| 1 | An architect has published an article saying that architects are not solely to blame for leaky buildings. I disagree. Architects chose unsuitable cladding and building designs. It is THEIR fault. Also, any owner with a brain could see how stupid the code was. In 1992 my architect was scathing about the stupid building code at the time. He refused to use the claddings that the code said were allowable.
So have the people who decided on the defective building code been punished or sacked? No. "Despite being designed and built to code, thousands of New Zealand homes constructed in the early to mid-2000s [wrong: 1990s onward] were affected by the leaky buildings crisis, where materials and construction methods used were retrospectively found to have weathertightness issues.
At the time, architects and other industry professionals were working to a government building code that was later found to be totally inadequate. On top of that, companies that the building industry trusted and relied upon were manufacturing and marketing products that were not fit for purpose." https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/300278964/
its-unjust-and-inaccurate-to-blame-individuals-for-leaky-bui
ldings trade4us2 - 2021-04-19 14:07:00 |
| 2 | An architect has published an article saying that architects are not solely to blame for leaky buildings. I disagree. How can you say architects are solely to blame when they did not design many of the leaky buildings let alone undertake all the other processes involved in building? johnston - 2021-04-19 14:42:00 |
| 3 | trade4us2 wrote:
An architect has published an article saying that architects are not solely to blame for leaky buildings. I disagree. Architects chose unsuitable cladding and building designs. It is THEIR fault. Also, any owner with a brain could see how stupid the code was. In 1992 my architect was scathing about the stupid building code at the time. He refused to use the claddings that the code said were allowable.
So have the people who decided on the defective building code been punished or sacked? No. "Despite being designed and built to code, thousands of New Zealand homes constructed in the early to mid-2000s [wrong: 1990s onward] were affected by the leaky buildings crisis, where materials and construction methods used were retrospectively found to have weathertightness issues.
At the time, architects and other industry professionals were working to a government building code that was later found to be totally inadequate. On top of that, companies that the building industry trusted and relied upon were manufacturing and marketing products that were not fit for purpose." https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/300278964/
its-unjust-and-inaccurate-to-blame-individuals-for-leaky-bui
ldings
They were partly to blame, but not entirely.
CHH petitioned ministers to allow the use of untreated timber in the building code.
James Hardie made a cladding product that- when wet- supported the growth of mould which also ate through building paper.
Builders- when faced with lack of detail on architect's plans, bodged flashing detail or relied on silicone sealant.
Plus we can't forget the public- who wanted the monolithic mediterranean style that architects were pushing.
Councils got clobbered too, not sure what they did wrong, perhaps complacency when signing off work?
Just a total fail all round, really. apollo11 - 2021-04-19 14:47:00 |
| 4 | Councils were allowed to subcontract inspections and certification to third parties. sparkychap - 2021-04-19 15:03:00 |
| 5 | apollo11 wrote:
CHH petitioned ministers to allow the use of untreated timber in the building code. . Most pre 70,s houses in Nz were built using untreated Rimu Framing ,and most are still standing but affected by Borer . The Designs had Soffits ,not stupid internal gutters and parapets . .
Butynol and Silicone are some of the problems in the building industry still today . Both shit Items . martin11 - 2021-04-19 15:22:00 |
| 6 | johnston wrote:
An architect has published an article saying that architects are not solely to blame for leaky buildings. I disagree. How can you say architects are solely to blame when they did not design many of the leaky buildings let alone undertake all the other processes involved in building? If you have an architect for your leaky building, the architect is mostly to blame. trade4us2 - 2021-04-19 15:50:00 |
| 7 | Sorry I was referring to kiln dried untreated pine. Insulation can be an issue when retrofitted to older houses, as it can prevent the cavity from drying sufficiently. apollo11 - 2021-04-19 15:58:00 |
| 8 | I'm certainly open to being corrected. Was it BRANZ who appraised and approved the construction method in the first place (Direct fix Harditex without cavity)? If they indeed did, I personally hold them jointly culpable for much of the problems associated with leaky buildings. Edited by cognition at 4:23 pm, Mon 19 Apr cognition - 2021-04-19 16:13:00 |
| 9 | trade4us2 wrote:
An architect has published an article saying that architects are not solely to blame for leaky buildings. I disagree. Architects chose unsuitable cladding and building designs. It is THEIR fault. Also, any owner with a brain could see how stupid the code was. In 1992 my architect was scathing about the stupid building code at the time. He refused to use the claddings that the code said were allowable.
So have the people who decided on the defective building code been punished or sacked? No. "Despite being designed and built to code, thousands of New Zealand homes constructed in the early to mid-2000s [wrong: 1990s onward] were affected by the leaky buildings crisis, where materials and construction methods used were retrospectively found to have weathertightness issues.
At the time, architects and other industry professionals were working to a government building code that was later found to be totally inadequate. On top of that, companies that the building industry trusted and relied upon were manufacturing and marketing products that were not fit for purpose." https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/300278964/
its-unjust-and-inaccurate-to-blame-individuals-for-leaky-bui
ldings
while architects are not solely to blame, but they are partially to blame. "it’s ridiculous to blame individuals for what was a complex and heartbreaking situation that continues to affect thousands of New Zealanders."
that line in the article is complete BS. thats simply hiding behind a company. ie its the company to blame not the people running it.
people made the decisions, people are to blame. open to correction but wasn't there failures of that cladding system overseas before they started here ?? the simple problem was that the regulators where getting their info from the industry. that is completely back to front. regulators need to have their own independent sources of information, otherwise its the fox guarding the hen house which never works well as we found out. tweake - 2021-04-19 17:41:00 |
| 10 | For each leaky building there will be at least one individual who should be held accountable. There is no need to limit apportionment of blame. There is also no reason for any one group to feel absolved. soundsgood - 2021-04-19 17:51:00 |
| 11 | soundsgood wrote:
For each leaky building there will be at least one individual who should be held accountable. There is no need to limit apportionment of blame. There is also no reason for any one group to feel absolved.
But if individuals and individual firms are blamed, the knee jerk reaction is to go overboard on future builds. This seems to be happening with structural engineers in Welly (can't vouch for other regions). A few firms got hung, drawn and quartered for the failures in the last big shake here. As a consequence they are designing for 'worst case scenario'. This adds significantly to the cost to build. apollo11 - 2021-04-19 19:52:00 |
| 12 | Councils got clobbered too, not sure what they did wrong, perhaps complacency when signing off work?
Just a total fail all round, really.[/quote]
The councils approved buildings to be built to a standard that they would leak and charged good money to check everything was to a fit for purpose standard I would think. ash4561 - 2021-04-19 23:32:00 |
| 13 | trade4us2 wrote:
If you have an architect for your leaky building, the architect is mostly to blame. Can you point to a ruling that supports your assertion? johnston - 2021-04-20 06:35:00 |
| 14 | johnston wrote:
Can you point to a ruling that supports your assertion? You never back up any of your dribble... Why should they? |
| 15 | johnston wrote:
Can you point to a ruling that supports your assertion?
No ruling but I think if they designed a building how it was to be built and materials to be used and this was followed and it leaks then it was their fault it leaks. But there is a safety net council checks this design and does not let it go ahead unless its meets fit for purpose standards. ash4561 - 2021-04-20 07:12:00 |
| 16 | trade4us2 wrote:
If you have an architect for your leaky building, the architect is mostly to blame.
Most of the cases I have heard, the Architect, Builder and Council have been made to pay similar amounts.
Under the new LBP scheme, it may not be the Building Company but each of the individual Carpenters (on wages or contract) that will be liable. stevo2 - 2021-04-20 07:32:00 |
| 17 | ash4561 wrote:
But there is a safety net council checks this design and does not let it go ahead unless its meets fit for purpose standards.
Council don't really have the expertise to make that decision. BRANZ really screwed the pooch on monolithic plaster cladding. The thinking was faulty. Water does eventually find it's way into a building, and if there is no way for it to drain out or dry out, the framing rots.
I still remember thinking that monolithic plaster looked new and modern, and weatherboard looked old and low class. And I'm sure a lot of the public probably thought the same thing. Customers were demanding the monolithic look, parapet walls, decks over rooms, glass roofs over their kitchens etc. Just a bloody nightmare to try to waterproof in any medium. apollo11 - 2021-04-20 08:29:00 |
| 18 | apollo11 wrote:
I still remember thinking that monolithic plaster looked new and modern, and weatherboard looked old and low class. And I'm sure a lot of the public probably thought the same thing. Yes - there was a lot of immigration in the early 2000's and these properties were massively popular, being modern and stylish to those used to (for example) the standard brick and tile houses in the UK, or concrete apartments in Asian countries. I suspect a lot were flicked on knowingly in the early days to unwitting buyers who didn't know about these "leaky buildings". sparkychap - 2021-04-20 09:14:00 |
| 19 | trade4us2 wrote:
An architect has published an article saying that architects are not solely to blame for leaky buildings. I disagree. Architects chose unsuitable cladding and building designs. It is THEIR fault. Also, any owner with a brain could see how stupid the code was. In 1992 my architect was scathing about the stupid building code at the time. He refused to use the claddings that the code said were allowable.
So have the people who decided on the defective building code been punished or sacked? No. "Despite being designed and built to code, thousands of New Zealand homes constructed in the early to mid-2000s [wrong: 1990s onward] were affected by the leaky buildings crisis, where materials and construction methods used were retrospectively found to have weathertightness issues.
At the time, architects and other industry professionals were working to a government building code that was later found to be totally inadequate. On top of that, companies that the building industry trusted and relied upon were manufacturing and marketing products that were not fit for purpose." https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/300278964/
its-unjust-and-inaccurate-to-blame-individuals-for-leaky-bui
ldings That article was due to one particular architect having been in the news for designing two award winning homes which leaked and were both demolished. I wasn’t aware that the articles about those two properties put all the blame on the architect concerned. Edited by committed at 11:03 am, Tue 20 Apr committed - 2021-04-20 11:01:00 |
| 20 | committed wrote:
That article was due to one particular architect having been in the news for designing two award winning homes which leaked and were both demolished. I wasn’t aware that the articles about those two properties put all the blame on the architect concerned. “How does a New Zealand award-winning architectural house end up being a leaky building that gets demolished? What’s the award for?” she said. and “For me, I’m not angry at the council, I’m angry at Parsonson because I would have thought there should be an accountability. “We lost over $1 million of house into the ÅŒtaki tip, that had all these awards, that was leaking like a sieve.“ Did you actually READ the articles? sparkychap - 2021-04-20 11:53:00 |
| 21 | sparkychap wrote:
“How does a New Zealand award-winning architectural house end up being a leaky building that gets demolished? What’s the award for?” she said. and “For me, I’m not angry at the council, I’m angry at Parsonson because I would have thought there should be an accountability. “We lost over $1 million of house into the ÅŒtaki tip, that had all these awards, that was leaking like a sieve.“ Did you actually READ the articles? I did, what about you? committed - 2021-04-20 12:55:00 |
| 22 | committed wrote:
I did, what about you? Yeah that kinda sounds like the architect is being blamed to me. sparkychap - 2021-04-20 13:01:00 |
| 23 | The TV programme a couple of weeks ago about the leaky apartments made the point that the builder had followed the architect's design but many of the features were not detailed about how the flashings etc should fit, so they had to make it up as they went along.
The inspector also noted that the building was full of architectural frills which may be good for appearance but made access for maintenance very difficult. |
| 24 | apollo11 wrote:
Council don't really have the expertise to make that decision. BRANZ really screwed the pooch on monolithic plaster cladding. The thinking was faulty. Water does eventually find it's way into a building, and if there is no way for it to drain out or dry out, the framing rots.
my understanding is there was issues with it overseas in the 80's.
no one was looking and obviously did not test it to nz conditions. tweake - 2021-04-20 20:07:00 |
| 25 | apollo11 wrote:
But if individuals and individual firms are blamed, the knee jerk reaction is to go overboard on future builds. This seems to be happening with structural engineers in Welly (can't vouch for other regions). A few firms got hung, drawn and quartered for the failures in the last big shake here. As a consequence they are designing for 'worst case scenario'. This adds significantly to the cost to build. I doubt that there's anyone in Wellington who really knows how to build for earthquakes. They all seem to be shooting blind. We have had new builds with 100% NBS that have had to be torn down, and yet 50 years old buildings stand strong. Council approval and rating numbers affect insurance, but they are no guarantee of safety. Leaky buildings are quite a different set of issues. soundsgood - 2021-04-20 21:13:00 |
| 26 | superdave0_13 wrote:
You never back up any of your dribble... Why should they? . lakeview3 - 2021-04-20 21:25:00 |
| 27 | I remember when this all happened, I used to work with a company that supplied timber treatment products and we were all gobsmacked when they took away the need for treatment. And yeah, the architects are responsible for designing stupid houses all for looks and lacking in time tested commonsense. The builders should never have built such a stupid design but money talks and the councils ticked it off shame on all of them and shame on the govt and people who allowed the law change. All in donkey deep. I would avoid any house built from 1990-2005 unless it had been extensively moisture tested and the design of it scrutinised to the enth degree. lakeview3 - 2021-04-20 21:33:00 |
| 28 | You also need to blame the likes of James Hardie, who promoted a cladding system to architects **with guarantees** and when the buildings started to have issues, wriggled out of all responsibility. And using H1 might have slowed down the rot a bit, but you'd still have the same failures eventually.
And Joe and Joan Public, not knowing any better but liking the new sharp look, were probably demanding the monolithic look from the architects too. apollo11 - 2021-04-20 21:51:00 |
| 29 | apollo11 wrote:
You also need to blame the likes of James Hardie, who promoted a cladding system to architects **with guarantees** and when the buildings started to have issues, wriggled out of all responsibility. And using H1 might have slowed down the rot a bit, but you'd still have the same failures eventually.
And Joe and Joan Public, not knowing any better but liking the new sharp look, were probably demanding the monolithic look from the architects too. fully agree about JH. Why on earth do we need all these other claddings when we already have wood at our fingertips, bricks and concrete. Do it right, do it once. And as for Joe and Joan? Did they ever hear the story of the 3 little pigs.....which house was the most resilient? At least if the timber had been properly treated, it might have been able to be reclad properly. Or maybe not if the design was really bad. I see some of the those multi level box places in Auckland and think to myself tsk tsk.....next big problem. lakeview3 - 2021-04-20 22:02:00 |
| 30 | lakeview3 wrote:
fully agree about JH. Why on earth do we need all these other claddings when we already have wood at our fingertips, bricks and concrete. Do it right, do it once. And as for Joe and Joan? Did they ever hear the story of the 3 little pigs.....which house was the most resilient? At least if the timber had been properly treated, it might have been able to be reclad properly. Or maybe not if the design was really bad. I see some of the those multi level box places in Auckland and think to myself tsk tsk.....next big problem.
The whole secrete to timber not rotting is to keep it dry
Even now most of the timber used in a house is only treated against insect attack
Timber treated for rot is generally to be used outside open to the weather.fences or sheds etc |
| 31 | There was one architect that had won awards here in Chch that most of his buildings are known to be leaky ones . Would be interested to know who the builders of the were .
I remember one job I worked on as an apprentice where the Archirect gave the boss in writing that we were to follow his plans as per the drawings without questioning things . We had the last laugh on the architect when he discovered towards the end of the job the Bathroon had no window in it . He went beserk at my boss and the boss gave him the drawing and told him the architect to show where the window was on the drawings which he couldn't it was missed off . Boss told him to F--O and never come on the site again . Heard late this was typical of that architect . martin11 - 2021-04-23 14:18:00 |
| 32 | Any house design or Construction method is capable of leaking, all it takes is sufficient negligence in construction practise. kenw1 - 2021-05-02 20:26:00 |
| 33 | kenw1 wrote:
Any house design or Construction method is capable of leaking, all it takes is sufficient negligence in construction practise.
not sure what your driving at.
all houses leak regardless of design or how well its built.
the trick is for it to be able to drain and dry. trouble is architects like to push the limits, then your relying on excellent workmanship for weather proofing rather than by good design. tweake - 2021-05-02 20:57:00 |
| 34 | tweake wrote:
not sure what your driving at.
all houses leak regardless of design or how well its built.
the trick is for it to be able to drain and dry. trouble is architects like to push the limits, then your relying on excellent workmanship for weather proofing rather than by good design. From what I have seen recently good workmanship[ if very hard to find most are just get them up and collect their money . martin11 - 2021-05-02 21:01:00 |
| 35 | What I am saying is "negligence in construction practise." at any position in the construction will result in problems. I would say there is a significant difference in a 'leak' and properly managed climatic water ingress. A bit like, all ships have water ingress, but it is from known areas around glands and the like, but a flaming great hole or a large number of smaller holes are not managed water ingress. kenw1 - 2021-05-03 08:58:00 |
| 36 | A lot people mix up the terms of Architect and draughtsperson, two totally different levels of qualification and expertise. kenw1 - 2021-05-03 09:00:00 |
