THE VANCOUVER SUN "SHINES" ITS READERS

Note: This editorial was available online but all links have now vanished.

On December 22, 2004, the caption to an editorial in the Vancouver Sun read, "Don't make architects scapegoats for leaky buildings."

Oh, really? What "leaky buildings?" And, why not? Why not make them the scapegoats? Would they really be scapegoats if they were nailed for this? I don't think so.

The first paragraph includes the simple nonexplanatory phrase "water damage" which is more inclusive, but then it is "spun." Judge the following words for yourself, ". . . claims for water damage to B.C. schools highlight the need for a non-adversarial method of solving the problems of leaky buildings." Does that not imply that all damage is due to leaks? But, is it? The next paragraph starts with the same, "The provincial government is looking at more than 500 schools around the province which might have damage due to leaks." Really? ". . . due to leaks," eh? The editorial also reveals that all of the schools were built since 1985, and the Province (of British Columbia) has had an ongoing problem with "leaky" condos, again construing the water damage as being caused by leaks.

There's another trick or obfuscation the editorial attempts. It asks, "Who was overseeing these projects and giving them their final approvals?" Now, these are functions architects can perform, I suppose. They don't have to. These are really what the general contractor and owner do, aren't they? There is a more basic, more important function the editorial leaves out - - - design. Why doesn't the editorial address design? If that many schools built within 20 years have a problem, does that not indicate a design problem. The 500 schools must be about 100 percent of those constructed since 1985, but we are not instructed on this.

The editorial gets strange. It basically says that it is not fair that architects are "registered" and easy to find years after the project, but others can "disappear into the woodwork." Although implying that the contractors have evaporated, the editorial reports that what has upset the architects are notices sent to the construction companies (that have disappeared). Why? Shouldn't the ones sent to the architects upset the architects? Perhaps because the ones sent to the construction companies are gathering evidence against the architects. Maybe the architects and Sun editors only hoped all the contractors had disappeared.

Ok, what do we all know that is not being said? First, whether reported or not, the water problem in the schools has been going on for years. It would be interesting to determine whether or not the Vancouver Sun has been dutifully reporting that. Second, a large part (if not all) of the water problem is due to "tight" construction and water condensation that arises from insufficient air flow. There are no leaks at all. This is a design disaster for which the architects should not only be financially ruined, they should be incarcerated. Third, there are other problems - - - respiratory and behavioral - - - that have been inflicted upon the students and staff of such schools because of insufficient fresh air. This is a major design flaw and another reason to lock up the architects (and also the Vancouver Sun editors - - - did they diligently report when carbon dioxide levels were outrageously high and teachers were being disabled and students running amok?) and throw away the key. Water condensation and elevated carbon dioxide go hand in hand. One almost guarantees the other. Both lead to problems, nay, disaster. This has always been known. The architects and newspapers have chosen to ignore it. Now, things maybe coming home to roost, as they say. (I, for one, hope so).

The Sun editors are concerned about the architects because they are there - - - visible and have deep pockets. What the editors know and are worried about is that they are too. And, every bit as culpable.

Copyright © 2005, Donald L. Beeman. All rights reserved.

Sealed Schools
Other Essays
Table of Contents
HOME