Is it the builder, architects or perhaps the Building Inspectors? > Ken
Units in picture appear to be EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems). This system is very good if (very big IF) properly detailed and applied. I've used it a lot for 20 years without problems (yet) in New England climate, but I've always followed the manufacturers' installation specs. for detailing and had the jobs inspected by the manufacturer's reps. This costs money. We have had some failures around here, to the point where some architects will not use the material. Drainage, weeps, and expansion must be provided for.
I would say the architects didn't provide enough relevant details for the walls, or the contractor ignored the manufacturer's and architect's recommended details. The Building inspectors have little fault in this. EDS
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
Jeez Louise, I moved from the Vancouver area in 2001 - I ca't beleive they're still f*ing around with that. Bunch of inept beanbrains.
IMO? It's a combination of politicians (who screw with everything from zoning, to relaxing building codes) and sleazebag "developers" who cut'n'run once they palm their crap off onto some poor unsuspecting schmoe.
I'm hesitant to blame architects out of hand because, even if they recommend that something be done a certain way, there is no guarantee at all that it will actually eb done that way. Maybe they did under-design, but I don't know that. THe fact remains, however, that *some* a-hole or group of a-holes decided to build the things in a criminally substandard manner.
Part of the problem was also realted to the influx, during the late
1990's, of huge amounts of money from Honk Kong, due to concerns over what would happen when the British lease ran out and Honk Kong was returned to Communist China - the "developers"/real-estate industrial complex played upon all of that. THe result was a way-overheated housing market with inflated valuations placed upon even the cheeziest heap of barely-standing boards.
And, of course, politicians HAD to get their cut as well, so they acceeded to the demands made by sdo-called "developers" to relax any and all standards, whether they be zoning standards or building standards or pretty much any other standards even remotely related to get-rich-quick building schemes.
But one cannot discount the role that consumers also play. Waaaaay too many people willingly and eagerly allow themselves to be mesmerized by any shiny bauble, however cheapshit it might be, because they delude themselves into believing that they, too, can get rich quick by flipping places. THere were a lot of poeple who continued to buy deficiently- constructed places even despite info as to the deficiencies, because they deluded themselves into beeliving that they could "always" jsut flip it and palm it off onto some sucker or another.
Consumers never want to admit the role they play in various meltdowns, but that does not change the fact that they do indeed play a role, because manufacturers will sell whatever people are willing to buy. People very often create many of their own problems due to making poor choices, and when a few million people all make the *same* bad choice(s), that has a huge negative impact on *everyone*.
It's perennial. Humans in general (1) don't really learn all that much from history, and (2) tend to think that their own society/nation/group is somehow above history, immune from cause-and-effect.
"EDS" wrote in news:LpmdnUS9KfnYR-nVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
Vancouver is what's terms a Temperate Rain Forest. "Rain forest" is not an exaggeration - it rains prodigiously...
A big part of the problem was that people simply took materials and techniques that worked, or even were marginally passable, in drier climates, and then claimed supposed ignorance/unpredictability when those materials/techniques failed under Rain Forest conditions.
The last point was not what I recall from when I lived there. It was an all-around problem - basically, *everyone*, to some degree, contributed to the problem. The catch is this: even tho' anyone with an iota of sense would know that doing X is likely to have negative result Y, unless one can *prove* that there was a *criminal intent* to ignore the liklihood of Y, no specific person or entity can actually be held liable. THey all just throw up their hands and feign ignorance. By the time the doodoo spreads out, it's so diluted that it doesn't stick to anyone, and the consumers who bought into the real-estate racket were, are, and will be left holding the proverbial bag.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.