Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Dangerous building materials

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
As people have already mentioned, even if there is a compliance certificate, it would have limitations, to cover the person certifying it.
The practice of sub letting out the work, is fraught with danger. I had a second storey addition added to my house, it was carried out by a well known company, they subbied out 95% of the work.
If I wasn't there 100% of the time, a lot of corners would have been cut, it really was appalling.
I would never recommend doing it unless you can oversee the project.
Click to expand...
Most people wouldn't know what cutting corners looks like unless they were in the game (I'm guessing you are). A bit like taking your car to be serviced - you have to be very sure the person is trustworthy.

Since every second home in my area is demolished for chinese buyers, I get to see a lot of new residential build sites. Some are very ordely and clean, others have **** strewn everywhere, wire fences falling onto the footpath, insulation flapping all over the joint. The messy sites take forever to get built because the companies involved seem to have so many projects on the go. Weeks can pass without any work being done. Sometimes years. Those fibro clad walls (made to look like rendered brick) are a dead giveaway though. The other clue is cheap, ugly landscaping which gets completed in a day.
 
sptrawler said:
over engineering in a project, has been where it is a Government department carrying out the project, but alas those days have mostly gone
Click to expand...

Still there alive and well.
The waste is also there
Massive

The bigger it is (meaning Company/Government/Subcontractor) the looser it is.
 
basilio said:
The pressure is on in Sydneys property market. Oversupply of units and the concern about build quality is having its effect.

Sydney apartments in spotlight as developers ramp up incentives to clear oversupply of stock
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...has-developers-increasing-incentives/11205534
Click to expand...

I think there's a lesson here. Governments and councils always under-regulate whenever a new boom emerges (in any field). The reason they under-regulate is that they are delighted and relieved if any segment of the economy is doing well. So they will stand right back and let it rip, milking it for all its worth and claiming it was due to their brilliant policies. When the cracks appear (literally or figuratively), it's too late. From what I've seen, this always happens.

The other extreme is over-regulation, which we saw with the Banking Royal Commission. Unecessarily strict regulations are placed upon institutions that are 'on the nose' generally, and ready to topple under their own weight. They would topple naturally, but the government steps in at the right time so it can claim responsibility and look like the good guy.
 
From an investment perspective there's a risk with companies which have physical assets as a core part of their business, so any sort of buildings, machinery, mines, farms, dams, railways, factories etc if they're not sufficiently focused on the technical side of what they're doing.

If the focus isn't where it needs to be then it's only a matter of time until there's a major incident of some sort and the moment that happens you don't want to be holding the stock. :2twocents
 
Buying a new high-rise apartment is a risk best avoided

I write this piece as one of the lucky apartment owners.

Lucky not because I managed to break into the apartment market, but because I survived it financially intact.

In 2008 I purchased a two-bedroom apartment in a six-level complex near a good rail service not too far from the Sydney CBD. The development had won environmental awards, it shared a site with local council facilities, and was almost six years old. The building inspection report produced no major issues.

What could go wrong?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-19/buying-a-new-high-rise-apartment-a-risk-best-avoided/11220972
 
IFocus said:
Buying a new high-rise apartment is a risk best avoided

I write this piece as one of the lucky apartment owners.

Lucky not because I managed to break into the apartment market, but because I survived it financially intact.

In 2008 I purchased a two-bedroom apartment in a six-level complex near a good rail service not too far from the Sydney CBD. The development had won environmental awards, it shared a site with local council facilities, and was almost six years old. The building inspection report produced no major issues.

What could go wrong?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-19/buying-a-new-high-rise-apartment-a-risk-best-avoided/11220972
Click to expand...

This story puts it all together. Very significant observation about non disclosure clauses in any legal agreements.
As Smurf noted any organisation holding a portfoilio of physical assets ( like apartments..) is running a risk if something goes wrong. Banks ? Super funds ? Investment companies ?
 
Bring back the Hammurabi Code...:)

The earliest known principles of construction law can be found in the Code of Hammurabi. Hammurabi was the sixth king of Babylon and ruled from 1792 BC to 1750 BC. The Code of Hammurabi contained 282 laws inscribed on twelve stone tablets which were placed in public view. Hammurabi’s Code was one of the earliest written codes of law in recorded history. Several of the laws pertained to the built environment:

229 If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.

230 If it kills the son of the owner, the son of that builder shall be put to death.

231 If it kills a slave of the owner, then he shall pay, slave for slave, to the owner of the house.

232 If it ruins goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been ruined, and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he built and it fell, he shall re-erect the house from his own means.

233 If a builder builds a house for someone, even though he has not yet completed it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make the walls solid from his own means.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5181e80b-f307-42e6-a357-c2d081b678ff
 
Hmmm always hated massive apartment blocks - utter eyesores. Anyway re the Mascot Towers scenario there's now conjecture that it may've been (partly) the construction happening adjacent, not necessarily anything egregious about MT's construction 11 years ago.

Very surprised that there isn't some type of insurance for such things included in strata fees.

https://www.news.com.au/news/sugges...k/news-story/a10c6d0fefe32cbac8a8199fa92c7e00
 
If apartment blocks like Mascot are evacuated due to the risk of collapsing, what is the case with high rise office buildings. Are they subject to a different building code?
 
bellenuit said:
If apartment blocks like Mascot are evacuated due to the risk of collapsing, what is the case with high rise office buildings. Are they subject to a different building code?
Click to expand...

Good question. I suspect there may be a different approach to commercial construction. Perhaps a more measured approach to putting up a building for a single client rather than just creating a dream that can be sold to a hundred different buyers ?

I don't know, but it would interesting to hear people who have some direct knowledge of commercial building vs residential units.
 
We need to know who built these things and their safety record.

It's a matter of consumer rights to have information like that.
 
Gladys Berejiglian admits self regulation has failed in the building industry (and how many other industries ?).

Some of the failed Conservative policies seem to be coming back to bite them and us on the bum.

Building, power industry privatisation , banking industry deregulation ....

"
Building Industry 'failing'
11298264-3x2-340x227.jpg
Photo: The exposed roof in the Zetland apartment. (Supplied)


Premier Gladys Berejiklian says self-regulation of the building industry is not working and has admitted "there's a problem".

It comes as footage emerged last night of the flooding through the roof of a Zetland apartment block that was evacuated eight months ago. The footage shows water dripping through the exposed roof of the building and water in the hallway.

The Premier said the decision to allow the industry to self-regulate "hasn't worked".

"There are too many challenges, too many problems, and that's why the Government's willing to legislate," she said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...ea-at-risk-zetland-building-industry/11296436
 
SirRumpole said:
Gladys Berejiglian admits self regulation has failed in the building industry (and how many other industries ?).

Some of the failed Conservative policies seem to be coming back to bite them and us on the bum.

Building, power industry privatisation , banking industry deregulation ....
Click to expand...
Calm down Rumpy, your showing your rusted on bias, it was only a month or two ago you were crediting Hawke and Keating for deregulating the Banking industry.
You can't have it both ways. :roflmao:
 
sptrawler said:
Calm down Rumpy, your showing your rusted on bias, it was only a month or two ago you were crediting Hawke and Keating for deregulating the Banking industry.
You can't have it both ways. :roflmao:
Click to expand...

I admire Hawke and Keating but I don't think I ever praised banking deregulation or tariff reductions.

I don't think they did everything right.
 
Lack of experience, they basically canned licensed work up to a certain amount. Made it easier to get your license. And reduced warranties on defects from 7 years to 2 years.

I retired from the game, but have been getting a lot of calls to do inspections lately. Mainly due to lack of knowledge out there.

In saying that there were thousands of units thrown up with only four being widely reported.
 
Top