flippysch

mobird said:

hammeroftruth said:

Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 

It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.

Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.

The 2nd Amendment:  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.

hammeroftruth said:

Don’t let this snake fool you. It’s always about money. 

 

I read even as a kid he undercut lawn service companies to make money.

ITT in Chicago has another ripoff of the minimalist architecture style.

wiggin said:

macsince1988 said:

This is absolutely a non-story.  Warning signs and precautionary roped off areas are (and have been) incredibly common around the Chicago area during the winter, almost anywhere where there is a roof and heavy pedestrian traffic.  Here in Chicago, we call this problem “winter”.

Yes, but no.

Yes, there are signs like that all over Chicago in the winter. But no, they are not for snow and ice falling off the roofs of buildings. Every person here who has stated or implied that need to rethink their conclusions.

Those signs are because of the snow and ice that accumulates on the facades (ie, the sides, window frames, and architectural elements) of the buildings. Not the roofs (at least not the flat roofs of larger buildings which is what we are talking about here). Chicago has only gotten a few inches of snow so far this winter. How many of these signs are you seeing around other than the Apple Store? I've seen none on my 15 minute daily walk across the Loop each morning and afternoon. If the Apple Store is already having this problem after such light snow, what on Earth are they going to do when it really snows?!?

Absolutely an architectural design failure. And a failure of the city to not catch this when they reviewed the building permit (too many $$ in their eyes, perhaps). Living and working in this city you come to expect this when walking past the high-rise building during the deep winter and especially the spring thaw when all the accumulated ice and snow starts melting and detaching from the sides of the buildings. You wouldn't expect this from a relatively low building like the Apple Store and so early in the winter when there as been very little snow.

This is one of the more accurate posts. The problem with falling ice in the commercial districts of Chicago are not because of roofs but architectural elements and ledges for snow and ice to sit on when the surface is below freezing and then allowed to fall to the earth when the surface reaches above freezing temperature. One of the worst offenders is the Ogilvie Transportation Center (mentioned in one of the posts) designed by Helmut Jahn -- one of Chicago's most respected architects.

The Apple issue is different. It may be more similar to the Aquascape roof collapse a few years ago in the western suburb of St. Charles. It was one of the largest roof gardens in the world at the time, but the problem was not the roof garden. The problem was the roof over the interior heated building space drained to fairly large roof unheated overhang. Snow on the overhang melted at a much slower rate than the snow over the heated building space melted underneath and could not reach the perimeter roof edge because the snow over the overhang became a dam. The roof structure was designed to meet the International Building Code required snow load but did not take into account the amount of drifting snow and ice buildup in the middle of a roof that had a change in thermal conditions. Fortunately the roof structure failed on a weekend when no one was under the former overhang. 

The forming of icicles at the roof edge is an indication of roof ice dams. The good news for Apple is that the roof covering is monolithic as opposed to a shingled roof where the ice can backup under the shingles.

The solution is to have a roof covering with a uniform temperature or warmer temperature at the eaves. The building may have met the Chicago Building Code (and the International Building Code even though it's not applicable in Chicago despite being located in south Cook County) just like Aquascape, but it was still poor design and coordination by the architects and engineers.