OK, so maybe he didn't mean to rip people off. The end result is the same. And I'm really not that shocked the a bunch of liberals from Hollywood would get the engineering/architecture wrong. Only SIX of the homes Brad Pitt built for survivors of Hurricane Katrina are in livable condition.
To be fair, Brad Pitt is a step up from the lowest level of Hollywood bottom-feeder.
Maybe he thought he was doing a good thing. Maybe he is just an idiot, or he had idiot advisers. Or maybe he meant to screw these people out of their money. In the end, a lot of people were screwed out of a lot of money.
While the climate in New Orleans is hard on housing, a visit to the French Quarter will show that you can build stuff that will last. It won't look like stuff built for the climate of Los Angeles.
Just six of the 109 affordable homes Brad Pitt's Make It Right Foundation built for low-income residents in New Orleans following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 are still in livable condition nearly 20 years later.
A vast majority of the homes, which were built for $26.8 million, are riddled with construction-related problems that have led to mold, termites, rotting wood and flooding, urban geographer Judith Keller wrote for Market Watch, and as of early 2022, six of the homes are vacant because of mold, rot and other structural issues after they were built without essential needs for the city's sub-tropical climate. They were sold to residents for a discounted $150,000.
Two homes have been demolished due to mold, and the city is seizing one as a "safety hazard."
Several of the residents have sued Make It Right, but the organization has not yet resolved these issues and has stopped assisting residents. It now appears to be defunct, with Keller reporting that Make It Right officials were seen moving out of their office in the neighborhood last month.
My guess is that he hired architects that were not familiar with New Orleans, but were familiar with Los Angeles. You can feel the Liberal smugness of the architects in this statement.
The architects who created these homes tried to make them green and sustainable with safe and reusable materials, clean water and renewable energy. All of the homes also had solar panels and energy-efficient heating and cooling systems.
But many of the houses lacked rain gutters, overhangs, waterproof painting or covered beams - all of which are necessary to withstand the city's subtropical climate and heavy rainfall - especially as the Lower Ninth Ward is below sea-level and has been hammered by hurricanes in the past.
Can't you just feel the California vibe? Solar power!. But no accounting for the climate.
It was an "international roster" of architects, (A phrase that was used in another article.) I am tempted to include that list, but it isn't complete, and the names don't mean anything to me anyway.)
I can hear the proclamation... "Let's rebuild New Orleans, because we hate George W!, and hating GW is enough. Learning about the local climate is not necessary! We're ARCHITECTS!" Or something.
Anyway, everyone is suing everyone. Brad Pitt wants his name removed, now that it is no longer a great thing, but a catastrophe. The people are suing the foundation. The foundation is suing its former director. I don't know if anyone is suing the architects, but I'm sure that will come eventually.
While the statement, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help," is still the most frightening statement in English, you should also look out for Liberals looking to "do good." Nothing will stand in their way, not even the reality of extreme climate.
For years, I've been trying to tell people that when they hear "biodegradable" that means, "it rots quickly". "Sustainable" is getting to be one of those key words, too. Sustainable where?
ReplyDeleteBut many of the houses lacked rain gutters, overhangs, waterproof painting or covered beams - all of which are necessary to withstand the city's subtropical climate and heavy rainfall - especially as the Lower Ninth Ward is below sea-level and has been hammered by hurricanes in the past.
In places like there (NO) the gulf coast, the SE coast, and so much else, "sustainable" wood had better be coated with some good, waterproof paint and the house designed to get the water off it ASAP.
And don't forget Formosa termites, there not normal termites. It costs me $600 a year just for chemicals to keep them away.
DeleteI live 2 hrs north of NOLA, in an areas where 80%+ humidity in the summer is the norm, in a wood house. Looking at the pictures it's apparent that most of the problems stem from lack of maintenance.
ReplyDeleteIn this part of the country you have to fight a constant battle with mold and rot. That means periodic pressure washing, painting, and replacing rotted wood. You can't just do nothing and expect the structure to remain sound.
While it may be true that there are design deficiencies what the pictures show is mostly neglect.
Gee, nobody consulted local building ordinances? And where were the building inspectors?
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much money crossed palms to look the other way.
There is no doubt that money talks in places like New Orleans.
DeleteA couple of different construction industry magazines have covered the failures at various times prior to this. Coastal Contractor, and Journal of Light Construction are the two I was most likely to have seen.
ReplyDeleteWorking from memory-- yes. The designs were or included contest winners, ie new stuff no one has any long term data on and new ideas. No, no or very little consideration was given to the realities of NOLA weather. And NO consideration was given to the preferred lifestyles and abilities of the residents.
For example, the homes were designed to meet high energy use standards, which means buttoning them up tighter than [a really tight thing]. Then running ERV (energy recovery ventilators) to bring in 'make up air' while running efficient A/C constantly. Turns out, the homeowners couldn't afford to run the air con constantly. Or they didn't like to, preferring to have the door open while sitting on the porch so they can hear the kids and the TV inside....
Not running the A/C and high tech venting systems led to moisture issues. Which quickly turned into mold issues. Which meant they were soon toxic, or standing empty.
New materials were used. Designs with significant restrictions/caveats or need for owner involvement with systems were used. Home owners were either unaware or unable or unwilling to do what was needed.
Meanwhile, here in Houston, my rent house is about 100 years old. It sat empty, with a collapsed roof for a number of years. It just needed to be closed in, have some rot removed, and it has been a good house for us for the last 20 years. It was build using the local design vernacular. Pier and beam construction (so air flows freely under the house and dries it out. Balloon framing, so air flows freely up wall cavities and dries them out. Solid wood for sheathing, flooring, and siding- mostly rot resistant southern yellow pine. No glues to fail or plywood to delaminate. It's not the least bit 'energy efficient' with drafty windows, and lots of air movement. But it doesn't have a spot of mold anywhere, water that gets into the structure gets out and dries out. And it is a LOT more energy efficient to still be standing and inhabited for 100 years, than the toxic dumps that barely managed 10 useful years in NOLA.
There are reasons for local construction preferences, especially when they reflect the wisdom of experience PRIOR to the eggheads and pointy haired bosses involvement in design and material selection.
There have been good things to come out of "progress" like hurricane ties, and all the simpson strong tie style metal reinforcing brackets, and the design idea of 'continuous load path' but the obsession with air sealing and reliance on high tech materials to control moisture are not among them. Any design that needs constant electrical power to keep from failing is a BAD design.
n