By now most Americans are aware that a portion of a high rise condo in Surfside Fla. collapsed killing an unknown number of persons. After the initial news reports of the dramatic image of the rubble, and anguishing stories about missing family members, the reports have proceeded to the phase of deciding who to blame. Many of these stories may be placed by the various attorneys attempting to position their clients for defense or attack to claim compensation, a story in itself, but they fragment the issue into we-they, a false understanding of the situation.
The facts as they appear to be emerging are: 1) Condo buildings were built near the ocean 40 years ago, to provide residence for persons wishing to have a Florida ocean view home. 2) The construction of the buildings was not questioned at the time, but appears to be inadequate for long term structural integrity. 3) Problems in the structure were identified and the condo owners notified at least 3 years prior to the collapse. 4) The owners are not financially comfortable with the extensive reconstruction needed to make the building (potentially) safe. 5) A new building going up nearby was setting foundations that influenced the shared ground of the building. 6) A similar situation exists for many buildings in this region, putting pressure on the financial resources of the region. The combination of these elements produced a human tragedy and potentially more to come.
1) Many people have a desire to live by the ocean and have an ocean view. South Florida has a long coastline with multiple opportunities for satisfying this desire. Developers long ago realized that it would be necessary to build high rise structures to get the most return on construction on this expensive land. How many people should be able to fulfill this wish? This is complicated. Should it be determined by who can afford it? And what about the problem of the retired? A large population of baby-boomer generation are retired and expecting to continue a self gratifying life style. What should they expect? How should the greater society plan for their needs? This is a complicated issue because most of these persons who are retired seek an "affordable" solution to housing costs, at a time of rising costs in most heavily populated areas. Retiring in less desirable locations also incurs serious risks: fires in Paradise Ca and much of the rural west, tornadoes in parts of Texas and the Southeast, and hurricanes on the Atlantic and gulf coasts. The less expensive places are less expensive because they are less desirable, and have predictably more risk. There are currently too many Americans alive to distribute all of us safely around the desirable habitations of the country.
2) The construction of the condo complex 40 years ago had a specific purpose: to provide more affordable units in a less prominent location, for less wealthy owners. The developers maximized their return against costs and sale of units in the usual formulas, and there is no evidence to far that they were any more derelict in the design, construction, and pricing of the project than any other Florida developers of that era. Florida is famous for fraudulent real estate speculation, and there is a "whatever it takes" attitude to get construction completed, but the buildings were approved at the time, and no indication of construction issues raised. But the buildings were not built for a specific duration. Buildings do not last forever. All materials deteriorate over time. The typical course is for structures to gradually lose integrity and require more renovation, with decreasing value, until the value dips below the costs of maintaining the structure and it is demolished. Someone(s) will always lose residual value when this occurs, though it may be gradual over many owners, or suddenly with the collapse of South Tower. In recognition of the deterioration, the local government requires engineering re-evaluation every 40 years. Is this a realistic time frame? Does it need to vary with location? Does it matter that 40 years ago, rising sea level was not a serious consideration in construction in this area? There are many reasonable questions that can be raised about the construction, but not at the time of the construction. These are questions about the process of estimating the extended value and integrity of every structure, which are generally ignored in the course of real estate development.
3) Problems in the structure of the building were identified at least 3 years before the collapse, and the owners association was faced with an impossible challenge: How can you get the condo owners to pay for a major retrofit of the structure of the building, which will drastically increase their costs of ownership, while probably reducing the overall value of the property?
4) The problem was magnified by the number of middle class and retired persons who do not have excess cash to put into the assessments. The reports of intense conflict at the management meetings is the obvious result of an impossible conflict between the danger of the structure and the costs of its renovation. It is easy in hindsight to wonder why the owners were so resistant, but most owners in that situation would have balked, and perhaps begun an effort to sell their condos. Some did. This is not a unique problem to this condo, or condo complex. Every condo arrangement will eventually require more and more costs of renovation, and lower the value with age. It is the financial basis of condo ownership to take advantage of the lower cost at the outset, and sell at the peak, before the integrity of the building declines. This is generally not a realistic plan for persons who are retired.
5) The role of nearby construction in disrupting the integrity of older buildings is always a question. The individual projects do not have the data or responsibility for monitoring this risk. The risk is regional and is the responsibility of the regional entity in charge of managing development. In Florida, as in other regions with high real estate values, the agencies responsible for monitoring development projects are strongly influenced by developers, and by the political pressure to approve projects, even when questions of danger arise. If the nearby project had been delayed until the Tower buildings were reinforced, a howl would arise over favoring one project over another, and delaying growth of the region. The ability to regulate growth in ways not entirely driven by economics is generally impossible in monitoring agencies.
6) This monitoring problem extends to the greater region. How many other buildings face the same vulnerabilities, and which are imminently or eventually destined for collapse? Similar problems arise in earthquake zones, and other vulnerable regions, but, even in very stable geologic areas, structures deteriorate over time and must be replaced for safety. Who has the authority to make and enforce these decisions? Is it simply, "Let the buyer beware."? Someone paid over two million dollars for a penthouse in that condo structure in 2021.
These multiple issues combined to produce a terrible tragedy. NO ONE OF THEM BY ITSELF IS THE MAJOR FACTOR. Together they illustrate the problems of our current development strategies and the inability to manage them with the realities of human risk. NO ONE WANTS TO. Everyone wants their share of the prize, and for someone to make it available, and not take it away. This is the tragedy.
No comments:
Post a Comment