Chicago Union Station--falling apart? (LINK)

[Riverviewer]

Here's an item from today's Chicago Sun-Times about CUS, and how pieces of it fell on METRA commuters this morning.

Will the roof cave in over Amtrak passengers next?

Here's the link: http://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/steinberg-union-station-falling-down-on-commuters-heads/

 

[railiner]

Yikes, that's horrible!

I would not be surprised if the City orders the area closed, pending inspection and remedial action to make it safe, such as scaffolds until permanent repairs are made.

Talk about a "hard-hat" area....

 

[Bob Dylan]

Same thing happened at the Century+ Old Wrigley Field until it was totally remodeled.

Hopefully this will wake up the Suits in Chicago and 60 Mass, and Immediate Action will be taken to correct this Dangerous Situation!

 

[John Bredin]

Reading the article, it is apparent despite the columnist's snark that Amtrak told him this is not its building but one of the air-rights buildings over the platforms. Maybe CUSCo/Amtrak retained some ability to compel the air-rights owners to repair their building, but it isn't Amtrak's property to fix. And it certainly ain't mere-tenant Metra's, the columnist's snarky tweet calling out Metra notwithstanding.

 

[neroden]

There have been severe failures of maintenance by the owners of several of the air rights buildings. There are a number of parties who could sue them:

-- Amtrak

-- Metra

-- City of Chicago (for code violations)

City of Chicago is the best bet, because they can create intense pain for any building owner in the city. They can apply way more pressure than Amtrak or Metra can.

Anyone know Rahm Emmanuel? If he is convinced to see this as a personal affront to "his" city, he can probably browbeat the building owners into fixing the problems within months.

 

[MisterUptempo]

I mentioned this in another thread recently, but the portions of concourse ceiling and train shed ceiling that sit under the Canal Street viaduct are the responsibility of the City of Chicago for maintenance/repair. Amtrak claims that the city has failed to keep the viaduct in a state of good repair. In May, 2015, Amtrak sued the city for damages, claiming Amtrak and Union Station have spent $500,000 in repairs of spalled concrete that are the city's responsibility.

http://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/510579805-amtrak-sues-city-over-condition-of-canal-street-viaduct-at-union-station-alleges-neglected-maintenance

From the pictures in the Sun-Times article, it does not appear that the concrete that fell today was from that area of the train shed, but Amtrak has clearly been aware of the deterioration of the train shed ceiling for a while, and has spent money it probably couldn't afford to make repairs. Steinberg mentions the black netting in the south train shed and I believe that portion is part of the Canal St. viaduct.

Deutsche Bank owns the 222 Riverside building. The 10 and 120 Riverside buildings, which are also built over the north tracks, are owned by Ivanhoe Cambridge, one of the largest real estate companies on the planet. Both companies certainly have deep enough pockets to start repairs almost immediately. Then again, they also have enough lawyers to drag the process out needlessly, if they choose.

 

[railiner]

I mentioned this in another thread recently, but the portions of concourse ceiling and train shed ceiling that sit under the Canal Street viaduct are the responsibility of the City of Chicago for maintenance/repair. Amtrak claims that the city has failed to keep the viaduct in a state of good repair. In May, 2015, Amtrak sued the city for damages, claiming Amtrak and Union Station have spent $500,000 in repairs of spalled concrete that are the city's responsibility.

http://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/510579805-amtrak-sues-city-over-condition-of-canal-street-viaduct-at-union-station-alleges-neglected-maintenance

From the pictures in the Sun-Times article, it does not appear that the concrete that fell today was from that area of the train shed, but Amtrak has clearly been aware of the deterioration of the train shed ceiling for a while, and has spent money it probably couldn't afford to make repairs. Steinberg mentions the black netting in the south train shed and I believe that portion is part of the Canal St. viaduct.

Deutsche Bank owns the 222 Riverside building. The 10 and 120 Riverside buildings, which are also built over the north tracks, are owned by Ivanhoe Cambridge, one of the largest real estate companies on the planet. Both companies certainly have deep enough pockets to start repairs almost immediately. Then again, they also have enough lawyers to drag the process out needlessly, if they choose.

Then the City should shut down those buildings, as a menace to public safety, if that is what it takes to motivate its owner's to take immediate action.

The press investigative reporters can also help bring pressure by shaming them....

 

[cirdan]

How does the legal concept of air rights work.

Surely if Amtrak, or wheover,sell air rights over tracks, this does not imply the owners of the air rights can do as they please.

Surely there must be some clause in the agreement that forces them to maintain the structure.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Couple of comments from one involved in the restoration racket.

1. As Amtrak is federal they aren't bound by city regulations, i.e. City of Chicago code and maintenance decree's (i.e. the Life Safety Ordinance for instance, although, at less than 80', the train sheds wouldn't be priority - the ordinance was in response to people being injured on sidewalks).

2. Concrete work is time consuming and expensive, particularly when you have to work around an operating station. Depending upon the needed scope of work it could be a huge undertaking.

3. Mason/restoration contractors are very busy this year and costs are going up, so building managers have been putting off some work.

4. I'm not sure how involved the city will get as a) it's inside a 'building' and b) it's a federal facility, however, the feds (and the state certainly) have followed city ordinances "as a courtesy," as well as to keep their buildings saleable should they want/need to do so. Since someone was injured, from what appears to be a non-federal facility, they may indeed get involved. If I hear any scuttlebutt I'll try and post it.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Upon/after reading the article and especially looking at the pictures of the alleged fallen concrete, judging from the composition and shape, I would say that the concrete that fell was a failed patch or fireproofing type cladding, but I can't say that definitively.

There are three basic/primary ways that concrete would be damaged is poor construction, structural movement or water infiltration, the last one being the most common. I suspect water got through somewhere and caused steel beams or reinforcing to rust. When steel rusts, it expands massively and it will cause the concrete to crack and pieces to fall. That's the most likely cause, possibly also caused by moisture in locomotive exhaust as well as from chemicals in the fumes.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Let's see. The woman involved is a lawyer who works for a big insurance company. The woman's friend is an assistant state's attorney. And the woman's friend's husband is a prominent columnist for one of Chicago's big two newspapers. That's a lot of bells that are going to be rung about it. I bet the city will be all over this. Inspectors will pop out of nowhere and be all over Union Station and the overhead rights buildings. Amtrak has already closed three tracks on the north side _ and those nets over the south tracks will be getting a lot of attention. Something will happen fast over this.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Something will happen fast over this.

A lot of talk, but mobilization won't be quick, other than some temporary scaffolding and shoring. To fix it right will take some time no matter what since the damage will need to be inspected, plans drawn, specifications written, bids taken, etc. But it'll be expedited.

 

[NW cannonball]

So, what did fall on someone? A pigeon nest? Hunks of concrete?

The local media seems to have dropped the story.

Anybody got any facts about what fell, where, what jurisdiction??

Thanks to all who clarified the complexities of what owns what infrastructure at CUS.

 

[cirdan]

Upon/after reading the article and especially looking at the pictures of the alleged fallen concrete, judging from the composition and shape, I would say that the concrete that fell was a failed patch or fireproofing type cladding, but I can't say that definitively.

There are three basic/primary ways that concrete would be damaged is poor construction, structural movement or water infiltration, the last one being the most common. I suspect water got through somewhere and caused steel beams or reinforcing to rust. When steel rusts, it expands massively and it will cause the concrete to crack and pieces to fall. That's the most likely cause, possibly also caused by moisture in locomotive exhaust as well as from chemicals in the fumes.

If the steel beams start rotting and the surrounding concrete breaking away, be it for mechainical or chemical reasons, I'm wondering whether you can still actually fix that, or whether you're looking at a total structural replacament which could be very costly indeed.

A highway bridge near where I live was renovated a couple of years back. I passed it almost every day on my way to work and got to observe what they were doing. In many places the concrete had rotted away and the steel was rusting and expanding and causing cracks. Sizeable stalactites had formed where water ran off indicating that limestone was being chemically washed out of the concrete and weakening it. The workmen surgically cut out all the bad bits with huge disk saws and drilled rebar into the good bits and then re-cast enormous parts of the bridge with fresh rebar and fresh concrete. I was wondering whether building a new bridge from scratch wouldn't have been cheaper.

I guess the repair I described was only possible because the bits that were replaced were non load bearing. If you start cutting outload bearing parts of a structure you need to relieve the load by adding temporary supports. All this is so costly that it makes me wonder why building owners allow the structure to degrade so badly in the first place, seeing all it takes to prevent chemicals from diesel fumes from attacing concrete is a coat of paint..

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

When I last went through CUS, there were cracks in the ceiling, (platform area), and rain coming through.

 

[John Bredin]

So, what did fall on someone? A pigeon nest? Hunks of concrete?

The local media seems to have dropped the story.

My critiques of the SunTimes columnist notwithstanding, his article (linked in the OP) includes two photos of a man standing on a CUS northern platform holding chunks of concrete.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

My suspicion is that most of the track level structure at Union is steel framed (i.e. i-beams riveted to each other) clad with concrete for fireproofing. What Cirdan is describing sounds like the rebar in a concrete structure corroding.

You can repair both, even load bearing - that is, if you shore it, things, like everything bearing on that bearing element - and repair them. It's generally still cheaper to repair than replace an entire building. Bridges get rebuilt because, we as a nation don't maintain things as we ought to (no glamor to maintenance) and for capacity increases.

The Sun-Times showed pieces of broken concrete which looked like very old patching or cladding - perhaps even an old patch or repair that failed.

 

[neroden]

If the steel's OK, you rip off the concrete cladding and replace it. This is probably the most likely scenario actually.

This is basically what they're doing to all the tunnels in New York City which flooded during Hurricane Sandy. They have to rip out all the salt-damaged concrete, but the steel and iron behind it is fine. So they remove the concrete and replace it.