Deseret News | Reader comments: Works building not safe in quakes

Reader comments
Works building not safe in quakes

Bob G | 4:41 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

If all these structures are so unsafe why were they allowed to be erected in the first place? It must be part of all the city, county, and state governmnets to insure an ongoing jobs money for the construction industry at tax payers expense. The government buildings should all be built with earthquake and emergency centers in mind. Even our schools don't meet standards for earthquakes and disaster centers if they are needed. The prctice of erecting building with a 30 year life cycle before collapseing should never happen. The county must take action to require the building of permenent structures instead of wasting tax payer funds. When Utah had skilled workers and skilled contractors a building they built would last at least 100 years, even with the threat of earthquake and natural disasters. This is nothing new to the politicians and their hindsite.

Gretzky | 7:24 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

time to build a new building then. let's use some of that non-refunded tax surplus while you still have it in your pockets to do the right thing.

mom | 7:45 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

back then codes were different and nobody believed there would ever be an earthquake. Times have changed.

Comments continue below

Matthew | 7:56 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

The original building is 50 years old, so where is Bob G. getting the 30 year life cycle? The key here is that a great deal has been learned about engineering buildings to withstand earthquakes in the past 50 years, even in the past 30 years. Think in terms of the overall quality and performance of automobiles in 1957, 1977, and 2007. Or how about a computer built in 1957, 1977, or 2007. Which computer would you rather your bank was using to keep track of your money and provide you service? I agree that we should try to build buildings to last 100 years, but that doesn't mean that something won't come up to cut that lifetime short or that they won't need a major overhaul or two along the way.

sodiedog | 8:48 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

To Bob G: I've learned it's never a good thing to argue with someone who is mad because a building got old. There is no such thing as a 'permanent' building or road...all must be either rehabilitated or rebuilt.

arc | 8:48 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

Even in the mid 70's, the bldg. codes were starting to get pretty good structurally. There has been a 30 pound per square foot snow load for as long as I can remember. I could believe that something designed 50 years ago might have some trouble, particularly if it wasn't maintained. Something in the last 30 years should not be as bad as mentioned.

Lets hire a structural engineer to see what would be required to fix what we have, not explain why we should tear something down that they want to tear down.

perhaps they need a new bldg. SLC wants one too, but they want to pay almost 200 million for their bldgs.

Say What? | 8:51 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

Apparently the county leaders have been a sleep during their service. They could have looked at CA to see how to prepare for an earthquake when it comes to buildings. TO say it has been upgraded several times and it is still not safe, they apparently did a poor job. Whoever was in charge should be fired, or voted out of office.

Sounds like the voters in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County have allowed their elected leaders to let the infrastructure collapse on them. The County building and the Salt Lake City Police building are deemed unsafe. What were their leaders doing? They certainly weren't looking after their cities.

sillycism | 9:48 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

-And while there putting up a new building buy more snow plows.

-Maybe they should get Bob the Builder to sponsor the building and take advantage of all the child laborers just sitting around.

C. Sense | 12:01 p.m. Dec. 20, 2007

Great. If there is an earthquake, this building could be destroyed, along with the SLC public safety building. Seriously- replace these buildings!! This is not something to cheap-out on, SLC voters and SL County Council!!

Bob, Bob, Bob | 12:54 p.m. Dec. 20, 2007

You need to read the article and then think. The buildings were not unsafe based on standards at the time they were erected. Now they have added on and the age is what makes it not safe.

Please comprehend the article before making comments.

Jim | 2:44 p.m. Dec. 20, 2007

Oh, let's all sit around and worry about that, now.

shaker | 3:28 p.m. Dec. 20, 2007

it's not the only building it the valley that will bury people in the rubble!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

1 photo

Scott G. Winterton, Deseret News

The current Salt Lake County public works operations building is unsafe.

Deseret News health series

Advertisement

Reader comments
Works building not safe in quakes

Add your comment

Long days for BYU interns

Strategy over outcome in TCU-Utah

Hair-pulling raises more questions

Letters: Term 'Latino' misused

House passes health care bill

Mega wind project goes online

Gays get Mormon support in SLC

Text from LDS church on S.L. policy

Letters: Let health-care bill die

SLC council OKs gay rights policies

Reader comments Works building not safe in quakes

Add your comment

Reader comments
Works building not safe in quakes