Design flaws/Execution flaws dilemma

This is the kind of thing that keeps us awake at night: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Blueprints-show-Berkeley-balcony-was-designed-for-6336566.php

This article, like so many articles, is imprecise and misleading. Its title implies that the design was "solid" (presumably meaning the balcony was structurally strong enough to hold the weight) but since the design apparently lacked any critical second-line-of-defense features it was clearly not a "solid" design. We can take our chances with a single-story ranch-style house if we must, but by the time we're up three stories we have to get serious.

Long after this incident drops from the headlines, a whole lot of people are going to be staying up late at night trying to figure out how to defend themselves.

Do we go ahead and "properly" execute a bad design knowing that if something goes wrong they're going to be insisting, "You should have said something!"

Whoa, don't you have some repairs to do? I was just thinking about you and GSD yesterday when I had 3 guys call in sick, and stressed about a few other things.

Considering we have done a CRAPLOAD of repairs lately, I got to thinking. Sorry guys, I'm "retiring"

Have they ever heard of concrete and steel? :blink:

Vaa; Over here - With our court/litigious antics, there's no stopping it - It can go as far in any direction as a particular set of party's allow it to - FWIW; Any "CA. bldg. code(s) is merely amendments to IBC/IRC. In any event, Big Bro, is pretty good about exonerating itself in these instances.

Maybe I'm missing something - It appears quite obvious the wood members were compromised through moisture infiltration. They will simply fight over the share of compensatory obligation; Installing contractor/designer-specifier/product manufacture.

There was probably the architect drawings showing the flashing details to keep the assembly watertight, so either they were faulty or the workmanship was faulty which would bring up the age old question regarding building inspection.

I remember viewing a new condo on the 14th floor in Yaletown in Vancouver in the late 90's. Just walking through and picking out faults that didn't belong with the attached price tag. Out on the veranda you could see the flashing detail where the exterior stucco met the deck. A piece of flashing bent around the corner and you could see bare OSB wood in behind it. No vapour barrier to be seen let alone any type of waterproofing. And they wonder how dry rot starts.

I read that code was to be able to support 60 lb per square foot. That thing can't be much more than 30 square ft. It had 13 people on it. depending on how fat Irish teens are, it could have been code and still failed. If they were moving to music there could also be a harmonic resonance factor as well.

Even if there wasn't a tragedy living in a building below parties like that would be my definition of Hell.

I dunno either. I have walked from a few I didn't feel 'right' about.