Thunder Bay – To Demolish Or Not Demolish…That Is The Question

the 103-year-old building has been given new life thanks to an engineering report that states its still structurally sound.

An engineering report more than a year ago said the building would need to be demolished within a year.

But a new one showed that the building hadn’t deteriorated as quickly as the original report thought.

Mixed emotions here. Its great that the building may be saved.  Good.

What’s not so great is that there are two very different engineering reports about the structural soundness of the same building.  A year apart.  And the building structural situation as improved?

But a new one (report) showed the building hadn’t deteriorated as quickly as the original report suggested.

Suggested?  There was an immediate demolition order on the building! The original report said the building would need to be demolished within a year.  That does not sound like a suggestion to me.

Six days ago, the City of Thunder Bay said the building needed to be demolished immediately because

“The building is structurally inadequate and unsafe due to being in a condition that could be hazardous to the health or safety of persons in the normal use of the building, persons outside the building or persons whose access to the building has not been reasonably prevented,”  – Tbnewswatch August 6, 2013

If you were looking at buying this building, which engineering report would you believe? Are the two reports done by the same company or two different companies?  Maybe we need a third independent report to break the tie.

Remember the mall in Elliot Lake.  It got two thumbs up from an engineer a couple of months before the roof collapsed.  Soooo….

It makes a person wonder about these engineering reports. If engineering reports can be that contradictory, then are they really worth the paper they are printed on?

I’m thinking there is more to this story than we are being told.  The first engineering report sounds it like it may have been lacking in thoroughness. Just a quick drive-by.

There must be a reason a second report was commissioned.  I wonder what it is?

related postings here, here, here and here