| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Editor
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Haysom
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 9:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
NRC replies:
| Quote: | From: LaBelle, Ginette [SMTP:Ginette.LaBelle@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:48 AM
To: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Subject: FW: CSA Guidelines NBC 10,153
Editor:
As CSA published several documents called “guidelines,” I’m afraid your inquiry will have to be more specific.
Regarding who makes decisions on the contents of the National Building Code, you might want to visit our Web site at the following URL:
www.nationalcodes.ca. Regarding who makes decisions on the contents of the B.C. Building Code, I suggest you consult the Building Policy Branch of the B.C. Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services.
John C. Haysom, P. Eng.
Unit Head, Buildings & Services
Canadian Codes Centre
Institute for Research in Construction
National Research Council
telephone: 613-993-0043
fax: 613-952-4040
email: john.haysom@nrc.ca |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Editor
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
A note of thanks:
| Quote: | From: editor [mailto:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:02 AM
To: 'LaBelle, Ginette'
Subject: S478-95 Guideline on Durability in Buildings
Thanks very much. Our query concerns specifically S478-95 Guideline on Durability in Bldgs.
In the meantime, we’ll go to the URL you advised. Thanks again.
Ed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Robertson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Vancouver's chief building official distinguishes guidelines from codes and by-laws:
| Quote: | From: Robertson, John [mailto:john_robertson@city.vancouver.bc.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:23 PM
To: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Cc: Woo, Avy; Rogers, Judy
Subject: Building Permits -- A City Registry and Potential Tracking System for Leaky Condos?
(Portions of this e-mail have been omitted for clarity. The full text is still available at Watchdog Forum).
...As to your enquiry concerning Provincial adoption of the the CSA Durability Guidelines, the BC Building Code references these guidelines in Sentence 5.1.4.2.(2) as follows: - Design and Construction of building components and assemblies described in Article 5.1.2.1. shall be in accordance with good practice such as described in CSA S478, “Guidelines for Durability in Buildings”. This sentence is also found in the Vancouver Building By-law but not the National Building Code of Canada. My understanding of this somewhat indirect reference is due to the fact that the guidelines are not written in a form that is really suitable for enactment in a By-law. Rather they are written more in the form of recommendations to give guidance to designers. (emphasis added)
From a practical perspective, data on the durability of building components
is difficult to obtain. While accelerated weathering tests are available, they have limited application. Some long term testing of buiding envelope components is underway at the University of Waterloo, and I believe BCIT is developing a similar facility here in Vancouver. The Building Envelope Research Consortium (BERC) has better information on these programs and may be contacted through Don Hazleden at donh@houseworks.ca. Trust this responds to your enquiry.
John Robertson P.Eng
Chief Building Official, City of Vancouver
City Hall, 453 West 12th Avenue
Vancouver, BC. V5Y 1V4
Tel: 604-873-7522 Fax: 604-873-7100 |
It most certainly did!
| Quote: | | Note: When we checked out something called annexe 41 at BCIT June 1/06, we discovered that all relevant reports and summaries regarding durability and moisture in buildings are unavailable to any but members. And if the University of Waterloo's School of Architecture and/or Engineering Faculty are, in fact, studying durability in buildings, the research is so secret, we couldn't find even a trace of it when we trawled the awful website June 1/06. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Editor
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
A note of thanks:
| Quote: | From: editor [mailto:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 2:57 PM
To: 'Robertson, John'
Cc: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Subject: Building Permits -- A City Registry and Potential Tracking Sy stem for Leaky Condos?
Fascinating! Thanks so much for your prompt reply. It sounds as if it
would be quite possible for the City to track building envelope renovations
at least in Vancouver and also record any subsequent reconstruction work
required. That's a very powerful tool for assessing both the problem and
the fix. Is this being done?
Editor |
| Quote: | | Note: View Mr. Robertson's full reply at this forum under Does the City of Vancouver track building envelope renovations? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor@bccondos.ca
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 9:48 am Post subject: How are building envelope repairs holding up? |
|
|
Let's ask the engineers:
How are building envelope repairs holding up?
More on the benefits of technical building audits and regular professional reserve fund studies.
| Quote: | Dear Phil Sunderland, Chair of APEGBC’s Building Envelope Committee,
We’re a consumer advocacy website devoted to B.C.’s ongoing leaky condo crisis and we’d like to ask you a couple of questions about housing construction and building envelope renovation.
1. How binding are CSA guidelines on building pros? In other words, what are the consequences for not meeting them? Are there any professional consequences? Similarly, how does your membership feel about standards being enforced by warranty providers and why?
2. We’ve read in the big Coastal Climate Wood Frame study that B.C. should have technical building audits and continuous reserve fund studies. How actively is your membership pursuing these worthy goals today? Is this now happening as a matter of course at new condo developments?
3. What sort of follow-up is done by the designers on building envelope renovations to ensure proper performance? We’re assuming that at this late stage in the game, you’re all keeping records of what was done and how it’s holding up. Is that right and if so, is there public access to these records? It’s a lot of grunt work for inexpert strata councils to go through HPO’s list of registered renovators for a list of references and then check the references and on and on. Is there an easier way we’re not aware of?
4. Mark Lawton has told us that the technology has been evolutionary, not revolutionary, which sounds very much like a warning. For those of us now contemplating envelope repairs, what studies or reports should we be reading to find out about changes in this area in the last five years. Also, is the cost of repair now increasing or decreasing and why?
5. We’ve been doing some reading at the law library about the cost-benefit analysis of major repairs, and it’s been illuminating to learn about positions taken in other jurisdictions. For example, if a repair/reconstruction cost exceeds 5% or 10% of the building’s pre-casualty value in some places, the strata corporation is free to vote for dissolution. We’re wondering if your committee has similarly considered figures for B.C. in determining repair designs. We can sure tell you that strata councils are.
6. We’ve now had more than 30 years of bad building in this province without mandatory technical audits or reserve studies. It must be a nightmare to have to go in and figure out a fix on one of these complexes. What do you tell people when you discover that the building needs much more than a new envelope, particularly when money is a major issue?
7. What do you tell people about toxic mold? How important is timing for the repair in removing toxic mold? When is it too late even to bother? What besides CMHC’s guide on mold inspection and clean-up should our visitors read for the most current view on this issue?
We look forward to hearing from you and will post your reply at our Condo Life Cycles forum. We also invite your colleagues to write in to our forum with their views. It’s only by open and honest communication that we will finally solve our condo problems.
Thanks,
Editor@bccondos.ca |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Editor
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our e-mail to Don Hazeldon:
| Quote: | From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:17 AM
To: ‘don@houseworks.ca’
Cc: ‘editor@bccondos.ca’
Subject: Re: Building Standards -- Created by the CSA, Created by Warranty Providers
Dear Don Hazelden,
Please find below the e-mail from John Robertson in which he suggests we contact you regarding our standards queries. We apologize for the length of the attachments but too much context may be better than not enough. We’ve also forwarded the e-mail we sent to Phil Sunderland in an effort to find out more about building envelope renovations and what consumers can expect in the way of durability. We’d be grateful for any light you could shed in this regard. We are particularly concerned with S478-95 Guideline on Durability in Buildings and wonder how binding these guidelines are on building designers.
Thanks in advance for your kind attention.
Editor@bccondos.ca |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor@bccondos.ca
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2003 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our e-mail to the NRC:
| Quote: | From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 12:35 PM
To: 'Lacasse, Michael'
Cc: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Subject: CSA Building Durability Guidelines -- How binding are they on the rest of Canada?
Dear Dr. Lacasse,
Our good pal, John Robertson, Vancouver’s Chief Building Official, has explained to us lately that the CSA building durability guidelines S478-95 are merely guidelines for building designers here in B.C. Do you know if that’s true everywhere in Canada? They look pretty good from a consumer’s perspective, and they got the seal of approval in one paper on service life predictions from the 1999 seminar. (We’re still reviewing the fascinating four volumes of your conference proceedings). We can’t help wondering how the leaky condo crisis would have gone if they had been law.
Thanks,
Editor@bccondos.ca
Enclosure: Aug. 6/03 e-mail from John Robertson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What can you tell me about rain screens?
Read our full review of the book.
Designing the Exterior Wall
An Architectural Guide to the Vertical Envelope
Hardcover
By UBC Associate Professor of Architecture,
Linda Brock
| Quote: | 2.8 QUICK NOTES: WATER INGRESS
. Claddings and finishes and windows and doors will leak at some point.
. Water will always find the way into a wall through the smallest of openings but has more difficulty finding a way out.
. Sheet water barriers should be lapped or shingled with each other and with the flashing.
. Vertical laps should be sealed.
. Wall flashings should be metal and extend to the exterior with a drip edge.
. Methods of controlling water include the following:
Face-sealed barrier walls
Internal drainage plane walls
Drainage cavity walls
Pressure-equalized *rain-screen walls
Hybrid walls, which include face-sealed barrier panels with pressure-equalized (PE) joints, drained, or sealed joints
. Moisture trapped in the wall during construction will cause problems later, particularly if it is between components with low permeability.
. This book does not recommend sheathing, board insulations, or nonreinforced membranes and coatings as water barriers. (From Chapter 2, Water Barriers and Flashings, at p. 44) |
| Quote: | Note: * A word about the term, 'rain screen':
| Quote: | ...In its initial use, rain screen meant the outer leaf or cladding that "screened" the rain. An inner leaf acted as a drainage plane and stopped the movement of air. Orginally called two-stage weather tightening (a term still used in Europe), this is sometimes called an open or simple rain screen in North America.
Used frequently for marketing purposes, there is no consensus on what the word means. (emphasis added) To avoid confusion, this book only uses the term rain screen if there is pressure equalization. A better approach is to specify the components and their function. A PER is a recommended water management for metal and glass curtain walls; but realistically, most wall types fall somewhere between a PER and a drainage cavity wall even when specified as a PER. Again, the focus should be on function, not semantics.
The best advice is to concentrate on designing a well-functioning drainage cavity with a continuous air barrier system and detailing and specifying these functions such that they are affordable and constructable. (From What is a Rain Screen? in Chapter 2, Water Barriers and Flashings, at p. 31) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Building Envelope Repairs: too much or not enough?
What the architects have said:
Scroll down here to read a letter their association calling for a full review of building envelope protocols. Confidential settlements of lawsuits initiated by the province have left repair strategies and technologies an open question.
Scroll down here for our review, including excerpts, of one local expert's text on building envelope technology.
What the engineers have said:
Overconfidence in new building technology fuelling real estate pep rallies is not shared by at least two engineers at Morrison Hershfield Group Inc. Click on David Scott’s recent heads-up, Driving Beyond the Headlights or Paring-down building envelope design and construction without the benefit of demonstrated field performance. Here’s just one excerpt from that paper:
| Quote: | | Requirements in codes and standards do not specify a minimum expected service life depending on environmental loads. It is almost impossible for a designer to figure out what the expected service life of the product might be unless there has been extensive field testing. Thus, simple reference to a standard does not imply that products meeting the standard will be appropriate to the condition of use. |
Now click on Mark Lawton’s paper, Reacting to Durability Problems With Vancouver Buildings, which concludes with the following observations:
| Quote: | Do we really have a method of lasting repair? Are the measures we have developed and implemented going to provide a lasting solution to a major durability problem with wood framed buildings?…We are concerned that our current designs are overly complex and recognize that there may be ways of providing the required performance with more cost effective systems. Even with drained cavity, rainscreen systems there are many possible variations in design. We do not currently have good methods of evaluating the performance of various systems or defining acceptable performance criteria.
Our experiences in Vancouver have shown that, as an industry, we have limited ability to deliver or even understand the function of wall systems that meet one of the most fundamental envelope performance requirements, keeping the rain out. |
What the provincial government is saying:
…Or rather what the government is saying about the Homeowner Protection Office. Apparently, we’re not the only ones with strong criticisms of this expensive and ineffective reaction to a crisis that is still not contained. Click on Condo Link Reviews to read the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations’ second HPO review in November, 2003.
What the Municipal Insurance Association said:
For the full report of July, 2002 on the Municipal Insurance Association’s Building Bylaw Project initiated after the large negligence award in the Delta decision, click here. This 85-page report prepared by Thomas Barnes of Barnes, Twinings & Short, ultimately recommends reducing a public inspection process that has already proved woefully inadequate in preventing leaky construction. Municipalities that adopt the report will offer consumers even less assurance that our homes meet what little there is of provincial home building standards.
For more information about the report and its expected impact, click on the e-mail we received Nov. 17 from the insurance association’s executive director posted at Condo Law FAQs . Follow the links to articles and reports that discuss the tension between private and public buiilding professionals.
Read how the District of North Vancouver’s city clerk personally warned the local builders’ association of a staff recommendation to approve a bylaw incorporating these changes before its introduction at the council meeting. Follow the links at Condo Law FAQs.
And finally, what the B.C. Building Envelope Council asked us:
Read the e-mail we received not long ago from council president David Kayll, who invited us to make a presentation, here. See the questions we put to the council in our e-mail to Phil Sunderland . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
