[taal]

Explain to me then why hasn't Vancouver or Hong Kong or Sydney, etc, collapsed to the ground?
What is with the fear mongering in the media these days? Does this strategy really sell papers?

Well to be fair its more temperate there ... but what about Chicago, New York , .......

 

[Thanos]

Or Montreal? They're moving from brick to glass towers. Almost all new proposals i've seen there are glass towers.
I understand some people don't like glass towers or any type of change but to read this bullshit has made me lose faith in CBC and the Grid which i actually held in high regard.

 

[JayBee]

The article makes it sound like glass buildings have only been around for 10-15 years, when we all know examples that date from the mid-1970s or earlier. I haven't noticed wholesale retrofits of the Ontario Hydro or Maclean-Hunter buildings, nor have I seen seen scaffolding on Royal Bank Plaza to replace the famous gold windows.

I'm certainly no engineer, but it all seems like alarmism to me.

The thing is, I'd be willing to bet those buildings were built far better than the ones built now. I've been in some glass buildings where it felt like the thing was going to collapse...(can you call a building flimsy?).

 

[JayBee]

I wouldnt blame the developers (they will build the cheapest product
that they can, and it is up to the consumers to either say "hey ya
this is something I want to buy" or "hey no this is shit and I refuse
to buy this"), they see a market and then they will fill the market,
it is the consumers who are oblivious to the real value of what they
are purchasing. Although one thing which does concern me is the
housing shortage, which skews the consumer market due to the lack of
choice.

Another thing, which is interesting (and often forgotten by housing
consumers), all buildings need and require upkeep- towers will also
fall into this category- and should be expected. It is a more
complicated car in some respects, everyone who buys a car knows that
they can only get a certain level of usage out of the car before it
becomes expensive to maintain. Nothing lasts forever, unless you are
talking about a solid stone block (the pyramids)- so I really have no
sympathy for these consumers who are now upset, they bought a home,
now you have to upkeep it.....its what happens especially when your
talking about windows and their seals.

How about we get better building codes?

 

[toto]

Based on what I've seen in friend's condos at Harbourfront, Kings landing and Don mills, there is an issue with the glass & weather. Friend's at Harbourfront live with broken thermal seals that cause blocks of ice the size of a football to form inside their unit. Neighbours have similar problems in varying degrees. Condensation at Kings landing is so bad, winter views of the Music garden are rare.

I agree with the article, in that many of the poorer constructed towers are going to pose problems for owners in a decade or two. Not because of glass wall construction, but because of poor construction, inferior materials and a "build to code" attitude by developers.

 

[taal]

To be honest, I find my new building gets extremely humid inside when its very rainy outside in the summer. No problem with ice or the like though.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The best building code won't help you if the failure mode comes 10, 15 years down the road when there are no recourse. Reminds me of those "25 year guaranteed" shingles that breaks apart in less than 15 out in the subdivisions - just who is one going to sue for that?

AoD

 

[agoraflaneur]

I have no idea really about the condos here in Toronto, since I haven't lived in them and don't have many friends that do, but I have had quite a bit of experience with them in Vancouver. Of course there were problems, and are in Toronto. Buildings have problems. They cannot last long by definition.

But that Huff post article was fear mongering nonsense. This is the sputum of suburbanites who loathe city living. Mentioning FCP and new glass condos together? An "ecofriendly" developer as the only person interviewed? Ok, great, I get it - it would be awesome if everything was built wonderfully. But are the new suburbs really that much better? This whole CityPlace as ghetto is also overblown; no it won't be Rosedale or even King West, but it is close to everything, and houses require tons of maintenance as well. Anyway, look at the links at the bottom: all the other articles are similarly disparaging of T.O.'s condo boom. I think they are jealous (if they are based in the US, which I believe they are).

On the other hand, there seems to be a WASPish sense of disdain for the downtown here in Toronto, and I don't like it. In VanCity the downtown is beautiful and wonderful. Here it is too - but the perception, not so much. Waterfront development has suffered incalculably because of it, not to mention parks and monuments, etc. People still joke that the lake is toxic - which is a travesty. I feel that this is a continuation of the "war on the car" b.s. - a war on the tower.

Let's encourage better building practices to be sure. But I sniff a culture war - and I don't like it.

 

[Tuscani01]

I think people need to understand that windows are going to fail at some point, regardless of where they are installed. My parents just had to replace most of the windows in their 15 year old house. This problem isn't exclusive to condo's and will be no different to condo owners than it is to those who own single family homes.

 

[Grimace]

^That's what I thought when I read this, as I am currently replacing windows in my home. How much would it really cost on a per-unit basis to replace the glass windows? Not cheap but hardly a maintenance fee nightmare if once every 25 years. That's what reserves are for, if the building is well run. And in an all glass building, if you replace all the glass, the building will look brand new again. Tough to do that with concrete.

 

[junctionist]

I wouldnt blame the developers (they will build the cheapest product
that they can, and it is up to the consumers to either say "hey ya
this is something I want to buy" or "hey no this is shit and I refuse
to buy this"), they see a market and then they will fill the market,
it is the consumers who are oblivious to the real value of what they
are purchasing.

The consumers can only choose from what is being supplied. If the developers only supply housing with a critical component that has an unreasonably low lifespan, they should be held accountable. Why not? "Greed is good"? Then look at the failing curtainwall from the street or from inside your condo and enjoy the goodness.

Let's take a look at this issue with a finer comb. In terms of energy efficiency, it isn't conclusive that glass curtainwall is inherently flawed. There are plenty of glass-clad buildings with LEED certifications. The use of gases like argon as insulation is an ingenious scientific development in architecture; glass cladding is not just some empty headed aesthetic preference.

Yet the concerns about the durability and lifespan of contemporary glass curtainwall should be taken seriously! If it's true that it has a very limited functional lifespan of two or three decades, there may not be enough capital to renovate the hundreds of such buildings that have gone up in the recent era of glass in a timely manner. Replacement will be very wasteful, too. It should noted that the notion that these are "throw away buildings" is definitely sensationalism; CBC hasn't presented information that the structural construction of these buildings is inferior. As concerning as the cladding may be, if the buildings are built to strong structural standards, then they're not disposable. It's the cladding that must be subjected to closer scrutiny.

 

[cruzin4u]

At first, I thought this article was pulled from HOLMES magazine.

agora, you said it best. In the end, nothing will last forever. And who's to say we'll be here in the next 25 years. At the rate humankind is going, failing glass on condos will be the least of our worries.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

We have a rooftop indoor pool with a walkout to a sundeck that is surrounded on two sides with floor to ceiling windows and subject to high levels of humidity inside vs. the elements outside. Every few years they have to replace one once the seal goes, there are two in the budget right now for replacement Q1 next year. They also replaced one of my windows in my apartment when we moved in as the seal was gone and it was all foggy. The glass guys who did it said it was an original window (from 1972) when the building was built, I don't know how they knew that but that's what they told me so it was a 34 year old window that they replaced.

 

[Chuck]

I work in the industry, and in all honesty, articles like these are more accurate than false. Windows for example should last 30-35 years based on what is available on the market. However, cheaper products last 10-15 years if you're lucky. As for the cost, assuming floor to ceiling windows, complete replacement might easily be $10,000 per unit or more - a big expense to pay once a decade instead of three times per century.

Add to that the roof that fails in 15 years instead of 25, the caulking which fails in 10 years instead of 20...essentially you're screwed if you purchase a condo older than 10 years old. Of course, that's hardly an issue for the investors who sell within 5 years of occupancy.

You must remember that highrise buildings are ridiculously expensive to properly build and maintain - one of the reasons why most supertalls are commercial. Personally, I'd rent!

 

[marsh]

I live in low rise (30 units) condo townhome development built in the 80s. We just spent $160,000 to replace our windows. The thing is our earlier reserve study had budgeted a 40 year life span for the windows. We were just lucky that we had the funds. So yes I believe it can get very expensive for these massive glass towers to replace their windows.