539 replies to this topic

[spanky123]

^ Young also said, less than 24 hours before the building was deemed "unsafe"  that this "could just be a disagreement between two engineers".

 

Obviously we are not getting the full story. Why is the full WSP report not being released, the taxpayer is paying for it? Why does the story keep changing? Why is the taxpayer allocating up to $400K to move tenants and why is the City trying to claim insurance if it had nothing to do with this? Why is the developer and/or property owner footing the bill?

[Rob Randall]

How can you resolve some structural issues in two days? 

 

How come no details provided as to what the issues may be? Is it an actual concrete/steel issue or more like not enough fire suppression or similar.

 

"Shoring up beams" doesn't get to the heart of the matter I mentioned earlier: is the root cause above or below ground. Substandard construction or soft soil and the building is sinking. 

 

If you want to read about a disaster, look up the Millennium Tower in San Francisco that so far has sunk at least 17 inches and tilted 14 inches. 

[Victoria Watcher]

^ Young also said, less than 24 hours before the building was deemed "unsafe"  that this "could just be a disagreement between two engineers".

 

Obviously we are not getting the full story. Why is the full WSP report not being released, the taxpayer is paying for it? Why does the story keep changing? Why is the taxpayer allocating up to $400K to move tenants and why is the City trying to claim insurance if it had nothing to do with this? Why is the developer and/or property owner footing the bill?

 

yes things seem a bit odd.  not the least of it that $400k expenditure.  i don't think the developer/builder can be forced to pay the immediate bill.  there might be civil remedies later for that.  the "insurance" claim  is also a bit strange.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 22 December 2019 - 11:07 AM.

[Rob Randall]

I just read a book about the London blitz of 1940 and the same scenario was constantly being played out. A neighbourhood would be bombed, tenants flee to temporary shelters with local government footing the bill for the time being, afterward a complicated battle over compensation among the insurance providers and multiple levels of government.

[Danma]

As a Langford resident I don't understand how the city is involved with this whole situation – isn't this the responsibility of the insurance of the construction company and/or engineers? It's frustrating due to the lack of clarity.

Langford has a reputation for being in the arms of their construction company pals, but come on here, there needs to be some accountability here. Frustrating.

[spanky123]

yes things seem a bit odd.  not the least of it that $400k expenditure.  i don't think the developer/builder can be forced to pay the immediate bill.  there might be civil remedies later for that.  the "insurance" claim  is also a bit strange.

 

Well Mayor Young was telling us that "this could be just a disagreement between two engineers" he was also telling us that the issue didn't effect any of the other buildings built by this developer and had nothing to do with Langford's accelerated permitting process. I guess we will see.

 

From what I understand, a professional conduct complaint to a professional association can generally only be made by another member. Will be interesting to see if that other member was an engineer on Langford staff.

Edited by spanky123, 22 December 2019 - 12:44 PM.

[davidN]

As a Langford resident I don't understand how the city is involved with this whole situation – isn't this the responsibility of the insurance of the construction company and/or engineers? It's frustrating due to the lack of clarity.

Langford has a reputation for being in the arms of their construction company pals, but come on here, there needs to be some accountability here. Frustrating.

Not sure why this is frustrating to you.

 

It would appear that the City of Langford is going above and beyond what one would expect at the governmental level. I highly doubt that one would see the City of Victoria or other municipal governments reacting so quickly to a possible problem that has yet to be proven as their "fault". Good for Mayor Young and his Council for being proactive!

 

Let's just get the whole story before anyone gets their knickers in a knot!

[spanky123]

^ I don't think anyone is saying Langford is to blame, just that it is very unusual that they have set aside $400K to pay for tenant expenses and are investigation a claim through their insurance policy.

 

Has Langford offered to pay to relocate and cover expenses for any other families displaced over the years?, 

Edited by spanky123, 22 December 2019 - 03:19 PM.

[Nparker]

So if this becomes a protracted battle between the developer, insurance companies and perhaps the City of Lanford, will the building be renamed "Donnybrook1"? 

[Danma]

Not sure why this is frustrating to you.

Because I question the motives of The city. Is this an altruistic act, or Stew doing a solid favor for his golfing developer buddies who should be the ones on the hook for this mess?

Edit: I should be clear that I don’t have a problem helping out all these folks in a clearly bad situation. My worry is that there won’t be consequences for those who messed up. It’s not a particularly complex structure either so I’m scratching me head as to why this even happened in the first place.

Edited by Danma, 22 December 2019 - 05:43 PM.

[LJ]

Every engineer has insurance so if it does turn out that the engineering was faulty he would be the one on the hook.

[Mike K.]

Centurion, the owner, was not the developer I don’t think. They purchased the building upon completion.

[spanky123]

I believe that DB Services built the building and has several others either planned or under construction.

[davidN]

Because I question the motives of The city. Is this an altruistic act, or Stew doing a solid favor for his golfing developer buddies who should be the ones on the hook for this mess?

Edit: I should be clear that I don’t have a problem helping out all these folks in a clearly bad situation. My worry is that there won’t be consequences for those who messed up. It’s not a particularly complex structure either so I’m scratching me head as to why this even happened in the first place.

Suggest perhaps that you can  be bitter "after" the facts are known if it is warranted  instead of before.

 

Do you know that the Mayor golfs with this developer and moreover are you sure that these "golfing buddies" are the ones "who should be on the hook for this mess"?

 

Lots of rhetoric - very little facts.

 

Suggest patience and clarity over hang wringing, accusations and bitterness at this stage..

Edited by davidN, 22 December 2019 - 11:04 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Not sure why this is frustrating to you.

It would appear that the City of Langford is going above and beyond what one would expect at the governmental level. I highly doubt that one would see the City of Victoria or other municipal governments reacting so quickly to a possible problem that has yet to be proven as their "fault". Good for Mayor Young and his Council for being proactive!

Let's just get the whole story before anyone gets their knickers in a knot!

ok well let’s also get the full story before Langford council throws money at it. that’s taxpayer money not theirs.

[Torrontes]

I presume that the City of Langford has been advised that there is potentially a legal claim against the City for negligent inspection and therefore negligence in issuing the occupancy permit. That doesn't mean the engineer of record or the contractor get off the hook for responsibility, but there may end up being an apportionment of responsibility.

It may very well be that someone within the City itself was of the view that there was a lack of diligent inspection, especially in light of the project being the first concrete and steel apartment tower in the City, which means limited inspection experience for the type of construction. Would you want that on your conscience as a professional?

Was the building built according to plan, or were modifications made during construction? Was care taken in assessing whether construction was indeed to plan, either by the engineer in reporting to the owner and its lenders, or by the building inspectors? The investigation and lawsuits will need to address those issues.

Whether structural reinforcement can be successfully implemented at this stage will be a very interesting question.

[Victoria Watcher]

Whether structural reinforcement can be successfully implemented at this stage will be a very interesting question.

 

indeed.

 

It may very well be that someone within the City itself was of the view that there was a lack of diligent inspection, especially in light of the project being the first concrete and steel apartment tower in the City, which means limited inspection experience for the type of construction. Would you want that on your conscience as a professional?

 

 

but wouldn't inspection be the responsibility of a third-party engineer experienced in this type of construction then the langford staff inspector would rely on that engineer's stamp or sign-off?  

 

it's certainly too bad appropriate alarm bells did not sound sooner ie. before people moved in or final occupancy was granted.  someone was certainly aware of issues back then.  now that person or persons may well have not been given appropriate attention. 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 23 December 2019 - 05:57 AM.

[Sparky]

^ All too often engineers sign off their own work. The engineer that designs the instalation is the same engineer that signs the Schedules B and C that accepts that the work was installed in accordance with the plans, specifications, and addenda.

If the work is not deigned properly in the first place and the contractor performs the work exactly as specified....the engineer doesn't have much choice but to accept it.

The municipal inspectors more or less just make sure that this flawed process is followed.

[spanky123]

indeed.


but wouldn't inspection be the responsibility of a third-party engineer experienced in this type of construction then the langford staff inspector would rely on that engineer's stamp or sign-off?

it's certainly too bad appropriate alarm bells did not sound sooner ie. before people moved in or final occupancy was granted. someone was certainly aware of issues back then. now that person or persons may well have not been given appropriate attention.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this is precisely the issue. A complaint was made with the professional association back in April. I would bet that occurred after others were told and failed to act. Was the City told but simply viewed it as “a disagreement between two engineers?” Perhaps that it why they are quick to write a cheque.

Edited by spanky123, 23 December 2019 - 07:16 AM.

[snub]

Thrift store beside Danbrook One closes up shop until further notice

Nearby daycare remains open for business

 

 

On Friday, the City of Langford said it received a report from the internationally recognized engineering firm WSP Global Inc. that recommends immediate installation of temporary support to the building. A summary of the report from WSP said issues with the building are related to the gravity system and the seismic force-resisting system.

 

https://www.goldstre...further-notice/