Florida's Response to the Surfside Collapse
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- In this video we talk about Florida Senate Bill 4-D which was voted on during a special session and signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in May 2022.
Send photos, tips, or other whistleblower content related to building and engineering matters to "tips@buildingintegrity.com". Your identity will remain confidential unless you explicitly state that you want to go on the record.
Josh's Instagram: / josh.engineer
Josh's other TH-cam Channel: / whatdevelops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
𝙈𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙪𝙢 𝙏𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩:
• Millennium Tower
𝘾𝙝𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙏𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙎𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩:
• Champlain Towers South
𝙊𝙣 𝙋𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩:
• On Point
𝙊𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙅𝙤𝙗 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩:
• On the Job
𝙊𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙊𝙣𝙚 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩:
• One on One
Building Integrity Supports Crossroads Hope Academy. To Donate to Crossroads Hope Academy, please use the following link:
www.crossroads...
To see more videos about Crossroads and the amazing work they are doing, please watch the following playlist: • Crossroads Hope Academy
#BuildingIntegrity #surfsidecollapse #champlaintowerssouth
Disclaimer: Nothing contained within this video should be construed as legal advice. Building Integrity makes no claims of its own regarding the guilt or innocence or liability otherwise of any legal entities mentioned in any of their videos. These videos are made for news/informational and educational purposes only.
The state should have hired you to come in and explain the whole situation to them, along with any relevant information that pertains to the new laws being formed. You’ve done a fantastic job explaining these concepts to all of us (laypersons) and I think you would be a perfect commission leader on this incident.
Politics clouds judgment.
Having practical knowledge, experience, and skills in a technical field does not confer the necessary knowledge, experience, skills, or _interest_ in dealing with politics. On the other hand, the lack of such things is not all bad for scenarios as we see here.
If he's not an expert witness already, he's leaving money on the table.
How many balls do you think that Josh can juggle at the same time?
That's the problem here, you guys always assign superhuman powers to people who have skills higher than yourselves. Using factual measures would be a more accurate measure.
As a retired Architect who has specialized in building science I would suggest that both Architects and Engineers need to be involved. Most Architects could not certify a structure, but most Engineers do not understand building science well enough to know if a wall or roof is constructed properly.
Well put, Paul, and accords entirely with my own experience as an architect in Scotland where around 50% of my professional life was spent working and reporting on existing buildings in various states of disrepair. While many architects are shaky on the quantitative aspects of structural and engineering services systems assessment and calculation (I include myself in that group), only architects have an integrated and holistic understanding of the building and the interaction of the parts. The key is knowing when to request the attendance of the specialist investigator or remediator.
Yea! Josh is back!!!
most interesting.. many questions;, if, after 365 days of a report showing repairs needed said repairs not done because of "busy" contractors,, what happens? are the residents evicted?, fined? and speaking of $$, the additional costs for all this will be huge. This will be very interesting to follow, thanks
Fortunately everyone in Florida is wise and honest, and always has been
and they all work together for the common good
Good job, Florida!
Knee jerking is usually bigger than the cause of issues.
No , just the regular kind of jerks,
No matter what, more and more are going to topple. Be prepared for the worse to come.
It is good that the choice is put out of the hands of the boards, however there needs to also be some mechanism that goes along with that that limits discretionary spending by those boards on other nice-to-have unnecessary things until the structural issues are fixed. So that it becomes totally apolitical and so that owners' pockets are protected. ALL available funds from monthly fees should go towards fixing the sturctural problems excluding bare necessity kind of payments, NOT through exorbitant extra assessments. This will force them to take more seriously routine structural maintenance, over all the other unnecessary baloney like fancy landscaping. Mow the lawn, trim the bushes a bit and leave the rest of the crap out. If you got a pool, shut it down for the duration of the repairs. Common sense.
I'm in the unusual position of being an engineer who has sat on my condo board (10 years total board experience) and I agree that the move to take the decision out of the hands of the board and into the engineer is a sound one. The board, by it's nature, consists of individuals who are not experienced enough to make correct decisions on this issue; furthermore they are motivated to cut costs. It's a win/win situation for the well being of the building and all of the owners.
I agree and you can tell that was the case at CPT South. They were more concerned about the look of the lobby than the integrity of the building. There has to be laws going forward to prevent that kind of thinking. No more putting off maintenance until the next generation arrives.
I flip house's but even I get disappointed when I have to rewire an entire house when I didn't budget for that instead of using it on finishes but safety is paramount to the integrity of my companies name.
But how do you do that? Currently struggling with a board and city that have allowed a leak to go unabated for 2 decades. Hope our time is not running out.
It's also a LOSS for every insurance premium paying person in the state. Because this just opens a new form of insurance scam up where engineers continually demand repairs that aren't needed. Making insurance companies pay for things that aren't needed, and driving up insurance premiums for EVERYONE in the state so they can recoup their losses.
Josh, I'd love to see your take on the Seattle Condo Building that got Condemned and Demolished a few years ago only 10 years after it was constructed. Apparently the PTs were failing because the Contracter failed to adaquately Weatherproof the Tensioning Bolts. It's hard to believe that something like this could happen due to a $5 bottle of Galvcon.
I will look into that, thanks!
What are "PTs".
McGuire Building in the Belltown Seattle story is interesting case of structural failure condition
PT - post tension slab is a concrete slab with steel cables running through it that have been placed under 33,000 +/- pounds of tension. Tension makes concrete slab and foundation stronger than concrete without reinforcement and reduces cracking.
me too i am in seattle as well
@@davesmith5656 Post Tension Cables are metal cables placed in a concrete slab to "Tension" the concrete to make it stronger. If you watch the video about the Florida Bridge collapse you'll learn about how impopper tensioning may have lead to that disaster.
I listened to the entirety of this video.... AND I am not even American! This collapse caused me to study this case through you. I enjoy it and cherish every bit of information. Cheers!
Same, but I live in the USA. I still find it intriguing and I’ve been studying it.
Requiring a building to be inspected once it reaches 30 years, and even 25 years, is way too late, especially in the wet and humid South and Florida. It should have actually been 10 years, and then every 5 years afterwards for that climate. 25 years being the first inspection, and then every 10 years afterwards, should have been for the non-Northwest Western (Mountain and Pacific) states instead. Also, for such high-profile cases where so many lives are at stake, they should require 2 engineers from different non-affiliated companies to ensure that the results are not biased by a single company's corruption.
One would expect that once these reports start rolling in, and become public record since copies go to local building departments, that the condition of the buildings will indicate whether these time frames are too long.
@@KameraShy I completely agree, further with what happened to CPT South, I don't think (at least for a few years) we will see anyone putting their license on the line.
My building was built in 1991. I have lived here over 8 years. A small but constant leak will mess your structure up fast!
Really, so you're trying to act like being closer to the Pacific ocean isn't an issue? Even though it has the EXACT same salt water corroding everything? SMH.
Agree on the issue of allowing architects to do the inspections. Actually, I think this is an area that probably requires certification as a minimum, and potentially a specialty license.
As to notifying the building agency - I think it's a very good idea for the regulatory body having jurisdiction to be aware of when these inspections are supposed to take place. It would not surprise me that many, if not most, building agencies don't have accurate records to support the 25-30 year trigger point for existing buildings. What I think is missing is some kind of 'what if' authority that gives the building agency the authority to actually do something if someone decides to ignore mandatory requirements - such as withdraw the occupancy certificate for the building.
You mentioned who is required to receive the milestone inspection reports, but you did not mention whether those reports become public records that are accessible to the general public. Building occupants are owners who could be motivated to withhold unfavorable information about the building - there must be assurance that potential buyers have access to those reports.
Finally, as to the report retention requirement - I suppose there is an argument that because the reports are done periodically, retention for 15 years is sufficient. But I would be more comfortable with a requirement that the reports be retained until the end-of-life of the building.
Yeah, the reports should be kept at least 21 years so at minimum 2 prior reports are available at all times.
Josh, I sure agree with your reservations about the provision of allowing "arsitects" to do these inspections. I'm sure that my historical bias towards them is showing and it's based on past experience.
You need to binge-hire technical writers. There are a lot of us who spend our time helping engineers write technical reports--I spent a while working on EIRs. It's a great way to leverage your limited number of engineers.
Collecting information and formatting everything correctly, checking for internal consistency, confirming cross-references, even the traditional spelling (commonly confused words!) and grammar checks--all things that engineers can off-load.
An amusing anecdote arose in respect to Cadbury Schweppes Group HQ in London. The walls started subsiding radically, a foot. When they opened the foundations, they found there were none, the walls were, strangely, built on a brick arch a foot square, the shoulders of the arch had failed and the walls fell into the void.
I discovered the answer in a History of London. The area when they were built was marshland, and the available material was well-seasoned oak from Tyburn Tree and the surrounding spectator stands: this was where London hanged its felons. The buildings were built on a raft of repurposed oak beams, at a time when the life expectancy of a construction was about 40 years. The vous was that occupied by the oak, which had rotted away over 200 years!
I’m a P.E. For 30+ years. I’ve conducted engineering inspection/evaluations. More often, I’ve contracted with dozens and dozens of engineers to conduct such inspections. I have NEVER seen any evaluation report which said “looks great!” Every one says something like “we have identified this aspect which MAY lead to premature failure and we recommend more testing or complete replacement.” Engineers are not stupid. Nobody wants the liability of saying “looks great!”
I think one reasons the government now requires to get a copy of every report is spotty record keeping of condo boards.
Reporting isn't spotty in FL. Providing a copy to the govt makes the condo board, engineering firm and govt all accountable, to each other, to get the inspection and report
@@JackieBluXO which state do you live in?
I live in Florida and the reporting is spotty. The FL government is always doing business, and the issues never get resolved.
Also, the associations are scamming people, building crap they don't need and deviating funds.
@@fiore910 I live in FL too. Construction background and former govt employee
I can foresee, as a consequence of this law, that engineering firms will be scooping up testing companies. With the requirement to have testing done, and it not being merely a suggestion now, firms that do these structural surveys will see a need for more testing companies. They're not going to wait 6 months for a test. They'll have their own affiliated company that will put THEIR work ahead of everyone else's work.
And if they're shady they'll do every test in existence to inflate the bill lol
@@contra1124 Same thing with any profession. The good thing is there does not seem to be a requirement that they be the ones doing the tests. Also, shady companies are likely to end up known and avoided.
Wait…I thought we are sworn to not practice outside of our area of expertise?! Maybe Florida needs to add a new licensing specialty to their PE list.
I’ve spent 25 years in aero design, and I can confirm that it costs less to do it right the first time: That extra $M+ up front is a bargain compared to the cost of a catastrophic mishap.
Hindsight is 20/20; Foresight is 1,000/20
"Three stories or more..."
I wonder if that includes buildings with 'special penthouse units that don't count as an additional floor'...
Yeah, but it collapsed from the bottom. So that didn't cause it.
This is going to really gut the condo industry in Florida because all the buildings are probably falling down and there's no way that most of the residents have any chance in hell of being able to afford the repairs.
AT LAST, Josh’s new video! I’ve grown to really look forward to every video you produce, Josh! They are all very high quality, with excellent technical content.
I just started watching this one. 😁
Well, I dare say you’re going to be doing a roaring trade for the next few years, Josh.
Hey Josh. It's always good to see You and the videos You put out. ✌🏾
I appreciate that
I've worked with architects and engineers that screw up new work. How are we going to find them capable of understanding this new science of aging structures?
There needs to be standards, training and further education so there are more "qualified" people conducting these tests.
Edit: Can you do more videos of your inspections, findings and recommendations? I want to know more about what's out there. Thank you for all you do. ❤️
In theory that education and certification is what a Professional Engineer or PE is. However, in reality, like most certifications, it's just a stupidly difficult test. Which can be sort of dumb.
For example, Electrical Engineering can be pretty different between sensitive component low voltage, household voltage, and actually high voltage. The "rules of thumb" are different. Yes EEs are taught about all of those in school, but they're massively different fields with different requirements.
Only one test though!
@@arthurmoore9488 I agree. I did ok through my 5 year apprenticeship to become an electrician and my NICET level 2 certification for fire alarm. Others tested far better than I did. But in the field I blew those guys out of the water. I was constantly fixing their work. Rather upsetting and proves the point that a "degree" is just a piece of paper.
Local union #26 for almost 30 years until my lung disease. I wish I could put the tools back on. 😪
Because it's not even a new science it's just basically ignoring warning signs in the first place.
Historically, as I know it, architects and engineers rarely agree on much. I wouldn't hire a designer to review a structure for its integrity any day of the week.
HOAs would probably agree with you, so if they have to pay someone, they might as well get their money's worth and hire a qualified person (unless they are right up against a deadline and will take anything from anybody that satifies the law).
@@campkohler9131 Problem is going to find those that are qualified to do so. You'll need and entirely new discipline to be given at higher education levels so you can attract more people to get into this field.
From watching this series, when I walked under a road bridge I noticed all the stalactites, spaulding, and exposed reedbar.
*spalling *rebar (reinforcing bar)
You can call a 311 in many large cities and report it.
When I used to design Telecom facilities, every part of the facility had to have provisions for testing...from windows to tech equipment. Observation panels, hatches, and holes; built in monitoring, and safety equipment. Such as a water leak detection system inside the floors/ceilings to detect chiller leaks. Hatches and portals to inspect the beams, etc. I've never understood why commercial buildings are not all required to do such things.
Because they're ugly...? I'd put access panels anywhere you might ever need them, imo.
How these HOA organizations functioned with how they handled the structure of a building is mind blowing. It was so dysfunctional that I'm surprised that only one building has collapsed and so many people have died. I just empathize so much with the family members of those that perished. If my family member died in that building and upon discovery of this information. I would be so angry.
Most of the families are also the same people in the HOA who put off repairs, and didnt want to pay for anything, Looks like another case of trying to blame others for your own wrongdoings, which is rife in society these days.
Members in the HOA are basically the residents of the building, just like everybody else living there. Board members are often unpaid but have to do a lot of the work like a property manager and carry huge responsibilities. It's another full-time job. Most of the time they get harassed and criticized for every little thing and when an assessment is proposed. Neighbors usually don't appreciate and just know how to complain. Also, in my opinion, the efficiency of the HOA largely depends on the quality and personality of all board members. It's extremely hard to work with board members who don't know and refuse to learn and refuse to be open-minded.
@@KL-kj9ml And that's why I'd never live in a building with an HOA in charge. No thanks.
@@KL-kj9ml I’m an owner of two separate HOAs and you nailed it! Anyone that has been a member of a BOD of an HOA knows exactly what you are talking about
lol yeah, a HOA populated with a bunch of rich people are laser focused on the money 🤑.
People are an afterthought, just another messy expense or cost on a spreadsheet. We should never, ever think for once that they give a crap about us.
The solution is really simple. If you are an owner of a property, go above and beyond the minimums set by local government. Get an inspection done before to catch any problems early so you can plan for and schedule repairs. the issue is alot of properties are going to get caught with their pants down and all the "half assed" repairs they have been making like a little paint there, a little roof tar there, a little patch concrete here and so on" is about to catch up with the bad properties. The state of Florida needs to be ready to evacuate buildings and close them down until the repairs are done. we are talking about peoples lives here. The first years of implementation is going to be rough
Fortunately everyone in Florida is wise and honest, and always has been
and they all work together for the common good,
happy to see the world a better place for all.
There is an instant need to train engineers and architects up to the capability to do these kinds of inspections competently. People with your kinds of knowledge and experience will be needed for this. There will need to be exams, though it sounds as though there are none yet. Certification will be needed, since as you point out, it’s not enough to just be an engineer or an architect. Highly specific knowledge and skills are vital. I hope the state lawmakers are made aware of this. (Since by their previous rules you said your 10-year-old daughter could have officially done some of these inspections, let’s hope they now realize that’s a problem.)
You are a natural teacher. I wish you could be cloned and your extra self could help set up organized teaching and training to ensure that these new mandated inspectors will actually be able to do the job that is needed.
Don't forget that contractors also need to be qualified quickly to do these repairs. There's going to be a lot of money in training (and some shady people doing it),
Come talk to RIBA, in the UK.
You don't train professionals like engineers or architects, you educate them. Certifications are for employment in which you are trained, not educated. It's not a simple thing to do.
@@paulmoir4452 You do both. You educate them, then you educate them. First the theory, then experience. Only then do the UK Professions certify practitioners as competent, My father was in charge of certification and disciplinary control of the UK's Mechanical Engineers for a good few years. You need Professional Bodies under a Council of Professions.
@@JelMain I think it's just matter of terms. Over here in Canada we wouldn't call it a "certificate", we would call it a "professional designation". Here the engineering professional bodies, which are provincial, will not allow anyone to be called "engineer" without actually being one. Hence no "Sanitation Engineers" nor "Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer". You're MCSE certified for which you cannot spell out the acronym.
In January our insurance company sent out an inspector to evaluate our roof. Our roof was fine according to the inspection and there was still 5 years on the roofs warranty. In March the insurance company said we would have to replace the entire roof by July 1 or be dropped from the insurance. I'd never heard anything like this before. We have the money to go out of pocket for it but what about the families that can't come up with $20,000 in 3 months for a roof? There's a lot of wild stuff going on with insurance here in Florida.
They are also doing this in Residential housing too. I believe it has to do with roofing lobbies saying materials older than 10 years can't be trusted.
Well, the gist of it is... The insurance company took your money for 15-20 years on a 25-year warranted life expectancy roof. So, the insurance company is hedging the bet and going to work it out so that at worst, they'll only have to insure a brand-new roof, that carries a risk assessment of zero. You replace the roof five years early under threat of insurance cancellation. If you try to get a new insurance policy, the current insurance company will relay its findings to your new prospective insurer about the roof condition and their reason for canceling the policy. Not only do the "Contractors who make the repairs" play games, but the insurance companies have their own games as well....
Ooh, can you go after the warranty? What happened between Jan-Mar?
@@additudeobx Buying insurance isn't like buying a sandwich from a local shop which will give you a free one after you buy ten.
Second, every insurance company as underwriting criteria e.g. not insuring a building that's more than 25 years old unless it's been rewired, replumbed and reroofed. If they've insured you for decades and you haven't updated your building they have the right to walk away even if you've been loss free. Remember, they took on the risk of loss (in exchange for premium) for all those years.
Third, insurance companies DO NOT share information between themselves...that's illegal. They do not even give each other loss history. It is only given to the insured or the insured's authorized agent/broker.
You have to remember that insurers base their rates and success on the Law Of Large Numbers. They insure a very large number of homogeneous risks and analyze results based on criteria such as age, construction, locale, types and size of losses. If they see that their bad loss ratio is driven by roof claims in FL then they have to deal with it either by raising rates or changing what is an acceptable risk. Not fun when it's you that's impacted but they're for-profit businesses.
To see how your insurer is doing just google it and "combined ratio" If its combined loss ratio is under 100% they're making an underwriting profit, e.g. for every dollar in premium coming in less than one dollar is being spent for losses, loss adjustment and underwriting/administrative expenses.
The insurance companies in Florida had a cough up over $1 billion in claims for that building. They have decided that they want to make sure of the properties they are ensuring are in serviceable condition. Apparently there’s a lot of buildings in Florida that are not being maintained properly.
Plus that billion dollars is going to end up in everybody’s insurance premiums going forward. Because that’s how insurance works.
Here's a brain teaser: Why are reports done every decade only kept for 15 years? Surely it should be 21 years or more so prior reports can be studied to check degradation over time?
Cost. Its expensive to keep records that long.
Florida is plagued with substandard construction built on the cheap.
Boy , do I see a scam potential , on top of the original builder's crime.
I'm reminded of how Teamster Retirement Funds being used to build mob casinos. These funds will be raided.
Most condo boards are in over their heads.
My comments are shadow banned on YT. Ver 2.0
I have a degree focused on building structural engineering, but I ended up working for the DOT designing bridges for the past 10 years. I took bridge inspection courses with the DOT and was shocked that I never had to consider building maintenance in school. In the bridge world, inspections are mandated and regulated federally by AASHTO, and states hire inspectors and handle when each bridge will be repaired or replaced. Since buildings aren't all owned by the government like bridges, I can see this being a whole lot of mess. I'm really interested to learn how everything progresses and works out, and if other states or the federal government enacts anything similar.
If I was an engineer... on that kind of stuff, I'd just say No Thanks rather than take the risk, such as Champlain... especially in this era, when we already know that... well, there are still many more Champlain Towers out there....
Yep. Engineers liability insurance for this is going to change as well.
a major problem in the US is the material used on roofs, namely roofing felt shingles, after a few years they become very brittle, and when you try and replace one shingle, you end up with further damage as they split, break, snap, etc, so end up needing to replace the whole roof.
I was getting lots of door knockers saying “I can get the insurance company to replace your roof.” It was annoying. I’ve had it inspected twice by qualified, experienced roofers who I trust, and they say it’s fine for now.
When I moved my homeowners insurance to a local insurance agency, the woman who worked in the agents office told me I needed to re-roof my house,and she would send her son, a roofer, to give me an estimate. I said thank you no and got an inspection from a respectable contractor, who said my roof was fine. I passed this along to the agent, and she doesn't work there any more.
I wonder how many people fell for her crap.
@@Grandpa82547 Amazing that the woman thought she could keep it under the radar. No emails, no phone messages left with collegues, etc.
There's been many roofer scams going on in FL. I'm not sure where you live, but FL is currently going through a Home Owners Insurance crisis from Insurance company going bankrupt from these sort of practices.
Florida's existing laws make it very easy for roofing contractors and their attorneys to get huge sums of money from insurance companies. Roofers will have customers sign an Assignment of Benefits form, essentially giving all control of the claim to the roofing contractor and cutting the homeowner out of the loop. If the insurance company tries to deny a replacement roof as clearly unnecessary, the roofers work with local attorneys to sue the insurance company, and Florida law requires insurers to pay the attorney's fees if they lose. So now a roof that needed $5,000 in repairs or maybe a $30,000 replacement ends up costing the insurance company more like $300,000, since they owe for all the billed hours the contractor's attorney wrote up. As a result, several smaller insurance companies have become insolvent, and most of the major carriers are not writing new homeowner policies and not renewing existing policies. If your roof is 20 years old or older, it's highly likely that your homeowner's insurance will cancel your policy at the next renewal, because it's practically guaranteed to "need replacement," according to the contractors and their attorneys.
I got tired of running roofers/roofer's touts off my doorstep telling me that my roof which, I willingly admit was worn out and life-expired, could be replaced "at no cost to me", by claiming on my insurance. Insurance is for repairing _damage,_ not for things worn out through the passage of time, and what was pitched to me time after time after time was fraud, plain and simple. .... It was also a way to get a cheap and $4!tty roof.
I eventually replaced my roof, (which was about 27 years old, was in poor shape, but had never leaked), at a cost of about $9k, with some additional work, and a 25 year m&l warranty backed by the shingle manufacturer. It looks great, and it also stopped roofers ringing my doorbell! 😃
Thanks you Josh for explaining about your mind set on thought process on actually looking at a structure, I myself worked building maintenance in downtown Tampa. Some of my work orders were pretty much thrown into the trash by my stupidviser and the next swamp rat up on the chain of ignorance.
There was some minor issues, WHICH WILL turn into major problems and at some point cause bodily injury. One of the old courthouse’s had exterior spalling with rusty rebar, rusted out storm drain pipes in parking garage, rusty exterior emergency stairs, major spalling on decretive jut outs and column covers. I would personally show my stupidviser what I found and his reply was, yeah, well, it’ll get fixed at some point.
Basically he didn’t want to spend money from his budget, because it made him look bad, so this type of issue would get pushed onto the next stupidviser.
Swamp rats don’t just live in DC. One of the pretty boys, told me to “ rotate “ the rusted drain pipe, so the split was on top, to keep the water in…
I've seen some stuff. Lol
I've seen black mold behind a new set of counters (on that thin MDF backboard by the wall...?)
I've seen nonexistent drain pipes. It was rotted out and held together with I guess plumber's tape..?? This was a 400k+ house, btw.
I've seen lamp extension cords running thru the drop ceiling.
Oh. My FAVORITE of all time? A house old enough to be good ol' copper wiring.
With a sticker on the fuse box saying that it's got aluminum in it. WHY??? HOW???
BZZZT! I'm out. 450k house? You're joking lol. If it's that stupid already. I don't want to know the MUCH WORSE crap hiding somewhere. And no point in paying a grand for an inspection to fix obviously STUPID. probably dangerous issues.
Oh, the AGENT (NOT a licensed electrician, btw!) Told me it wasn't dangerous. Htf does he know? Lol.
Agents are the worst scamming liars of all time.
Nope, nope. And
Nope.
I think it just got a lot more expensive to live in Florida.
I worked structural concrete construction in the early 70's and we had inspectors on the job full time who made sure slump testing was done and samples of every truck were taken for testing. It was not uncommon to have the inspector force demolition of a portion of recent construction due to test failures. Inspection of batch plants was thoroughly incorporated into the process as well. This stuff is so critical to the health and behavior of 'buiding integrity' that straying away from these practices is what is causing and will cause again major building failures over time. Of course an aggressive inspection and maintenance program can help ensure occupants a better outcome than those at Surfside.
I remember one pour had to be demolished and come to find out someone changed the truck oil by draining the old oil into a sand pile to be used at the batch plant. Yes, oil prevents concrete from being structural. It weakens the substance or prevents bonding with rebar, etc. Could that have happened here? It would be difficult to cipher after 40 years. Should have been done during construction. Each truck should be tested. Always.
Well, like in everything...some do it and they do it well, and some don't do it, or do it poorly. Some of it depends on what part of the country it happens in as well...
From what i have heard, the government agencies took structural samples from pretty much every part of the building for testing. With modern equipment it's very much possible to test for that sort of contamination even after decades. First, you can do all kinds of chemical and spectrometry tests in which you can find contaminents in the parts-per-million range.
And you can also look at the individual crystals in very much detail (down to individual atoms if required). If something hindered the concrete from curing properly, it's possible to find it.
These are the same techniques used by geologists to find out what happened to individual rocks like millions of years ago. 40 years of weathering? Pfff, that's nothing ;-)
@@additudeobx Is that the case today? If we go back in time, we don’t see much history of buildings falling down because of poor quality assurance. Do the words Quality Assurance still have the importance they did once before? Professional Engineers should be able to be in every region as once was the norm, One would think.
Honestly, the trouble might be in the attempt to use concrete for everything. Concrete is not the only construction material available and it has serious flaws which I think people overlook a lot.
I live in coastal GA, about 100 miles from the Florida state line, and I can tell you that the salt air and the humidity, etc. are pretty rough on materials. I wouldn't trust a concrete structure near the beach, unless I knew that it had been well maintained. I've seen moisture build up and cause rust underneath an inch or more of fairing compound on the sides of mega yachts with the only symptom being some bubbling underneath the paint. There's so much at stake with a multi-story condo held together with rebar which might similarly rust without anybody's knowledge.
Whence the common expletive, "Oh sugar."
Your videos are always informative
Glad you think so!
Wow, condo laws are so much different in Canada. Boards can't do their own reserve studies, professionals are required, and they're required more frequently. And how do they get away with waiving funding of reserves? Do they just hope they've moved out before a special assessment is implemented on the unit owners to replace some major component?
It's like speeding but for property losses. You underfund & just hope nothing happens. Totally legal here because in the US capitalism matters more than comminuty. The rights of the individual supercede the rights of a community. If the market wasn't rigged, theorhetically, the condos in poor financial shape would be worth less than the condos in good financial shape...but we don't have fair markets.
In the United States there’s different rules in all 50 states. In Florida apparently the board can just decide that they don’t want to keep proper reserves. Some of these laws come into affect because of lobbying by interested parties. Construction companies, lawyers, real estate agents, ECT.
How did they even sell any units? The bank/buyer wouldn't go for that, I wouldn't think.
@@neilkurzman4907 They're that stupid there? How do they even survive? I've seen minor stuff and wouldn't consider it after that. Not having any reserves is a HUGE no-go. I'd be suing for all costs (inspection and such) for not disclosing.
@@windsofmarchjourneyperrytr2823 that’s the United States libertarian mindset. I can do whatever I want it’s none of your business. Money in my pocket is better than money spent on supporting infrastructure. If I ignore it long enough it won’t be my problem.
In many other states you’re required to keep the reserves. In Florida you’re required to keep the reserves unless the board votes not to.
I’ve lived in my condominium in New York for about 30 years. Over that time there’s been many assessments. Which pretty much tells me there was insufficient reserves. The last meeting though they said that they did have reserves to cover major items now.
The difference is my condo is in the multi story building. Failures were mostly leaking roof and siding.
I asked a similar question on your colleagues video, but how easy will it be to get E&O insurance for engineering or architecture firms performing these new studies? Will the inability to get such insurance keep some of the less qualified firms from doing these studies? After CTS, I would think insurance companies are going to be very picky about who they insure.
Amazingly we have not seen a change in policy costs for E&O insurance. We just shopped our insurance around and signed with a provider a couple weeks ago and our rates actually went down. And yes we are 100% accurate on our application... they know that 90% of our business comes from consulting for condos. This MAY change in the future... we will see.
Also, need more better building code for anyone who is remodeling the unit and making sure they are not putting too much weight in the unit, like foe example, heavy tiles, tub, glass shower doors, granite top for kitchen
The more weight put in, the more stress to the cement foundation and fllors
As a licensed architect in Florida I agree with your assessment..I personally would not go anywhere these inspections…qualified engineers for these types of structures should do them.
Have you seen the video by jeffostroff about Champlain towers North with the shoring poles on balconies and in the garage ? (*titled: 'MORE Shoring Poles! 2nd Condo Collapse Fears in Miami?')
I think the 10 year requirement on the subsequent milestone inspection is too long. I'd like to see 5-7 max. ALOT happens in 10 years. It's a false sense of security.
You realistically should be hearing every 6 months from someone who oversees the complex, exactly what the outstanding issues are. Alot changes quickly, especially when water is introduced.
Great video as always. It will be interesting to see how many condo owners are going to cry foul due to the costs coming their way.
Especially those who didn't buy to live there but bought as an "investment oppoertunity".
Buy into old factories if you must get into ugly condos where you own zero land. They're generally stable AF. Extremely overbuilt for residential and often already HAVE a sprinkler system! Usually have ENORMOUS service elevators, too. I saw the one at Ludwig drums in Chicago. It's bigger than my kitchen.
Which is fairly substantial by older building standards. 16 x 12 or so. I've looked at tons of houses for 400k, it's rare to see a kitchen that big.
Good thing no other buildings have collapsed, during the very speedy government process🙄
Hello, I've just watched a programme about the collapse of the towers on the BBC iPlayer. Called Why Buildings Collapse. It took a very long time to not tell us much at all. I learned so much from your videos. You did a much, much better job of analysis and explanation. They only mentioned the words "punching sheer" twice! There was very little analysis of the collapse of the pool deck, some, but it wasn't really backed up with anything to help us understand it. All in all, I learned nothing from the programme and so much from your videos. Thank you. I still think about construction with information I learned from you. We are building a small barn conversion on our property for my elderly mum to live in. And I look at it all in a different light now and ask different questions. I also understand the terms. You have a lot to be proud of.
It seems to me, a retired PE, that most coastal condos are doomed to failure because concrete, steel, and salt don’t mix well. I’d guess that spalled exterior concrete due to rusting rebar would be almost everywhere and I’d assume that fresh concrete over rusted rebar will not be acceptable in the future. Would you hazard an estimate on the percentage of condos within a mile of the beach that would require serious replacement of concrete and rebar after 25 years? 30%? 50%?
What basic materials would you use to design a beachfront multistory building today?
Excellent comment: I worked in the infrastructure support staff of a university, and while I have a lot of respect for enlightened architects, there are architects who don’t have enough civil engineering training. Too many times we had to support structures which were designed for visual appeal, but not designed for durability and/or not designed to be maintainable. One instance was where the architect specified EIFS-like exterior finishing on the the underside of a cantilevered second floor. The construction firm followed the architect’s plan and told us (we knew anyway) that it would not last. Within two years the panels were sagging due to water intrusion. Anyone with even a little civil engineering knowledge would never have made a poor choice like that.
Very informative and well presented as always, Josh. With the 1 year anniversary of this horrific tragedy coming up on the 24th, I want to again offer my deepest sympathy and condolences to those who have suffered and lost loved ones. Best Regards.
I am not in Florida or a condo, but love all your coverage since the first post on this topic(I love root cause analysis). I would love your perspective on how Florida inspection industry can scale to meet this level of inspections and keep the quality up - i suspect this is something the rest of the country will have to learn too as their building ages.
We've to have a general structural inspection every 10, 20 and 40 years. This year, because of Champlain Towers, all condos were forced to do that inspection.
Inspection companies charged more than 30 K per building to conduct this. They banked.
All because of the corrupt government of Florida, and they regulations lift.
The reason why they have made it compulsory for the building official to send out notifications when the building is up for its renewal certification it’s because they can’t be trusted i.e. the condo people cannot be trusted to do their job unless they are forced to simple as that, if you’ve got two people saying this has to be done There’s a good chance. It will at least be done.
I would argue that the Engineers should start their career in evaluating existing buildings for 10 years before they are allowed to move into new build design, so they can do the new design with that background of what can go bad when the buildings get old.
As an architect, I would be really hesitant to do the phase 2 study. This isn't our area of expertise. I would say phase 1 can be architect or engineer and phase 2 is structural engineer only
I agree that many firms will likely chase the money not this and this likely will lead to future collapses as incompetent people pronounce defective buildings as safe. This will then lead to a rash of lawsuits which will make everyone hesitant to now do these studies which will lead to chaos. It would have been much better if the law had first encouraged the development of continuing education courses in this area of specialization to prepare professionals to competently conduct these inspections and tests and make educated judgements. I see this law leading to chaos in Florida in the decade ahead.
It'll probably be the professional liability insurance that keeps most architects from doing these assessments.
I would be interested to know how many people out there think of paint as purely cosmetic and don’t realize it’s substantial importance in protecting the fixtures on the inside and in the case of concrete the structural integrity on the outside.
Have you considered doing videos about the Dolphin Tower situation in which a collapse was averted?
really appreciate your information and perspective...koodos to you !!!
Thank you for your explanations of the new regulations. One question I have is how long does an Association have to undertake a Phase 2 Milestone Report in a situation where the Phase 1 Milestone Report indicates a Phase 2 Report is needed? I know there is a 180 day timeframe to conduct a Phase 1 once the local building authority notifies of the need. Thanks
Not all architects lack the expertise. A conservation architect specializing in modern architecture would be familiar with the structural issues and also have an interest in preserving the architectural elements of the building.
Which is a perfect example of what the engoneers are saying. Surface finish always comes second to the core construction. "preserving the architectural elements" has no place in this debate. You can pretty it up once we're done.
Florida's response to Surfside,
"take your billion and shut up"..
Thank you for your videos. I have one question though: You stated that architects for new buildings don't have
longevity on their agenda at all. This appears odd to me. I might be exaggerating your statements, but it is what I took as the gist of it from your video.
I am not located in Florida, or the U.S., to be more precise.
Do you expect, that a comparable incident can be avoided by the current changes of the law in Florida?
Again, thanks a bunch for your videos. I personally have no clue about structural integrity, but I found your videos about this incident very informative.
Thanks for watching and your comment. I DO believe this new law will go a long way toward preventing the next collapse. It's not a 100% guarantee, but it's a very good step in the right direction.
Architects do not care about anything but pretty pictures. They have no knowledge how buildings are constructed, they are not required to perform practical work in the construction industry as part of their curricula, and are subjected to a constant atmosphere of sneering disdain from architecture professors of anyone who is interested in that. One must be friends with architecture students and work with an architect on a project to learn that, because they conspire to maintain a demi-god facade much like medical doctors once had. They do not care if the building falls down the day after they get their full payment.
@@symbionese2348 I've got an uncle who can be like that. Lol. Nice one day, standoffish the next for no reason. Glad I don't live with him.
@@windsofmarchjourneyperrytr2823 Are we expected to infer that your uncle is a professor of architecture, or what?
Josh, you are 110%, THE AUTHORITY on this topic of condo safety! Thank you for what you do!!
Josh, Wow. Just the first three minutes of this video you drop an excellent description of that roofing replacement legislation; how it's flaws were exploited, by whom, how, and why, and who paid for it. even going so far as to say, "i don't usually have a lot of sympathy for insurance companies", while acknowledging their status as generally a victim in this case - brilliant. I hate private insurance to the core; but at the end of the day until it is abolished, the costs will go to those who can afford it the least - those insurers likely just increased premiums from the bottom up.
I'm looking at home in Florida and have been told that insurance companies now require homes to have roofs newer than a certain number of years to be insured - regardless of materials used which seems truly silly. On the flip side I know of people who had contractors appear at their door after most any storm looking to examine their roof and take a cut of the monies from the insurance company to replace the roof. Their abuse is now coming home to roost it seems...
Hey Josh, I have really enjoyed your series on the Champlain tower south collapse. As many others have said you really do have a knack for explaining to the “non-engineered.”
So when I ask a somewhat skeptical question I’m not trying to take a divot out of you, It’s just I have walked the earth for some decades now and have you seen many a good intention go astray.
It seems likely that which ever architect or engineer does the phase 1 study would also end up doing the phase 2 study, if for no other reason than there is a shortage of people who can do the job.
Thus is the Phase 1 study a way for a, shall we say “clever,” architect or engineer to get his foot in the door and then write himself a lucrative Phase 2 study that the condo association is legally on the hook for funding regardless of the expense? Can the association asked for a second opinion (a second, perhaps superseding, Phase 1 study) before launching into Phase 2? I don’t think I heard you mention a maximum time interval between the phase 1 and phase 2 studies?
Implementing the law is going to be very interesting.
I was thinking exactly that
I appreciate the note about new vs existing engineering assessments. I was brought in a while back to add computerized control to an existing design and most of the original team didn't know or understand anything about RFI/EMI issues-leading to them failing to understand the scale of the design revision required. (They also didn't understand why using 1% or better tolerance parts is required for working with 300V+ / 10A+ electrical systems…)
There needs to be a no decorating/repair rule in a period prior to the inspection. I agree that that only specifically qualified engineers should be evaluate existing structures, architects should not be allowed to conduct this type of work.
Don't we have expensive cameras to look inside walls and such...? Or anyone should be able to drill a small hole or series of to see how far back the damage goes, right?
Josh, great video as always. Couple of questions/comments.
1. With these new requirements, would the collapse of Champlain Towers have been averted. I have my doubts.
2. It's left up to the expertise of the Architect/Engineer doing the inspection. I share your concern that unless an architect is specially trained they should not be doing it. In fact there are probably many engineers who also should not be inspecting older building. Does the new legislation require any special knowledge or skills of those doing the inspecting ?
3. Are there any new requirements on contractors and engineers who implement the recommendations of the inspector.
4. Any new requirements for long term monitoring to get a better idea of the condition or the ageing of a structure.
TBH, it just sounds like a lot of window dressing but with reducing the inspection cycles by the same people doing basically the same work.
Josh, do you think these laws would have saved Champlain Towers? It sounds like there's enough holes that this still would have happened.
There is absolutely no reason these associations must wait until the last minute to get this done. If they choose to wait until the last microsecond, I am sure that, for twice or three times more money, they can convince companies to improve their priority. Given a choice between buildings falling down and owner convenience or obstinance, I think the legislators chose correctly.
I would be surprised if most associations haven't already contacted someone for inspections.
You were talking about like 7 million at the start, and TWICE that a few years later. As I recall.
pleaseeeee where did you buy those lamps!?!?! they are awesome !!!!!
love your content !!
Thank you 🦋
They are from the 50's. My wife refinished them and changed the shades. I believe the shades are gold foil lined from Ikea, but don't quote me on that. Thanks for watching!
Ha! I've also narrowed down that gorgeous wall color to Mysterious or Hale Navy! 😂
Sounds like a very good bill, not perfect but very good! I hope this allows your firm many opportunities. Happy inspecting! 👍👍👍
With all the other fun in the world, this seems like it happened 10 years ago
I know - it seems like I was living in another world when this happened. What a lot of "fun" we have been experiencing this past year.
@@Ellecram I wish I could live in another world
My uncle died the day before this. Hard to think that was that long and short a time ago
Your channel name is apt in multiple ways. Integrity is such an important thing and it seems as though this new law will challenge the integrity of a number of people who may wish to dip their toes in, so to speak. Another fascinating video, thank you.
The reserves for maintenance are important. It needs to be built into the cost to the owners. If after 20 years, something needs to be replaced or repaired, it’s not fair to place an assessment on the current owners when it was the people over the 20 years that wore it out.
We did that for carpet replacement. When the carpet needed to be replaced the money was already there paid for by the people that walked on the carpet the last ten years. We didn’t have to raise rates on the current people.
Good point - but the cost of carpet replacement is nothing compared to the massive cost of properly addressing and repairing the significant deterioration of CTS.
What’s amazing is that it took 40 years for that shoddily-designed and very poorly-maintained old building to collapse. RIP all who perished in the tragedy.
@@kencarp57 right. If they had been putting money away for 40 years then they wouldn’t have to go to the individual owners for a special assessment that they didn’t want to pay. It would have taken about $231 per month per unit to build up the $15million estimate for repairs. That would be like adding on less than 1% to the monthly payment.
Boy , do I see a scam potential ,
I'm reminded of how Teamster Retirement Funds built mob casinos.
Fortunately , we don't try to externalize costs and
push them onto our children and those who come behind.
@@kencarp57
The deterioration of those buildings was caused by lack of maintenance by the building owners. And the lack of money in reserve was an intentional decision by the building owners.
Who's living there 10-20 years, tho?
Early on you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned lobbyists for influencing different aspects of this law, not to mention the 'general' wording and the obvious conflicts of interests, and how the law leaves the door wide open for contractors fleecing these homeowner's associations...But then again, it's Florida, so not the craziest thing to come out of it...:-)
Having watched "the Loiseaux Group" erase the Ocean Tower on South Padre Island before completion, it's very obvious that salt water and shifting sands make a curious environment for buildings. Living right on the beach is beautiful if the structure permits but that structure could well be of limited life. Just as a guess there will be condo buildings found in their next examination to be broken beyond repair and without any repair funds, probably some will have to be demolished.
Having a time frame for repairs which barely encompasses a design and procurement cycle is inviting the opportunity to get works started to meet the target date, then held over until completion of detail design or finding the resources can be concluded. Even optimistically beliving in best intentions you now have the opportunity for deferment and folks living in half remediated properties. Or all money spent on critical repairs with nothing left for future preventive works.
Nyc has some items that Parallel what you are talling about in their FISP program
I have a hunch that if this is all done right you need a LOT more reserves from a much greater number of people than what the owners of any one building can provide. I bet you the math is such that if any of this is done right, the association fees will skyrocket and the condo market will go south. Not necessarily a bad thing. Most of these condo buildings is one big scam.
You own air. How dumbass*d is that?
I am a homeowner and occasionally consider moving into a condo or townhouse so that I no longer have to take care of the exterior of the building or the gardens. However, after this video, I think I’ll stick with my house.
You'd only own air in a condo. 0 land
Another excellent distillation of the issues - thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it
I am President of a condo association and have been for 17 years. I applaud this new law, and hope the intent of the law is strictly followed by engineers, boards, local officials, etc. I worry about engineering firms listing deficiencies that need repair work and refer the work to a friends’ company. Boards will need to ensure they are on top of such actions and get a couple of quotes on their own.
I also wonder if the phase 1 report lists a roofing job for example that could require tens of thousands of dollars to fix, but you have annual inspections and any required repairs by your trusted roofing company and they disagree with the Phase 1 report for roofing. Who would mediate this difference of professional opinion? I can see litigations happening. Will the Milestone engineers have complete authorization without any recourse or mediation allowed? This is going to be a bumpy ride for a while. BTW,our association has already jumped on the new law and we have already received a proposal from an engineering inspection firm and have received comments from our association attorney that we have passed onto the engineering firm. Hopefully all will go well for both the milestone study and reserve study for our association. Bottom line, we will comply for the safety of our community! Lastly, great video, I have passed it on to our board and we will make it available to all our residents.
Fortunately everyone in Florida is wise and honest, and always has been
and they all work together for the common good
In Illinois, if you only give 1 referral, you're begging to get sued. You give at least 3.
Rules to live by: Never buy any real estate (to live in) that is not a free-standing single family house. Never rent in any building that's more than 2 stories. Condo boards, HOAs and property management firms tend to be shit-shows run by people with little intelligence and huge egos and/or power trips.
I totally agree! I would NEVER buy, much less live in, ANY high-rise condo. I live in a single-story single-family home on 8 acres of woods, and I will live here for the rest of my life. No HOA here either. I don’t have to get anyones’ approval for anything here, other than the building inspector’s if I build a structure, and that’s how I LIKE it.
There's that "perfect" birthday cake out there & then there's the sh**show Betty Crocker cake your a** baked in a tiny kitchen....which one is real when you cant have both?
Fortunately everyone in Florida is wise and honest, and always has been
and they all work together for the common good,
happy to see the world a better place for all.
@@whazzat8015 Uh huh. 🤣🤑
Regarding the records and record keeping: Set up an archive at the office and and additional location so that any new elected board member can have access to them and for them to be up to speed on the last two reports. This stuff as we've all learned is life and death so it must be taken seriously.
Our condo board has no idea how much reserve funds are needed. The maintenance is either rising 10% or 95%
Then your board is failing you! I was on an HOA board during & after the market crash in '08 and I remeber having to argue w retirees about reserve funds for foreclosures. I believe it "paid off" to have sound financial records in the early days of the recovery.
@@mangos2888 Boy , do I see a scam potential , on top of the original builder's crime.
I'm reminded of how Teamster Retirement Funds being used to build mob casinos.
Fortunately , we don't try to externalize costs and
push them onto our children and those who come behind. Most condo boards are in over their heads.
Something you mention a few times Josh, is discretion. This can be interpreted in a myriad of ways by us humans, and dare I say it, favouritism, although there is a likelihood of serious legal penalties for say giving a milestone report in a way just to please certain board members. It is a sad indictment of human failure, that it has taken the deaths of innocent people just to ginger authorities to provide better protection for someone just living their life in a condo. No matter how these new laws pan out, you can bet it will be the lawyers that profit the most, ainnit the truth!
IMO, the period between mandatory inspections ought to be shorter once a building reaches a certain age. Ten years between looks may be OK for (say) a 40 year old building, but I don't think it's OK for a 60 year old building.
Granted, there may not be too many condos that aren't demolished and redeveloped at 60+ years old, but IMO it ought to be covered off in the legislation.
Although retired, as an electrical engineer (NOT structural, etc) I sense that you favor adding "appropriately qualified" to engineers/architect description to assure nobody is operating outside their area of expertise. I would expect nothing less.
Thanks for your series on what went wrong in the Towers. I have really enjoyed them. Hopefully those kinds of problems will never occur again.
Don't you think there should be basic knowledge that people are tested for in case they see it, they can act?
The one I dislike most is wiring under the sink. HATE seeing that. Imagine it's for garbage disposal but that's just a way to attract rats to begin with.
But basic stuff could save lives. Like, don't cover wiring. Could have levels.
Do you think from these inspections or scans you are talking about they can actually give an accurate estimate of the shape the building is in? I have a condo in one of these buildings built in 1989
Accurate is a relative term. Josh already said it would take infinite exhaustive tests, basically tearing the building down to the last pebble to be able to guarantee 100%.
I didn't even think of the fire alarm. You're right, as soon as the pipe started flowing it should have set off the alarm in all the units
A system alarm was called in to 911 just before the collapse, likely triggered by the sprinkler line that was severed. A truck was dispatched and was en route when the building came down. It wouldn't necessarily set off the alarms in the building.
I really enjoy your channel. Very informative i don't know anything about buildings. Very good things to know
Some thoughts
I think the requirement to have building officials mail notices out sets the state up to do future legislation concerning tracking and data collection.
Having architects do these studies is...insane. I work with architects every day...they're fine professionals, but 99% of them would in no way be qualified to do these inspections, especially a Phase 2.
Seems like a huge backlog. I would be on the lookout for out of state (and possibly outside of country) firms where one guy gets a Florida seal, and they hire a bunch of 'field technicians' to do the inspections 'under their supervision'. Or if there's a clear cut requirement that the engineer be present, he/she will just stop by for a half hour and direct a technician or EIT where to take photos. I have no doubt that unless headed off early, this will happen.
The 360 days to repair is unrealistic...puts huge pressure on the engineer to overlook things that they think will 'probably' last until the next 10 year inspection.
I applaud Florida for taking action, but I think their pressing to get this done in a hurry will cause a lot of shoddy inspections. Perhaps they could phase the deadline over a period of 5 years, based on building age, or something like that.
But the spalling damage repairs on say the decks, will be right back where they started within 5 years or so. He said that in a video on spalling. Just for starters.
Although the new law states any engineer or architect can do the report, arent engineers and architects required to only perform work that they are competent in under the ethic laws for licensure? So really this should limit the bar pretty high, otherwise someone shld take action against their license?
I don't think an Architect alone can do this report.
Josh thank you for the valuable info you provide on this subject. Although I live in Texas way out in the country I find it interesting. I believe the intent of the new laws are good but I foresee many bribes being offered to elected and non elected inspectors to prevent the need to do certain types of expensive repairs. Just my opinion - thanks again for up to date and informative videos.