Friday 16 July 2010

Between a Rock and a Hard Plaza, a Tale of 22 Towers



A decade and a half ago I was asked to help a residents’ committee who represented the occupants of 22 high-rise blocks of shared-ownership, ‘low-cost’ housing recently built on land reclaimed from the Mediterranean.

Concern over the building’s performance started when it began to disrobe. At first it flung pieces of the clay lattice balcony screens from the 10 to 12 story towers onto the walkways and gardens on the podium deck. These were later joined by brick slips springing loose from floor edges. Lower down, parts of the soffit of the podium deck began falling onto the residents’ parked cars. During the first severe winter, rain entered both flats and garages.
The residents’ had relied on locally-commissioned reports only to be met with inaction and rumour of political bias. Undaunted, they sought further professional support from those with a solid reputation for objectivity and dispute resolution.


The occupants of the defective buildings, along with their friends and relations, acting in unison, felt themselves capable of overturning the local government. At the next election a new government was installed with a mandate to support the resident’s struggle.

The developer brought in the Building Research Establishment, the government engaged Ove Arup and I was acting for the residents. The Government and residents met flowing which we and Arup each presented our findings to the Chief minister. We were instructed to act on behalf of the government and the residents. The developer was firmly persuaded to maintain the contractual chain. This cleared the way for a united action against the Spanish Contractor under the design and build contract

The arbitrator was appointed and visited the site. Experts for both sides carried out joint inspections and prepared evidence for arbitration. The lists of defects grew steadily. Simultaneously, legal challenges were heard in Spanish and English courts. Eventually, by consensus, the arbitration was stopped and proceedings transferred to the Technology and Construction Court in London.

My team prepared evidence on the building defects which, through a series of meetings, we largely agreed with the experts appointed by the Contractor. A substantial out of court settlement was obtained providing compensation for both the legal and the repair costs.

I was then approached by both the main contractor and one of his sub-contractors for assistance in the action between them. I accepted a commission for the main contractor who swiftly obtained an out of court settlement.

 Simultaneously with the preparation of expert evidence, my team assessed the technical merit and lifetime cost of seven repair strategies. The remedy selected involved, amongst other work, improving the tensile strength and restraint of the walls whilst reducing their exposure to sun and rain. Additionally some hundreds of other defects were addressed.

Working with local and UK engineers, we devised and managed a remedial contract which allowed the building to remain occupied throughout.

The major flaws in weather integrity, stability, health and safety have been resolved. Although faults in the building remain, local good opinion of this achievement is reflected in the escalating market value of the flats.



The building was required to comply with UK building regulations and the relevant British Standards. The designers and builders came from a Spanish building tradition. The original design was based on the UK preference for fair faced brickwork, cavity walls, tiled roofs, etc. The construction followed Spanish practice integrating reinforced concrete with light-weight ceramic materials to form composite structures. The lessons learnt from ‘60’s high rise building in the UK were ignored and the differences in the behaviour of the ceramic and the cementitious materials were not catered for by the construction. The faults in detailing were found to be spread throughout so that resultant damage reflected variations in workmanship, exposure to sun, wind and rain and variations in severity of weather.

The failure in the building, which resulted in massive repair costs and legal disputes, arose, to a large extent, from a lack of communication and understanding. The quality of the work and the consistency of the poor detailing indicated a lack of familiarity with the techniques appropriate to a building designed in the UK tradition rather than any fundamental lack of ability. Introducing appropriately skilled and experienced designers into the project from the outset would have increased building cost by a few percent but saved millions in later repair and dispute.

No comments:

Post a Comment