glass99,
I was involved in fixing one of those, about 20 years ago. In the litigation, everybody involved in the construction had to kick in a share, with most of the minor players settling before trial, and the insurer for the general contractor was left to foot the main bill.
Some key words in your post tell the story: "famous architect", "condo", "fancy", "dodgy Chinese", "design build".
Your project sounds like it needs a new façade soon, before mould becomes the main issue.
Whether of not the developer bears some responsibility will be a matter for the court, and will depend on the testimony.
Not sure I agree that "engineers should run things". They don't always get it right, either.
hokie: What can possibly go wrong with a posh architect teamed with a dodgy contractor and a poorly capitalized developer? I say a little prayer of thanks every day that this project was not mine.
I think that construction disputes should be argued by people who have constructed things. Its maddening to think that some arrogant kid out of law school knows anything about how buildings get built.
I was once on a case where the parties agreed to let the "experts" do the questioning and there was little disagreement remaining. Otherwise the best attorney I have seen was one who had an engineering degree before law school. Too many others just struggle along and hope they can accomplish something sort of like a dart game.
glass99....developers, as opposed to owners who will occupy a building after construction, often are part of the problem with construction defects and are often sued as a result of their involvement. The most common involvement is "value engineering" (a term I detest, but its meaning is well known); whereby they cheapen the project to line their pockets.
My colleagues and I routinely investigate facade failures, most commonly for water intrusion. We have done many of them from single-family residences to high rise buildings. Some are condos (rife with construction defects), some are commercial use buildings, some are residential. Without regard to the "value engineering" done by the owners/developers, there are numerous construction defects to go around. Some are innocuous and some significantly reduce the expected useful life of the structure. I am of the opinion that most construction defects exist because of ignorance, not because of cheapened construction. Poorly trained and unlicensed subcontractors do most of the construction work, coordinated by the license holder (the GC). All have a goal....get in and get out as quickly as possible and get paid. Quality is rarely in the equation.
Ron: Yes, exactly right. An ignorant chump is cheaper than a trained craftsman, so developers choose the former. When it goes pear shaped, everyone is on the hook not just the developer. The marketing company may be asked to chip into the mold remediation! Developers should be primarily if not wholly responsible in such cases. Technical experts are the only ones who have a chance of understanding that the tradesman was unqualified, and that the developer pushed for their use as a cost saving measure. As a competent manager, you can not claim you were a victim if you should have known those working under you are unqualified or under resourced for the work you tasked them with. - > It is not sufficient for a technical expert to just say that there was a technical failure; They should flag the decisive organizational factors which caused the technical failure.
