• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Parking on the roof

The problem is that most of Canada is rural enough to never require things like that, so we have engineers in these rural areas who have never designed for this use. Secondly, your building maintenance staff will have no sweet clue on what kind of a maintenance schedule is required with this type of building. This community is lucky they only lost two people in the collapse.
 
The building was built over 30 years ago "the mall was being built in 1979"

Might be more to this than just a "design" failure
 
There is no reason that roof top parking could not have been designed to be safe. The fact that there was a collapse suggests that time and deterioration played a significant part in the collapse.

The Architects response amazes me. He should have known that you either resolve any concerns you may have or not sign off on it. Even if he still had concerns it was stupid to publicly admit so.

It is unclear what was the level of building department review.

It would be wrong to thus say that it is unacceptable to put parking over other occupancies. That would be an emotional reaction. There is a need to be rational when looking at this collapse. They need to find out what really lead to the collapse.
 
The general consensus right now is that the waterproofing company, who had never even installed their product in a similar way to what was proposed here, did not take the detrimental effect of snow-plowing and salt on the product they were installing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top