a leaning building

[josh]

This building in downtown manhattan has been leaning on the building to the north for several years. Is this a safe condition? Is there information about the problems associated when a building is leaning on another tower?

Thanks.



http://WWW.tribecaspaces.com/photos/372%20Photos/372a.JPG

http://WWW.tribecaspaces.com/photos/372%20Photos/372B.JPG

[lofter1]

Undoubtedly it's less of a problem so long as there is a building for it to lean on.

A recent demo job a few blocks south on Broadway at 55 Reade (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=212995&postcount=68) has caused an old beauty to lean to the point that it has had to be evacuated (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/11/30/building_collapse_betting_pool_287_broadway_evacua ted.php) -- and is now propped up (http://curbed.com/archives/2008/01/03/creative_construction_at_reade_and_broadway.php).

Here's a story about a leaner in Chelsea from ~ 1 year ago at CURBED (and a more recent follow up from the NY Times) ...

The Leaning Tower of West 17th Street

CURBED (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/03/30/the_leaning_tower_of_west_17th_street.php)
March 30, 2007
by Pete

http://www.curbed.com/2007_03_30W18th1a.JPG
[The new building at 31 W. 17th (at center, left) and its leaning neighbor]

30 West 18th Street seems like the perfect property for a 100-unit
residential condo development. That's what the Hakimian Organization (http://hakimian.com/main.cfm?page=upcoming) must
have thought when they got hold of this former parking lot that goes all the
way through the block and includes the plot at 31 West 17th Street. It's in
the fashionable Ladies' Mile Historic District And right next door to Extell's
new Altair 18 (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2006/05/16/stars_come_out_to_celebrate_altair_lofts_themselve s.php). However there was one big snafu. The problem wasn't the
Hakimian property. Or the Altair (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2006/02/27/trends_in_real_estate_advertising_warm_buns.php). But another older building next door at 29
West 17th Street. That one turned out to be all askew and leaning over the
property line! In the past ten years the Department of Buildings has issued
numerous violations, stating:
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ... BUILDING IS LEANING
OUT OF PLUMB APPROX 10" TO THE WEST.

Oh, boy! What's a developer to do with a neighbor like that?

Cook + Fox Architects came up with a plan. They erected a slanting slab of
steel that rises the full height of the newly constructed 31 W. 17th facade,
matching the lean of 29 W. 17th. The beam narrows as it moves to the top
of the building and then drops straight down to the sidewalk. A smart bit of
engineering and visual sleight of hand, thus described by the
Landmarks Preservation Commission (http://search.citylaw.org/isysquery/8a3efe6f-caf0-4910-af24-51d0140abfcd/1/doc/):
... clever use of architectural elements on the West 17th Street
facade responds well to the unusual lot-line condition created by
the adjacent building.

Unusual indeed. There's still that troublesome gap between 29 W. 17th and
its neighbor to the east. Standing across the street and looking up the gap /
lean is quite apparent. DOB has disapproved (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobDetailsServlet?requestid=2&allisn=0001301111&allboroughname=&allnumbhous=&allstrt=) the application for a fix there.
Seems after all these years the responsible party still hasn't figured out the
engineering solution to the leaning tower of West 17th Street. Let's just hope
that the new building at 30 West 18th / 31 W. 17th, with all its brick and
steel, is as strong as it looks.

http://www.curbed.com/2007_03_30W18th2.JPG
[The facade of 30 West 18th Street]

http://www.curbed.com/2007_03_30W18th4.JPG

http://www.curbed.com/2007_03_30W18th3.JPG

http://www.curbed.com/2007_03_30W18th5.JPG


· Upcoming Projects - 30 West 18th Street (http://hakimian.com/main.cfm?page=upcoming) [Hakimian Organization Website]
· Stars Come Out to Celebrate Altair Lofts, Themselves (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2006/05/16/stars_come_out_to_celebrate_altair_lofts_themselve s.php) [Curbed]
· Trends in Real Estate Advertising: 'Warm Buns' (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2006/02/27/trends_in_real_estate_advertising_warm_buns.php) [Curbed]
· Certificate of Appropriateness for 30 West 18th Street (http://search.citylaw.org/isysquery/8a3efe6f-caf0-4910-af24-51d0140abfcd/1/doc/) [LPC]
· Application Data: 29 West 17th Street (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobDetailsServlet?requestid=2&allisn=0001301111&allboroughname=&allnumbhous=&allstrt=) [DOB]

***

The Leaning Tower of West 17th Street
and Its Neighbors, Old and New

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/11/realestate/500-re.jpg
Tina Fineberg for The New York Times
[B]ALONG THE BLOCK The thin vertical shaft of light shows
how much 29 West 17th Street leans toward its new neighbor,
Flatiron 17 at No. 31.

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/realestate/11scap.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=leaning+17th&st=nyt&oref=slogin)
By CHRISTOPHER GRAY
November 11, 2007

Streetscapes

There's the Tower of Pisa, and then there’s 29 West 17th Street, a slim little 1907 loft, 25 feet wide and 10 stories high. Now a new apartment building next door has had to shave a foot off its upper floors to accommodate its older neighbor.

In the 1850s and ’60s, the streets flanking Fifth Avenue above 14th Street were built up with comfortable brownstones, and soon the blocks were full of them. But by the 1910s, loft construction had wiped out most traces of the old brownstone period, and new construction has reached these blocks only within the last decade or so.

One example is the Hakimian Organization’s new condominium on the single lot at 31 West 17th, which will be finished early next year.

To walk down the first block of 17th Street west of Fifth Avenue is to peer back over a century and a half of New York’s architectural history. The vacant lot at 9 West 17th is the site of one of the block’s most wonderful structures, the little Dutch Renaissance-style real estate office of the powerful Goelet family. Designed by McKim, Mead & White, it was completed in 1886, a year before the family’s better-known Goelet Building at 20th and Broadway. It was torn down in 1952.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/08/realestate/11scap450.4.jpg
Office for Metropolitan History
The Goelet family’s office building that once stood at No. 9.

Next door is the narrow, gawky No. 11, built in 1908 and designed by Otto Strack for Edward Browning, a developer whose E. W. B. monogram is visible above the show window. This loft building was typical of the new structures that were built in the old neighborhood after 1900.

In 1913, an auction ad in The New York Times listed an inventory for one building tenant, the Charles Costume and Dress Company. It included the “latest garments made of the finest crepe de meteor, charmeuse, serges and Bedford cord,” along with sewing machines, cutting tables and a safe.

Farther up the block, a glance skyward shows that most of the 1900s loft buildings have lost their cornices. Some of the scars have been prettied up — like the one at No. 14 — but it appears that this street has not yet seen one of the full-bore restoration projects now common to other blocks in the area.

The leaning loft building at No. 29 was built in 1907, replacing a house where Howell Williams, a Wall Street merchant, lived in the 1860s. The 1870 census shows he lived there with his father and seven servants. By 1875 the house had been divided; The Times carried an ad offering a “charming suite” on the second floor and including the option of having meals served there.

On the other side of the street are Nos. 44 and 48, two surviving brownstones. They flank the picturesque Queen Anne building at No. 46 designed by Henry Congdon. Its facade of red terra cotta and molded brick is a bright spot on a block of generally more pedestrian architecture. It was built as a private house in 1890, quite late for domestic architecture on this block.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/08/realestate/11scap450.3.jpg
Office for Metropolitan History
42-46 West 17th in 1936.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/08/realestate/11scap190.2.jpg
Tina Fineberg for The New York Times
The picturesque Queen Anne building at No. 46.

Another departure is the 1907 gray brick loft building at No. 51. This is a particularly handsome work, designed by Grosvenor Atterbury for Henry Phipps, an investor. Atterbury had also designed model tenements for Phipps, and the high level of finish and design of this building — like the bronze flagpole holder at the parapet — suggest some sort of factory demonstration project, though there is no evidence to support that idea.

The Hakimian Organization’s skinny new condo, Flatiron 17, at No. 31 is yet another work outside the normal range for this block. The prior building on the site was apparently an old row house demolished by the 1950s; perhaps that was what caused No. 29 next door to go out of plumb. By the 1990s it was leaning into the airspace of No. 31 by at least a foot, leaving a corresponding gap on the other side.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/08/realestate/11scap450.5.jpg
Office for Metropolitan History
The block in 1949.

Kate Lindquist, a spokeswoman for the city’s Buildings Department, said that at some point the building stopped moving and that despite its alarming appearance, No. 29 is perfectly stable.

Adam Hakimian said that in building Flatiron 17, he and his associates had had to face a question, “How do we create this facade without being distracted by the leaning neighbor?”

Their architects, Cook & Fox, accomplished this by very subtly shaving the upper floors of the new building to provide room for the old one. It’s almost invisible, but when you notice it, you’ll smile.

Mr. Hakimian says that inside Flatiron 17, the reduction in floor space is imperceptible.

But can the same be said of the irregularity at No. 29, the leaning tower of 17th Street? Robert Pauls, who lives there, said the tilt inside his building was evident “only if you drop a marble.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[lostnyc]

I don't think that small amount of lean in the first photo is much of a problem, but it's clear it's a result of the new building erected next to it that it leans towards.
When they excavated the hole for the new building, chances are good that they disturbed the ground and foundation of that older building and as a result that side has settled a little- wouldn't take much of a foundation drop to create a few inch lean at the top.
If the newer building is ever demolished the leaner will likely go with it.

I'd say this first building dates to around the late 1870's as it has that style of window heads popular in that decade, and chances are good the cornice on the top is wood which was also used back then, though it might be sheet metal.

There's no real practical way to fix that other than demolition, once a brick wall goes out of plumb there's little that can be done, the weight, mass and fragility of it's mortar bonds are too much to deal with.
The brick walls in NYC are typically solid brick a foot thick or so, figure on the weight of that wall of the building in the first photo as being around 125# per square foot and then add in half the weight of all the floors and roof since the side walls are load bearing.
That side wall in the first photo is around 50' high, maybe that much deep, roughly 2500 sq ft, or roughly in the ballpark of 300,000 pounds of brick. A mathmatician could calculate what the lateral force would be if that amount of weight if off plumb, and what that figure would be per inch out of plumb- I believe that force would increase exponentially the more the lean is.


The 10" lean is a bigger problem, 10" out of plumb for a brick wall is a considerable amount, and the amount of lateral force applied to it's neighbor's wall would be considerable. With that building chances are it has an internal steel frame supporting the floors, but that steel is probably sinking with the foundation on that side.

I think too that if the adjacent property owner doesn't have an issue with (or is compensated for) the 10" incursion then it shouldn't be a "violation"

[josh]

Thanks lostnyc. That is a very good analysis. Brings me back to college.

The two buildings are spaced approximately 6 inches at the roof level.

With your guess of 300,000 lbs of brick and mortar - should the city be worried? Could the lean get any worse, or will the newer brick building keep the building from leaning moreso?

Is there anything illegal with a building leaning in this fashion?

[Stern]

Are my eyes decieving me or does the building next to it directly abut it effectively destroying light and air of all alley-way inhabitants. Is that legal?


http://www.tribecaspaces.com/photos/372%20Photos/372B.JPG

[Peteynyc1]

No where has better "leaners" than Amsterdam, with or without Space Cakes...
http://web.mit.edu/ekmiller/Public/www/miller/Amsterdam2004-3.JPG

[lostnyc]

Thanks lostnyc. That is a very good analysis. Brings me back to college.

The two buildings are spaced approximately 6 inches at the roof level.

With your guess of 300,000 lbs of brick and mortar - should the city be worried? Could the lean get any worse, or will the newer brick building keep the building from leaning moreso?

Is there anything illegal with a building leaning in this fashion?

Josh, in my opinion it's not a big problem, the amount of lateral force has probably settled to it's final amount- against the new building, it can't increase because that wall can't lean further, so the only way it can go is DOWN straight, because the floor joists are all holding the wall like props from bulging inward and the joists are butted against the opposite wall which has a building against IT.

The big issue is if the new building is demolished someday, if it's ever demolished before the leaner, it could collapse suddenly. If the corner building is demolished that could destabilise the leaner too for some of the opposing lateral forces nearer the bottom of the wall are also pushing slightly INWARD against the floor joists- especially if there is any inward bulge there. So the floor joists are pushing slightly against the opposite wall which may or may not be held in it's place now by that corner building against it.

I would say it all can be left as is, but if either building on either side is demolished before the leaner then there could be a sudden unexpected collapse.

The new building has strips of white, I take that as poured concrete floor slabs with brickwalls supported by the floors, those concrete floors are not going anywhere, they can take the lateral push of that smaller building as it stands today, though if the leaner puts any bulges against the center of the wall of the new building midway between the floors- those sections of new wall could be pushed out of line, but if it was that bad the old wall would have collapsed.

[lostnyc]

There is one thing I missed earlier, and that is the portion of the leaner's wall that is freestanding and not leaning against the new building due to the new building's setback from the sidewalk line.
It looks like it might be about 8 feet and now I am a little more concerned about that than I would be if the two facades were even with one another, namely because we can't tell from the photos whether it is the whole wall/building that is leaning, or whether the FACADE wall is what is leaning.
The facade and the rear walls of these tenement buildings only has connections to the side walls- all the floor joists etc run side wall to side wall and given the side walls some stiffness and anchoring as the joists all rest in pockets inside the walls and are anchored there.
The facade and rear walls don't have much, and typically have a lot of windows.

What I'd wonder now is, is the left ground floor corner what is sinking?
Most of the times they used decorative cast-iron box columns in those corners and had a large store window etc on the ground floor, with the facade above the store window supported by a large steel beam or equiv, so if that column were to sink or move that's a bad part to move because the facade wall tilting to the left and the side wall having no support for maybe 8 feet can keep moving outward, that corner with the facade could come down.

A photo or eyeball look can tell if that 8 feet of side wall is bending out- it would probably have a somewhat of a curvature to it. The new building will stop further movement of the rest of the wall, but that 8 feet to the corner is the weakest spot now

[josh]

There is one thing I missed earlier, and that is the portion of the leaner's wall that is freestanding and not leaning against the new building due to the new building's setback from the sidewalk line.
It looks like it might be about 8 feet and now I am a little more concerned about that than I would be if the two facades were even with one another, namely because we can't tell from the photos whether it is the whole wall/building that is leaning, or whether the FACADE wall is what is leaning.
The facade and the rear walls of these tenement buildings only has connections to the side walls- all the floor joists etc run side wall to side wall and given the side walls some stiffness and anchoring as the joists all rest in pockets inside the walls and are anchored there.
The facade and rear walls don't have much, and typically have a lot of windows.

What I'd wonder now is, is the left ground floor corner what is sinking?
Most of the times they used decorative cast-iron box columns in those corners and had a large store window etc on the ground floor, with the facade above the store window supported by a large steel beam or equiv, so if that column were to sink or move that's a bad part to move because the facade wall tilting to the left and the side wall having no support for maybe 8 feet can keep moving outward, that corner with the facade could come down.

A photo or eyeball look can tell if that 8 feet of side wall is bending out- it would probably have a somewhat of a curvature to it. The new building will stop further movement of the rest of the wall, but that 8 feet to the corner is the weakest spot now

i have taken a bird's eye look and the building is leaning uniformly for the entire span, not just in the front section. So its a good thing

[Michiel]

No where has better "leaners" than Amsterdam, with or without Space Cakes...
http://web.mit.edu/ekmiller/Public/www/miller/Amsterdam2004-3.JPG
Talking about leaning buildings in Amsterdam:
http://www.amsterdamsebinnenstad.nl/pics/restauraties/p124a2.jpg
Normally they restore those buildings, since people are willing to pay big money for them.

[BrooklynLove]

those buildings are straight if you're stoned

[brianac]

On the edge of the Himley Estate lies the The Glynne Arms (more popularly known as the Crooked House or The Siden House). It is a house that has suffered badly from mining subsidence. It lies on what was the divide between Sir Stephen Glynne's land and that of the Earl of Dudley.
Glynne removed too much of the coal that lies underneath with the obvious result. As the result of an optical illusion, without even taking a drink, beer bottles can really be seen to roll up the table!


Some years ago, the pub was shifting and sinking but buttressing prevented further damage but left it tilted some 15 degrees out of true. Doors, floors and windows all sit at odd angles to one another, causing patrons difficulty upon entering the pub and walking to the bar. The sloping floor creates an eerie illusory sensation, making drinkers feel drunk after only a pint or two.