Edmonton condo evacuation 3

Were they tempting fete when they named the building?

The below article contains information and pictures from the engineering report (but does not include the whole report).

Global News said:

The engineers identified three main issues in the unoccupied, fire-damaged areas that might also be present in the occupied areas:

1. Missing blocking at the ends of the trusses that has led to observed crushing failure of many of the second floor truss bottom chords at the corridor walls.
2. Main and second floor corridor interior load-bearing walls constructed using 2 x 4 studs instead of 2 x 6 studs specified on the original structural drawings.
3. Partially buried, main floor exterior walls that are bowing inward due to the earth pressure against them.

During inspections in late August, the engineers noticed extensive drywall cracking in some areas.

“This ceiling cracking is most prominent and extensive on the first floor (i.e., at the underside of the second floor framing). There is similar, if slightly less extensive cracking, in the second floor corridors, and it is reduced further yet, but still visible in the third floor corridor. (The ceiling framing in the fourth floor corridor is comprised of the roof trusses, which is different from the floors below, and there was no cracking observed.),” an Aug. 30 engineering report stated.

Click to expand...

From that rather excellent article linked above:

"Global News asked the City of Edmonton who buid [sic] Castledowns Pointe and was told the city is 'not in a position to provide the builder's name as yet.'"


I do wonder into what position the City of Edmonton will have to place itself to provide the name.


spsalso

I don't know why the city can't provide the name. There is an old sign out front visible on Google Street View with the name "Carrington Pointe" and an archived version of Carrington's website from 2003 shows it as one of their properties.

Well, either the City,
- can't find the records of builder and building permit,
- or they found them and can't find any records of the building dept inspecting the construction,
- or they found the inspection records but those show someone signed off on it being not build to the drawings,
e.g., the city doesn't want to be embarrassed and they are currently huddling with their attorneys .... stay tuned ....

Interesting name conflict between entrance awning and road sign. Possible conversion from private holding?

SWComposites, I'm guessing #3

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

So, if it's #3, then the inspector was either stupid, incompetent and/or bribed. Any other descriptors?

Right now, it doesn't matter much who owns the building or who owned it when it was built. The guy who pulled the permit is the one who made various affirmations on the form. And who most people would assume to be competent and knowledgeable in the field. Just because somebody's Mr. Bigbucks and buys/sponsors a building doesn't mean he has a clue how construction works. That's the guy who pulled the permit.

Even if the inspector screwed up, or worse, that doesn't seem like it would get the builder off the hook.

Or maybe things are done quite differently in Canada.

The pictures are quite a treat. I like how the "joists" are not placed above the studs, for example. THAT is something I just don't see that often. Also the curious offset of what appear to be light-duty straps connecting the framing members.


spsalso

By my eye, stud spacing has been economized as well. Seeing the crushed truss makes me wonder why the designer thought this was a good opportunity to spread out the studs.

I suspect the designer didn't draw it like that.

Its like our conversation about internationally builders actually have drawings on site never mind read them. My experience onsite on my DIY build is that they are extremely upset when forced to comply with an engineering detail. Then it never mentioned again when it works better then the way they wanted to do it.

And I suspect the designer also didn’t specify use of random small scrap wood pieces for the top plate.

Global news said:

interior load-bearing walls constructed using 2 x 4 studs instead of 2 x 6 studs specified on the original structural drawings

Click to expand...

Yet they kept the 24 inch spacing allowed for 2 x 6 studs.

Best of both approaches I guess. And claim Green Points for using fewer trees.

More pictures:



--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

And more, showing the extensive deterioration and remedial measures. I suspect the residents will recover their belongings in time but not before its time.


CBC

I SO want to see more photos of this Class Act in construction.


spsalso

Was there any construction review undertaken on this project?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

From this article:


"The City of Edmonton is unable to provide details about the builder or engineering firm on record for this project due to privacy legislation,' Mary-Ann Thurber wrote in a statement.

A final inspection of Castledowns Pointe was done in November 2000 and 'no concerns were noted during the inspection,' her statement said. 'The city does not specifically or necessarily inspect the structural components of large buildings which employ professional involvement,' Thurber stated, adding engineers and architects are responsible for filing paperwork confirming the work complies with regulations."

Mary-Ann Thurber is a "spokeswoman", which means she is not actually expected to know what she's talking about.

I would like to hear more about "privacy legislation" that obstructs releasing data from a public record (the building permit).

Note also that the building appears to have been "self inspected". Remember Champlain Towers? It was, too. Mary-Ann says that a building inspector DID show up for a final inspection. After all the defects were covered with sheathing.

I expect the architect and the engineer are at least guilty of perjury, since they lied on government forms, and signed their names.



Can one of our Canadian members please explain how that "privacy legislation" works in this case?


spsalso

It may be the builder or inspector is now a high politician in Edmonton or Alberta. I am "shocked, shocked" that one would suggest bribery of an inspector.

My grandfather was a plumber in New York City for 40 years ( 1916- 1956) , and he had to bribe every single plumbing inspector, with only one exception. Typically the bribe was in an envelope labeled " st james orphanage" and was referred to as such during the handover. The only exception was when he installed a "high pressure boiler", which was any boiler over 15 psig design pressure. That inspector sadly related that he really needs to make sure these boilers are installed properly.

from Casablanca:



"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

I've been an electrical contractor for a bit more than 40 years. I've never paid a bride to anyone. And I've never met anyone else who mentioned doing so.


spsalso