etter buildings Lessons learned: Restoring the Quayside Village leaky condo CASE STUDY NUMBER 50 Introduction

Transcription

1 B etter buildings North Vancouver, B.C. CASE STUDY NUMBER 50 Lessons learned: Restoring the Quayside Village leaky condo Introduction This case study describes how the Quayside Village Co-housing community repaired serious water damage to its three-year old, woodframe multi-unit building. The building suffered the damage because of design and construction flaws. The study describes how Quayside a strata corporation, which is similar to a condominium corporation dealt with the financial, technical and social challenges of this major remediation. Part 1 describes the decisions that contributed to the building problems. Part 2 describes the remediation. Part 1: Background and original construction Background The seniors, families, singles and students who live in Quayside Village, in North Vancouver, share communal facilities and building maintenance. The four-storey building s 19 residential units range from bachelor suites to a four-bedroom townhouse. There is a family-owned store and a daycare centre in the building. An elevator, outside stair and walkway connect the elements of Quayside. An inner courtyard is a focal point of the community. The Quayside co-housing organization is inclusive and committee-based. Quayside makes decisions by consensus. Agreement by at least nine owners is needed Quayside Village to make decisions for the community. If there is strong disagreement on an issue, those opposed must work with those in favour in order to reach agreement. This system works well. For example, only one month after the report of building envelope failure,

2 the group reached consensus in favour of remediation. Some leaky condo owner groups take longer to agree to fix the building than to complete the work. Original construction In 1997, as Quayside planned the building, the architect, engineer and contractor recommended rainscreen principles, rather than a face-seal system. 1 After long and hard deliberations, Quayside members decided to use a face-seal system for three reasons. First, rainscreen construction would cost $50,000 more than a face-seal system, which some co-housing members could not afford. Second, in 1997, the Quayside group did not have an authoritative opinion about which was the better system. Third, the City of North Vancouver s building regulations did not require rainscreen principles. They now do. Trying to keep costs manageable, Quayside decided not to hire a project manager who might have identified and corrected the mistakes in the installation of the waterproof membrane and the walkway railings. Quayside s wish to include accessibility, affordability and environmental responsibility in the design and construction overextended finances, staff and resources. For example, Quayside wanted a courtyard water feature using stormwater runoff from the roof. The complex detail wasn t given high priority during construction and was not completed. Four years later, the empty receiving tank was another problem in repairing the courtyard membrane. For wheelchair accessibility, Quayside designed doorsills flush with outside walkways. In exposed southeast locations, wind-driven rain entered under the doorsills. Discovery of problems and subsequent remediation Maintenance As part of regular maintenance, the Quayside building committee arranged for an inspection. The inspection discovered significant water damage. Quayside met with the original architect, engineer and contractor, and the inspecting engineer to review the test results. There was a frank discussion of causes, responsibility, liability, maintenance, construction and design. In the end, it was in everyone s best interest to find out what went wrong and to fix it. The design consultants and contractor agreed to help select a repair engineer and contractor. Source of water entry because membrane did not carry into door rough opening Financial impacts The cost of remediation was estimated at $420,000. Quayside sought advice from the B.C. Homeowner Protection Office (HPO), banks and credit unions. They advised Quayside to err on the high side in budgeting for two reasons: first, Quayside would not know the full extent of damage until the walls were opened and, second, adding a second loan to an existing loan would be much more costly. The significant cost components were: The rainscreen retrofit, estimated at $25 40 a square foot, depending on the type of cladding used. Preventive upgrades to the decks and unexpected repair to the walkways and courtyard, estimated at $43,000. Each unit owner would share the cost through a levy averaging $22,000 per unit. Quayside reallocated its reserve fund, intended for future capital repairs or replacements to common elements, to the remediation. 1 In a rainscreen system, the cladding acts as a dual protection system for a wall. A pressure-modulating air space behind the cladding reduces the probability of water being pushed into the structure and damaging it. If water gets past the rainscreen cladding, it is diverted to the outside by a water barrier and drainage paths designed into the system. A face-seal system relies on sealants applied to the outside surface of wall joints.these surface sealants are subject to weathering and mechanical damage. Face-seal walls are also susceptible to water damage because of the difficulty in ensuring that all joint gaps are properly sealed and maintained over the building s lifetime.

3 Homeowners Warranty Insurance, providing two years warranty on labour and five years on remediation materials, cost another $40,000. Quayside was able to use its reserve fund to partially offset the insurance cost and to keep individual assessments manageable. Despite this, and even though the municipality lowered property taxes for the year the work was done, three of the 19 residential units were put up for sale. Advice Legal advice from HPO and others was that Quayside should not go to court, as the repair costs were not high enough to justify the cost. HPO recommended that Quayside hire qualified, insured and experienced professionals. HPO could provide interest-free loans to qualifying groups. Quayside also sought legal advice about contracts and obtained further information from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) publications. Choosing the consultants Following interviews with restoration consultants and their former clients, reading CMHC material on the subject and inhouse discussion, Quayside s restoration committee recommended an engineering firm it believed to be the best qualified. Although the firm had been involved in the original project, its involvement was limited by Quayside s financial constraints at that time.the firm could not be held liable beyond its original contract work. Both sides made concessions Quayside agreed not to go to court and the firm cut its fees to nine per cent. Quayside benefited from reduced costs and the good reputation of the firm. The engineering firm benefited from being seen as part of the solution rather than the problem. Quayside hired the firm for Phase 1 of the survey. After the survey, Quayside hired the firm to continue the work, a decision that tested the community s consensus process. Quayside contracted with a reconstruction firm from bidders recommended by the engineering firm. Before signing a contract, Quayside contacted other strata corporations that had employed the firm to find out if the projects had been well managed and completed on time and within budget. This was very important to Quayside, as it was essential to have minimal disruption, debris and noise. Extra work for environmental sustainability The community used its own resources and manpower to make environmental upgrades. Quayside bought water barrels at cost from North Vancouver s environmental program. Placed on concrete pads and plumbed into the gutter system, they conserve runoff and distribute rainwater to the garden through soaker hoses. Compost bins built during the repairs supplied the gardens. Both measures represent future savings in metered water use and cost of garbage pickup and soil amendment. Additional damage discovered Over the year, the scope of work changed after residents asked for more tests when unexpected damage was discovered under the walkways. An independent contractor recommended additional preventive work. Quayside decided to replace all deck membranes, drains and the gutter system to avoid future problems When remediation was completed, Quayside s restoration committee compiled a list of deficiencies and a skeleton crew completed the work. Late in 2002, Quayside had a setback when an interior leak was discovered. The problem was quickly traced to a plugged exterior drain, which maintenance activities had overlooked, and faulty doorframe detail. Preliminary repairs were made in a day, but it was a blow to Quayside members confidence in their ability to get the remediation done properly. Some saw the problem as a manageable expense, some saw it as a frustrating oversight and some saw it as evidence of professional unreliability that extended to the whole project. Lessons learned The Quayside community learned a great deal about how their building works. There is more widespread recognition of the structure s problems and solutions. This knowledge is helping ensure that the maintenance program is carefully followed. The remediation convinced the Quayside co-housing community that clear information, accountability and open communication allow people to make good decisions. Better organization and leadership skills support these practices and pay dividends in efficient decisionmaking. An improved and more efficient building has resulted. Due to market improvements, people can now sell their units and recoup their losses, or hang on to an asset that is growing in value.

4 Part 2: Remediation The Quayside Village remediation not only presented financial hardship and community relations challenges, it also presented technical challenges. Consultants performed moisture and destructive testing on the building envelope to determine the extent of water damage. The tests primary focus was the face-sealed stucco and wood siding. The tests showed high moisture content in many locations in the stucco. In particular, exposed windows were the source of water entry. A remediation plan was developed, which included replacement of the face-sealed stucco at the exposed wall areas and around the courtyard stairs, where testing showed high moisture content.the engineering firm Quayside hired for the remediation recommended rainscreen 2 as replacement cladding. As work progressed, the engineering firm found more water-entry points entry points that had caused serious damage to the structure in some locations. Many of the problems centred on the exposed exterior walkway. Where the membrane ended at the exterior doors, the membrane did not fully wrap into door openings. Water had entered the wood framing at the doorsills, decaying the wood framing of the walkway. Another serious problem was discovered where the railings were secured into the concrete walkway surface.the railing installer had drilled holes for the fasteners.the holes had penetrated the concrete through to the underlying waterproof membrane and wood framing. The repair The rainscreen stucco was installed in locations where the original face-sealed stucco cladding was removed. On the exterior walkways the original concrete topping was removed and a new reinforced waterproof membrane installed. The doorsills of exposed doors opening onto the walkway were raised and the membrane was applied into the opening for added protection. At the railing post locations, steel plates with fastening bolts were secured to the wood-frame structure and waterproofed.the bolts extended above the level of the new concrete topping surface and provided attachment points to secure the railing posts without penetrating the membrane. In order to avoid future problems on roof decks, Quayside Village decided to replace the existing membrane system. The existing system was a liquid-applied membrane designed for pedestrian traffic. There had been local failures on some of the decks in the past. Most were related to leaks around drains. A new protected roof membrane system was installed made up of a torchon SBS roof membrane applied to the wood-framing surface and protected with a pressuretreated wood decking system. This system provides the performance and reliability of a roof system and the exterior space can be used as a deck as originally intended. Water entry at doorsill on third floor Railing post fastened to walkway through concrete and membrane Railing set ready for walkway concrete topping Base of concrete up-stand wall. During the membrane application, it was not reinforced between the slab and wall and was not applied thickly enough to the vertical surface 2 For more information about rainscreens, refer to the continuing education article, The rainscreen wall system at

5 During the project, additional problems were discovered where existing materials had either been installed incorrectly or had failed prematurely. Most notable was the waterproof membrane in the courtyard. This membrane wasn t thick enough and was not reinforced at the vertical interface with the base of the exterior walls of the building. It had to be replaced. Fortunately, there was no serious structural damage in these areas. The project was substantially completed in May, Quayside Village is now considering improvements, including the addition of glass canopies over exposed exterior doors to improve the water penetration resistance of these vulnerable areas. Communication At the start of the project, Quayside Village designated a representative for all correspondence and communications between the engineering firm and Quayside. There were site meetings, open to all residents, once every two weeks. It quickly became apparent that, unlike most strata corporations, most Quayside residents play an active role in operations. For the engineers, one advantage was working with informed and organized owners who were aware of the building s problems. Many were actively involved in the development and construction of the original building, including the hiring of the consultants and trades, unlike most strata, where the owners purchase units after completion of construction.those involved in the original construction could explain why decisions had been made that contributed to problems. Quayside also held frequent internal meetings to discuss issues that required prompt decisions. Residents were regularly updated on the progress of the work and quickly told about important issues. As a result, the work proceeded very smoothly with minimal interruption. Conclusions For the restoration engineers, working with the Quayside Village Co-housing group was very positive and rewarding. For this project, it was not a disadvantage to involve all owners in decision-making, rather than delegating the responsibility to a committee that could find it difficult to reach consensus. Decisions were made quickly and forwarded to the engineers or the contractor promptly. Quite often, repairs of the size of those at Quayside Village can divide owners. Quayside Village worked as a community with common goals, which helped calm the stressful and disruptive experience of a major repair. For more information For complete information about the founding, development strategy and management of Quayside Village, see m_011.cfm For information about Quayside Village today, see the group s Web Site at: uayside/ For details about the demonstration wastewater renovation and reuse system, see: con_002.cfm For general information on leaky condos, see: bubureco_002.cfm or contact Sandra Marshall smarshal@cmhc.ca If you have any comments, or would like to submit your project for publication, please contact: smarshal@cmhc.ca For more information about building envelopes solutions and best practices, visit the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) Web site at