Leaky condo crisis
It primarily involves multi-unit condominium (or strata) buildings damaged by rainwater infiltration in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island regions of coastal British Columbia (B.C.).
[1] Similar infiltration problems have been reported in highrise buildings and schools, as well as in other climatic zones in Ontario and Nova Scotia,[2] in the United States,[3] and New Zealand.
[4] Since the start of the crisis it has been commonplace to see occupied buildings draped in scaffolding and protective tarps as the problems were assessed and repaired.
[5][6] The crisis has caused, as a major public inquiry concluded: "a litany of horrific experiences, personal tragedies, and dashed dreams" endured by homeowners.
Many homeowners have been faced with correcting a problem they did not create, by a contractor they had not hired; they purchased the units either from a previous owner, a developer, or a developer/contractor.
Typical repair costs are in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, resulting in significant hardship, bankruptcies, and lawsuits against the developers, contractors, architects, and others involved in the original construction and maintenance of the buildings.
's Lower Mainland, and to a lesser degree the Greater Victoria region on Vancouver Island, experienced a construction boom in the multi-family condominium market.
A 1998 provincial commission of inquiry summarized the key factors: "The evidence suggests that significant building envelope failures in British Columbia since the early 1980s ... is a result of numerous factors, including design features inappropriate for our climate; a reliance on face-sealed wall systems; a fundamental lack of awareness regarding the principles of enclosure design suitable for our climate; meaningful inspection at critical stages of construction; and a regulatory system which was unable to understand that failures were occurring and to redress them.
"[15] The Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island regions have a moderate oceanic climate that each year experiences months-long periods of cool, damp, overcast, and rainy weather.
[16][17] A major design aesthetic of the 1980s and 1990s was Post Modernism, which featured building styles and forms reminiscent of the Mediterranean and southern California.
Common building elements of this time included roof parapets with no overhangs or eaves, stucco wall cladding, open walkways, arched windows, and complex cladding joints, all of which provided more opportunities for water penetration and acted, as several studies would confirm, as key contributors to water infiltration.
Roof overhangs were included in the calculation of FSR, and because this reduced the amount of permitted floor space, they were often removed from designs.
[20] Prior to 1993 in B.C., architects and engineers were not required to certify that the design met the requirements of the building codes, review the quality of construction, or certify that the construction had been performed in accordance with the codes, permitted drawings, and specifications, including those relating to providing a weathertight building envelope.
Design professionals were not required to perform these extensive reviews during construction, and developers not wishing to incur extra fees would not engage them to do so.
This left the obligation for correct interpretation and construction to the developers or builders, who either lacked the experience and/or had a financial incentive to cut costs.
Unlike more traditional materials, such as wood siding or cement-based stucco, a critical flaw of the new materials is that any water or moisture that penetrates into the system, either through cracks in the surface (caused by thermal expansion or damage), unsealed joints, or incorrect flashings, becomes trapped inside the wall, potentially causing deterioration, rot, and mold.
[27][28] Another newer building material that contributed to the damage was the widespread use of oriented strand board (OSB) as sheathing under the exterior siding or cladding.
[29] To date, four major investigative initiatives on the Leaky Condo Crisis have been undertaken: two by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC); and two by former B.C.
In 1995 the BERC was established through an initiative of CMHC to act as a coordinating agency for the research of building envelope problems in B.C..
[30][31] In 1996 the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation released its Survey of Building Envelope Failures in the Coastal Climate of British Columbia.
The Commission held public hearings from April 28 to May 20, 1998, which included presentations from condominium owners and representatives from different sectors of the residential construction industry and over 700 written submissions.
[33] In total 82 specific recommendations were made, including changes to zoning regulations, building codes, provincial law, federal law, financing, contractor licensing, and requirements of design professionals; and establishment of a Compensation Fund for reconstruction and a provincial Homeowner Protection Office.
[42] In 1995 (before the Barrett Commission), the City of Vancouver established a list of "Building Envelope Specialists" (BES), comprising architectural and engineering firms deemed qualified to provide independent inspection and review of building envelope components, based on the city's perception of the firm's qualifications and experience in the Lower Mainland.
[43] In 1997 the Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC) launched its own specialty course Building Envelope Education Program for its members.
government announced a provincial grant and tax relief program to assist homeowners affected by the crisis.
[47] In 2005 and 2006 the Prime Minister of Canada made a commitment to provide financial aid to homeowners affected by the crisis.
[50] Former federal cabinet minister Simma Holt waged a publicly vocal seven-year legal action in the 2000s seeking compensation for repairs for her own leaking condominium.
(Mickey) Cohen: "Nevertheless, I feel it equally important for us to collectively face up to the reality that construction practices associated with energy conservation measures do, in fact, increase the hazard of moisture-induced structural damage.
