Tilting, sinking high-rise raises alarm
58-storey building has gained notoriety as the ‘leaning tower of San Francisco’
Pamela Buttery noticed something peculiar six years ago while practicing golf putting in her 57th-floor apartment at the luxurious Millennium Tower. The ball kept veering to the same corner of her living room.
Those were the first signs for residents of the sleek, mirrored high-rise that something was wrong. The 58-storey building has gained notoriety in recent weeks as the “leaning tower of San Francisco.” But it’s not just leaning. It’s sinking, too. And engineers hired to assess the problem say it shows no immediate sign of stopping.
“What concerns me most is the tilting,” says Buttery, 76, a retired real estate developer. “Is it safe to stay here? For how long?”
Completed seven years ago, the tower so far has sunk 16 inches into the soft soil and landfill of San Francisco’s crowded financial district. But it’s not sinking evenly, which has created a 2-inch tilt at the base — and a roughly 6-inch lean at the top.
By comparison, Italy’s famed Leaning Tower of Pisa is leaning more than 16 feet. But in a major earthquake fault zone, the Millennium Tower’s structural problems have raised alarm and become the focus of a public scandal.
Several documents involving the downtown building were leaked in recent weeks, including exchanges between the city’s Department of Building Inspection and Millennium Partners, the developer. They show both sides knew the building was sinking more than anticipated before it opened in late 2009, but neither made that information public.
In a February 2009 letter, a chief buildings inspector, Raymond Lui, wrote to the tower’s engineering firm to express concerns about “larger than expected settlements.” He asked what was being done to stop the sinking and if the building’s structural safety could be affected.
DeSimone Consulting Engineers replied that the building had already unexpectedly settled 8.3 inches. But the engineering firm concluded, “It is our professional opinion that the structures are safe.”
City Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who has convened hearings on the matter at City Hall, asked Lui why the building was then certified safe for occupancy. “We felt they had it under control,” replied Lui, now employed in San Francisco’s public works department. He did not elaborate.
City officials, owners of the building’s high-end apartments, its developers and politicians are arguing over who is to blame. Meanwhile, key questions remain.
“When is this building going to stop sinking?” asks Jerry Dodson, an attorney and engineer who paid $2.1 million in 2009 for his two-bedroom apartment on the 42nd floor. “That’s something that no one has been able to answer.”