High-Rise Tear-Down Raises Questions About City Oversight

“Another Damn Condo” courtesy of Flickr’s Great_Beyond

After my earlier post about the architects, engineers, and contractors involved in the construction of the ill-fated McGuire tower, and the city’s admission that it plans to inspect more high-rises to see if more McGuires are rusting away in plain sight, I decided to ask Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development a few questions.

(For prescient, you can’t beat Clark Humphrey, who wrote this 2002 story on Belltown’s future–a year after The McGuire opened: “In 1999, city officials estimated that 150 to 200 recently built condo units had some form of water damage, needing a total of over $100 million in repairs. Some of these buildings will undoubtedly fall into serious disrepair before their occupants have paid off their mortgages.”)

I wanted to know more about the city’s role in assuring condo owners of quality construction of their homes–stepping back from this particular extreme instance to discuss the inspection process, and what level of responsibility the city takes for the number of water-damaged condos out there. DPD Deputy Director Alan Justad took the time to write back.

My first question was inspired by a Seattle Times story on the McGuire, in which I learned the city “does not inspect structural components of large buildings directly, but instead relies on a private report from a third-party inspection firm selected by the contractor.”

What’s the thinking behind allowing contractors to pick their own inspectors?

I think that was from a misstatement by me. The building code specifies that the owner selects the third-party inspector, not the builder. The demands of special inspections is such that it is not practical for the city to staff that work. Larger jobs can require as many of three special inspectors at the site on some days; sometimes an inspector needs to be there all day. We’ve had years where there were over 1000 projects needing special inspections. The standard throughout the country is to use private sector inspectors for this specialized work that requires ongoing oversight at the job site.   

---

Is the use of a rain screen system solely at the discretion of the architect/contractor? If so, has the city considered implementing guidelines to promote (if not require) use of a system?

Yes, this is a design decision for the applicant and their design team. We’re not planning to require it—there are other systems that work.*

---

Given the area’s long-standing history with water damage to condos, can you update me on the DPD’s actions in response to the general issue?

The national codes made a change to deal with EIFS, but the state legislature passed a law requiring condos to have an architect design the exterior system, and to have a  “qualified inspector” verify that the construction is per plans (RCW 64.55). There are loopholes, but that’s the basic requirement. We are charged by law to just keep the records. Here’s a link to the text of the law.

*Unfortunately, this shortest response from Mr. Justad is what I hoped might be the meat of the discussion. The legal remedies for after-the-fact water-damage don’t really take the place of promoting construction that doesn’t leak in the first place. I have to ask, if there are other systems that work, why are newer buildings still impersonating sieves?