Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
I heard much the same on the radio. The balcony was described as not intended for people to be on ..... it was there for looks. I guess the doors were there if you wanted to get a closer look. They also said that since the occupants generally change often (every three months) nobody was there long enough to notice the poor condition of the patio. Where do they get this stuff?cda said:former member of the city design-review committee that approved the project in 2001 told the San Francisco Chronicle that the balcony "was meant just to be a place where someone could stand out for bit, get a breath of fresh air. Not for something like 13 people."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/17/berkeley-balcony-collapse-investigation/28879957/
It has been my experience that structural engineers will not provide flashing details at balconies. So it falls on an architect. Sometimes there is no architect. I had a project several years ago that was replacing cantilevered balconies on two story apartment buildings. There were no details for how to keep water out.....and they were replacing them because they were rotten from water getting in. They were about 25 years old.The wood broke off in the hands of inspectors, added Hom, who visited the site. That indicates major deterioration of the beams, known as joists.
The requirements for affordable housing always end up requiring corners be cut somewhere, somebody's got to pay for the losses on those units, the idea is that the rents of the market rate housing can go up to cover the losses on the affordable units but it doesn't always work out that way.¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_28332627/berkeley-collapsed-balcony-originally-not-part-project-plans\ said:The city has said that the balcony was built to 1998 building code requirements. As part of the inspection process, the city building department would have to ensure these requirements were met during construction."For a structure such as the apartment, I would have expected the construction plans to include structural plans prepared by a professional licensed engineer," Kirby said. "The engineer would have determined the members needed to support the design load, and the inspector would have confirmed the engineer's design was being implemented."The zoning board also approved the project in 2002, which should have been the final step before construction, but the developer itself appealed those proposals, asking for less parking requirements and release from the city requirement to provide 20 percent of his units for affordable housing, Olson said. This brought the project to the City Council, which dismissed the appeal on March 23, 2004. The project received its final city inspection in January 2007, shortly before it opened.¹
There is no requirement for ongoing inspections, what's he recommending that we have a maintenance code requiring ongoing inspection and maintenance?"Due to the complete inadequacy of ... inspections around the Bay Area, you literally have ticking time bombs," said Niall McCarthy, a Burlingame lawyer who has represented victims in five Bay Area balcony collapses. "‹
If Berkeley approved the plans using Bituthene for a waterproofing membrane shouldn't Berkeley be liable?"This is a situation where a deficiency in the design allowed for moisture to seep in," he said. Childress' conclusion also raises questions about the city's review of the plans and construction.
I don't see a steel frame, I'm sure there are moment frames in the building but they are not evident here, maybe he's referencing the steel ornamental railings, but they didn't fail."I don't like the way the steel frame design looks and how it was connected," Childress said.
He doesn't know what he's talking about, flashings never go back into the building, under french doors they go back the depth of the door frame, and good ones have a turned up lip at the interior edge. At walls they go up the wall, not into the building. Childress is an engineer , I've never had an engineer design or specify flashing, that's the architects' job. When they do dig out the plans I doubt we'll see them for liability reasons, somebody could go to jail here, there is no statute of limitations for manslaughter and a contractor was recently convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter in that Fremont case where the earth collapsed after the inspector red-tagged the site.To prevent the water infiltration, he said, flashing would need to go back several feet inside the wood structure.
It hasn't come out that the City plan checkers approved Bituthene as a deck waterproofing membrane. Apparently an inspector did approve that since that is what is there. If in fact that was the approved method, the builder may be exonerated. The real culprit here is the inspector but as you know, the AHJ is mostly lawsuit proof.conarb said:If Berkeley approved the plans using Bituthene for a waterproofing membrane shouldn't Berkeley be liable?
An inspector does not inspect all the various assemblies that go into a buildings construction. An AHJ will determine what parts of a project warrant an inspection before a contractor can move forward with a project what parts do not "require" an inspection.The real culprit here is the inspector but as you know, the AHJ is mostly lawsuit proof.
Code section pleaseEven if Bituthene was shown on an approved plan the inspector knows that a walk-on deck waterproofing requires an assembly which has an ICC ES report.
To me by the time an inspector puts their eyes on it, many many people have looked at the design, plans, constructionmtlogcabin said:An inspector does not inspect all the various assemblies that go into a buildings construction. An AHJ will determine what parts of a project warrant an inspection before a contractor can move forward with a project what parts do not "require" an inspection.It is all based on available resources at the time.
Code section please
Code section pleasemtlogcabin said:Even if Bituthene was shown on an approved plan the inspector knows that a walk-on deck waterproofing requires an assembly which has an ICC ES report.
I admit that I am not well aquainted with what inspections are explicitly required by the code. I do make it a point to inspect waterproofing.An inspector does not inspect all the various assemblies that go into a buildings construction. An AHJ will determine what parts of a project warrant an inspection before a contractor can move forward with a project what parts do not "require" an inspection.It is all based on available resources at the time.
NOInspector Gift said:Point of clarification: The recent NY disaster was a BALCONY collapse, not a deck failure. Different type of failure. Inadequate flashing and waterproofing are suspected as the primary cause of the collapse.