West Vancouver

Building damage requiring repair and restoration comes in two types. The first can be called acute, caused by burst water pipes, fire, and impact by a fallen tree or a misguided vehicle. The second is typically less obvious, and therefore more insidious. Causes here might be a small, slow water supply line or drain-pipe leak, possibly a rain gutter clogged and backing up, sources often minimal enough to escape notice until excessive damage has resulted. Any infiltration of water in building areas not designed to handle them will cause the same unwanted result. Beside the slow leak, insect and pest invasion are other good examples of chronic forms of building damage. The average homeowner or building manager is not likely to notice such invasions until they are well underway.

While no building damage at all is the usual aim, the acute forms are better in the sense that at least the cause is easily determined: high autumn winds blew an old elm down, a driver’s grip on the wheel slipped backing into the carport, the chimney had not been cleaned in eons, the water used to douse the flames of the resulting chimney fire introduced thousands of gallons of remedial H2O into a building interior intended by design to remain sound and dry.

Most chronic forms of building damage involve water infiltration. Life-giving water is a classic double-edged sword. While it fuels the growth of the desirable organisms we require to sustain life from carrots to meat sources, it fuels also organisms we do not see the immediate value of such as wood-rot and other fungi, as well as insects like carpenter ants and termites.

It is important to consider the many ways water can infiltrate and damage buildings. Some are largely anomalous. Seeking ingress for warmth, food and comfort, animals such as raccoons will often peel loose shingles away helping create that classic cause of infiltration: the compromised roof membrane enabling H2O ingress. While rare, a raccoon can do the damage in minutes it would take weather years to accomplish, and though such a cause is uncommon, the increasing desire for green spaces will only increase this risk. Touching on prevention, a bi-annual inspection of a building’s all-important roof system is a great idea, particularly as very little time is required to do so compared to the time output and cost of repairing advanced damage. Shortly after spring’s breeding period, and prior to winter are the best times to inspect. Along these lines of prevention, it is never a good idea to ignore a roof membrane in bad repair. It could be said that opposite the first thought that a building starts at the ground, building health starts with its roof membrane.

Given an opportunity, water will enter just as easily from the ground, working its way up. A given building’s concrete foundation often works as a dam, stopping or limiting water’s natural inclination to seek the lowest ground as any hydroelectric project will attest. Perimeter drain systems are intended to prevent damming. Many people are unaware of this important aspect of positive building health. This underground piping system intends to help water move easily to its low point by preventing potentially damaging accumulations that will cause water to rise up instead of move down as it naturally does. Perimeter drainage systems are even more important on hillsides where water has more velocity, and further, may be channeled into streams, either above ground or below, just as can be seen on almost every geographical map.

Further, we are all familiar with the erosive power of flowing water, and over time, moving water will dislodge substrate materials like dirt, sand and stone. The smaller particles of these substrate materials—usually called “fines”—may then accumulate in a building’s underground perimeter drainage system, creating another kind of dam that restricts the desirable drain-away effect intended by the system’s design. Touching on prevention again, it is a good idea to inspect perimeter drainage systems periodically. Some building codes make this easier by dictating cleanouts of the sort found in interior systems. Modern technology greatly aids this inspection; camera lenses are now attached to flexible “snakes,” which are then inserted into drainage pipes, allowing a great visual inspection.

North Vancouver

In the event a perimeter drainage system has not included above-ground clean-out ports, as the system is not under pressure, it is possible to dig out an access to piping for inspection, and almost as easy to install a cleanout or two in some unobtrusive location, usually at or near a building’s corners. This minor reparation will make future inspection much more expedient.

Keeping an eye on groundwater flow is always a good idea in support of building health. Underground flow can result in a general saturation, or as mentioned, is often concentrated in stream flows. These in turn can erode substrate materials that not only plug perimeter drains, but can also undermine a building’s foundation. This can happen quickly, which is usually observed sooner than later, but it can also happen over many years, making the effect difficult to see until major structural damage has already occurred. It is a smart damage-control measure to check for soggy, swampy areas on properties, which typically indicate water’s natural pursuit of lowland is being impeded, likely with deleterious effect. Sometimes, there is nowhere to drain water away, the reason many properties in Florida and in other regions of low land make for inexpensive land values. In general, in the interest of building health, always be sure that from roof to grade, water always has a quick, easy path of egress away from those valuable components of properties like wood and concrete that may seem durable—and usually are—until exposed to excessive amounts of water.

Building codes stipulate prevention measures that if ignored, result in one of the most common causes of building damage: wood rot due to fungal invasion. Though a building’s control of water from roof to grade is a great start, it is equally important to ensure that organic materials like dirt are a minimum of eight inches (20 cm) away from exterior woodwork, particularly structural woodwork like sill or sole plates, studs, and sheathing materials. There are two immediate reasons for this, the first being that soils easily harbour high moisture levels, and second, that these soils almost surely contain fungal spores that, in the presence of water, and with the aid of other factors, soon develop into a wood-consuming organism that reduces fine handiwork to dust in mere months and years.

Wood rot fungi is another double-edged sword. Without them, we would not be here to write and read this article. Fungi are nature’s crucial recycling agents, helping the natural cycling of organic materials—usually, but not always, already dead—become available to other life forms. Not capable of photosynthesis themselves, they consume materials that have previously been photosythesizers, materials like wood. What are these fungi looking for? Wood contains mostly cellulose, which is like tasty sugar to this lifeform. But to get at this treat, a chemical reaction requiring H2O is required that enables fungi to break down cellulose into the digestible form it prefers. This would not be such a problem were most buildings not made of, from the fungi perspective, cellulose, not wood as we tend to think.

20 centimetres or 8 inches, the minimum distance between wood and soil stipulated for building health, is not a lot. That’s the length of a small trout, a larger dew worm, and not a great distance even for a flea. In new construction, we might like to think that building inspectors, contractors and workers, and other interested parties ensure this minimum requirement is achieved. However, few systems are fault-free, and unless people are aware of the risks of soil/wood contact, errors are easily overlooked. Further, post construction activities like landscaping done improperly can easily decrease that minimal distance so carefully observed by the builder during back-filling.

Burnaby

Adding to much organic-containing material during backfilling and landscaping is an all too common problem that experienced observation regularly notes. In fact, it is not unusual to see soil piled up directly against siding materials such as wood, cement board, vinyl and stucco. Obviously the thinking is that this suits the lay of the land and is aesthetically pleasing. Also, it is done because backfilling and landscaping efforts have not observed another building code stipulation: that the grade immediately adjacent a building’s footings or foundation slope away from that building a given number of degrees and for a given distance. All too commonly, by piling soils against the building, that slope can be achieved, but at the peril of the building itself. Returning to preventative maintenance thinking, it is wise to survey a given building, watching specifically for that minimum distance.

Note that these same building codes dictate a minimum distance of two inches (5 cm) between wood and non-organic materials like concrete. Assuming fungi-containing organic materials are kept clear, it’s a good minimum guideline. But there is another factor to be considered. That is the splash effect. Water pooled on two inched of concrete may be considered well clear of wood, but water introduced to that area by a hose or regular dripping from a gutter can put that water dangerously close to structural and finish wood and other prone siding materials.

Note also that many siding materials—the first line of defense against the exterior environment—are not necessarily impermeable to water. Unless specially treated, stucco and other masonry-based materials are not. Yes, vinyl is, but water can, under various conditions like splashing, allow water entrance between vinyl trim-work and the envelope behind it. Paints and stains of any kind don’t provide much of an anti-water barrier either. They wear and erode also, soon losing the slick, water-repellent patina offered when newly applied. Quality in paints and stains is a huge factor in terms of longevity, of both the products themselves, and the buildings they adorn.

Regarding the high-risk area at the junction of building base and grade, no attention to damage control can be too great. Some place stock in the use of treated wood in high risk areas. Assuming flawless wood quality alongside perfect application of treatment chemicals, we are then dependent on expert installation quality, the knowledge that where that treated wood is cut to fit, it is also subsequently and properly treated. Yes, treated wood well used will help, but it is no be-all-end-all in itself. Regular inspection is. In general, all claims of durability of products should be regarded as questionable, but the value and benefit of regular inspections cannot be questioned. Nothing beats a thoughtful gander as a first line of defense against building issues.

Assuming that H2O ingress efforts have failed and the prone elements of a building are under threat, what is the next step on the trail back to building health? First, as mentioned, acute building damage is usually easily diagnosed, but the causes of chronic forms are almost always much harder to determine. Naturally, we are as quick to conclude a repair is in order as we are to readily pick up a cherished dropped item. Yet, excepting an emergency situation, the first step is, of course, diagnosis of cause.

Without this step, a repair might be undertaken and completed, yet damage reoccurs because the cause has not been discovered and addressed. For instance, if the cause has been the piling up of organic material against a building’s prone base as discussed earlier, making sure that scenario doesn’t reoccur is the preventative solution. Then the repair can begin, all the while knowing these efforts will not require repeating months or years later. That’s a simple fix. But how about standing on a flat tar and gravel or torch-on roof which, due to its construction, has managed to trap a thick layer of water, or worse yet, ice. Worse still, what if the overall roofed surface area covers veritable acres as has been the case with the famed leaky condos?

Delta

The causes of the Leaky Condo fiasco are many and knowledge and experience exposes them. Further, from playhouse to skyscraper, all the same prevention measures apply. First, materials. Materials must suit the application for which they are intended. No longer is a building expected to last a mere twenty-five years. Nowadays, they cost far too much to build for this old-timey expectation. Heck, the modern home in the west will not even be paid for in twenty-five years. Some materials are unsuitable in some climates, particularly wet ones. Take stucco. Though it may offer many other practical and aesthetic benefits, as mentioned earlier, it is not necessarily impermeable to water ingress unless specially treated. And who is to ensure special treatment is perfectly consistent? Again, what system is inherently perfect?

To the rescue of this potential problem is the modern thinking that your siding, almost regardless of kind and type, is fallible; therefore, we will install another barrier beneath it that we do consider impermeable, or relatively so. This is the “Rain Screen Solution,” a notion that water will likely get behind a given siding type, but we will be sure that we do not impede its flow, ensuring instead that it drops harmlessly to grade. But, the membrane against a building’s wooden sheath is often tarpaper. Anyone who has observed tarpaper performance in rot scenarios knows that repeated exposure to water erodes it, turning it to flakes and powder. Similar complaints have been made against other backing membrane types, those used in lieu of traditional tarpaper.

In addition to material choices being problematic in terms of building health and longevity, design choices are often found to cause more problems than they solve. Flat roofs are a terrific example. When height restrictions are an issue, flat roofs are an immediate solution. They allow more living space beneath, which is always valuable, even more so in urban areas. Yet, is a flat roof a good idea in wetter areas? Some like to point out that much of North America’s coastal region is classed as rain forest, begging the question, Is a flat roof a good idea in a rain forest? One thread consistent throughout this discussion is that impeding the flow of water is potentially deleterious, operating contrary to building health aims. Yet, a flat roof will never drain as well as a sloped one, and though a flat roof does not necessarily impede H2O egress, it certainly slows it down. And certainly, when drains are not kept clear, the earlier-mentioned standing water encountered on flat roofs can occur, often to a level well over boot tops. Then, our roof membrane is the only barrier between the elements and a dry interior, a fact well known to the many who have suffered in such circumstances, in stand-alone homes, multi units, skyscrapers and playhouses all.

Overhangs are another problem. Architect Frank Lloyd Wright is almost as famous for overhangs as he is for other aspects of his creations. Some would say they were excessive. Yet, looking at mud and other largely mud-made structures, substantial overhangs are crucial to building longevity. They exist mostly to counter the splash effect mentioned earlier, the idea being, of course, that the splash won’t reach the building base if the overhang protrudes adequately. And some of us thought these overhangs were intended to provide shade for siestas. Returning to more modern building types, the same applies. That eight inch minimum between your soil and your wood won’t be of as much use when the area is pelted by the splash effect because the building’s overhang does not project enough to give water a chance to lose momentum.

Maple Ridge

It is certain that no endeavour can ever be accomplished without some form of compromise. Many outright refuse to accept this certainty, believing instead that “having it all” is possible. Applied to buildings, the consequences of this blundering oversight are undeniable when a flawless design is paired with poor material choice, sound material choice is paired with bad design, or, worst of all, when both bad design and poor material choice are combined. Accepting that compromise is inevitable, it is useful to consider also that there are sensible compromises, and there are ill-informed ones. This point is encapsulated in the statement of one architectural designer who said, I don’t do design work, I choose best options. Clearly, using design and materials where they are not suitable reminds of the many instructive tales and fables found throughout the world from Hybris to Frankenstein. Nature will always win; so don’t fight it, work with it, instead.

Now that we’ve considered some of the most common causes and preventative possibilities pertaining to building damage, let’s have a look at remediation and other elements of repair that might be encountered when nature seems to have dealt the domicile or other building a bad turn. Structural repairs are not like new construction in that in new construction, we build from the bottom up. Structural repairs seem to work the other way around, as if building starts at the top and works downward. This strange-sounding twist is due to the fact that building loads are no longer following the path designed for them. Like water, they, too, will flow downward, their direction dictated mostly by gravity. Any half-collapsed agricultural building attests to this common phenomenon. The design materials used to hold up these loads are now absent, whether a car has knocked out the garage wall, or the wooden stud bases and associated wood work is in the process of returning to its original carbon particles.

Assuming there is something to save, or that something must be saved at all cost for heritage or other reasons, the trick is then to adequately support building loads from peak to grade, thinking from the top down. Usually, materials of wood and/or steel—commonly called falsework—are assembled to support these loads. These can rarely be temporarily placed where the original structural members were because new, permanent members must be replaced exactly, or near exactly where they were originally designed to be. This means the falsework will be offset slightly to one side of the bearing wall being worked on, the other side, or both.

Now that the falsework is securely in place, the rebuilding can begin. On paper, this procedure sounds remarkably straightforward, but is rarely so. Some collapses seem to happen as if in slow motion, like that decaying barn we occasionally pass. Under certain other conditions, that collapse is near instantaneous, jeopardising life, limb, and budget. Here, there is no room for any compromise at all. All the stops must be pulled out to ensure sudden unpredicted, dangerous acts of physics can’t occur, even if that means introducing costly production delays due to extra precautions such as “overbuilding” falsework and checking and rechecking the methods used. In modern times, risking life for profit as was often the case in coal mining, for example, is now considered as much in bad taste as non-existent child labour laws.

In the course of repair, it is common to encounter challenges that were unpredicted because they could not be seen. Stripping back to a building’s skeleton will reveal such things. Typically, the extent of damage is greater than hoped for or anticipated, and less commonly, it is less. As well, it is not unusual to encounter piping, electrical conduit, even heating and ventilation appurtenances. It is important for all parties involved to bear in mind that a building under repair was not designed to be repaired. It was assembled in the glorious spirit of growth and new beginnings, despite that the damage now being fixed may have been built-in at this original, hopeful stage—a surprisingly common occurrence.

Langley Municipality

The importance of water has been much considered, and it has necessarily been made the enemy here. Though it is true that earthquakes and the like can cause similar damage, many of the problems brought up here are only being discussed because of the climate in which they occur—particularly wet locales. And once again, our nemesis rears its liquidy, unwelcome cranium: water in unwelcome places also supports insects, occasionally hordes of them. In the course of one repair, a worker wondered why the sky had suddenly released torrential rain on a perfectly clear summer day. Moments later, he realised he has disturbed a massive nest of carpenter ants and the resulting cacophony filled the air with the sound of torrential rain on a tin roof.

Carpenter ants are more likely to be found in buildings near bush and forest areas, their natural, historical habitat. It is important to note that this type of ant, another fan of cellulose, will not move into a sound building. Instead, this ant finds the conditions it needs by smell or dumb luck, preferring the damp wood it would ordinarily discover in its more natural forest habitat where it does the important work of breaking down dead and dying organic matter in a way not dissimilar from fungi—recycling the forest by helping make forest components available to other life forms. This ant, like fungi, requires water to perform the chemical reactions that result in the digestion of the cellulose of which wood is made. Assuming the repair effort has followed the first step mentioned above of diagnosing the cause of damage, the carpenter ant, once removed, will cause no more trouble, because the water source it needs to live will have been removed.

Another commonly encountered insect is the termite. Though there must be thousands of kinds worldwide, the two species of concern in the west coast rain forest climate are the Dampwood and the Subterranean. Like the carpenter ant, the dampwood locates conditions conducive with its lifestyle preferences, which is wood already relatively well advanced in the rot stage, enough so as to emit the odour that attracts the insect initially. In defense of this industrious insect, that the wood is already well rotted means that the insect did not cause the rot, but is merely taking advantage of the conditions it requires to live. That said, both the carpenter ant and the dampwood termite, once ensconced, will certainly increase the speed at which wood decays. As is the case with the carpenter ant, once the water source has been removed by sound diagnosis and repair strategy, the dampwood termite will not cause further problems. Neither are equipped by nature to bring water to the site of destruction, and are, therefore, not able to simply pick up and move to another part of the building or your neighbour’s house to continue in their nefarious exploits.

The same cannot be said of the subterranean termite. This insidious insect variety needn’t locate ideal conditions for itself, wood already well rotted due to proximity to a water source. Easily a third the size of a dampwood, the sub is capable of transporting water to a preferred location. This doesn’t mean in won’t, like the carpenter ant and dampwood termite, take advantage of pre-existing favourable conditions, but it does mean that it needn’t have those conditions to get started in its effort to dismantle cellulose-based materials—it can create them.

The sub’s method is to create pathways leading to and back from water sources, transporting water on the return trip. Where they cannot move undetected by predators in their journeys to and fro, they will build tunnels attached to those materials they are unable to burrow through—materials like concrete. This capability of the sub termite can be helpful because, returning to the ongoing need for diligent inspection efforts of buildings, the transport tubes they construct are visible as a close examination will reveal.

White Rock

Eradication of these fellows is by poison injected into the soil or substrate they use to go about their business. Unfortunately, there is no other expedient alternative as subterranean termites and wood-framed buildings cannot coexist peacefully. As mentioned, the likelihood of such infestations is proportional to proximity to their more natural habitat, areas containing their chosen fodder: wood, preferably rotting wood. Buildings adjacent such natural settings should be inspected much more regularly than those in urban settings. This is all the more important because failing inspection, it is unlikely these secretive, hard-working critters will be noticed otherwise. Usually they are only discovered while some other building-failure issue is being investigated.

Both ants and termites stage an exodus one or more times a year when members take to the sky in pursuit of new terrain and other opportunities, often in great clumps as they emerge from the hive area. Both being clumsy fliers, they are readily noticed, serving as a reminder that they are in the area, so be wary, and inspect rurally-located buildings all the more regularly. It seems to be true in general that catching problems earlier rather than later is better because presumably they’ll be smaller then.

It is useful and important to note that of the several kinds of animals mentioned here—with the exception, perhaps, of the subterranean termite—these animals are often, if not usually, inadvertently drawn to the site where there destructive tendencies make themselves known. These same tendencies are the very ones that keep these animals alive to perform the generally useful work they do in nature. We will typically only notice their behaviours as deleterious when they invade our buildings. That unnoticed or ignored small leak that creates the (to cellulose loving insects) delicious odour of decaying wood creates an attractant. That unprotected compost bin is not a collection of cast offs we would prefer not to eat, but is instead, an enticing banquet of delicacies fit for rats, skunks, racoons and many other hungry diners.

We generally applaud people when they manage to take advantage of an opportunity, but are obviously much less likely to do so when an unwanted animal does the same in a way that affects us negatively. Racoons are a very good example of us unintentionally inviting pests over to visit. When encountered near homes and other buildings, instead of running away at the sight of humans, racoons regularly assume begging postures—a sure sign they are habituated to being fed by people. Other destructive animals such as skunks and rats are in this class of opportunists, also. Good property maintenance and general cleanliness will find these animals moving on to better pastures. As sound advice for keeping buildings sound—and this thinking is increasingly found in by-law ordinances—never feed wild animals no matter how interesting or cute they are; there will always be a downside, and the question is not if, but when.

While conducting the regular roof inspection recommended earlier, look also for loose siding or joints elsewhere, especially where found close to grade. Siding bases, for instance, must be tight up against concrete foundation walls to discourage ingress. While inspecting for animal intrusions, keep in mind that almost every organism will do as little as possible to survive, so if food and comfortable lodging can be found close together, why move on? As always, the sooner we have notice of a problem, the easier it will be to solve it, and this goes for unwanted houseguests as well.

In the main, no one interested in a building’s well-being hopes for the opportunity to repair it. But, of course, it happens, and if there is any upside to the building repair process at all, it is this: a structural repair is an opportunity to improve an existing structure, perhaps in some small way only, but possibly in a dramatic way. This might sound a bit of a quirky idea to some, pulling a plus from the fire of chaos, but almost any building can be improved to suit its users better. Among many possibilities, installing a window where there wasn’t one before can contribute light, ventilation while adding mood and interest to buildings. Keeping this “quirky” approach in mind, it is conceivable that a perfect repair will leave one with exactly what one had prior, and somewhere down the road, perhaps long after the initial sting of cost and inconvenience has subsided, that same someone might conclude that they now have exactly what they had before the repair, minus the expenditure of time and money and inconvenience. But it is conceivable also that an improvement—an enhancement in the course of that repair—might even make the headache of the fix seem worthwhile eventually.