Gothamist⁠77%

Engineer behind buckled high-rise says crucial reinforcing steel was 'never installed' ⁠39%

By David Brand⁠71%

7/16/2026, 8:17:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Negativity Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 24.8% saturation with 121 hits. Analysis detected 1,213 faulty-reasoning hits from 488 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠39% (12,596 of 20,472 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.50% of the article peer group.

The engineering firm that designed the structural plans for the city’s largest office-to-housing conversion project says reinforcing steel meant to support the weight of a 14-story addition to the building was never installed before a pair of columns collapsed there last Tuesday. 
City-approved structural drawings, first reported by Gothamist, show engineers from the firm GACE Consulting Engineers called for reinforcing plates along the length of the two columns that buckled, causing floors above to sag and city officials to evacuate surrounding blocks for fear of a full collapse. 
Department of Buildings officials have not yet released their final determination over what caused the severe structural failure. 
But GACE Principal Engineer Chris Behan blamed the incident on a failure to install the crucial reinforcement on three floors, including the 21st, where the collapse occurred. 
“The reinforcement from the 19th floor to the top of the 21st floor, which would have significantly increased the columns’ strength, was never installed,” Behan said in a written statement. 
“The structure was not reinforced as GACE’s design required.” 
A spokesperson for the developer, MetroLoft, did not immediately respond to a request for comment about GACE’s assertion when contacted Thursday. 
In an interview the day of the structural failure, MetroLoft Principal Nathan Berman said he suspected the two columns were not properly reinforced. 
Berman has declined interview requests from Gothamist. 
A spokesperson for the Department of Buildings declined to comment on whether the reinforcing steel was installed in response to GACE’s claim. 
“Our investigation into the structural failure at 235 East 42nd Street is ongoing, and we have not yet made any determinations on what factors led to the incident,” said Buildings spokesperson Andrew Rudansky. 
Structural plans submitted to the Department of Buildings depict the reinforcement requirements for the steel columns. 
The near-catastrophic structural failure on July 7 prompted city officials to evacuate the 37-story high-rise, where construction crews have been turning the former Pfizer headquarters into a 1,600-unit apartment complex. 
The Department of Buildings deemed the building structurally sound later that day and completed emergency work to shore up each floor between the 9th and rooftop. 
As part of the project, MetroLoft expanded 10 stories immediately above the collapsed columns and added four additional floors to the original 33-story structure. 
Two engineers who reviewed the plans obtained by Gothamist said photos of the contorted columns did not appear to match the drawings. 
The reinforcement would have turned the I-shaped columns into solid steel boxes. 
“It looked to me that it wasn’t there,” said Chris Cerino, past president of the Structural Engineers Association of New York, of the reinforcing steel prescribed in the plans. 
“It didn’t look like the drawings did.” 
Structural engineer Eric Cowley said the columns, covered in fireproofing material, did not appear to be reinforced. 
“I would have expected that to look like a box instead of an ‘I’,” Cowley said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.0%David Brand: 1.9%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias16.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 24.8%David Brand: 2.9%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic24.8%This article: 6.8%David Brand: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.8%This article: 3.3%David Brand: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias3.3%This article: 10.9%David Brand: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias10.9%This article: 2.3%David Brand: 9.0%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.7%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%David Brand: 4.3%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias5.3%This article: 6.1%David Brand: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias6.1%This article: 22.3%David Brand: 7.7%Gothamist: 8.6%Negativity Bias22.3%This article: 5.5%David Brand: 3.4%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.8%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.7%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.7%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%David Brand: 1.8%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.4%David Brand: 3.3%Gothamist: 4.5%Appeal to Authority24.4%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.5%David Brand: 3.3%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization5.5%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 5.8%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 6.1%David Brand: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question6.1%This article: 24.2%David Brand: 2.5%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)24.2%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 18.9%David Brand: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof18.9%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.2%David Brand: 1.4%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal9.2%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.3%David Brand: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.3%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 10.7%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity10.7%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.2%David Brand: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote17.2%This article: 2.3%David Brand: 0.8%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 16.8%David Brand: 4.1%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice16.8%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

488 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers53%attributed speech228writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageChris Behan • 27 words • 0.0% coverageChris Behan • 30 words • 100.0% coverageChris Behan • 9 words • 100.0% coverageMetroLoft • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNathan Berman • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Buildings • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Rudansky • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Buildings • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageChris Cerino • 29 words • 100.0% coverageChris Cerino • 7 words • 0.0% coverageEric Cowley • 17 words • 0.0% coverageEric Cowley • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chris Cerino

100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words14% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Biased Writer Voice+57.3 ptsWriter: 23.2%Chris Cerino: 80.6%80.6%Unattributed Quote-9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%Chris Cerino: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%Chris Cerino: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.