” I can only imagine what the percentage will be when the 2011 census numbers come out.”

As far as i know place of residence is no longer on the census forms. So you had better have a good imagination.

I’ve never come across such a situation, ie. where the building is at the end of its life. I have been involved in a couple of “leaky condo” cases where the cost of fixing the building approximated the cost of building a new building, more or less, but I’ve never seen that done or even seriously considered.

IMO, the issues there are more technical than legal. From experience, I know that many, if not most, of the elements of a building can be fixed or replaced without knocking the thing down and starting again. But I think you’d need an engineer or architect to tell you just how far that can go.

you will see it happen in the GVRD – likely soon, and most definitely in our lifetime. it just needs to have significant development upside – the most likely situation being the existing strata is underdeveloped for the area, due to a new neighbourhood plan which allows increased density.

Full paper (early version) readily available at http://www.law.syr.edu/media/paper/2011/3/Harris_Condominum_ALPS.pdf
36 pages, maps, charts, bibliography, footnotes.
[ Footnote 5 In fact, the impetus for this article came from a desire to get the students in my first year property law classes out of the classroom and into the city, and then from a need to have something to say on field trips as I tried to encourage them to read the urban landscape for what it revealed about property law. ]
Google “Scholar” (beware) lists “101 related” related articles to the (Syracuse address) paper.

Harris tried to get various papers at the AAG (American Association of Geographers) super convention in Apri on “Condominiums and the city” according to the Nabbler, but I couldn’t find any.

Given Vancouver’s unique demographics a condo is the worst option a homeowner could choose. There’s a built-in incompatability between what a homeowner wants and what an absentee landlord wants.

@ Frances and Bill Lee, thanks for drawing our attention to this paper, and for providing a link.

I need time to digest it, but the illustrations are clear — stratas occupy a surprisingly limited amount of land in Vancouver.

There is now some focus on the glass curtain wall and its tendency in cold climates to fail (membrane and glass faailure is cropping up more in Toronto than here, but it’s still an issue). This is primarily for high rises in future. Our memory banks are still full with information overload on building envelope failures on poorly designed and constructed low and mid rises, otherwise known as condo rot.

I beleive better design and resiliency have become a more important point of interest with condo buyers who also now make a point of checking past condo board minutes for information on past repair of leaks. The repairs I’ve seen appear to be a mixed bag. Some condo complexes opted for more expensive redesigned building envelopes, others for patching up and painting over. It is more buyer beware than prevously.

The market for private detached house has no such necessity for record keeping and has always been totally buyer beware.

@MB #10,

“The repairs I’ve seen appear to be a mixed bag. Some condo complexes opted for more expensive redesigned building envelopes, others for patching up and painting over.”

Once the leaky condo problem was “understood” by the engineers, owners were typically presented with two options in addressing the deficiencies. The first was to remove the existing system (usually face seal) with a new system (usually rain screen). The second was to address the problem through targeted repairs and then pursue an aggressive maintenance program.

I’ve never seen an engineering firm recommend the latter over the former. And I’ve never seen a strata corporation adopt the latter over the former. However, by the time I’m consulted, matters are usually pretty far along and I expect there are many, less serious situations in which targeted repairs have been carried out.

Speaking as a President of a ~20 year old strata, condo end of life is a very vague term. Mind you I’m trying to get a repipe passed by my ownership so I might be more pessimistic by February. More seriously, keeping on top of maintenance is a big part of it and it helps if the building was well-built to start. But rain screening, repipes, and new roofs go a long way to keeping a building or buildings young. Also concur that the brick you see on newer condos is more decorative than anything. By the time you get to what necessitates a year or more under tarps brick will not have helped as typically used today.

I live in a condo and have since 1993. Luckily, we have had few issues, just the basics you would expect to deal with – roofing, interior/exterior painting, flooring etc.

The only time we ran into a glitch was due to an owner not reporting an issue that festered – greatly.

Our building only allows X number of rentals – those that bought from the contractor originally can rent, otherwise it is owner occupied.

Maintenance is the key.

But sooner or later they are going to fail, some sooner than others. Little Mountain was demolished after fifty years, we were told they were beyond repair.
Living in a condominium you are governed by the Strata Property Act which lays down a host of rules and regulations governing the setting up and running a strata which all owners are required to observe subject to fines and other punishment. But nowhere as far as I can see ( maybe we need a lawyer to translate some of the jargon ) any mention of what happens at the end, as PeterG #9 says “by that time most of the owners had abandoned ship .
I think it’s about time that our legislators started to complete the legislation and deal with the compensation issues which will, in twenty or thirty years time be colossal.
As a starter the land will have value and an arrangement where the land is purchased by the municipality could be the start of one option ?

Looking at the maps in the Harris paper, I was struck by the strata building concentration in Marpole.
I was there last weekend and noticed that they were mainly 3 to 4 storey walkups (many had an elevator, so not really walkups) . If end of life is coming, and the recession/depression hits along with drop in resale values, will these condos be bulk sold off for block-breaking super towers.
The Courier posited this kind of thing recently, though there were a few counter arguments in the few letters to the editor permitted.
Now that the Visionistas have sold out the bottom of Cambie for super towers in a deathstar complex, can Marpole be far behind. Other than the airport height limitations which surely a few bribed Federals could get around.

MB, tell you a secret, the concrete buildings are failing too. Water is a nasty thing.

I mean in terms of how long they take once the work starts.

re: my first sentence above should have been italicized as I’m quoting Julia.

Thu Condo

B.C. enacted the Strata Titles Act in 1969 and changed it to the Condominium Act in 1979. Condos have been around for a while.

The concept began to fall apart sometime in the early ‘80’s when stains, rot and leaks began to appear causing owners grief enough, many moved out. The blue shroud signals “Leaky condo” even today: thirty years on.

Older buildings, i.e. High Croft, Granville @ 16th, were built before the building code went rogue.

By rogue I refer to a desire to be modern and in some cases conflicted interest committee members’ over enthusiastic to approve untried, OSB board etc., materials. (Tyvek {non-structural paper sheathing} is not the answer).

My motto: “moisture in, moisture out.”. Any building in a wet climate will incur moisture problems. Any occupied, sealed building, in any climate, will incur moisture problems.

Question. What is important? Green buildings and coddled inhabitants or buildings that last beyond the mortgage.

Evidently, I am alone, holding this opinion! Established envelope consultants disagree hence the problem will always be with us.

Axiom: open windows, turn down the thermo!

@MB #18,

I’m not an architect or an engineer, so I can only comment based upon the various reports I’ve dealt with in the course of litigating these issues.

I’ve never seen a report which identified any specific cladding as being at fault, be it stucco, EIFS or brick or whatever. As I understand it, the building envelope should be able to prevent water entry regardless of the specific cladding.

Having said that, stucco does crack and it has been identified as a contributing factor, but I’ve never seen a case where it is a significant factor.

The element of the “California design” you cite does give rise to vulnerabilities, but those seem to be more the lack of overhang than anything else. Surprisingly, the lack of overhang seems to be a major problem.

In my experience, the “leaky condo” problems arise out of poor detailing on complex building, coupled with a “face seal” system which cannot handle significant ingress. As I understand it, face seal buildings have been used successfully for some time, but were unable to handle the more complex designs which developers started to throw up in the mid to late 1980’s.

Again, this is my understanding from dealing with experts in litigation. I’m not an engineer myself.

@ Think 24: “Glass clad towers aside, how is it that eastern city’s with harsher climates can be built to withstand heat waves to thunderstorms to sub zero blizzards; yet here the construction eventually fails to rain? Am I the only one who thinks it’s crazy that the way some buildings are spoken of assumes a lifespan measured in decades?”

The CBC ran a piece recently on The National on this topic. Apparently the major interior-to-exterior seasonal temperature swings are causing failure of the seals from excessive differential expansion and contraction. The outside glazing and frame expands and contracts at a much higher rate than the interior.

They also questioned the notion that glass curtain walls are appropriate for Canada’s cold climate (Vancouver’s wet climate is an issue too) and suggested a more solid wall profile with more insulation would be a better response.

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/condos/

yup… stop building plastic bags for houses. I know an old time builder that used to slash all the vapor barrier in his walls 5 minutes after the building inspector left. Perhaps he was on to something.

Single family dwellings have the same problems, just nobody is talking about it.

Now that the government has suspended the interest free loan program, (thinking the problem is finished with) it is going to get harder for these condo’s to be repaired.

Yorkshire Lad /Roger Kemble Dec 14, 2011 at 8:29 am #30 said “Buildings move: temperature, wind etc. Local leaky condos started out with OSB over laid by acrylic stucco: the former is compressed wood mush, the latter a thick brittle paint coat. ”

What about fire? Isn’t OSB glues (Oriented Strantd Board [ “Glued sawdust” ]toxic when burnt?
I know that it is important to get out and save lives, but does it leave residual toxicity in the air and apartment?

Acrylic stucco! Lime putty (real plaster) is good. And a thick browncoat of it.
I have seen local developments with what I think is a thin brown coat (less than 2 cm) then coated with decorative stone. This does not portending a good weather seal. Thick brown coat sort of seals itself from minor cracks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stucco#Modern_stucco (but beware of wiki false “authority”; it can be changed in a second). [ Seems no other language put up a longer entry in the Wiki system ]

But all such plastering requires a lot of expensive hand work, and pouring or panelling is quicker per square metre.

Still we are talking about “always new” buildings and what is the life of current buildings in the new “self-ownership of apartments” that engendered this discussion.

This discussion about envelope failures has been interesting. There appear to be some misunderstandings of the building science regarding the physics of what is happening that causes these failures. I have prepared many expert reports on such failures over the past 15 years.

Based on my own research there are typically two causes for failures:

1) poor detailing and/or construction that allows moisture penetration into, or traps it within the building envelope;

2) the inability of the envelope to dry in a timely manner.

The failures in the 1st instance were caused to some degree, and certainly made worse by the so-called California designs. However the primary cause was insufficient design detailing and on-site reviews to monitor construction quality. In the 70’s and 80’s it was impossible for architects to get developer clients to pay for site reviews. We were seen as an impediment to getting the job done.

The rationale was the City building inspector does that, why should we pay you? The reality was that the City inspector could not spend the time necessary and did not have the detailed knowledge of that particular project. We’ve gone the other direction now. The architect, S,M & E as well as the building envelope consultant review the construction thoroughly. But, IMO, if the current crop of as-built walls ever get moisture into their cavities, they too will be toast.

In order to understand what is happening and why with respect to the 2nd cause it is helpful to look at the evolution of the wood frame wall starting in the 1950s.

The typical 50’s “concealed barrier” (not face sealed) wall started with say stucco cladding on a tar paper sheathing/drainage plane on shiplapped sheathing 2×4 studs with R-8 batt insulation on a lath and plaster interior finish. This wall dries to the exterior and the interior depending on interior and exterior temperature and humidity differences. This wall was not energy conserving due to its low insulation level and lack of air tightness. But, it did not rot. As mentioned, there are many, many examples of buildings with these or similar assemblies all over the Lower Mainland, and which have not failed.

This wall assembly worked with innovations such as plywood sheathing, Tyvek and better poly vapour barriers on the warm side of the wall up until the Building Code changes of 1985-88, and the same but earlier, 1970-72 CMHC building Standards required at that time for CMHC financed projects. Hence CMHC buildings started failing earlier than the later typically condo projects.

The Code changes included:

1) increased insulation levels that significantly slowed the drying process.

2) greater air tightness – typically the 6 mil poly vapour barrier and the Tyvek sheathing were taped, creating air barriers on both sides of the wall, and the plywood/osb sheathing and poly vapour barrier created two vapour barriers on both sides of the wall as well – this results in any moisture that does get into the wall cavity is trapped and causes wood rot or steel rusting = failure.

3) a Code required exhaust air system that was supposed to remove overly moist interior air from dwelling units, but in practice it did not work.

These changes were and are particularly problematic in our Wet Coast climate zone because of our moderate temperature ranges and 6 months of persistent exterior moisture that reduce the ability of the wall to dry to the exterior while the poly vapour barrier prevented drying to the interior. That is why the problem appeared here 1st and has been more sever than in the colder parts of Canada.

Brick cladding is simply one variation of a rain screen wall assembly. Brick has some moisture performance capabilities that are better than say acrylic stucco, but the main advantage is the air cavity and relatively, if constructed properly, better drainage cavity.

The tests on Tyvek and variations indicate they perform better than tar building paper re: vapour diffusion. They also are less likely to be wind damaged. The problem is when it is used in an assembly where acrylic stucco is directly in contact with it. The acrylic stucco bonds with the Tyvek compromising its ability to resist the transmission of moisture. This results in moisture being thermally driven from the exterior via the stucco and through the Tyvek into the vulnerable wall cavity = rot. I prefer to use Tyvek, but without the tape so that it does’t act as an air barrier, just as the moisture barrier it’s supposed to be.

Thank you Michael for getting back to the main issue. Most of the discussion so far has been about construction methods to avoid failure, I believe that my condo will last a long time, standing seam roof, enormous overhand, cedar siding on rain screen construction etc. How long ? can’t predict but there are others which will reach their end long before mine, many others, and that’s what we should be addressing . Michael quoted a five figure number, when it next happens will it be six figures ? It’s a major human problem ? He also mentioned “Replacement Reserve the legislation should be amended to cover this issue.
As a parting shot I would suggest that wood frame was inappropriate for multi family dwelling construction anyway, internal noise, fire spread, and above all greater permanence.

Ops, a typo, text should read —

“… and the same but earlier, 1980-82 CMHC Building Standards required at that time for CMHC financed projects.”

Thank you TOAB. I do hope to be able to make some kind of constructive contribution, and as I’ve said, I do enjoy these conversations with you and others here. The no-nonsense ideas and quality of the exchanges never fail to impress and stimulate me.

When i re-modled my 1929 home I completely removed the outside materials to expose the studs. Solid and dry and not a piece of insulate nor vapour vapour. I installed good insulation and no VAPOUR barrier, using only that which came with the insulation. Then i covered it up with shiplap, and cedar siding. 25 years later all is well and DRY. So what if the house “breathes’ and lets in air. That is good!

Later on a so called expert came by and wanted us to make the house Air Tight. I sent him off and told him he was full of it.

Same thing for al those three story wood frames that were built in the 50’s and sixties. Bone dry. Same goes for all those 10/15 or so storied buildings built in the 30s and 40s etc. DRY. Why? because they breathe.

“The (affordable housing) task force will be composed of members with expertise in the areas of finance, real estate, market development, architecture and design, academia, federal and provincial policy, non-market housing development and land use planning.”

C0-chaired by the Mayor and a large condo developer, and deliberately excluding input from any citizen’s groups or the general public, our Council seems poised now to hand the keys to the City’s greatest asset — the Property Endowment Fund — over to the very same group of real-estate moguls that got filthy rich building flytrap condos and making the city unaffordable.

Is this the civic version of a “privatization” ponzi?

Is this payback for $2 million in campaign donations?

My guess is, the members of this task force are secretly laughing their asses off at Vision’s gullibility right about now, meeting over G&Ts at the Vancouver Club to devise ways they can squeeze every last penny of profit out of this while branding it “affordable” and “green” during official Task Force meetings.

The central logic applied to affordability will undoubtedly be “increase supply”.

STIR 2.o: coming to a city-owned building site near you.

Sorry to be so cynical, but c’mon, with no real opposition on Council to counterbalance this Task Force, and a media trained for decades to drink realtors’ kool-aid, what else can we reasonably expect?

The Thought of The Day

“Want t0 make Easy Money? Franchise Opportunities! “ICH BIN EIN STUPIDER” T-shirts, priced 2 move… for all Vision Vancouver Voters!”

More here:
(http://twitter.com/glissandoremmy)

A. Dave #47… complete agreement!

“C0-chaired by the Mayor and a large condo developer, and deliberately excluding input from any citizen’s groups or the general public…”

Funny thing is, Gregor feels the need to co-chair, LOL!

…the Mayor!? …the Developers!? … the Vision!? … the Chinese!? … but where are … the Vancoueverites?

Ballet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwlTcE-hcgc

… my point exactly!

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.