| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
editor@bccondos.ca
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 5:43 pm Post subject: The LEAKY CONDO Boondoggle - Ken Dextras - too weathertight! |
 |
|
A voice in the wilderness:
Ken Dextras' 'Boondoggle' response to inadequate repairs, warranties and ill-considered energy-savings provisions in the national building code
| Quote: | 
| Quote: | | Excerpts from The Leaky Condo Boondoggle, the second largest construction disaster in world history, An independent Engineer’s Perspective based on a True Story, by Kenneth G. Dextras, whistle-blower extraordinaire, published in 2002 by Detrax Publishing in New Westminster, B.C. Find it at Vancouver Public Library. Buy your own copy at www.dextras.com. |
|
Our e-mail to author Dextras:
| Quote: | From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:06 PM
To: 'enquiries@dextras.com'
Subject: Delta Case Comment
Dear Ken Dextras,
We were delighted to find your 2001 case comment on the Delta court decision online at the Conceptualized Reference Database for Building Envelope Research, (click on comment), and wonder how you feel about current building envelope fixes, which are costing us $35-40 million a year in Vancouver alone. We’re concerned about a couple of the technical papers at Morrison Hershfield that cast some doubt on the new technology. We know that some strata corporations are on second and third fixes, which does not fill us with confidence. The only useful info we’ve found so far is S478-95 Guideline on Durability in Buildings. We can’t seem to nail down what our expectations should be as consumers in terms of maintenance-free service life. Are we employing temporary standards on what should be permanent features, in your view, or are the fixes really doing the job?
Editor@bccondos.ca |
More of the book:
| Quote: | The technology involved is not that complicated, and it does not take a genius to figure out that if an airtight standard is indeed largely responsible for this construction disaster, then they (code authorities) and the federal government are most certainly responsible for 100 per cent of the consequences of same. It is after all their building code. (emphasis added) (-- p. 16)
Bottom line: It's OK to want to save on heat but don't go overboard. Don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish. In the final analysis, this is where all our highly-paid code authorities went wrong. (emphasis added) (-- p. 18)
|
Dextras replies:
| Quote: | From: ken dextras [SMTP:enquiries@dextras.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 2:25 PM
To: editor
Subject: Delta Case Comment
Dear Editor:
As a general response to your e-mail of August 11/03, I refer you to my recent book, The Leaky Condo Boondoggle. Availability details are shown on our website.
Specifically, your concerns about long-term durability are well founded and all I can say is, it’s about time someone from the owners' side starts to clue in that a 5-year or 10-year “warranty” for a building is a total scam. Why this is so and what to do about it is clearly shown in the book and our website's technical literature.
In a nutshell, all that is needed to achieve a 50-year plus standard is to combine the well-known concepts of drainage, ventilation and professional “P. Eng.” assurance/certification. Premier Campbell himself has been fully aware of this for over a year (see Chapter VI) and I’m still waiting for him to respond. ***Maybe you can shake him out of his lethargy. (emphasis added)
However, all is not doom and gloom. Recent newspaper articles concerning the unreliable nature of current investigation /inspection methods have prompted me to consider that my patented “BUILDING WALL HUMIDITY CONTROL SYSTEM” design could be partially used to remove this uncertainty altogether. In a nutshell, the internal “cut out” portion of our work (from the inside) lays bare for all to see the true state of all critical components of the building envelope. This far exceeds the information obtained from the traditional method of taking a handful of cores from the outside. (emphasis added)
The net effect is that our approach provides owners or prospective buyers with complete and irrefutable evidence of the actual damage (or lack thereof) to all the exterior walls. This, in turn, enables them to proceed with the appropriate level of “engineered” repairs to solve the problem once and for all. (emphasis added)
There is no question that this kind of all inclusive investigation is more expensive than the traditional route but, on the other hand, because it brings certainty to an otherwise untrustworthy situation, you get a lot more out of it. Furthermore, if this approach is used in the early stages, the overall net benefit to owners could be substantial.
I trust the above is satisfactory for the time being and should you have any further questions, please feel free to call or email me at any time.
Yours truly,
Ken Dextras, P. Eng.
(604) 521-9296
kendex@dextras.com |
| Quote: | | ***Note: By June, 2006, we were still receiving a steady stream of leaky condo e-mails from owners of units of all age and variety, including brand-spanking new and newly 'repaired' complexes. Despite our three years of pleading for statutory reform to shift the disporoportionate risk currently born by consumers in B.C.'s new revolving housing economy -- build, repair, restore, re-rebuild ad infinitum -- housing ministers have come and gone and nothing of substance has changed. Inexpert consumers are still left to their own devices to properly inspect and manage complicated, high-maintenance multi-family complexes. There are still no legal guidelines beyond a good faith duty to act for the good of the strata corporation as a whole; hence, caveat emptor (buyer beware). |
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=162#162 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2003 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How much for your 70-year repair warranty?
| Quote: | From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:17 PM
To: ‘ken dextras’
Cc: ‘editor@bccondos.ca’
Subject: The Dextras Patent
Dear Ken Dextras,
We were fascinated by your building envelope repair plan, nor did the letter of recommendation by Gordon Spratt go unnoticed. I guess the next big question is, what does it cost? A 70-year guarantee must be plenty. (emphasis added)
Ed. |
Dextras replies:
| Quote: | From: ken dextras [SMTP:enquiries@dextras.com]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 9:39 AM
To: editor
Subject: The Dextras Patent
Dear Ed:
The cost of the self-insured warranty is equivalent to the industry standard i.e., $1,500/unit/10-year period = $150/unit/year. At 8% it becomes self-financing (see Chapter V). Retrofit costs for the work itself are in the order of $10.000/unit for the interior BWHCS and $12,000/unit for the exterior RAINSTEEL WALL (if required). The problem is not cost - it’s much more serious than that. Have you read the book yet ? Let me know when you have.
K.D. |
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=248#248 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Editor
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boondoggle well reviewed:
| Quote: | | Note: The Leaky Condo Boondoggle is still a book we highly recommend in June, 2006, as visitors will see from excerpts featured above). |
From the McGill News, Winter 2003-2004:
| Quote: | The Leaky Condo Boondoggle, Dextrax Publishing, 2002, by Kenneth G. Dextras, BEng'76.
A cautionary tale of bureaucratic runarounds, The Leaky Condo Boondoggle is an independent investigation by Kenneth Dextras of the problems encountered by condo owners on Canada's West Coast. A "boondoggle" is defined as an unnecessary or wasteful project or activity, and the term certainly applies to the case Dextras puts forth in his self-published monograph. Clearly and concisely, he walks us through what he dubs "the second largest construction disaster in world history" (the first being Chernobyl). On the basis of cost alone, his statement is more than mere hyperbole. It was estimated that as many as 100,000 low-rise, wood frame condo units in greater Vancouver suffered water damage requiring repairs at an average cost of $25,000 per unit.
In fact, the condos were not so much leaky - as Dextras points out, all buildings leak to some extent - as they were too tightly sealed, so that trapped moisture could not escape. As well, design elements like roof overhangs, which allow rain to run off, were not incorporated into construction. News of the resulting mold, wood rot and other damage filled the media in 1990, and again in the spring of 2000, this time with builders and developers defending themselves. It was during this rash of stories that Dextras says he became interested: '"If these people are so great,' I thought, 'and they're doing such a good job, how come we've got a $2.5 billion problem on our hands with no end in sight?'"
He discovered that a series of factors, beginning with the energy crisis in the 1970s, prompted governments to enforce building codes that emphasized heat conservation at the expense of ventilation, thus ensuring that certain types of modern construction would self-destruct. (emphasis added)
Lest anyone think the problem is limited to a wet, coastal climate, a housing complex in Vail, Colorado, has just been evacuated for identical reasons, and high-rise buildings may eventually fall prey to the same decay. Dextras calls the situation a "ticking time-bomb," one which should make home buyers question builders more critically and home owners look more benignly on that draft under the door.
For more information, contact the author at kendex@dextras.com.
Diana Grier Ayton |
Find it at Vancouver Public Library.
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=297#297 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What's the carbon footprint of MASSIVE housing failures worldwide?
Again, are these 'scientists' wilfully blind to the PANDEMIC! of housing failures due at least in part to ill-considered energy-saving provisions?!
The Suicidal Planet
How to Prevent Global
Climate Catastrophe
Hardcover
By Mayer Hillman with
Tina Fawcett and
Sudhir Chella Rajan
| Quote: | EXISTING HOUSING
The Alliance to Save Energy found that if the set of policies they put forward for improving the efficiency of buildings and the energy-using equipment within them were implemented, national building energy use could be cut by about 14 per cent by 2020. However, there is no legislation for raising the standards of the existing housing stock in spite of the fact that much of it is poorly insulated and the equipment used in it is wasteful of energy. There is a limited program of intervention for low-income households, known as "low-income weatherization assistance." However, while 28 million households are in theory eligible for the program, there are funds for improving only just over 100,000 households each year. Because of its small scale, this program does not yet deliver much in the way of overall energy savings.
OTHER POLICIES
There are several other significant policies targeting energy efficiency in the residential sector. Utility-based financial incentive programs have been in operation since the early 1980s, offering a variety of options including rebates, low-interest loans, and direct installation programs, which are leading to an accelerated market penetration of energy-efficient lights and appliances. Federal minimum efficiency standards are also in place for many residential appliance, including refrigerators and freezers, clothes washers, water heaters, and central air conditioners. These standards are being raised at regular intervals. The Energy Star, a voluntary appliance-labeling program, was introduced in 1992 to educate consumers about the advantages of purchasing efficient appliances. It is run by the Environmental Protection Agency and uses endorsement labels to identify which new homes and appliances are the most efficient on the market. The program also applies to products for the commercial market and covers over forty different product categories. It is estimated to have made considerable energy savings through influencing choices made by manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. (From Fiddling While Rome Burns, pgs. 138-139) |
Our e-mail to author Mayer Hillman of London's venerable PSI:
| Quote: | From: editor
To: website@psi.org.uk
Cc: editor
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Saving energy at the expense of proper ventilation - the cause of MASSIVE HOUSING FAILURES - worldwide!
Hello venerable PSI,
We run a weblog http://www.bccondos.ca/ in Vancouver, British Columbia devoted to the massive failure of multi-family housing not just here but worldwide - failures due in no small part to the energy-saving measures the authors of The Suicidal Planet are thoughtlessly! promoting in an otherwise impressive text. Even worse, the book makes no mention whatsoever of these spectacular failures, which continue to pose unconscionable economic, environmental and immediate human health risks and not just to locals. What kind of green science is it that fails to calculate the carbon footprint of SO MANY housing failures and economies like B.C.'s that promote a toxic cycle of redevelopment-repair-resell-rerepair-redevelop? Surely PSI isn't in the pocket of real estate magnates ... is it?
As the great British humorist P.G. Wodehouse might have put it, the scales may be seen falling from my eyes.
Editor
http://www.bccondos.ca
Tracking all aspects of massive failures worldwide of unaffordable, inaccessible, barrier-full,
multi-unit housing and those who promote and profit by them. |
Our e-mail to the BBC:
| Quote: | From: editor
To: http://www.bbcworld.com/Pages/ContactUsDepartments.aspx
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:53 PM
Subject: Over-zealous insulators and willfully blind scientists!
Hello BBC,
Hey, I'm getting right fed up of all these venerable (read: over-loved) green scientists who have somehow - but HOW?! - failed to calculate the carbon footprint of the massive housing failures occurring each year worldwide and, even worse, economies like ours in British Columbia, Canada, that actively promote a toxic cycle of repair-redevelop-resell-rerepair. Are ALL of these characters in the pockets of the real estate industry?
I'm especially concerned about the mindless worship of all energy-saving measures with no consideration of their effects. Look at the food crisis created by inefficient U.S. biofuels! Consider, please, the toxicity of sick, over-insulated buildings! Health Canada did recently, probably in response to the asthma pandemic especially among young children!
More here http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1295#1295.
I dislike giving interviews but I feel I'd actually talk to you even in the middle of the night if needs be to get massive housing failures worldwide somehow on the green agenda! |
We'll post any replies we receive here. Please check back soon for updates.
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1295#1295
Last edited by editor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:24 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
COUNTRY LIFE
Magazine Subscription
Are you ready for climate change?
Camilla Akers-Douglas tackles the enormity of
climate change - the facts, the figures and, most
importantly, how you can personally make a
difference
April 19/07
| Quote: | Includes an excellent 13-page spread on how to calculate carbon footprints and access many of the excellent new energy-saving technologies!
|
| Quote: | The Government wants to reduce UK carbon emissions by 60% by 2050, and plans to make all new homes carbon-zero within 10 years. Now, David Cameron and Gordon Brown, the two pretenders to the Prime Ministerial office, are engaged in a battle to woo the Green vote. Mr Brown's desire to make all homes energy efficient in the next 10 years includes a pledge to phase out old-fashioned lightbulbs by 2011. Mr Cameron has called for a 'Green air-miles allowance', giving people one short-haul flight a year at the standard rate of tax before higher rates kick in.
The EU has also recently agreed an ambitious deal for tackling climate change, committing its members to reducing their greenhouse-gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and to producing a fifth of their energy via renewable sources. It also wants 10% of the fuel used for transport to be from biofuels, and to ensure that 20% of its power comes from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power and hydroelectricity.
The bigger picture may be daunting, but the best advice is to follow the old adage that it is easiest to pick low-hanging fruit, and start by making small changes that will bring immediate gains - such as not leaving electrical appliances on standby. (-- p. 109) |
| Quote: | | Town dwellers have an advantage. Terraced houses are more thermally efficient than free-standing ones - although for maximum effect, the drafty sash * windows should be sealed up (an act that people used to rattling sashes will regard as close to sacrilege; still, needs must). But country people are more likely to have a bit of ground around their houses, and this opens more opportunities to them. The windmill on David Cameron's North Kensington home looks more like a statement of intent, or even lifestyle accessory. If you have a field, you can erect a big enough windmill to make a useful contribution to your energy consumption. Geothermal heating, whereby pipes are buried underground so that water arrives in the house at a constant temperature and requires less energy to make it hot, can be installed in even quite small gardens. Mr. Cameron is digging up his at the moment. Country houses have more space for photovoltic cells, whereas the roof area of most London houses is too small to nmake a significant contribution. replacing conventional boilers with heat and power systems, which use the waste energy from heating the water to generate electricity may be attractive in houses with big fuel bills. ... (From Doing our bit for the planet, p. 93) |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1309#1309 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
