WTF DPD? Did no one inspect this thing as it was being built? I thought catching these construction "mistakes" is why periodic inspections happen.

Wow. Crazy. But talk about a perfect sign of the times.
And a cautionary tale for proponents of the new urbanism (which I'm all in favor of, to be sure, but this is what happens when theory meets very shoddy and bubble-driven modes of practice.)

So, the obvious question not addressed by the article is, Was this building built by union workers?

Holden writes it was "built as a joint venture between the Carpenters Union and Harbor Properties," so I can't imagine this was a non-union job.

If it was a union job then this is troubling because one of the unions' often-cited raisons d'être is quality construction. There's an old saying that "unions make the worst employers" because they are frequently more parsimonious with their employees than the companies they criticize. It's not to their credit if they consciously cut corners here.

Actually the real question is how many more poorly built buildings like this are lurking in our neighborhoods?

I reside in a Capitol Hill apartment building that was built in 1928. I can sleep well at night. This article really makes me wonder about the buildings going up in recent years--those that are supposedly built "to code" and according to "modern standards."

Has anyone ever wondered whether that building should have been condemned and torn down because of ugliness?

Something smells here!
Where were the special inspectors the building code requires? They should have been checking the details of the products used. Post-tensioned construction requires meticulous attention to detail. Who was checking the details?
The City of Settle building inspectors should have been checking the special inspector's work for accuracy against the approved plans.
The workers don't really have anything to say about what they install and they wouldn't know anyway. They just do what they're told.
The fault lies with supervision and inspection.
Since the building didn't collapse and no one was injured we probably won't ever know what the real story was.
Unless some enterprising reporter digs into it. hint. hint.

From the Seattle Times: "He said the city does not inspect structural components of large buildings directly, but instead relies on a private report from a third-party inspection firm selected by the contractor."

So, apparently this is an example of a government function being outsourced to the private sector (probably because they are so much more efficent). How's that working out for us?

@mikemc: Chinese gypsum, anyone? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011550757_realdrywall11.html

Private special inspectors are required for the kind of work that is the source of structural problems here. It would probably be too expensive for the city to keep such inspectors on staff, though perhaps they could be hired as consultants on an as needed basis rather than being hired directly by the owner. It sounds pike there should be a thorough investigation of the causes of this failure, and hopefully the inevitable lawsuits will lead to that. It's unlikely that union workers on the job site caused these problems, because as another commented noted, they just build buildings exactly as they're directed by their supervisors.

The "private reports" would come the third party inspectors required by code.
Almost no city could afford to retain the inspectors required for all the various inspections on all the different types of building and construction that goes on in any large city.
But, they DO have the responsibility to make sure that the third party inspectors are doing their job properly. They do that by comparing the reports against the construction documents. Failing to do that is probably non-feasance in law. It would be irresponsible fotr Seattle to simply assume the job was fine simply because a third party inspector submitted a report.
Something STILL smells.

I wonder if their inspection was like some of the residential ones I have seen. The inspector walks in, says Hi to guys he obviously knows well, takes a quick peek and signs off.
Remember the black building across from the airport where no one remembered to connect the reinforcing rod in the building walls to same in the foundation? And the "meticulous inspection" didn't catch it. So it was a big concrete block sitting on the ground. Fortunately it got caught and fixed before an earthquake could have done something really interesting to it.
Too many "good-old-boy" networks are too entrenched in our society.

Let me get this straight. The structural integrity of the building's weakest link is a special type of paint and grout. Are we looking at a skyline of new disposable buildings that might not last twenty years?

As to Disclaimer's (above): "Let me get this straight. The structural integrity of the building's weakest link is a special type of paint and grout. Are we looking at a skyline of new disposable buildings that might not last twenty years?".

the paint and grout are not structural elements in themselves- but need to be protected so they remain effective in protecting the steel cables which are in tension under great stress. JG

—

The appearance of non-shrink grout and standard grout are similar so it would have been hard for any inspector to notice that problem. The lack of paint should have been noticed by the structural engineer, contractor and the architect as well as the inspector.