NEW YORK | One Seaport Residences | 670 FT | 60 FLOORS (ON HOLD)

All good points. I learned a new term watching that video posted above: soil bearing capacity.

Take a look at the structural engineering video I posted above, it is quite informative.

I think it all comes down to a miscalculation regarding the “bearing capacity” of the soil beneath the tower. The claim that a "soil treatment’ process would sufficiently improve the “bearing capacity” of the soil to support the building was obviously wrong. The more expensive process of pile driving into the bedrock would have been the correct foundation method.

The developer took the cost-saving approach of ‘soil improvement’ and put his trust in the structural engineers and foundation contractors.

My main contention has always been about any claim that the developer IS liable for this fiasco: which seems to me contrary to both common sense & legal process.

So, is the Developer in this case in any way at fault or liable: my guess is most likely not.

Great discussion. We will wait-and-see… :thinking:

You keep on saying it but are providing no information as to why you don’t think the developer is at fault. I want to know why you believe so.

Fortis is the one who hired the geotechnical engineer (as I mentioned before the developer is responsible for the conditions of the site, information pertaining to the site, and are the ones responsible for hiring any parties that do work related to testing and engineering of the site).

They are the ones that intentionally chose the foundation option that was cheaper over the typical pile foundation method because it was more expensive, both of which were suggestions made by the geotech eng. And they were made aware of the fact by the geotech eng that the building would settle and could possibly tilt.

The contractor has no option but to follow the choices the developer makes because they are the boss, its not all about trust between all parties all the time. It wasnt the structural engineer (who are hired as sub consultants by the Architect) that made the call, it was the geotech engineer hired by Fortis as part of their obligation for site related necessities.

You are conveying as if the developer has zero accountability. I am not personally saying they alone are responsible but to say outright that they are completely not at fault is wrong.


I think it’s pretty simple. The developer would only be liable if the engineers said the non-pile foundation method might be insufficient and the developer said “do it anyway”.

Well thats basically what happened, I’m still not saying specifically that the developer is solely responsible but they do have some responsibility the way it lays out.

The contractor themselves had to hire Thorton Tomasetti just to get a second opinion that the building was infact settling beyond what the geo tech eng told Fortis it might and that it was infact tilting.

1 Like

Wait - not that simple. :wink:

Here is an example to illustrate my point.

If you need a ‘dedicated’ circuit running directly to the main circuit breaker for a new microwave oven you hire a “licensed” electrician. The license professional tells you it will cost a LOT to run that dedicated line all the way to the main breaker. In attempt to save money, you ask if there is a less-expensive method. The electrician tells you that they can tap into one of the existing wall outlets to power the new microwave oven: it will cost less, but is ‘against code’ and may be a fire hazard. SO, you say “do it any way”.

Do you think the home owner would be liable: absolutely not. The ‘licensed” professional would bear full responsibility. The whole purpose creating a ‘LICENSED’ profession is based on legal ‘liability’ for “malpractice”. It does not matter what the Home Owner in this case wants: it is up to the licensed professional to uphold the legal obligations that come with being LICENCSED.

I know next to nothing about Architecture, Engineering or the Legal; yet this conclusion seems obvious.

In the case of One Seaport The Licensed professionals providing the service (and good council) to the client Developer would clearly be Liable for the flawed foundation.

That’s MY take - we need to wait and see.

Thats not how that works, your analogy is not relative to the relationship between a

developer/owner (and their site related parties)
architect (and their subconsultants)
contractor (and their subcontractors)

And who has to be insured, etc and the contracts that they enter with eachother of which there are multiple of between different parties.

What exactly would the homeowner be liable for? If a fire starts in their house? Nobody would be at fault then in your analogy because nothing was done wrong because according to that logic the electrician wouldnt have done the job and wouldve just walked away. Thats like saying the microwave company is at fault if one puts foil in the microwave and it catches fire… The case is nothing similar to what is happening here.

It is that simple as rbrome mentioned.

I still want to point out though that I am not prematurely saying that the developer is solely at fault, but I am giving factual reasoning as to why they could potentially be. This whole case is solely based on what the real problem is.

If the foundation was built incorrectly then the contractor is at fault.
If the foundation was built right it’s not the contractors fault.
If the foundation chosen is the problem then its the developer’s parties’ fault
If the foundation chosen is not the problem then its not the developer’s fault.

It doesnt seem that the architect would be found at fault in any of these instances as any party is still basing their entire work on the work and information about the site given to them by the developer and its parties.


A homeowner doesn’t have to answer to litigious investors. A developer does.



Stache—. You’ve got the picture. Again, I suggest that the speculation is interesting but is now old news. Maybe we should let this forum go dormant for a while, to liven up again when someone has some inside info to share or something public happens. I’ll try to be patient tho my curiosity remains alert.


I agree with this, it’s annoying to see this thread bumped frequently with no real news or updates.

1 Like

Good idea. However, there are many folks like yourself who find this story interesting; and would like to see some report on the current status of the ongoing litigation.

I have noticed when these topics show up on social media, and other various forums: there is a general rise in the ‘main stream’ media reports as well.

Good to see all the great discussion on this thread, and maybe we will now begin to see some factual reports on the current state of the litigation, and some news on the possible resolution to this blight on the NYC skyline.


Oh, wow. I guess that was inevitable. But I have to admit curiosity as to how they did it!

1 Like

How the hell did they even execute that??? Its in the middle of the core where they can’t externally reach. I bet you we’re gonna see that whole blank wall filled lol


They probably just repelled down, there’s most likely plenty of locations to attach a rope/harness to at the top to support a person’s weight.

Something needs to be done about this building quickly, its already an eyesore and will become more so of one if graffiti artists continue to trespass into the property.


Ballsy. But that’s a true New Yorker doing that work lol. I’m honestly very impressed


Maybe if it gets really bad like the graffiti plagued tower in LA the city will do something about this building just as LA finally woke up and is addressing the tower (whose name escapes me at the moment).


As I have already suggested the city should condemn it as a public nuisance, tear it down and sell the land.


This particular graffiti does not offend me as the color and shape goes with the building but I’m sure more will follow.


It’d be nice for it to be torn down and if 80 South St was ever developed for this lot to be bought out and the stretch of Fletcher St closed, maybe just redirected to turn the corner of the hotel to exit at Maiden Ln, its already a service road, it doesnt really need to be open to South St.

It doesnt even need to be redeveloped if its torn down, just do something useful with it, make a park, or build a retail building/podium to 80 South St, or just build another hotel.