1. I think this is a geotechnical issue as much as a structural
2. I didn't read the article in the link but I read elsewhere:
a. there was roofing work going on
b. the building was going through a recertification process because it was 40 years old
c. In the 90's an analysis was done and it was determined the building was sinking ~2 millimeters per year at the time
This is a horrible situation. I can't understand how a portion of a building would just collapse like this one did. I assume there was too much weight on the roof or the foundation just moved too much. It seems like the part of the building still standing did nothing to support the portion that collapsed. I am interested to hear from the structurals as well.
In my experience investigating damage to structures, there are usually at least three contributory factors. Structures have sufficient redundancy and factors of safety to withstand one (or maybe two) adverse conditions, but there is usually a third that tips the scales, so to speak. This is especially true in a completed structure that was presumed adequate for nearly 40 years. Again, that's just a rule of thumb based on my experience.
I think it's rash to speculate at this point. What we do know is that there was a progressive collapse "pancake" failure, similar to what happened at the World Trade Center. To me, this suggests that a column-to-beam connection disengaged, or a column buckled, triggering overstressed conditions elsewhere as the loads redistributed. What triggered this mechanism remains to be seen.
The engineers investigating this collapse will be looking to identify these candidate causes based on the physical evidence and review of the original design, determine who made a mistake, and who should have known about the problem(s). Like all catastrophic failures, I expect there will be lessons learned that will improve engineering, construction, and maintenance practices in the future.