NSW Mascot Towers repair bill to hit $53 million

What a huge mess, it's the typical scenario that replays itself over and over again in Australia with the developer that's gone into liquidation and no one left to blame. It's not only limited to happening in high rises. There are thousands of high rises across Australia that are built correctly and don't have these issues, this is what happens when shortcuts get taken.

 

The probloem is the WHOLE process from start to finish.
Gov, Councils, Enigneers, Architects, Certifications, Developers, Builders etc

The whole procees of building apartments can no longer be trusted.
Anyone involved in the planning and approval of those buildings cannot be trusted.
There should be a deep enquiry to find out why this happened.
Until then goodluck buying highrise apartments in Sydney

 

there has been
see recommendations by Sheargold Weir Report circa 2017

 

So you don’t swim in the water until all sharks are captured?? What is the % of the building which has trouble?

Not too sure why you can’t trust the whole process? If building has defects you can’t trust either builder or engineers. All other people have no idea they can’t do anything. They rely on these people. Planning and approval people have no clue even. One of the trouble building, it appears it came from neighboring building issue.

 

There have been two large apartment blocks built in Warners Bay recently, the owners in the first block have taken out a class action against the builders/developers because of faults. Rumours of faults in the second building are now circulating. Both buildings had asian workers bused in and out every day, who were never seen shopping for lunch/coffee as the ozzie tradies did - the asian workers didn't appear to work on the facades of the building but were seen working internally.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

 

Not if there is a perfectly good part of the ocean next door that doesn't have sharks. It doesn't matter what the % is, it's a risk I don't see a return on, so I simply avoid the risk completely.

Maybe you can explain this. Why should someone take the risk of highrise building defects, no matter how small? What is the return from taking a risk on highrises that you cannot get from buying a house or in a small block?

 

I am not a fan of units. My portfolio doesn’t have units either. Mainly highrise towers are for certain people lifestyle, they like living at higher altitude and comparitevely cheaper. Again investment return is a subjective matter. People in Sydney made equivalent profit to home and land. In Brisbane units didn’t do well for past 10-15 years.

For the people who wants to buy need to go with reputable developer for peace of mind.

 

Sure there's a few with major problems being well publicized.
But what of the many with cladding issues ?
You rarely hear of the buildings with waterproofing issues, yet this is probably the biggest issue with any apartment building.......

 

what does it make you wonder? Please, be explicit.

 

I know of another building with similar issue's.

The builder was from a currently unpopular country.....
He imported as much as possible, worker's, windows, plumbing, cladding.......

5 years later when things started needing replacement they found items couldn't be "swapped out" due to items not being Australian standard !

Then the cladding was identified as flamable, so they had a building inspection done, items identified ranged from glass balcony rail not up to code, windows not up to Aus standard, waterproofing issue's, the worst being that the floor slabs between levels is thinner than the design/plans (not something you can FIX ).

The builder had retained a few, as soon as a special levy went out to fund court action his holdings sold/transferred twice in 2 months for $1 (asset disposal ).

This is all still in the courts some 2 years later
The question that hasn't been asked is "what other buildings did the same developer build" ?

So to kinda answer @inertia question, it makes me wonder how they get away with doing the wrong thing, not just the building, the waterproofing, the fixtures, foundations or structure, but also to import cheap substandard materials, use 457 visa workers, and all the stuff we don't know about, only to then do a runner going "you can't get me"

All the profits dissapeared back OS, construction didn't benefit the local businesses (apart from earthworks and concrete probably) and left a bunch of Australian citizens with hefty bills

Lucky we are regulated, and builders don't really need to warranty construction over 4 storey

 

@Stoffo said it all ^

 

Latest judgement in the Lacrosse Towers Fire (Melb) has held that it is the consultants, not the builder, who are jointly liable for the issues arising from the selection of the cladding.

"The builder can’t be brought into this..." | Master Builders Association

Obviously, the outcome is still pending a high court appeal.

I concur with the outcome as the liability should lie with the specifiers, designers & fire engineers who are specialists in these fields not the builder who has installed a product nominated by the others.

The outcome would be different if it were a developer-cum-builder driving the design beyond the concept drawings, a design & construction element of a project or product substitution (cheaper equivalent product or totally inferior product used).

 

The Australian version of the leaning tower of pisa