# Steel frames



## Jd755 (Dec 24, 2022)

Here is pretty good evidence for a very rapid construction process enabled by the adoption of steel frame technology in the early 1900s.
If one leaves imaginings to one side and looks for available evidence for the mundane being the most likely lots of so called impossibles disappear.

Three weeks, that's 21 days from framed buiolding to a clad building. Thats fast. Cannot go that fast today because speed has Ben regulated out in favour of vested interest. The fact many buildings put up in San Fransisco after the earthquake were of steel frame construction stands as evidence of rebuilding not digging out and repurposing.

_View: https://mobile.twitter.com/DarrenMcLean_uk/status/1598234445449863169?cxt=HHwWgoCpzdTwiK4sAAAA_


----------



## dakotamoon (Dec 24, 2022)

Two points:  1. Most of the buildings that magically appeared - did so in the 19th century!

2. When the cladding of the same buildings falls off, we see red bricks .. billions of them .. not a rusty steel frame to be seen.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 24, 2022)

dakotamoon said:


> Two points:  1. Most of the buildings that magically appeared - did so in the 19th century!
> 
> 2. When the cladding of the same buildings falls off, we see red bricks .. billions of them .. not a rusty steel frame to be seen.


So you say but please post whatever evidence you have of these claims.


----------



## sekito (Dec 25, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> Cannot go that fast today because speed has Ben regulated out in favour of vested interest.


Care to explain? I would think that real estate developers would prefer to pay less for hiring construction workers and equipment and other kinds of fees; what sort of vested interested are we talking about here?

*

Even if a building can be constructed in say a month(assuming they take a week to finish the frame, which I know is unrealistic); the city is still limited by the number of skilled construction workers it have. 
More intricate/complex buildings would reasonably take more time compared to a rectangular block, so I don’t see how this explains the time problem.
And, I don’t think anyone here is really arguing all buildings are dug up? Clearly some are ‘new’(especially those that are blocky)


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 25, 2022)

sekito said:


> Care to explain? I would think that real estate developers would prefer to pay less for hiring construction workers and equipment and other kinds of fees; what sort of vested interested are we talking about here?
> 
> *
> 
> ...


Vested interests being the state. The thing that grows and grows regulations and codes just to keep itself relevant.

Its much faster to erect a steel framed structure to any scale than the wooden, brick or concrete alternatives. The fitting out stage is of course broadly similar on a like for like basis.
The only gain in terms of time is in the steel erecting but its enough to make it the preffered method.

Apologies for my lack of clarity. I am used to people quoting the impossibility of lots of large buildings appesring in short order after catastrophes like for example the San Francisco earthquake. This construction method shows its not at all unusual.
I had eighteen years experience of common sense being subverted by rules and regulation as a plant plumber in a shipyard. i joined before health and safety was invented and witnessed its growth first hand as it created a literal culture of not doing anything until the Health & Safety self proclaimed experts had assessed pontificated and filled in their forms.

We once had a Corgi engineer come to certify us to fit gas appliances, something we had been doing in complete safety for years, and individually we were all more experienced than he was. When he discovered the amount of piped services we actually worked with, a few he had no knowledge of he cut short his process and just handed out his paper certificates to prove he had done his job.


----------



## trismegistus (Dec 25, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> This construction method shows its not at all unusual.



This construction method only shows that the _construction of the steel frame_ is not at all unusual. Namely: masonry, decorative stone work/pillars, bespoke metal designs, skilled labor in general. There are more than a few buildings built in SF during that time that have other aspects that are much more unusual given the time frame.

SH Archive - San Francisco: 1906 vs. 1909


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 25, 2022)

trismegistus said:


> This construction method only shows that the _construction of the steel frame_ is not at all unusual. Namely: masonry, decorative stone work/pillars, bespoke metal designs, skilled labor in general. There are more than a few buildings built in SF during that time that have other aspects that are much more unusual given the time frame.
> 
> SH Archive - San Francisco: 1906 vs. 1909


Aah a blast from the past. Korbens obsession with the lack of lifting machines as being evidence of some subterfuge. I pointed out on numerous threads that the structure was the lifting device in that levers used were fixed to the structur to do the lifting. Then dismantled, and moved up with structure exactly as is done today.
Ground based cranes have a clealy restricted limit. Structure based cranes don't.

Other than some poor photo etidting either pre digital age or post i dont see what you do.

By way of showing just how easy it is to judge methodology of the past in an incorrect light.
This building is obvbiously not steel framed. Its a stone masonry building being built using an overhead travelling crane built on top or within the fabric of the build. Its of wooden construction and operated by ropes and pulleys to take the weight of the stone powered by human muscles
From 1858 no less than 48 years prior to the steel framed building process came into being. High tech it would be called today, may have been similarly labelled then.

These processes and methodology would not pass muster these days.










From here.

_View: https://mobile.twitter.com/DarrenMcLean_uk/status/1572540139418443776_

This comment from that thread illustrates just how daft Health & Safety has become.

"No way anything that practical would work...In todays safety culture you would need 10 different tickets and at least 2 inductions to work near something as safe as that. Better off on a cramped scaffold sweating buckets with a hard hat, goggles, mask, vest and gloves on."


----------



## trismegistus (Dec 26, 2022)

Specifically regarding San Francisco - I find it’s pre-earthquake look much more full of curiousities than what “replaced” it.

SH Archive - 1878 Panorama of San Francisco from California Street Hill

Even JD himself found a few curiousities back in the day…though I’m with him in that it is primarily about _who _was living in San Francisco during that time, not necessarily how it was built, but that is not a discussion for this thread. Absolutely worth reading through that archived reply, JD you really outdid yourself in those days with your analysis.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 26, 2022)

Another blast from the past.
The steel erectors are contractors. Back in my late teens they earned very good money in that game. Basically they moved to where the work and money were. Physical location didn't matter to them. Jumping from contract to contract was just what they did.

When these steel framed buildings first began appeasring such workers would be at an even higher premium as the technology was new there would not have been so many skilled erectors around.
This likely meant two things.
One they could to a great extent name their own price.
Two lots of cowboy erectors, chances if you will, wouild flock to places where a shortage of skilled erectors meant they could get away with making enough money in a short time to avoid being found out.

Bit of speculation obviously but human nature being what it is highly likely.

The main benefit of the steel frame is its out of the ground and into the sky very quickly and once its up any wrong doing in the securing of the land is all but impossible to put right.
Land claims, titles and ownership claims move slowly in a legal process.

Its also hard for us living in today's regulated and controlled stagnant society to comprehend what it is like when there is exponential expansion going on in a physical location.
All construction apart from possibly Chinese construction takes place in a slow linear fashion as settlements slowly spread and get more flabby at the edges without ever addressing the core infrastructure of utilities and roads for example.

To witness or take part in exponential expansion of everything is literally alien to us. In all probability until the regulation dragon is put to the sword it will remain alien.


----------



## dakotamoon (Dec 27, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> So you say but please post whatever evidence you have of these claims.


I'm not going to do your research for you, BUT!

View the work of:  https://www.youtube.com/@jonlevichannel,  https://www.youtube.com/@PhilippDr/featured, 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUFO6B13KRY_
, 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAidb4Rfm4w_
   or any of the hundreds of other researchers who cover the Mudflood, and Tartaria.    You won't find one single piece of iron in these buildings, but you will find Billions and Billions of Red Bricks.   Please note that current research shows red bricks very capable of carrying and storing electrical charges.  We don't understand the technology used, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Storing Electrical Energy in Red Bricks – Walls Could Act As Huge Batteries


----------



## JimDuyer (Dec 27, 2022)

Thanks Jd755 - interesting post.  Yes, that is fast, as anyone who has worked construction knows.  Most of the time today is taken up in regulations, requiring frequent inspections that would not allow any 21 days
today.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 27, 2022)

dakotamoon said:


> I'm not going to do your research for you, BUT!
> 
> View the work of:  https://www.youtube.com/@jonlevichannel,  https://www.youtube.com/@PhilippDr/featured,
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUFO6B13KRY_
> ...



So you have no evidence but people post videos on YouTube where they post theories and opinions ad nauseum.

Please refrain from polluting this thread with such things.

If you ever do some research outside of YouTube in the tangible world that backs up your claims then crack on and open your own thread.

This one is for the process of steel framed buildings being a game changer not theories about what some say but no-one proves or tests about fired clay bricks.


----------



## JimDuyer (Dec 27, 2022)

I've worked a bit with brick laying.  The fired clay variety is not as hard nor as fire-proof nor as heat retentive as you might think.  I built two very large BBQ ovens in brick (eight feet long and seven tall, five deep).  The common type would not work at all, and the refractive type that is considered fire brick will, but it is very expensive and much, much heavier than the ones used in construction.  The common house brick doesn't stand the test of time, either.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 27, 2022)

JimDuyer said:


> I've worked a bit with brick laying.  The fired clay variety is not as hard nor as fire-proof nor as heat retentive as you might think.  I built two very large BBQ ovens in brick (eight feet long and seven tall, five deep).  The common type would not work at all, and the refractive type that is considered fire brick will, but it is very expensive and much, much heavier than the ones used in construction.  The common house brick doesn't stand the test of time, either.


Again. Nothing to do with steel frames!

Refractory bricks stand heat. Commons are low fired for internal use or to be covered in render for exterrnal use. Engineered bricks are made to last in all weathers and to be used below ground.

Shit now I am at it.

No more brick stories in this thread.


----------



## JimDuyer (Dec 27, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> Again. Nothing to do with steel frames!
> 
> Refractory bricks stand heat. Commons are low fired for internal use or to be covered in render for exterrnal use. Engineered bricks are made to last in all weathers and to be used below ground.
> 
> ...


My point was that the steel should last longer as long is it is protected from the effects of weather.


----------



## reverendALC (Dec 27, 2022)

edited for typos and missing provenance

I’m not particularly familiar with SF’s building boom, but I’m fairly familiar with Seattle’s since I’m native born/raised. After our great “fire” we also had a boom in construction.

I’ll focus on the J&M building, built immediately after the great “fire” in 1889.




this building was erected swiftly, concurrently with tons of other buildings. According to Seattle.gov:

The building, of course, is of the same construction type as these buildings: *brick exterior walls with heavy timber construction* on its interior.​
There have been several seismic retrofits over the years as well, which aren’t necessary (or as necessary) on steel frames.

Anyway, the operative words here are:
“Same construction type as these [other building boom buildings]”
and
“Brick exterior… heavy timber construction”

What these statements tell me are that the Seattle building boom cannot be explained by steel frames.

Coincidentally, the designers/architects credited with the building were from San Diego:
​“Comstock and Troetsche were known mainly for their work in San Diego, where their practice thrived in the mid 1880s.”​
So they were from the place that you suggest owes its construction boom to steel frames, but didn’t employ steel frames, while completing the construction in record time. Understandably, a lot could change in the seventeen years between 1889 and 1906, but the first commercial steel frame was erected in chicago it seems, 1885:
​“The Home Insurance Building in Chicago, completed in 1885, was a 10-story building widely recognized as the first to use steel skeleton frame construction”​
obviously and of course, none of this is a black/white answer to the subject, but it’s worth consideration.

I also have a bone to pick with rapid completion in general, with regard to the infrastructure necessary to accommodate this. My questions are:

Where did all of the competent workers come from, and where did they go?
Were there enough quarries, enough kilns, enough everything to manufacture the masonry materials?
If it WAS steel beams, were there enough mines, miners, smelters, and foundries to manufacture the steel goods quickly enough to support the turnaround?
Assuming that we had the infrastructure in place to create the raw materials, and that workforce existed… did we have the transportation infrastructure to deliver all of the goods in the required timeframes?
I would agree that without the bureaucratic bullshit we have to deal with today, construction could be non-stop work and turnaround times could be far less. I don’t think far enough less.


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 27, 2022)

reverendALC said:


> this building was erected swiftly, concurrently with tons of other buildings. According to Seattle.gov:
> 
> The building, of course, is of the same construction type as these buildings: *brick exterior walls with heavy timber construction* on its interior.


But if we add the previous quote, it doesn't seem they are talking of an enormous area like the entirety of San Francisco:

_*With the other buildings on the western block from Main Street to Washington Street*, this building presents a unified façade and a powerful sense of early Seattle, as it rose from the ashes right after the Fire of 1889. The building, of course, is of the same construction type as these buildings: brick exterior walls with heavy timber construction on its interior._

Itb seems they are talking of that neighborhood alone.


----------



## reverendALC (Dec 27, 2022)

A kindred spirit has catalogued the construction boom’s new buildings here:

Rebuilding Seattle after the Great Fire, All 1890 Structures - ba-kground

I haven’t reviewed the entire list (have skimmed hundreds though) of buildings, but I haven’t seen any mention steel frames.

I suppose that my train of thought is such:  downtown Seattle/pioneer square were flagship areas. It wouldn’t make sense for them to use higher quality materials and techniques in less important areas.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 28, 2022)

JimDuyer said:


> My point was that the steel should last longer as long is it is protected from the effects of weather.


Well i missed that part!
The death beetle of all buildings is water. It is no respector of mans inventions.


Silveryou said:


> But if we add the previous quote, it doesn't seem they are talking of an enormous area like the entirety of San Francisco:
> 
> _*With the other buildings on the western block from Main Street to Washington Street*, this building presents a unified façade and a powerful sense of early Seattle, as it rose from the ashes right after the Fire of 1889. The building, of course, is of the same construction type as these buildings: brick exterior walls with heavy timber construction on its interior._
> 
> Itb seems they are talking of that neighborhood alone.


Well said.
This is the problem writ large.
Getting a handle on the area under construction is vital yet next to impossible at this distance away from the event.

As with anything new especially in construction the very newness and unteseted by time nature of the new creates a resistance to adopt. This resistance sits in both those invested in anyway in the existing and those expected to take up and use the new skills required for the new.
So its no surprise to see delay between introduction an acceptance high enough to allow the new to begin to replace the existing.

Of course there are always people willing and able to adopt the new regardless as they see themselves as pioneers or use the new as a way to gain fame if not fortune but these people are in a minority vanguard.


----------



## reverendALC (Dec 28, 2022)

After some various readings, it seems that the transition from stick to steel occurred broadly over 1885-1945, with no steel prior and virtually all steel after in standard building cases. This would place SF also in the relatively early adoption phase.

I’m going to riff off of this:

1889 Post-Fire Seattle rebuild speed: 5,625 buildings in 18 months

So if we cannot credit over 5600 buildings in 18mo to steel (that’s 311 buildings/mo) in Seattle, what makes one so confident that SF’s building boom is sufficiently explained by steel?  They’re two incredibly similar feats, with two dissimilar explanations?  Possible sure, but in my eyes the likeliness is waning.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 28, 2022)

Search here first.
https://stolenhistory.net/threads/1...uild-speed-5-625-buildings-in-18-months.5112/

Every blog post over there is a repeat from the original site which is archived here but please keep any comments that may arise from the Seattle build in the Seattle thread, not here.


----------



## reverendALC (Dec 28, 2022)

This discussion is about steel frames, particularly their potential involvement in rapid city development is it not?

therefore, is pointing out similarly rapid city construction that occurred without steel frames not relevant to the discussion?

perhaps I’ve misunderstood the thesis of this thread.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 31, 2022)

Steel frame of the Penn Station New York. Put up in the early 1900's.


----------

