Jump to content
  • Welcome to SEFP!


    Welcome to our community forums, full of great discussions about Structural Engineering. Please register to become a part of our thriving group or login if you are already registered.

Sign in to follow this  

SF Landmark, Luxury High-Rise Millennium Tower Is Sinking Fast

Recommended Posts


SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) — The Millennium Tower, one of the city’s most prestigious addresses, is sinking fast.

The luxury high-rise is home to celebrities like Joe Montana and Hunter Pence. Condominiums in the 58-story building have price tags as high as $10 million.

According to KCBS and Chronicle Insider Phil Matier, an engineering report says that the 58-story, $350 million luxury high rise has sunk by 16 inches since its completion in 2009. It’s also tilted by two inches to the northwest.

The news did not inspire confidence among building residents.

“It’s scary,” said resident Mark Weir. “I’ve seen a lot of surveyors, so I kind of thought something was up like that and I’m pretty shocked. ”

“The leaning tower of San Francisco,” said another Millennium resident, Joe Keegan.

Who is to blame for the problem depends on who you ask.

Millennium Tower officials say the sinking was triggered by excavation work for the nearby Transbay Terminal. But Transbay officials point out that the tower had already sunk by ten inches before the Transbay dig began. They blame the problems on the way the high-rise was built.

“To cut costs, Millennium did not drill piles to bedrock,” said the transit authority in a statement. Had it done so, “the tower would not be tilting today.”

In fact, the Millennium Tower sits on an area of mud-fill. It is not steel-framed, and instead relies on shear walls, columns and beams. The building is anchored over a thick concrete slab and its pilings extend about 80 feet into dense sand, not into the bedrock which lies about 200 feet below street level.

For that reason, the transit authority says it went to considerable expense to protect its high-rise neighbor, before it even broke ground on the Transbay Terminal.

“Aware that the Millennium Tower foundation failed to reach bedrock and was therefore inadequate to support the Tower, the TJPA took the extraordinary step of spending more than $58 million to install an underground buttress between the Millennium Tower and the Transit Center site before the TJPA began its excavation for the new Transit Center,” the statement said, denying any responsibility for the settlement of the Millenneum Tower.

In earthquake-prone Northern California, the sinking is raising major concerns.

Still, P.J. Johnston, spokesman for Millennium Partners and principal owner Sean Jeffries, said a 2014 independent safety review “determined the settlement has not significantly affected the seismic performance of the building, and does not represent a safety risk.”

Johnston says several other downtown buildings have similar foundations, including the Intercontinental and St. Regis hotels.

Some shifting was expected. The builder predicted 6 inches of sinking over the lifetime of the high-rise.

Greg Deirlein, director of Stanford’s Earthquake Engineering Department says the sinking problem is “significant… and of concern.”

He said if he was one of the people living there, “I would be concerned for my investment.” When buildings settle, it can cause cracks in the walls and other problems.

Except for “minor repairs to sidewalks and connections at the ground level” Johnston says there have been no complaints about damage to residents’ condos.

Despite assurances, the Millennium Tower’s homeowners association has hired independent engineering consultants and says they are looking at their “legal options.”

The city’s Department of Building Inspection also said there were unaware of any safety problems.

So far the only signs have been cracks in the garage and an ongoing problem with the sidewalk.

“There has always been the great speculation that the building was sinking,” said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. “And – obviously, based on the numbers – it is.”

Three years ago, Ashok Vaish paid just under $2 million for his tower digs.

“Mine is one of the cheaper apartments,” said Vaish.

When asked if he was worried about it sinking even more, Vaish replied, “It will sink for sure. It’s the tilting that you worry about more.”

Vaish said there were also concerns about property values going down.

“There will be a temporary shock to everybody who lives here,” explained Vaish.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Our picks

    • Hi guys just to discuss with you my understanding of crack widths in Environmental structures according to ACI. 



      Normal structures



      1. ACI 318-95 based on statistical method of Gergely & Lutz 1968 limits Z based on exposure. We are calculating crack widths here. (Normal structures)


      2. ACI 318-99 proposed limiting the spacing and removed actually calculating the width and also removed the exposure conditions. For example for beams and one-way slabs s (in) = 540/fs -2.5cc or in other words limiting the fs=0.6fy  (For normal structures)


      3. ACI 224R-01 references method 1 and 2 above and 3 european codes.

      The most confusing part is the table in which Nawy suggests 0.1mm crack width for water-tight structures. The whole document is for normal structures except this line. And people are following this line and refer to this document for water tight structures. I mean its just a suggestion and by the way this method 1 is obsolete now since ACI 318-99 (see point 2 above).



      Water tight structures



      1. ACI 318-08 states clearly that for watertight structures ACI 350-06 codes should be used. 


      2. ACI 224.4R-13 also specifically states that for watertight structures walls in section 7.4, we should use ACI 350-06. 


      3. ACI 350-06 for water tight structures does not recommend calculating a number for crack width but rather limiting max steel stress in bars to be 20k ksi or fs=0.33fy for normal conditions.



      To sum it up, 


      Philosophy of crack width control is not to calculate probable crack widths but to limit the max stress in steel bars.


      For normal structures: fs=0.6fy and for water tight structures fs=0.33fy
      • 1 reply
    • Hi

      I want to know the use of diaphragms in etabs. i discus many people who are use etabs but i can't get justified answer about the application of etabs.

      I read the Technical reference  of  Etabs, where they write about Diaphragms. i get two type of diaphragms (plate or shell and joint or beam). 

      My question.

      1. When do i use Shell diaphragms (if floor present ) 

      2.When do i use joint diaphragms ( grade beam level where no slab are provide) 


      NB: Diaphragms use to transfer the lateral load to the resisting element ( frame such as column. beam,shear wall) 
      • 2 replies
    • *SEFP Consistent Design*<br style="color:#272a34">*Pile Design*<br style="color:#272a34">*Doc No: 10-00-CD-0005*<br style="color:#272a34">*Date: Nov 21, 2017*<br style="color:#272a34">

      This article is intended to cover design of piles using Ultimate Limit State (ULS) method. The use of ULS method is fairly new for geotechnical design (last decade). The method is being used in multiple countries now (Canada, Australia etc). The following items shall be discussed:


      Geotechnical Design of Piles (Compression Loads, Tension Loads and Lateral Loads)

      Structural Design of Piles (Covering both Concrete and Steel)

      Connection of Pile with the foundation (Covering both Concrete and Steel)

      Pile Group Settlement

      Things to consider


      1. Overview

      Piles provide a suitable load path to transfer super-structure loads to foundation where shallow foundation are not suitable - this can be due to a number of reasons like existing space constraints or suitable soil strata is not present immediately below structure. Other uses can be to meet design requirements like to have reduced settlement etc.

      This article shall cover the use of straight shaft cast-in-place concrete piles and straight shaft driven steel pipe piles. There are a number of additional piles types like belled concrete piles, precast concrete piles, screw / helical steel piles etc but the discussion to choose a suitable pile type is not in the intended scope of this article. The article is intended  to discuss design requirements for straight shaft piles only (both concrete and steel) . The aforementioned topic about pile selection is a very diverse subject and requires a separate discussion on its own.

      Click on the link to read the full article.
      • 9 replies
    • I am suppose to design a pile foundation for a machine weighing approximately 50 tons and with an operational loading of 100 tons. 
      I ll appreciate your help in terms of guidance & provision of notes...  
      Thank you..
      • 36 replies
    • Material behavior can be idealized as consisting of an 'elastic' domain and a 'plastic' domain. For almost 200 years, structural design has been
      based on an elastic theory which assumes that structures display a linear response throughout their loading history, ignoring the post-yielding
      stage of behavior. Current design practice for reinforced concrete structures is a curious blend of elastic analysis to compute forces and moments, plasticity theory to proportion cross-sections for the moment and axial, load, and empirical mumbo-jumbo to proportion members for shear.


      From the book "Design of Concrete Structures with Stress Fields" by A. Muttoni,  J. Schwartz and  B.Thurliman.

      • 0 replies
    • Dear Fellow Researchers, Academicians, and research students,


      NED University of Engineering & Technology in collaboration with Institution of Engineers Pakistan (IEP) is organizing 9th International Civil Engineering Conference (ICEC 2017) on December 22-23, 2017 at Karachi, Pakistan.

       The congress details are available at its website www.neduet.edu.pk/icec

       Also attached is congress flyer for information and dissemination among your peers.

       Abstracts submission deadline has been extended till October 31, 2017.

      Please click on the link to see the full description.
      • 0 replies
    • AoA all,

      Is it mandatory to do column concreting upto the soffit of the beam in a single pour ?

      What code says about the construction/cold joint location in column ?

      Majority of the contractors are pouring the column concrete upto the soffit of the beam (full height of the column), some contractors leave the column height about 9" to 12" below the beam level and then fill this 9" to 12" column height with the beams & slab concreting. On one site column concreting was stopped at the mid height and the remaining half was filled on the next day.



      • 5 replies
    • AOA 

      i am facing problems in shear wall design .what are the pier and spandral ?what will be the difference when we assign pier or spandral? without assigning these the shear wall design is incomplete .

      i am taking about etabsv16

      someone have document about shear wall design plz provide it 

      thank you

      • 10 replies
    • Salam Members,

      Congratulations to Engineers, PEC has become full signatory of Washington Accord, what are the benefits to Pakistani engineers for this agreement. 




      • 3 replies
    • Please clarify the following confusions one by one:-


      1. If we run P-delta analysis in ETABS, then should we ignore stiffness property modifiers for beams and columns? I have heard that if we perform P-delta analysis and apply stiffness modifiers at the same time then the moment magnification process is doubled...?


      2. ETABS considers selenderness of a column by applying moment magnification factors. If we run P-delta analysis also, does it mean that the selenderness of column is being over-estimated? I mean once the moments are magnified in P-delta analysis process and again through moment magnification process?


      Please help me understand the software myth and clarify above confusions.
      • 1 reply
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.