Richmond's Olympic oval has mold in its roof
Barry Artiste, Now Public Contributor
Spending 178 Million Plus dollars to construct Richmond, British Columbia's Olympic Oval’s massive 6.5-acre roof and not opt for the 10 year warranty smacks of utter idiocy, and most likely why the Federal Government is wary about funding big provincial or city projects when those who handle the money for construction are so unclear on the concept of life cycle costs, future maintenance and project management.
How any Contractors, Engineers and Designers worth their salt not know Mold is a real common concern in British Columbia, is anyones guess, for if they don't know, they should get into another line of work, perhaps a paper hat and drive thru window would be a better profession more to their skillsets!
History has repeated itself, it has been said since the mid 1980's British Columbia has had it's share of incompetence from Contractors, Engineers, Designers etc in the National Leaky Condo fiasco, in what seemed to be "Fly By Night" Contractors jumped on the Building Boom, constructing Condos in what looked like overnight to willing buyers looking to get in on the building and real estate boom.
The British Columbia Bureaucracy on all Government levels cried foul at their own stupidity and requested a Federal Government Bailout of almost a Billion dollars needed to fix all this Leaking Buildings and the Mold within them, which had no warranties, those that may have had Fly By Night Contractors who were nowhere to be found, as they had picked up stakes and left the province long ago.
The Province and Contractors blamed the BC Building Code and the Vancouver Building By-Laws that never explicitly stated that, because of the Lower Mainland’s special rainy weather conditions, buildings have to be specially built. Special weather conditions? Are Contractors and Government Officials that Retarded? It is not like all of a sudden British Columbia discovered Rain?
The is no word what this "Special 10 year warranty" would have cost, usually 5% of the total cost, but when it is clear the manufacturers warranty doesn't go far enough, that should have sent alarm bells to even the lowliest labourer that perhaps the 10 year warranty would be the way to go.
Presently the mould issue on the newly constructed roof has engineers, contractors, sub contractors pointing fingers at everyone to find fault, yet as everyone knows, when you point an accusing finger at anyone, three of those fingers at pointing back at you!! So, the result is 2.2 plus million dollars to remediate this mold, with no guarantees that the mold won't be coming back anytime soon. It is 2.2 million dollars now, only because the roof is not covered and easily accessiable, but guess how much it will cost if mold appears years down the road when the roof is covered and complete? It will cost untold millions to remove the roof sections to remediate any mold that has come back, not to mention loss of use to the city and the public. Certainly a 10 year warranty would have been a prudent decision.
So typically this is what happens when you let the Bean Counters run the show, who only look at cutting costs despite the obvious problems down the road, and now the "Pay me now, or Pay me later will apply for years to come", much like the ongoing Leaky Condo situtation 2 decades later as a testament to British Columbias haste to construct em faster and faster, it certainly seems like the Olympic Oval problem will not be going away soon, but as long as taxpayers are around to pay for their mistakes, it may turn out to be an Olympic Moneypit. <
Richmond's Olympic oval has mould in its roofCity says $2.2m problem to be fixed by fallDerrick Penner, Vancouver SunPublished: Saturday, April 19, 2008
The City of Richmond is investigating what caused a mysterious mould problem in the roof of the Olympic Speed Skating Oval, and who should pay the estimated $2.2-million remedial cost.
Spokesman Ted Townsend said the $178-million project's contingency fund will be used to cover the cost, but the city is looking into where the fault may lay and whether the money can be recovered from the contractor or roof manufacturer.
The roof was built without a warranty as a cost-cutting measure, but officials said it would not have covered this problem.