What do we think about single-stage sealed plaster facades - the building scandal of the century?
For my part, I believe this will go down in history.
The 70s uninsulated concrete slab foundation poured with untreated wood, and the 60s-70s cardboard houses with plastic trimmings and barracuda roofs, and direct electric heating/ceiling heating, and the use of asbestos in the construction sector... I think will fade in the next decade or so when the madness of the last 15 years' construction becomes more evident.
What do you think?
This summer we visited a friend; she had recently purchased a new (expensive) apartment, beautifully located near water and nature.
Yes, everything was fantastically nice. But damaged as I am, I quickly noticed that the houses have a single-layer render facade. I almost recommended she sell soon, before the association starts having facade problems, or before it becomes commonly known that housing associations have facade issues and have to replace them for multimillion amounts from the association's financial resources.
But I didn't have the heart to spoil the happiness my friend felt for this home.
But what do you think will happen in the future?
Is there a big risk that the association will discover damage within ten years or so? A massive facade replacement on a large 6-story building beginning...
What does that cost? Who pays? How are fees and the value of the condos affected?
Some links that I first posted in another thread, but now decided it's worth its own thread.
http://www.byggvarlden.se/stoppa-enstegstatade-putsfasader-57917/nyhet.html
http://cornucopia.cornubot.se/2014/11/sjuttio-procent-av-enstegstatade.html
http://byggaren.se/nyhetsarkiv/item/214-hovrattsdom-enstegstatat-fasad-dyr-lacka-for-husagaren
The 70s uninsulated concrete slab foundation poured with untreated wood, and the 60s-70s cardboard houses with plastic trimmings and barracuda roofs, and direct electric heating/ceiling heating, and the use of asbestos in the construction sector... I think will fade in the next decade or so when the madness of the last 15 years' construction becomes more evident.
What do you think?
This summer we visited a friend; she had recently purchased a new (expensive) apartment, beautifully located near water and nature.
Yes, everything was fantastically nice. But damaged as I am, I quickly noticed that the houses have a single-layer render facade. I almost recommended she sell soon, before the association starts having facade problems, or before it becomes commonly known that housing associations have facade issues and have to replace them for multimillion amounts from the association's financial resources.
But I didn't have the heart to spoil the happiness my friend felt for this home.
But what do you think will happen in the future?
Is there a big risk that the association will discover damage within ten years or so? A massive facade replacement on a large 6-story building beginning...
What does that cost? Who pays? How are fees and the value of the condos affected?
Some links that I first posted in another thread, but now decided it's worth its own thread.
http://www.byggvarlden.se/stoppa-enstegstatade-putsfasader-57917/nyhet.html
http://cornucopia.cornubot.se/2014/11/sjuttio-procent-av-enstegstatade.html
http://byggaren.se/nyhetsarkiv/item/214-hovrattsdom-enstegstatat-fasad-dyr-lacka-for-husagaren
I live in a semi-detached house with a single-layer plaster facade, which is a Brf. Now it seems that the members have started to realize that the facade will cause us problems.
It has become two camps, those who want to patch and repair forever, at least until they themselves leave this world.
And the rest of us who want the facade replaced as soon as possible. I'm worried about mold damage affecting the indoor climate of the house. If you are closer to death than middle age, you might not care much, but if you have young children growing up in this environment like we do, it would be very bad if they developed allergies, asthma, etc. Especially when there is a solution: replace the facade!
The board is aware of the problem, is performing moisture measurements, and has sealed around the windows. I think repairing something that is flawed from the start is completely pointless. And if there is the slightest risk that children could be harmed, there is no doubt what the right decision is.
What do you think?
It has become two camps, those who want to patch and repair forever, at least until they themselves leave this world.
And the rest of us who want the facade replaced as soon as possible. I'm worried about mold damage affecting the indoor climate of the house. If you are closer to death than middle age, you might not care much, but if you have young children growing up in this environment like we do, it would be very bad if they developed allergies, asthma, etc. Especially when there is a solution: replace the facade!
The board is aware of the problem, is performing moisture measurements, and has sealed around the windows. I think repairing something that is flawed from the start is completely pointless. And if there is the slightest risk that children could be harmed, there is no doubt what the right decision is.
What do you think?
Replacing the facade is probably the most advantageous option from a long-term perspective, both economically and health-wise. I have worked on "repairing" these facades, and nothing will convince me that it's feasible to create a long-lasting construction this way.
Everything wears out over time, and even a completely correctly executed single-stage sealed plaster facade works well for a number of years until the wear becomes significant enough to allow small amounts of moisture to reach the underlying wooden frame, where it doesn't escape = rot. I think it's inevitable. Replace the damn thing.
Everything wears out over time, and even a completely correctly executed single-stage sealed plaster facade works well for a number of years until the wear becomes significant enough to allow small amounts of moisture to reach the underlying wooden frame, where it doesn't escape = rot. I think it's inevitable. Replace the damn thing.
Today, I was sitting in the car during the 10 o'clock news and jumped for joy when the Supreme Court at least ruled that it was wrong for Myresjöhus to construct houses with single-stage sealed facades. The main point seems to be that a house with facades that leak and start to mold almost immediately cannot be considered to meet the buyer's expectations.
A good first step, even though the Supreme Court has yet to look at and take a stance on the compensation aspect.
But just this first step is a partial victory in that now the Supreme Court has decided that construction companies cannot hide behind "SP's tests" or the argument that the basis is just that "everyone did wrong, so we should also be allowed to do wrong and get away with it!"
Now it has been concluded that the housing company must produce a satisfactory product for the buyer.
Now we just hope that the compensation issue doesn't get too watered down. If the construction companies make mistakes, and it's ruled that they made mistakes, but it doesn't lead to consequences, it's the same as a free pass for this rotten industry.
But it is indeed a delicate problem, it is said that 25-30,000 houses have been built with single-stage sealed plaster facades. If the average facade renovation costs 250', the total bill will be roughly 7500 million kronor. Think about that. Who's left holding the bag? Should the house manufacturers fork out all this, or should it be spread among all the homebuyers?
Lucky are those who already managed to sell their trash polystyrene house before the scandal started to unfold.
There were those who already knew it was wrong: http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt/sydnytt/han-varnade-for-tekniken-redan-pa-80-talet
A good first step, even though the Supreme Court has yet to look at and take a stance on the compensation aspect.
But just this first step is a partial victory in that now the Supreme Court has decided that construction companies cannot hide behind "SP's tests" or the argument that the basis is just that "everyone did wrong, so we should also be allowed to do wrong and get away with it!"
Now it has been concluded that the housing company must produce a satisfactory product for the buyer.
Now we just hope that the compensation issue doesn't get too watered down. If the construction companies make mistakes, and it's ruled that they made mistakes, but it doesn't lead to consequences, it's the same as a free pass for this rotten industry.
But it is indeed a delicate problem, it is said that 25-30,000 houses have been built with single-stage sealed plaster facades. If the average facade renovation costs 250', the total bill will be roughly 7500 million kronor. Think about that. Who's left holding the bag? Should the house manufacturers fork out all this, or should it be spread among all the homebuyers?
Lucky are those who already managed to sell their trash polystyrene house before the scandal started to unfold.
There were those who already knew it was wrong: http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt/sydnytt/han-varnade-for-tekniken-redan-pa-80-talet
So... I think this is a bit strange. It must be single-stage sealed stucco facades with certain specific material choices that are the problem. Not all forms of single-stage sealed stucco facades.
Two opposites: Acrylic-based thin stucco on foam is a disaster but lime stucco on spaced panel and reed mat has been used successfully for ages. (Even with KC stucco works excellently.) Both are definitely single-stage sealed.
As far as I know, KC stucco on mineral wool boards is still used with good results even without an air gap.
Two opposites: Acrylic-based thin stucco on foam is a disaster but lime stucco on spaced panel and reed mat has been used successfully for ages. (Even with KC stucco works excellently.) Both are definitely single-stage sealed.
As far as I know, KC stucco on mineral wool boards is still used with good results even without an air gap.
I believe that many of these houses will be seen as demolition objects with some perspective. Give it another 10-15 years, and I guess we'll have a housing market that looks completely different. Houses with questionable construction will be valued differently. Today, despite the attention, it is not particularly well-known. Prospective buyers still only look at the location and the tiles in the bathroom...
If some houses are demolished or renovated for millions affecting the association or individual homeowners, it will soon look different.
Let's promote more long-term construction! Houses should not be built with an expected lifespan of 30 years! Some suppliers do not want to commit beyond that. What does this mean in the long run for the possibility of mortgaging your property?
If some houses are demolished or renovated for millions affecting the association or individual homeowners, it will soon look different.
Let's promote more long-term construction! Houses should not be built with an expected lifespan of 30 years! Some suppliers do not want to commit beyond that. What does this mean in the long run for the possibility of mortgaging your property?
Member
· Stockholms Län
· 702 posts
On a villa, is it insanely expensive to change the facade? To wood. I know nothing about plaster.
Thinking of a house 10x10m h=4m.
Estimate:
Scaffolding 3 weeks: 5000:-
Carpenter x 2 for 3 weeks: 240h x500:- = 120000:- ROT 60000:-
Sheet metal 15 windows: 300:-x15= 4500:-
Paint: 20000:-
Painter 2x40h=80x500:-=40000:- ROT 20000:-
Facade wood baseboards primed 160m2: 160x6.9=1100m x17:- = 18700:-
Facade wood battens primed 160m2: 160x6.9=1100m x9:- = 9900:-
Screws for panel about 45mm (1100/0.6= 1833pcs) => 1833pcs*0.26= 500:-
Screws for lock about 80mm (1100/0.6 =1833pcs) => 1833pcs*0.46= 900:-
Container for styrofoam: 3000:-?
Container for plaster: 3000:-?
Nailing battens house perimeter 40m, height 4m => 7 rounds x40m = 280m 28x70 x 8.5= 2400:-
Screws for nailing battens every 0.6m => 467 screws 60mm => 467*0.6= 280:-
=> 228000:- incl. VAT. with ROT 150000:- A lot of the cost is labor here, so if you sacrifice two whole summers you should be able to do it yourself (half the house/summer type).
Reasonable!?
Couldn't it become in the future like with drainage, stated in all inspection reports?
Thinking of a house 10x10m h=4m.
Estimate:
Scaffolding 3 weeks: 5000:-
Carpenter x 2 for 3 weeks: 240h x500:- = 120000:- ROT 60000:-
Sheet metal 15 windows: 300:-x15= 4500:-
Paint: 20000:-
Painter 2x40h=80x500:-=40000:- ROT 20000:-
Facade wood baseboards primed 160m2: 160x6.9=1100m x17:- = 18700:-
Facade wood battens primed 160m2: 160x6.9=1100m x9:- = 9900:-
Screws for panel about 45mm (1100/0.6= 1833pcs) => 1833pcs*0.26= 500:-
Screws for lock about 80mm (1100/0.6 =1833pcs) => 1833pcs*0.46= 900:-
Container for styrofoam: 3000:-?
Container for plaster: 3000:-?
Nailing battens house perimeter 40m, height 4m => 7 rounds x40m = 280m 28x70 x 8.5= 2400:-
Screws for nailing battens every 0.6m => 467 screws 60mm => 467*0.6= 280:-
=> 228000:- incl. VAT. with ROT 150000:- A lot of the cost is labor here, so if you sacrifice two whole summers you should be able to do it yourself (half the house/summer type).
Reasonable!?
Couldn't it become in the future like with drainage, stated in all inspection reports?
Last edited:
Yes, it seems that the cost of replacing the facade on single-family houses/small houses, according to many, is roughly around 200,000. On par with what the home buyers were awarded in the first lawsuit against Myresjöhus. It was about 9 million for 23 houses.
Economically for society, the main issue is that so many houses were built using this scandalous method.
So the question still remains who is going to pay the 6-10 billion this will cost.
If it comes down to the construction companies, then there might be several bankruptcies, which also ultimately affects society, and the buyers of those companies won't get anything.
Should homeowners bear the cost themselves?
If so, about 4 billion in ROT-deductions will be given out, which comes from your and my tax money. This means worse healthcare, education, roads, etc., or alternatively tax increases.
In addition, it sends out the message that the construction companies always get off scot-free, which sets the stage for future economic catastrophes when construction companies run the next round with worthless building methods.
Economically for society, the main issue is that so many houses were built using this scandalous method.
So the question still remains who is going to pay the 6-10 billion this will cost.
If it comes down to the construction companies, then there might be several bankruptcies, which also ultimately affects society, and the buyers of those companies won't get anything.
Should homeowners bear the cost themselves?
If so, about 4 billion in ROT-deductions will be given out, which comes from your and my tax money. This means worse healthcare, education, roads, etc., or alternatively tax increases.
In addition, it sends out the message that the construction companies always get off scot-free, which sets the stage for future economic catastrophes when construction companies run the next round with worthless building methods.
It will be incredibly exciting to see how it ends. I find it difficult to see that property owners should be left exposed and bear the entire cost when they have clearly purchased a product that did not meet expectations.
I am not well-informed, but have insurance companies compensated for this type of damage through insurance? When it comes to new waterproofing layers in wet rooms that cause damage despite being installed according to the manufacturer's instructions, Länsförsäkringar at least compensates for the damage. However, in that case, Länsförsäkringar has recognized the problem and tasked SP with testing which waterproofing layers meet the standards to avoid major costs in the future.
I am not well-informed, but have insurance companies compensated for this type of damage through insurance? When it comes to new waterproofing layers in wet rooms that cause damage despite being installed according to the manufacturer's instructions, Länsförsäkringar at least compensates for the damage. However, in that case, Länsförsäkringar has recognized the problem and tasked SP with testing which waterproofing layers meet the standards to avoid major costs in the future.