from Hacker News

A skyscraper that could have toppled over in the wind (1995)

by georgecmu on 6/15/25, 3:40 PM with 39 comments

  • by socalgal2 on 6/15/25, 6:20 PM

    I don't know the physics involved nor do I have any knowledge of architecture or building construction but when I look at tall buildings it's really hard for me to imagine how they remain standing.

    The bottom floor of a 100 story building is holding up 99 floors of weight. The base of a 100 story building it really thin relative to it's height. If I built anything out of legos to the same dimensions it would not be structurally sound. Well, the legos at the bottom would easily hold the weight). Yea I know reinforced steel and concrete is not legos. Other examples though, every piece of furinture I own has some degree of wobbliness. It's easy to see how the pyramids hold up. It's not so easy to see how the Vancouver House Building stays up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_House). The one in the article as well just looks, at the bottom, like it has to tip over eventually. (not saying it will, only that it looks like it)

    I'm not in any way denying science. I'm only in awe that more builings don't fall down. Bridges too. I'm surprised to some degree an 93 year old steel bridge being sprayed with salt water for the entire time hasn't had its cables snap.

    Maybe a need a physics simulation game like 3d world of goo that lets me see how such structures hold togehter.

  • by tiffanyh on 6/16/25, 12:45 AM

    Veritasium did a whole video on this building last month

    https://youtu.be/Q56PMJbCFXQ?feature=shared

  • by gosub100 on 6/15/25, 5:34 PM

    Veritasium covered this recently and did some debunking about the original student.

    https://youtu.be/Q56PMJbCFXQ?si=pjfmTrrA7JGuTZxd

  • by paulpauper on 6/15/25, 7:20 PM

    The irony that this was printed just 6 years before 9/11. The lesson is it's hard to anticipate all the possible risks. The two WTC towers were engineered to withstand a jet plane impact (a 707, which was a common passenger jet at the time in the late 60s), just not not a modern airplane packed with fuel at max speed.
  • by georgecmu on 6/15/25, 4:00 PM

  • by neilv on 6/15/25, 7:44 PM

    > On Tuesday morning, August 8th, the public-affairs department of Citibank, Citicorp's chief subsidiary, put out the long-delayed press release. In language as bland as a loan officer's wardrobe, the three-paragraph document said unnamed "engineers who designed the building" had recommended that "certain of the connections in Citicorp Center's wind bracing system be strengthened through additional welding." The engineers, the press release added, "have assured us that there is no danger." When DeFord expanded on the handout in interviews, he portrayed the bank as a corporate citizen of exemplary caution -- "We wear both belts and suspenders here," he told a reporter for the News -- that had decided on the welds as soon as it learned of new data based on dynamic-wind tests conducted at the University of Western Ontario.

    > There was some truth in all this. [...] At the time, LeMessurier viewed this piece of information as one more nail in the coffin of his career, but later, recognizing it as a blessing in disguise, he passed it on to Citicorp as the possible basis of a cover story for the press and for tenants in the building.

    Seems questionable to lie to conceal that kind of catastrophic risk.

    Knowing that the skyscraper would fail in some kinds of winds is information that could be used by rational people to help protect themselves and their businesses.

    > Shortly before dawn on Friday, September 1st, weather services carried the news that everyone had been dreading—a major storm, Hurricane Ella, was off Cape Hatteras and heading for New York. At 6:30 a.m., an emergency-planning group convened at the command center in Robertson's office. "Nobody said, ‘We're probably going to press the panic button,' " LeMessurier recalls. "Nobody dared say that. But everybody was sweating blood."

    > As the storm bore down on the city, the bank's representatives, DeFord and Dexter, asked LeMessurier for a report on the status of repairs. He told them that the most critical joints had already been fixed and that the building, with its tuned mass damper operating, could now withstand a two-hundred-year storm. It didn't have to, however. A few hours later, Hurricane Ella veered from its northwesterly course and began moving out to sea.

    I see gambling people.

    Presumably, some were gambling to avoid temporary public disorder in the city, or temporary disruption to general commerce there.

    But it sounds like others of them wanted cover up a scandal in which they and the company were now implicated. And they were willing to gamble with other people's lives and businesses to do so.

  • by belter on 6/15/25, 7:03 PM

  • by neilv on 6/15/25, 7:58 PM

    This is one case in which our layperson's naive intuition would've been the right answer (for the wrong reasons):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:53rd_St_Lex_Av_td_08_-_Ci...

  • by Mountain_Skies on 6/16/25, 12:24 AM

    Many good lessons from this, including the importance of speaking up, one person making a difference, and the importance of drilling down into sources. The Wikipedia article used to state "This was in spite of the fact that up to 200,000 people could have been killed in a potential collapse." using an article in the magazine 'Cross Currents' as the source. If you follow that through the layers of citations, it turns out the 200,000 figure came from an unnamed source at the American Red Cross, which really isn't a reasonable source of such an estimate. I felt a bit chagrined to have used that number when explaining the situation to my nieces about how important it can be for one person speak up and not default to assuming those in authority always have a full understanding of a situation.
  • by dbrumbaugh on 6/16/25, 6:40 PM

    There's actually a recording of a talk that LeMessurier gave on this incident on YouTube. It's a very interesting listen, though he clearly is a bit... defensive... about the whole thing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um-7IlAdAtg

  • by sdoering on 6/15/25, 10:10 PM

    There’s a great keynote by Nickolas Means [1] about this building and the story around it.

    [1]: https://youtu.be/NLXys9vgWiY

  • by pylua on 6/15/25, 6:21 PM

    Just walked past this building in person the other day. I had to a triple take when I saw the base. It seems very unintuitive that it could stand safely.
  • by dtgriscom on 6/16/25, 12:25 AM

    I saw the title and thought it was about Boston's John Hancock Tower, which also had to be reinforced before it (theoretically) fell down.
  • by throwaway2562 on 6/15/25, 7:08 PM

    What a great story: remarkable how the New Yorker of 1995 has the same efficient but easy-going clarity as 2025.