Leaky Condo: $78K - $200K assessment (split from the Realtor 1 subforum)

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

For the price of a condo in Kits if you have any sense you buy a house in Maple Ridge, which after you have paid down the mortgage you parly into a house in New West or Burnaby or East Van.

Move to Maple Ridge?
Yeah, that's a great option!

I think I'll stick to my condo, thanks.

[COGENT]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/06/28...-by-repair-tab

Al Sajan, president of Seven Sevens, said the building was built to conform to all codes and standards, and said upon completion, the building passed all the required inspections.
“We had a clean bill of health, everything was approved.” he said.

The excuse that the buildings were built to code is a joke. They said that about my building too but as we do work on something we find major violations of code that the builder has sign off from the city saying it passed.

For example. My building is a wood frame ad the top floor balconies hang half off the building and the other half goes over top of another units roof. Code says that if you have an exposed area over top of a non exposed area (living area) then you need what's called vapor barrier. So we rip up the top deck to fix the leaking in the unit bellows roof and low and behold there is no vapor barrier... but the city signed off that this passes code. We discover this 2 years after the conversion so it's our problem. Infuriating.

[Travis Munroe]

Not defending the builders at all however what are peoples thoughts on tightening up inspections from the city and having to have 2-3 inspectors view before passing. Then having these inspectors held somewhat accountable for passing things that should never have been passed?

[driveway]

My Brother's girlfriend lives in this condo building. Recently they noticed a patch of celling had developed a water-stain so they called in someone to take a look at it assuming a leaky pipe. When they cut open the celling, a huge amount of water fell through and then they began pulling out piles of soaking-wet insulation.

Water had been making its way into the building and running along one of the major cross-beams, eventually pooling above her place.

Fortunately for her, she's a renter so she's not on the hook for any of the repair costs - feel sorry for the people who bought here.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by COGENT

The excuse that the buildings were built to code is a joke. They said that about my building too but as we do work on something we find major violations of code that the builder has sign off from the city saying it passed.

For example. My building is a wood frame ad the top floor balconies hang half off the building and the other half goes over top of another units roof. Code says that if you have an exposed area over top of a non exposed area (living area) then you need what's called vapor barrier. So we rip up the top deck to fix the leaking in the unit bellows roof and low and behold there is no vapor barrier... but the city signed off that this passes code. We discover this 2 years after the conversion so it's our problem. Infuriating.

VB goes on warm side, so not sure how you saw it from outside without insulation on top.

[COGENT]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

Not defending the builders at all however what are peoples thoughts on tightening up inspections from the city and having to have 2-3 inspectors view before passing. Then having these inspectors held somewhat accountable for passing things that should never have been passed?

Absolutely. Obviously the builders are showing the inspectors what they want to see and once the inspectors leave, turning around and doing it the cheap way.

It's disgusting to think about, especially when it's your first home purchase and you have your first child on the way.

[Devil's Rule]

My wife and I owned a rental unit in the 3211 Varsity Condos across from UofC when they first were sold about 5 years ago or so, we sold it after two years, and glad that we did, because here is another building that is going through some significant re-work.

[COGENT]

Originally Posted by Shazam

VB goes on warm side, so not sure how you saw it from outside without insulation on top.

Not entirely sure what you mean. The construction company took the decking off, underneath were support beams, insulation and the roofing to the unit below.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by COGENT

Not entirely sure what you mean. The construction company took the decking off, underneath were support beams, insulation and the roofing to the unit below.

Ah, ok.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

Not defending the builders at all however what are peoples thoughts on tightening up inspections from the city and having to have 2-3 inspectors view before passing. Then having these inspectors held somewhat accountable for passing things that should never have been passed?

I do believe that there should be multiple visits - and not necessarily from the same person.

Builders often complain that Inspectors aren't held accountable and that the city should share the liability in cases like this. Poppycock.

The reality is that if the city hired and trained more inspectors, builders would complain about the increased permit fees necessary to cover the costs......The City can't win.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

I do believe that there should be multiple visits - and not necessarily from the same person.

Builders often complain that Inspectors aren't held accountable and that the city should share the liability in cases like this. Poppycock.

The reality is that if the city hired and trained more inspectors, builders would complain about the increased permit fees necessary to cover the costs......The City can't win.

Didn't realize the city need to "win".

Holding city inspectors accountable would help.

Home inspectors now have to carry E&O insurance... Maybe the city should too?

[Misterpants]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

Not defending the builders at all however what are peoples thoughts on tightening up inspections from the city and having to have 2-3 inspectors view before passing. Then having these inspectors held somewhat accountable for passing things that should never have been passed?

I think a better way of going about this problem is to have some sort security requirement that the developer must provide for a fixed term after the project completion. You could think of it like what the province requires of new industrial projects. They must give the government a huge amount of security in case they go tats up and walk away. At leaset then, there is money to reclaim the site. I can think of a few cons to this plan but it certainly goes a long way to solving the problems that have cropped up because of these poorly constructed condos.

I don't think that more inspectors will necessarily do anything to alleviate these problems. They can't be there 24/7 el cheapo outfits will always find a way to save money and go the easy route.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Misterpants

I think a better way of going about this problem is to have some sort security requirement that the developer must provide for a fixed term after the project completion. You could think of it like what the province requires of new industrial projects. They must give the government a huge amount of security in case they go tats up and walk away. At leaset then, there is money to reclaim the site. I can think of a few cons to this plan but it certainly goes a long way to solving the problems that have cropped up because of these poorly constructed condos.

I don't think that more inspectors will necessarily do anything to alleviate these problems. They can't be there 24/7 el cheapo outfits will always find a way to save money and go the easy route.

It definitely doesn't make sense to have the city be liable for that. Instead of a big huge bond (which would really slow down development, and increase real estate prices) why not require insurance? Something like the home warranty plan, where builders have to buy a policy protecting owners for 5-10 years. Good builders should be able to buy something like that more cheaply, and the insurance cos would have a strong incentive to make sure things were done properly.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Misterpants

I think a better way of going about this problem is to have some sort security requirement that the developer must provide for a fixed term after the project completion. You could think of it like what the province requires of new industrial projects. They must give the government a huge amount of security in case they go tats up and walk away. At leaset then, there is money to reclaim the site. I can think of a few cons to this plan but it certainly goes a long way to solving the problems that have cropped up because of these poorly constructed condos.

I don't think that more inspectors will necessarily do anything to alleviate these problems. They can't be there 24/7 el cheapo outfits will always find a way to save money and go the easy route.

I dont see builders having the required funds to put x million into some trust account for the next 5 years to cover poor workmanship. Many of these buildings could barely finish themselves during the recession. Look at Arriva for example...from what I hear a little more time might have saved the whole bankruptcy as the bank would not release a further phase of funding due to lack of sales in tower 2. (speculation).

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

I dont see builders having the required funds to put x million into some trust account for the next 5 years to cover poor workmanship. Many of these buildings could barely finish themselves during the recession. Look at Arriva for example...from what I hear a little more time might have saved the whole bankruptcy as the bank would not release a further phase of funding due to lack of sales in tower 2. (speculation).

Ah yes, the "white knight" investor that many of us heard about at the time. Tower 2 (arriVa 42) was actually about 60% sold when everything started to go south, and those units were not cheap. Probably an average price of about $600,000.

[Misterpants]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

I dont see builders having the required funds to put x million into some trust account for the next 5 years to cover poor workmanship. Many of these buildings could barely finish themselves during the recession. Look at Arriva for example...from what I hear a little more time might have saved the whole bankruptcy as the bank would not release a further phase of funding due to lack of sales in tower 2. (speculation).

Fair enough, but there has to be some sort middle ground that can ensure the solvency of these shoddy developers. It's sickening that they can build these slapdash condos that have the potential to ruin peoples lives with little to no recourse for them personally. All they do is move on to the next incarnation of their company and make more money.

[Travis Munroe]

I heard there were concerns about who exactly purchased this "60%" and thats what held things up...once again, pure speculation.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Misterpants

Fair enough, but there has to be some sort middle ground that can ensure the solvency of these shoddy developers. It's sickening that they can build these slapdash condos that have the potential to ruin peoples lives with little to no recourse for them personally. All they do is move on to the next incarnation of their company and make more money.

Maybe builders should be legislated. Only certain people can build houses/condos. But if crooks like Brost and Sorenson can sell fake gold investment for years with impunity, it's hard to see the government do anything about the building industry.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Maybe builders should be legislated. Only certain people can build houses/condos. But if crooks like Brost and Sorenson can sell fake gold investment for years with impunity, it's hard to see the government do anything about the building industry.

Besides that being likely to be ineffective (so many gov't regulated frauds) it's also likely to push out of business many builders, which would dry up new construction. That would have the dual effects of increasing unemployment due to less construction work and increasing real estate prices due to lower supply. Neither would be good for the economy.

[simonsays]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

Not defending the builders at all however what are peoples thoughts on tightening up inspections from the city and having to have 2-3 inspectors view before passing. Then having these inspectors held somewhat accountable for passing things that should never have been passed?

2-3 inspectors could help, but what about holding the actual inspectors accountable. I can understand missing something small on an inspection, but if the building is that fubared then maybe the guy who said it was OK shouldn't have a job anymore.

I don't know what the solution is though. I mean people almost always want the lowest possible price, and from a builders perspective you cannot provide quality at some of those prices. So the good GCs get undercut and the irresponsible ones learn how to game the system.