Leaky buildings. Thinking of buying a post '95 home? Own one?

[merv]

Concrete or stone?

Go the earthquake instead of the leaks!

[Ocean1]

What we really need to do is to use a naturally durable timber that doesnt reqire any treatment

What's that then?

I know Oregon contains natural bugacides, but is it enough to mean you don't have to treat it further?

Mac is the same, different natural in-built protection and it grows well here but is it OK untreated as a framing timber?

I'm guessing an occasional leak is prety much unavoidable, yeah? like when the wind's from a particular quarter and at a certain speed you get a dribble blown over/around a flashing. So unless we're going to insist that all cavities are perfectly watertight the materials have to be able to tolerate an occasional damp spell, yes?

Ignoring the green politics what do we use for framing?

[jaffaonajappa]

This week Ive been house hunting in Wellington - well...starting to house hunt. Figuring the school zones and community 'types' has been the first priority.
Have found trademe to be fairly usefull figuring out house prices.....but do keep seeing some that scream "Leaky".

This one seems too cheap to be true. Has short eaves. Made during the 90's I guess, and has a note "needs some deferred maintenance".
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/List...x?id=385703790
Leaky, or worth checking further?

And this ones a pure Leaky Building.
http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/re...-307168733.htm
'has weather tightness issues" LOL! At 200k under RV its still a money pit.

[Ocean1]

Go the earthquake instead of the leaks!

It may well be easier and cheaper to engineer solutions to that issue than those of merely semi-permenant materials.

I see a lot of legal definitions in council documents using a description of permissable buildings based on "50 year life".
What's that about? I'd expect any house I paid for to last a fucking sight longer than that, is it some sort of belated statement of limited liability for non-existant inspection regimes and badly informed zoning regulations?

[Spearfish]

What's that then?

I know Oregon contains natural bugacides, but is it enough to mean you don't have to treat it further?

Mac is the same, different natural in-built protection and it grows well here but is it OK untreated as a framing timber?

I'm guessing an occasional leak is prety much unavoidable, yeah? like when the wind's from a particular quarter and at a certain speed you get a dribble blown over/around a flashing. So unless we're going to insist that all cavities are perfectly watertight the materials have to be able to tolerate an occasional damp spell, yes?

Ignoring the green politics what do we use for framing?

What happened to the metal framed houses?

As far as heavy treatment goes its pre trement machined now rather than post treatment (probably why its different sizes) and the stuff is between wall linings, its not like your going to go around licking the studs of your home....or have I been missing out on something?

[Ocean1]

What happened to the metal framed houses?

Seem to be gaining popularity, still. I looked at an early example a couple of months ago, could see up under the cladding in places so got a good look at the bottom plate and lower studs. There was hints of surface rust at the ends but not enough to rule it out as a material for me.

I was also in a factory making steel framed housing recently, and I noticed it's lighter now than that early one I saw.

I'm aware of some new developments in concrete tilt-slab construction for housing too. If I was building now I'd be looking hard at that as an option.

[Spearfish]

I'm aware of some new developments in concrete tilt-slab construction for housing too. If I was building now I'd be looking hard at that as an option.

I've heard that recommended as an option before.
Tilt slab buildings certainty look spectacular when being stood up.

[Laava]

But the rub comes from the repair bill that seems to exceed the original cost of the entire house project with council and central govt picking up half and the owner the rest.
I can understand some of it after seeing a 2 story house compost bin being repaired with the floor joists rotten almost 3 feet in from the ends on one side....but some seem like there is a bit of gouging going on. Either that or the insurance component is extreme.

Correct. It is more expensive and that is why it doesn't take too much damage to write it off. Just like vehicles but in this case most of that cost would go in labour not parts[as in cars]
A new house will cost you in the region of $1200-1500 per m2. A full renovation or extension type work typically is more than that. Often you are opening a can of worms.

[Kickaha]

I'm aware of some new developments in concrete tilt-slab construction for housing too. If I was building now I'd be looking hard at that as an option.

I've often wondered why hasn't that been looked at for housing before?

I was talking to a guy about three years back and they were doing some in "lightweight concrete"

[ellipsis]

,,it has just struck me that, innuit, eskimo types are prime contenders for a big leaky homes problem , if global warming increases and they stick to their traditional housing methods...

[flyingcrocodile46]

But the rub comes from the repair bill that seems to exceed the original cost of the entire house project with council and central govt picking up half and the owner the rest.
I can understand some of it after seeing a 2 story house compost bin being repaired with the floor joists rotten almost 3 feet in from the ends on one side....but some seem like there is a bit of gouging going on. Either that or the insurance component is extreme.

The repair bill is exasperated by the need to remove all the cladding to insitu treat the framing (not particularly satisfactory as an alternative but viewed as better than discarding the framing) and to create a cavity for drainage and air drying. That and fear of future litigation. The industry is now risk averse (particularly and understandably the BCA's/councils who are footing the bill for a lot of the costs when failure does occur).

What's that then?

I know Oregon contains natural bugacides, but is it enough to mean you don't have to treat it further?

Mac is the same, different natural in-built protection and it grows well here but is it OK untreated as a framing timber?

I'm guessing an occasional leak is prety much unavoidable, yeah? like when the wind's from a particular quarter and at a certain speed you get a dribble blown over/around a flashing. So unless we're going to insist that all cavities are perfectly watertight the materials have to be able to tolerate an occasional damp spell, yes?

Ignoring the green politics what do we use for framing?

Steel is probably the most cost effective safe option.

I see a lot of legal definitions in council documents using a description of permissable buildings based on "50 year life".
What's that about? I'd expect any house I paid for to last a fucking sight longer than that,

Since 1992 the NZBC has set minimum requirements/performance objectives and to varying degrees has provided 'Acceptable Solutions'/AS 1etc (non mandatory guidline's - for use, but mandatory for acceptance by BCA's/Councils), 'Verification Methods'/VM1etc (calculations/tests - also mandatory for acceptance by BCA's/Councils) and a loose framework for guidance in assessing 'Alternative Solutions' (a convincing story based around related/similar products/methods, historic performance and appraisals from eminently trustworthy and thorough bodies such as BRANZ). Alternative Solutions may be accepted by BCA's/Councils at their discretion and they may demand additional mitigation as a condition of acceptance.

The minimum NZBC B2 performance objectives for the life span of various components in a building are as follows;

PERFORMANCE
B2.3.1 Building elements must, with only normal maintenance, continue to satisfy the performance requirements of this code for the lesser of the specified intended life
of the building, if stated, or:

This is the requirement for structure/framing
(a) The life of the building, being not less than 50 years, if:
(i) Those building elements (including floors, walls, and fixings) provide structural stability to the building, or
(ii) Those building elements are difficult to access or replace, or
(iii) Failure of those building elements to comply with the building code would go undetected during both normal use and maintenance of the building.

This is the requirement for wall and roof cladding and windows/doors
(b) 15 years if:
(i) Those building elements (including the building envelope, exposed plumbing in the subfloor space, and in-built chimneys and flues) are moderately difficult to access or replace, or
(ii) Failure of those building elements to comply with the building code would go undetected during normal use of the building, but would be easily detected during normal maintenance.

This is the requirement for wall and roof coatings, floor coverings etc
(c) 5 years if:
(i) The building elements (including services, linings, renewable protective coatings, and fixtures) are easy to access and replace,
and
(ii) Failure of those building elements to comply with the building code would be easily detected during normal use of the building.

As a home owner, if your cladding paint wears out (becomes permeable) after 5 years and you don't replace it and the cladding (which is reliant on the paint coating as a system component) allows moisture entry which results in damage (as a result of permeable paint), then you have committed an act of negligence which has contributed to the defects and resultant damage (contributory negligence) and can't (but do) blame the developer, council, builder etc for your own ignorance.

What happened to the metal framed houses?

As far as heavy treatment goes its pre trement machined now rather than post treatment (probably why its different sizes) and the stuff is between wall linings, its not like your going to go around licking the studs of your home....or have I been missing out on something?

Very true. Much fuss by the ignorant do gooder Greenies over sweet FA. Those morons (the party) are partially responsible for the introduction of chem free framing as an acceptable solution. A trade off for their support in forming a majority government.

I was talking to a guy about three years back and they were doing some in "lightweight concrete"

Light weight concrete is ok but is also reliant on cavities and in most instances is incapable of supporting itself (needs structural support... usually by timber or steel framing). It is also very permeable (unlike concrete).

[dangerous]

Some one mentioned about who pays for a reclad... well the owner employs a company that gathers all involved and takes em to court.
Using the 200k reclad I have already mentioned as an example
roofer closed shop
butanoler classed shop
builder closed shop
architect
devloper
1st owner
council
the 200 was divided up... as soon as court was mentioned as you see a few closed shop (untouchable) the others coffed up the council being the bigest looser.
out of 200k the new owners got 40k the rest was on them.

I've often wondered why hasn't that been looked at for housing before?

I was talking to a guy about three years back and they were doing some in "lightweight concrete"

Tilt panel is quite common done a few myself including a thermo panel.

By "lightweight concrete" do you mean Celcret, Loxo, Hebel, flexcret?
In all the reclads I hve done one of the for mentioned has been used. the material itself is ok but the way in which it is used leaves a lot to be desired eg:
No base suport
4-6 scews holding up each panel by 20mm
masife weight hanging of a building that was built with polly in mind.
I also find the clowns that fit the stuff dont give a shit and their work leaves a lot to be desired (partly cos theres no money in it)
The panel then has 3 thin coats of plaster and 2 very thin coats of paint... wont take much for it to fail in a few years IMO.

My most recent job is around the corner from your work on Whitleigh, 4 units... you might have noticed the procedure.

[Quasievil]

I never said that at all and nor did I infer it.

I see you are one of those people who, when it is pointed out that the words in your mouth are shit, you fall back (like a lamer) to putting words into the mouths of others.

Yeah! You did work for hardies didn't you.



You don't read too good huh! I estimate that the builders who built over half of these problem houses, was the owner (who knowingly accepted the cheapest labour only prices off unqualified hammer hands and organized all the other trades ). In this instance the hammer hand is not the builder.

Go back and re read my post. then try to keep your allegations based in some facts eh!. If that is too much of a challenge, just shut up.

No need to be insulting here, my allegations towards the situation are based on 6 years with Hardies and Carter Holt

I have my opinion on the matter and im sticking to it, builders and developers did the work they owned the contracts and they built the leaky homes and were the "professional" in charge of the site works.
To blame the materials used is weak, especially when they where NOT used correctly and according to manufactures specification and recommendations and as I say I have been to many many sites that enforces my opinion concretely.

How Many significant Auckland apartment complexes leak, I know of about 5 ALL of them where erected incorrectly, I have a Photo somewhere of some roof flashings that didnt fit right (made wrong) they used it anyway and it had a hole in it the size of an orange that was filled (poorly) with silicone...........yeah that was Selleys fault right ?
I went to one job (titan) where there was no timber behind ANY of the vertical joints the Neoprene vertical seal started to fall into the cavity leaving a 10 mm gap on the joints........that was Hardies fault right ?

Another one and very common situation that I was seeing 3-4 times a month was cracks on the joints, usually on long walls I remember one house 14 metre long wall not one control joint not one expansion joint as specified by hardies, its in the manual...........hardies Fault ?? nope, the builders ..............again.
All the brochures and installation instructions are readily available at all outlets.

The builder was responsible for this period as he did it, not Mum and Dad, not the Architect, not the council, not the suppliers THE BUILDER did it, he is the professional and he cant blame the sub trades either as its his contract.

In the case of a Developer employing the cheap unqualified labour then the developer is then the Builder.

And I stand by the fact I haven't seen a leak due to faulty product it has ALL been due to installation and sub standard work being carried out.

[Laava]

My neighbours house is harditex with a plaster finish and in the mornings sometimes you can see every single join as a wet line which is a very small crack. But it is on every join. They had them all hucked out and filled with what I presume is MS silicon or similar but still it is exactly the same.
My opinion is that there is no way you should use this type of cladding on a timber frame. Their rates of thermal expansion are too dissimilar and cracks will always be the result. I wouldn't buy or build one. I have built houses in the past with Harditex feature walls and have not been back to check the end result.
This type of cladding with no or little in the way of eaves, and parapets, is a disaster waiting to happen IMO.
Monolithic finishes should be confined to brick/plaster or conc, conc/plaster.
Just me 2c

[dangerous]

hearing ya Quasie... and myself I dont doubt that sort of shit happens one little bit... That said I have not seen anything that bad down here, mostely things were done right for 13yrs ago.

What I'd like to ask you hving worked for Hardie's... have you seen what happens to some of there products after 10yrs in all weathers? I asume so ofcourse... just that what I have found and not so much with the high density boards but more 4.5-6mm were its been used on the inside of parapits and the tops.
The board goes like weetbix, were its constently wet and drys its powder... What I see is the wrong boards being used for the wrong situations, again short cutting by a builder or owner in order to do the job cheaper... the kiwi way.

My opinion is that there is no way you should use this type of cladding on a timber frame. Their rates of thermal expansion are too dissimilar and cracks will always be the result.

Its not the monotec thats the problem, but the thin arse plaster, use a old school 20mm thick plastering system and no worries at all.

Monolithic finishes should be confined to brick/plaster or conc, conc/plaster.

YIP