True. My my point is that I am still a bit confused about who/what was mainly at fault. I would think the construction company would be a fault for building a foundation system that did not work.
Again, I am only speculating. My understanding is that details of the construction method is what is called “delegated” design - the Architects/Engineers are therefore not liable.
Bottom line: “The city will have this decaying hulk on its hands.”
I had recently read somewhere that is not actually the case in some instances. The architects and engineers can specify “delegated design” regarding the detailed construction materials & methods.
That means the builder/fabricator is responsible for “designing” the methods/material that go into the finished product.
I guess this will remain on open question… 
The architects can coordinate with the structural engineers on how they want the overall structure to be laid out, but the foundation structure is specifically only a structural engineer area of the building, the architects (who the structural engineers will coordinate with) nor constuction contractors have a say in that matter. The contractors have to follow what the structural engineers specify for the foundation, there is never an instance where the contractor decides what the foundation will be, so delegated design does not fall into the equation in this instance. Delegated Design, Design Assist, and Design Build are all between an architect and the contractor, not the engineer, but the engineer still has to check the product of those design sessions to see if they are plausible/work.
The only other person at fault would be the developer for not wanting to pay the higher amount it would have cost to have built the necessary foundation type for the building and instead went with an unsure method not used in high rise construction.
Thanks for the clarification. .
As always TKDV, you’re the best.
TKDV for world leader!
I think TKDV helped clarify: and here is something else I found that may shed a bit more light on the matter. As the article states “union built matters”. Interesting take, but ultimately no one party can be said to be ‘completely’ at fault.
If you have an interest in this subject; the story of One Seaport is fascinating in its complexity regarding the design & construction of this building.
This thread is a great source for exploring the story in detail. I found the posts by Anakinra to be some of the most interesting in general; but particularly interesting regarding detailed posts about the choice of foundation.
This linked post is one that features the main issues, and provides some great commentary and illustrations.
Enjoy… 
lol reminds me of those youtube videos where someone takes a picture of themselves everyday for like 10 years to document the change. That would actually be kinda funny for this building
Great post. Best part of video is the simple graphic showing the soil gradations: low density top soil, medium density below, then bedrock at bottom.
It has always been my speculation that the root cause of the “alignment isssue” was the choice not to do a deep pile foundation into the bedrock; opting instead for the “soil improvement” foundation method.
To see all of my 42 previous posts on this thread - click on my infoshare tag above…enjoy.
Excerpt -
“At issue is the subterranean footing that provides foundational support to the building. Pizzarotti argues that the developer, Fortis Property Group, rejected the option of driving piles several hundred feet down into bedrock to buttress the tower. Instead, the contractor claims, Fortis chose the less-expensive method of “soil improvement” to shore up the soggy group near the East River waterfront, topped with a concrete slab. “Cost was [Fortis’s] primary consideration in electing to proceed with the soil improvement foundation method, rather than deep foundation piles driven into bedrock,” Pizzarotti alleges, while also claiming that details of this work were never shared with the contractor.”
I think everybody is aware of this.
The actual cause of the tilt is still very much in dispute. That is what makes this an interesting story: was the foundation method wrong? One party claims NO - they claim it was “poor construction practice” (quote) when pouring the concrete foundation slab. It was this poor construction practice that caused the foundation to fail; resulting in the “alignment” issue. The deep pile foundation was not necessary according to the developer, and one of the contractors.
It would be nice to have a foundation expert to add some insight.
I think this will be a long time in litigation before we find out exactly who is liable.
At this point ‘nobody’ is aware of the cause: so it will continue to be an interesting thread to follow. For me anyway.
Interesting, when I was down there last week I saw the construction elevator moving. Was hoping something was happening with this tower.
I was hoping to hear something definitive, about the the two competing claims regarding the foundation methods.
The above posted video has a detailed statement regarding the competing claims regarding the two foundation methods: and the ‘root cause’ of the tilt.
I think the only thing that “will be happening” with this tower in the future will be a floor-by-floor controlled demolition. That, and a continuation of ‘law-fare’ between the various parties to the liability claims. 
OH, and btw. I think the point that maybe confusing some people is the assumption that construction stopped because the building was ‘leaning’ - that is not the case. The second contractor who resumed construction deemed the building to be stable, and proceeded to complete the building with the exiting ‘soil improvement’ foundation.
Construction on the building come to a halt due to non-payment issues for the continuation of all work contracted to complete the building. This is an important point not to miss: all stated in the above post4ed articles, and video. Stay tuned folks… 
Well they removed some of the glass from the upper floors to reduce the weight load.
I don’t think that was about weight load, it was because the clips didn’t hold the panels after the shift. They would need to replace the clips…
Apologies if this has been asked before but is there a legal limit to how long structures can stay in this unfinished state? Could a building sit for 20 years like this?
