HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2012, 9:03 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Buying a formerly leaky condo

If a wood frame condo built in the early 90s has been rainscreened (2008), is there a reason to avoid purchasing a unit still?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2012, 9:07 PM
sacrifice333 sacrifice333 is offline
Vancouver User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,460
My suggestion would be that there wouldn't be any reason to avoid it.

Though I might be biased as a previous unit I owned, built in 2009, had an offer fall apart due to "leaky condo concerns" stemming from a pro-active council who had a building envelope review undertaken within the 2nd year. Some people are amazing.

But read through the minutes thoroughly... maybe even try to get your hands on the findings that led to the rainscreening to determine if they did a thorough job or not... and also get an inspection.
__________________
Check out TripStyler.com {locally focused travel blog} | My instagram {Travel Photos}
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2012, 9:21 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Wow, I just found this about the building on myleakycondo.com. Not sure when it was posted, but it looks like a rain screen wouldn't be enough to fix all the problems:

We have identified that we have water ingress throughout our building envelope that is acutely damaging the structural integrity of the building. We have also identified certain irregularities in the building foundation that upon close examination, may prove to be an additional impairment to the structural integrity of the building.

We have and continue to exercise due diligence in or assessment and approach to making our building structurally sound and in our investigation of technologies that will solve the problem of water ingress through what has been described as a poorly constructed, inappropriate architectural features of our building. The strata corporation is encountering significant difficulty obtaining plans, specifications, and other relevant technological data rom the developer/builder also referred to as the "Acme Group/Acme Developments Ltd." "Acme Developments Ltd.[the company formed to develop this strata corporation] is no longer an active company.

Council is considering its options at this time with respect to recovery of costs and unspecified damages, however council being cognizant of its responsibilities both legally and morally, is applying due diligence in as much as undertaking the rehabilitation of the facility. Council is of the opinion that our obligation is to rehabilitate the facility and not wait for any results that may be in our favour as a result of the findings of the commission and our pending legal actions.


Technical Component.

The strata corporation is a wood framed building built on a typical low rise multi- residential concrete foundation that includes a below grade parkade. The architectural style is Georgian. The exterior cladding system is principally stucco/mesh/tyvek/oriented stranboard over untreated dimensional green lumber, presumably hemlock or fir. The roof system is principally tar and gravel, with the balance being painted corrugated steel. The structure is complicated by Georgian influenced architectural details that are not indigenous to the West Coast of British Columbia. These details would impose a severe challenge under ideal conditions, to even the most experienced professional tradesman. Give that the influencing factors for developers in the condominium market are: location, price and cost to bring to market. It is now painfully clear that in the building of LMS 000 we had a recipe for inattention to detail, poor workmanship, lack of supervision, lack of inspection by competent personnel and civic authorities.

The 187 unit complex was built in two phases. Phase 1 was completed in the spring of 1993. Fire completely destroyed the initial Phase II of wing shortly after lock-up was initiated. Phase II was subsequently completed in the fall of 1994. Purchsers of Phase I bought their suites site unseen. A similar site developed by "Acme" in another suburb of the lower mainland, was proffered by the developer as the model of quality that purchasers could expect to discover at our strata corporation when they moved in. Interestingly enough, we have it on competent authority that this other development has been repaired twice up until now and need to be repaired for a third time at a staggering cost to the remain- ing owners. We understand that the strata corporation is considering litigation.

For various reasons Council became suspicious that a problem may exist with the building envelope. After some discussion Council elected to investigate the building envelope for moisture content. The contractor selected probed the building envelope utilizing semi- invasive technology and provided conclusive evidence of moisture and humidity levels in excess of tolerable limits in a number of locatins around the building perimeter. Upon receipt of the investigatin report, Council further commissioned full exposure of' suspected "hot spots" that warranted further investigation. Utilizing fully invasive technology the contractor exposed the suspect areas of the building envelope and discovered structural damage in the form of wood rot in various stages of development caused by ingress of water from unknown sources.

Investigation and observation of the building exterior has given rise to much speculation as to the areas of the structure that could provide access for rain water and ground water to penetrate the cladding system. Flashing, conspicuous by its absence, on horizontal stucco details are immediately suspect. We have a proliferation of such architectural details present in our building design. Failure of caulked seams and joints is also cited as a potential for water ingress and is strongly suspected. Window details are suspect as are balcony details. In addition anywhere that two walls meet is also a concern. It is also suspected that improper drainage and possibly inappropriate civil design or lack of due consideration to locally influenced, seasonal hydrological events has contributed significantly to the problem. Lack of full consideration for these signficant design components may be providing for collection of ground water into pools which then wich up the wall structure.

While there is a range of age groups at our strata corporation, it was marketed and sold as a 'mature lifestyle' development. That meant you had to be aged 45 or older to purchase here although the average age is older. We have many amenities such as an English style pub, a social lounge, a crafts room, a woodworking shop, a grandchildern's playroom, a swimming pool, and a hot tub. There is an active social committee that arranges various regular activities for our residents such as Whist, poker, bingo, movie nights, pub nights, dances, etc. Many of our senior residents sold their family home and purchased here to enjoy a carefree, active social life in their senior years. Ironically, although we have all the makings of the real community we thought we had bought into, we have instead become individual combatants in a war that can have no winner. Something that none of us expected when we purchased our homes.

Many of our residents, both our seniors and those who are still working, will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find the money to pay the large assessments that we may shortly receive. Most of our seniors are on fixed incomes and have no prior experience with condominium living. Some suffer from ill health and/or disabling conditions. In general, they find it difficult to understand how a four year old, multi-million dollar building, built by a supposedly reputable developer, could have problems of this magnitude. They don't understand how you can have afive year home warranty program that does not cover the costs of the needed repairs.

Much like when one receives a diagnosis of terminal illnesses, our residents are each in various stages of grief such as denial, anger, sorrow, only a very few have achieved acceptance of our current situation. This has created an atmosphere of distress resulting in friction between owners, accusations and threats being made by one another, and assertions made by some that they will not pay any assessments. Regretfully, the Condominium Act requires us to perform due diligence and make the necessary repairs.

The current state of confusion, disbelief, anxiety, and tension has resulted in a distrust of the Strata Council, the property manager, and of each other. In a time when we all need to pull together and support each other, we are instead threatened by the enemy within; an unstable chaotic state of paranoia.

-----

Sounds like a nightmare.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2012, 9:52 PM
sacrifice333 sacrifice333 is offline
Vancouver User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,460
Next!
__________________
Check out TripStyler.com {locally focused travel blog} | My instagram {Travel Photos}
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2012, 10:06 PM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,934
Bear in mind that the guy who runs myleakycondo is a Leaky Condo nazi - he condemns pretty much *any* condo building.
We took our due dilligence before buying our first condo - to the extent of having a meeting with him to get us "up to speed" on the leaky condo phenomenon. We bought into a solid concrete loft building. He said "Well it's not a Leaky Rotten Condo...YET" (he actually says that - Leaky Rotten Condo - when he talks).

So ultimately, he could be right. But I guess it all depends on how you're looking at the condo; as an Asset that you want to appreciate in value and sell for a profit in the short/medium term, or as a Home that you'll enjoy for other reasons (location, facilities, transit, etc.) and don't care about its value.

There's another thread going on that talks about if wood condos are a good long-term investment given that they're prone to rot eventually, so the strata will have to think long, long in advance for the replacement costs. Have a read of that thread, if you're looking at being there for decades as opposed to years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2012, 10:20 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Unless you're accusing the myleakycondo guy of forging a letter written by a unit owner, I don't think his personal opinion is relevant.

I am no longer expecting a profit over time but I would like somewhere that doesn't feel like it has a few years left before it falls down. My current building is almost 40 years old.

I wish I could've afforded concrete. Wood anything in coastal BC is just a bad idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2012, 11:38 PM
s211 s211 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
Wow, I just found this about the building on myleakycondo.com. Not sure when it was posted, but it looks like a rain screen wouldn't be enough to fix all the problems:
Which building is this? I can't glean from the comments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 12:36 AM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Princess Gate in Coquitlam.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 7:48 PM
bcj bcj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
Wood anything in coastal BC is just a bad idea.
Don't blame wood (as a building material) for faulty design and construction. In this climate a properly designed and built wood-frame structure will last more-or-less indefinitely (easily 100 years). Case in point, this city is full of "heritage" homes of that vintage. When someone decides to restore one, it's typically from the "Studs-out", meaning virtually everything BUT the wood-frame structure will be replaced.

BTW, I've lived in a leaky concrete condo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 8:31 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Honest question, how does a leaky concrete condo happen?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 9:17 PM
bcj bcj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12
Unless concrete is properly finished/sealed, and that finish/seal is maintained, water will seep in eventually. One failure I've heard of is water seeping into the edge of a concrete balcony causing the embedded rebar to rust.

In the building I lived in there was water ingress at the seam between the wall and the windows. Also leaking from a water feature down into the parkade after the membrane wore out. Neither of these failures was the "fault" of the concrete per se, but they happened in a concrete building nonetheless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 9:58 PM
s211 s211 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcj View Post
Unless concrete is properly finished/sealed, and that finish/seal is maintained, water will seep in eventually. One failure I've heard of is water seeping into the edge of a concrete balcony causing the embedded rebar to rust.

In the building I lived in there was water ingress at the seam between the wall and the windows. Also leaking from a water feature down into the parkade after the membrane wore out. Neither of these failures was the "fault" of the concrete per se, but they happened in a concrete building nonetheless.
Yes, if balconies are sloped to the building, water eventually finds it way in.

Also, think of all the curtain wall and windows. It ain't the concrete frame that's the problem, it's the skin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 2:38 AM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Thanks. Is there any reasonable way to know which buildings are good and which are problems before you get to the inspection stage?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 5:49 AM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
Thanks. Is there any reasonable way to know which buildings are good and which are problems before you get to the inspection stage?
I think you should look into concrete buildings. Yes they cost more in the initial investment stage but concrete does not deteriorate like wood, it actually strengthens over age. Maintenance fees for reserve funds are therefore lower. As well, concrete towers don't have large scale landscapes and courtyards to tend, also lowering your maintenance fee. Insurance is also cheaper. Sound-proofing is generally better in concrete towers than wood-frame buildings because concrete absorbs most of the footfall as opposed to floor joists that transfer the thud down your walls. You might have an idiot above you walking on the hardwood with shoes in the middle of the night, but the concrete transfers that sound as a tick tick tick rather than as a bassy sumo-wrester thud.

I've also experienced a flood in my wood-framed condo already, and the building is only 17 months old. Water pipes in the attic burst during the winter, a result of poor workmanship and negligence when installing the pipes near the edge of the roof line and not properly insulating it from weathering effects. Flooding in concrete towers are not as common and if so, are generally internal, localized, and a result of stupidity (i.e. putting dish detergent in the dish washer and leaving to go shopping). I think the number of reports of leaky wood-framed condos just produces an indication that there is an expectation that a new wood-frame condo is going to, at some time in its 25-40 year life, suffer the effects of a flood due to expensive envelope problems.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 5:57 AM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
I was looking at concrete as far east as I could (doesn't seem to be much beyond Coquitlam and my wife, who takes transit, doesn't feel safe in Surrey) and I still couldn't afford it. My current place is worth about $240k (bought it for $232 in 2005), if it could even be sold with current plans to rip apart the walls soon.

I decided if/when I move I won't even do new wood frame. I realize there are some perfectly good ones out there but you never know what you're gonna get. I'm a bit disappointed the powers that be relaxed the wood frame restrictions. Concrete buildings are a thing of the past in my neighbourhood now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 3:08 PM
s211 s211 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
I think you should look into concrete buildings. Yes they cost more in the initial investment stage but concrete does not deteriorate like wood, it actually strengthens over age. Maintenance fees for reserve funds are therefore lower. As well, concrete towers don't have large scale landscapes and courtyards to tend, also lowering your maintenance fee. Insurance is also cheaper. Sound-proofing is generally better in concrete towers than wood-frame buildings because concrete absorbs most of the footfall as opposed to floor joists that transfer the thud down your walls. You might have an idiot above you walking on the hardwood with shoes in the middle of the night, but the concrete transfers that sound as a tick tick tick rather than as a bassy sumo-wrester thud.

I've also experienced a flood in my wood-framed condo already, and the building is only 17 months old. Water pipes in the attic burst during the winter, a result of poor workmanship and negligence when installing the pipes near the edge of the roof line and not properly insulating it from weathering effects. Flooding in concrete towers are not as common and if so, are generally internal, localized, and a result of stupidity (i.e. putting dish detergent in the dish washer and leaving to go shopping). I think the number of reports of leaky wood-framed condos just produces an indication that there is an expectation that a new wood-frame condo is going to, at some time in its 25-40 year life, suffer the effects of a flood due to expensive envelope problems.
While I overall agree with your points I would caution with two points:

1) concrete doesn't always mean less landscaping to deal with. Multi-tower complexes downtown like 888 Beach, Aquarius, Marinaside have huge maintained areas with water features built over underground parkades. When the membrane eventually gives way, $$$ to repair.

2) water leaks in concrete towers can be very costly, because the water just keeps going down one floor to the next. I lived in a complex where it was not uncommon to have some wang leave a tub overflowing for hours while smoking pot (kid you not) and the ensuring flood would take out suites 5, 6 and sometimes 7 floors below. Burst washing machine hoses were also frequent. If I was going into a new business, it would be emergency flood restoration work. Those buggers charge a fortune.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 6:46 PM
mrjauk mrjauk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
I was looking at concrete as far east as I could (doesn't seem to be much beyond Coquitlam and my wife, who takes transit, doesn't feel safe in Surrey) and I still couldn't afford it. My current place is worth about $240k (bought it for $232 in 2005), if it could even be sold with current plans to rip apart the walls soon.

I decided if/when I move I won't even do new wood frame. I realize there are some perfectly good ones out there but you never know what you're gonna get. I'm a bit disappointed the powers that be relaxed the wood frame restrictions. Concrete buildings are a thing of the past in my neighbourhood now.
I'm sorry to hear about your situation. Assuming you were able to sell you place for 240K, what has the total cost of ownership been to you over the last 7 years? Would you have been further behind (or ahead) had you rented the same place over the same timer period?

TIA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 7:10 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
I don't want to do the exact math since I'll get even more depressed, but renting would've definitely been cheaper. Had the economy not tanked it would've been worth it... but we know how that went.

There are some bonuses to owning of course, but in hindsight I would've bought in a concrete building further east when they were still relatively cheap. Now I'm stuck here until I get an inheritance or two. If I wasn't expecting significant inheritances, I probably would've just moved to Calgary in 2005 along with everyone else my age (even though I hate Calgary).
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:08 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.