These musings relate to buildings, civil engineering developments and our whole built environment. The terms “house” and “building” are used for brevity.
An energy-efficient house is not environmentally friendly. Every building covers ground that would otherwise be organically productive or useful in some other way, thereby making it functionally sterile. Every building reduces the area of the earth that is capable of keeping the earth in balance due to the natural interactions between soil, sun and water. What is the link between sustainable building as an ethical issue and building design and construction as pragmatic activities? All human activities produce green-house gases that are said to be detrimental to the functioning of the earth from the point of view of human habitation.
The main mitigating factor with new building is that they remain relevant and useful for a maximum period of time and that they are designed to be capable of minimal modification in dealing with changing user needs during the life of the building.
While most of us learn from direct experience with feedback – that is facing the consequences of our actions, this does not apply to the notion of sustainability as we are usually unable to observe the consequences of our actions due to such long time-frames. Sometimes, however, we are able to make those observations but forget what existed several decades ago in our lifetime. Degradation to the environment is so gradual that most people are not able to discern or forget changes over a long period of time. Younger people just accept the status quo of the environment that 'it has always been like that'.
The construction and use of buildings consume up to 50% of all energy consumption and 50% of all material taken from nature. They also produce 50% of all waste and 50% of all CFC and HCFC production.
Humans are the only animals that create waste. Buildings provide human habitat. In contrast to what natural undeveloped land does, buildings fail on all other aspects of life principles. Some of these other principles are to create clean air and water, store water, create its own food, create rich soil, use and store solar energy, provide wildlife habitat, moderate climate and weather and consume its own waste.
If the above musings have any credence, then what are the answers for going forward? Ethics codes as adopted by professional organisations such as IPENZ and RICS, both of which I am a member, purport to deal with members’ advice and actions relating to sustainability. While I could never admit to breaching these codes of ethics I can genuinely say that mitigating the adverse consequences of my actions is paramount. But given that each mitigating action still continues to have incremental adverse results for the long-term sustainability of the earth may leave us all in a slight dilemma.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Fire in Astrakhan, Russia
There are reports of a fire in a residential building in the Astrakhan region of Russia on 17 February 2009 in which 18 people died. Is this another lesson not learned? This follows on the heals of another recent tragic fire in a home for elderly persons. Just two days earlier, on 15 February 2009 there was a fire in an old apartment building in Independence, US, where 3 people died. I have mentioned two other examples in this blog, but the potential list is endless. When is all the carnage and destruction going to end?
This will only happen when government and building control authorities start taking more seriously the need for greater levels of fire protection systems and emergency escape systems from buildings. All too often older buildings and buildings that have undergone a change to residential accommodation are set up to house people with no cognisance of the fire safety of the building, or at best with only the most rudimentary consideration having been given to such important safety issues.
This will only happen when government and building control authorities start taking more seriously the need for greater levels of fire protection systems and emergency escape systems from buildings. All too often older buildings and buildings that have undergone a change to residential accommodation are set up to house people with no cognisance of the fire safety of the building, or at best with only the most rudimentary consideration having been given to such important safety issues.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Proposal for an Essential Services Act in New Zealand
On 3 and 4 February 2009 parts of Auckland suffered from more electricity blackouts, apparently due to ageing components of the infrastructure. These are unacceptable third world events in what is supposed to be a fine city in a developed country. My proposal to assist the problem is to introduce some new legislation so that obligations of electricity and other commodity suppliers are sheeted home. I hope the engineering fraternity, including IPENZ and ACENZ, will support the proposal.
Objective
An Act to consolidate and reform the law relating to essential services and to provide for better protection and control of essential services with enhanced protection to the public, economy and the environment.
Services to be included within the new legislation
(1) The distribution or transmission by pipeline of natural or manufactured gas, petroleum, or
geothermal energy.
(2) Electricity operators or electrical supply authorities as defined by the Electricity Act 1968.
(3) The distribution of potable water for supply.
(4) The operation of community sewerage treatment and disposal systems.
(5) The stewardship and maintenance of state and provincial highways.
(6) The stewardship and maintenance of bridges on state and provincial highways.
(7) The telecommunications industry.
Why these services should be provided for under the proposed legislation
Most of the supplies of these commodities are natural monopolies. While some of them may be run on increasing free-market commercial models, they can never be operated and controlled fully on the principles of unfettered free market supply and demand, as there is not the opportunity for other competitors to enter the market with a competitive parallel offer. For instance, there is not the opportunity for an entrepreneur to duplicate a given section of state highway and operate it on free market principles.
Even although consumers have the opportunity to change their electricity supplier nothing changes physically. The same electrons flow from the same generator along the same wires to the receiving houses or businesses.
The new legislation would be a factor which would most likely lead to the best protection of the health, safety and welfare of all New Zealanders and to better protect the economy and environment against a future major crisis.
With the implementation of such an Act, there would be better assurance that in future major disruption to society did not occur, in the event of a potential unforeseen happening occurring. It is less likely that Auckland would have electricity crises, such has what occurred in 1998, 2006 and 2009, a hydro-electric dam would collapse, or the contamination of the water supply to a part of Wellington would occur.
The proposed model for the new legislation is the Building Act 2004. The model proposed for the Essential Services Act could be partly based the Building Act 2004. Sections 100 - 111 deal with compliance schedules and building warrants of fitness. These relate to features of all buildings such as lifts, air conditioning and fire control systems. Such features are included in a formalised schedule which is registered with the TA. The features have to be inspected and maintained at specified intervals of time in order to ensure there is continued protection of occupants. Such technical inspection and maintenance work is carried out by Independent Qualified Persons (IQPs), private sector contractors working for building owners.
The proposed Essential Services Act could be controlled by a small statutory body, similar to the former Building Industry Authority (BIA) which controlled the Building Act, over the day-to-day control which is administered by TAs. The Essential Services Act equivalent of IQPs in the Building Act regime would be private sector professionals, who would be commissioned by the network utility operator to carry out mandatory technical audits at prescribed intervals of time. These would be similar to mandatory financial audits which companies have to undertake.
The respective industries in question would formulate their own compliance schedules, which would specify the inspection, maintenance and reporting procedures for the continued operation of the essential services. The proposed compliance schedules could be publicly notified to invite submissions to be considered before formal adoption.
In some cases inspection and maintenance requirements will be specific to a particular type of equipment. This will be taken into account in the formulation of the draft compliance schedule for public notification.
Essential Services Authority
An Essential Services Authority (ESA), a Crown agency, would be established under the Essential Services Act, as the sole regulatory authority for essential service controls in New Zealand. It would be responsible for registering the equivalent of independent qualified persons (IQPs) under that Act. The IQPs would be the only persons allowed to carry out the technical audits. Registration would allow an IQP to work over the whole of New Zealand
This crown agency would directly control the relatively small number of essential services throughout New Zealand, without the need to involve the territorial authorities, as they presently are administering sections 100 - 111 of the Building Act 2004.
Objective
An Act to consolidate and reform the law relating to essential services and to provide for better protection and control of essential services with enhanced protection to the public, economy and the environment.
Services to be included within the new legislation
(1) The distribution or transmission by pipeline of natural or manufactured gas, petroleum, or
geothermal energy.
(2) Electricity operators or electrical supply authorities as defined by the Electricity Act 1968.
(3) The distribution of potable water for supply.
(4) The operation of community sewerage treatment and disposal systems.
(5) The stewardship and maintenance of state and provincial highways.
(6) The stewardship and maintenance of bridges on state and provincial highways.
(7) The telecommunications industry.
Why these services should be provided for under the proposed legislation
Most of the supplies of these commodities are natural monopolies. While some of them may be run on increasing free-market commercial models, they can never be operated and controlled fully on the principles of unfettered free market supply and demand, as there is not the opportunity for other competitors to enter the market with a competitive parallel offer. For instance, there is not the opportunity for an entrepreneur to duplicate a given section of state highway and operate it on free market principles.
Even although consumers have the opportunity to change their electricity supplier nothing changes physically. The same electrons flow from the same generator along the same wires to the receiving houses or businesses.
The new legislation would be a factor which would most likely lead to the best protection of the health, safety and welfare of all New Zealanders and to better protect the economy and environment against a future major crisis.
With the implementation of such an Act, there would be better assurance that in future major disruption to society did not occur, in the event of a potential unforeseen happening occurring. It is less likely that Auckland would have electricity crises, such has what occurred in 1998, 2006 and 2009, a hydro-electric dam would collapse, or the contamination of the water supply to a part of Wellington would occur.
The proposed model for the new legislation is the Building Act 2004. The model proposed for the Essential Services Act could be partly based the Building Act 2004. Sections 100 - 111 deal with compliance schedules and building warrants of fitness. These relate to features of all buildings such as lifts, air conditioning and fire control systems. Such features are included in a formalised schedule which is registered with the TA. The features have to be inspected and maintained at specified intervals of time in order to ensure there is continued protection of occupants. Such technical inspection and maintenance work is carried out by Independent Qualified Persons (IQPs), private sector contractors working for building owners.
The proposed Essential Services Act could be controlled by a small statutory body, similar to the former Building Industry Authority (BIA) which controlled the Building Act, over the day-to-day control which is administered by TAs. The Essential Services Act equivalent of IQPs in the Building Act regime would be private sector professionals, who would be commissioned by the network utility operator to carry out mandatory technical audits at prescribed intervals of time. These would be similar to mandatory financial audits which companies have to undertake.
The respective industries in question would formulate their own compliance schedules, which would specify the inspection, maintenance and reporting procedures for the continued operation of the essential services. The proposed compliance schedules could be publicly notified to invite submissions to be considered before formal adoption.
In some cases inspection and maintenance requirements will be specific to a particular type of equipment. This will be taken into account in the formulation of the draft compliance schedule for public notification.
Essential Services Authority
An Essential Services Authority (ESA), a Crown agency, would be established under the Essential Services Act, as the sole regulatory authority for essential service controls in New Zealand. It would be responsible for registering the equivalent of independent qualified persons (IQPs) under that Act. The IQPs would be the only persons allowed to carry out the technical audits. Registration would allow an IQP to work over the whole of New Zealand
This crown agency would directly control the relatively small number of essential services throughout New Zealand, without the need to involve the territorial authorities, as they presently are administering sections 100 - 111 of the Building Act 2004.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Fire in Rawalpindi, Pakistan
The fire in a 400 shop mall in Rawalpindi in which at least 18 persons are reported to have died is another reminder that all is not well in terms of fire safety in buildings. Reports indicate that most victims became trapped and could not escape. My experience in several countries is that retail, commercial and hotel buildings are commonly unsafe in relation to their design features to protect occupants from fire. Perhaps the most common problem in developing and developed countries alike is that egress doors have locks that cannot be opened in a fire and escape routes are cluttered with stored goods.
Was this the case in this latest tragic example in Rawalpindi?
Was this the case in this latest tragic example in Rawalpindi?
Monday, December 1, 2008
Risks of property reports for vendors
Consultants’ reports for vendors of properties are fraught with risk. In my view, it is unwise for consultants to carry out property inspections and prepare reports on behalf of vendors. These types of reports could amount to representations by vendors that could be challenged by future purchasers leading to claims against the vendors and the consultants who prepared such reports for vendors.
In today's very litigious environment (especially in relation to the building industry in New Zealand), I think it is unwise for vendors to commission any reports. Any existing reports known to vendors, in my view, should be disclosed up front, on the basis that prospective purchasers satisfy themselves, without influence by vendors or their consultants, as to the suitability of properties being sold.
In disclosing these reports, the point should be made that prospective purchasers should commission their own reports as they see as being necesssary.
In summary, I think vendors should make full disclosure and take no steps themselves to contradict any existing reports. In my view, this is prudent advice nowadays to all vendors contemplating commissioning their own reports for the purpose of selling property.
This seems to fly in the face of the principles of the Home Information Packs (HIPs) that are in place in England and Scotland.
In today's very litigious environment (especially in relation to the building industry in New Zealand), I think it is unwise for vendors to commission any reports. Any existing reports known to vendors, in my view, should be disclosed up front, on the basis that prospective purchasers satisfy themselves, without influence by vendors or their consultants, as to the suitability of properties being sold.
In disclosing these reports, the point should be made that prospective purchasers should commission their own reports as they see as being necesssary.
In summary, I think vendors should make full disclosure and take no steps themselves to contradict any existing reports. In my view, this is prudent advice nowadays to all vendors contemplating commissioning their own reports for the purpose of selling property.
This seems to fly in the face of the principles of the Home Information Packs (HIPs) that are in place in England and Scotland.
Financial costs to New Zealand society of leaky buildings
The financial and social costs of this situation are unprecedented in New Zealand and they are growing. This means that the lives of many New Zealanders and the costs to society will be adversely affected beyond the next decade.
The Parliamentary Library, “Background Note, Information Briefing Service for Members of Parliament”, 2002 estimated that 6,000 to 12,000 apartment dwellings may have weathertightness problems and on the basis of an average cost of repair of $20,000 the total estimated cost could be as much as $240 million. They refer to a Consumer magazine article of October 2002 in which it was advised that 220,000 homes were built over the previous decade and of those up to 40% (approximately 90,000) could be at risk with estimated repair costs of between $120 million and $1.8 billion. I assume those figures include apartment dwellings.
The estimated $20,000 repair cost per unit for apartment dwellings is too low, in my opinion. That may reflect the fact that in 2002 there was a greater view that targeted repair would suffice, but in 2008 the dominant view in most cases is that a full reclad with a cavity system is required. I would therefore increase the estimated cost per unit as more like $70,000. The cost of repairing many detached or semi-detached houses is $300,000 to $450,000 and some costs are much higher than that. I would propose, therefore, an average repair cost per dwelling unit as being $120,000. Assuming 90,000 dwelling units at $120,000 each to repair then the total cost would be $10.8 billion.
It is common for claimants and respondents to engage legal representation whether that is in the Court system or the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. Some respondents are successful in being removed from cases and that could cost them up to about $30,000. Others have to endure the full adjudication process only to be found with no liability and that can cost up to about $80,000 in legal and technical expert fees. Most cases settle by mediation but the costs are still significant. It is a common situation for there to be many parties.
A scenario of total average legal and technical expert costs for all parties in both adjudicated and mediated settlements may appear as follows:
Five parties each expending an average of $60,000 = $300,000 in fees per case.
With 90,000 dwelling units from 1992 some of those would be statute-barred as they would not have commenced legal proceedings in time. Assume 70,000 dwelling units were not statute-barred. Some of these units represent terraced houses and body corporate situations where there will be just one action taken on behalf of a group of owners. The fee costs will increase significantly in these cases, such as to $1 million per claim, but the average fee cost per dwelling unit will reduce.
Therefore, say 70,000 units at $200,000 per unit in fees gives $14 billion.
Assuming these figures are in the right order shows that the total fees equate to almost one and a half times the cost of actual repairs to the dwellings. Naturally, both calculations are open to debate as the assumptions could be questioned, but even a sensitivity analysis would show that the total costs to society are enormous and this is a situation that has not been recognised.
The total health care expenditure in New Zealand was about $10.7 billion in 2002 (Ministry of Health, 2004). The above figures indicate that the total cost of repairing leaking homes could be up to about $24.8 billion; over two and a half times the annual health expenditure of New Zealand. This is a burden placed upon a large number of New Zealanders.
There are further flow-on costs that become more difficult to measure but could well cost more than the initial problem. They include the following:
- Funding of the Weathertight Homes tribunal, adjudicators and assessors.
- Additional regulatory costs of the DBH
- Additional costs of processing building consents
- Court costs
Many parties to litigation are covered by insurance policies and the leaky building syndrome is having a direct affect of increasing premiums where those policies are still being offered.
Reference
Parliamentary Library, “Background Note, Information Briefing Service for Members of Parliament”, 2002/10 06 November 2002, http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/464AB9F9-B197-4B53-BE9F-4F411CB67877/360/0210LeakyBuildings1.pdf
Cost of fixing New Zealand's unhealthy homes
The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development has just announced that it will cost $20 billion over the next decade to fix the country's unhealthy and energy-wasting homes. That's all very well, but there needs to be a primary focus on their state of repair and extent of subfloor dampness.
Over the years I have found many older buildings with excess dampness and subsequent mould growth. One significant source of exterior dampness which has had little cognisance is that of subfloor ground leading to severe interior dampness. Another is that of internally-produced moisture from such things as clothes dryers vented to the inside, drying clothes on the inside and a lack of ventilation with windows not being opened. Another is that of unflued gas heaters.
The number one focus should be on dealing with subfloor dampness and lack of ventilation problems and also to try to educate home occupants in the ways in which they can assist in keeping homes drier and more comfortable.
Over the years I have found many older buildings with excess dampness and subsequent mould growth. One significant source of exterior dampness which has had little cognisance is that of subfloor ground leading to severe interior dampness. Another is that of internally-produced moisture from such things as clothes dryers vented to the inside, drying clothes on the inside and a lack of ventilation with windows not being opened. Another is that of unflued gas heaters.
The number one focus should be on dealing with subfloor dampness and lack of ventilation problems and also to try to educate home occupants in the ways in which they can assist in keeping homes drier and more comfortable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)