll will increase more quickly (and perhaps more frequently during the day) than during previous days. [3] General Ization Talk 21:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

The following terms, which redirect to this page, have been listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 8:

Anyone is welcome to come participate. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Condo association background/events leading up to the collapse

NYT published a good in depth article about the events leading up to the collapse, regarding the condo board/association and why they kept kicking the pool deck repair can down the road. Would this go under background? Subsection of possible causes (assuming the pool deck was the primary reason for collapse)? New section?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/03/us/miami-florida-surfside-collapse.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mildly Reinforced Concrete Beam (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Pool location

When I look at the overhead imagery, the pool is beside the building. So how would water get from there to inside the building? Including that will be important once available. Will (Talk - contribs) 10:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Pool water was not the problem. General Ization Talk 11:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Based on the engineering report, the pool at ground level sits on an elevated slab. Below that is the concrete parking structure. The slab supporting the pool may have shared beams/columns with the other parts of the building. Mildly Reinforced Concrete Beam (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Current template

Why not use the { {current} } template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.225.19 (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)‎

Please read the instructions for the {{current}} template at Template:Current/doc. They are clear about when that template should be used, and this article does not currently meet the criteria. General Ization Talk 03:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Surfside_condominium_collapse/Archive_2&oldid=1113624322"