Throughout this narrative, italicized and underlined texts are links to supporting documents or videos.
This page begins by comparing the information contained in the Phase I Structural Evaluation Report with the subsequent Facade Restoration Project Manual both prepared by Falcon Engineering. The Project Manual was used by contractors to bid on the project.
The purpose of this page is to help owners follow the evolution of the project—from the initial engineering assessment, through the subsequently developed construction specifications, and into later project developments.
The analysis below draws on the engineering documents currently available to owners, supplemented by video evidence, statements made during the September 29, 2026 Town Hall, and subsequent correspondence with Property Management.
| Component | Phase I Structural Assessment Report | Façade Project Manual | Owner Questions |
| Porte Cochere Skylights | Couple cracked panels, partial replacement as needed. | Removal and replacement of all skylight panels and associated roofing components. | What engineering analysis or findings led to the expansion from localized repairs to complete replacement? |
| Exterior Painting | Areas of deterioration and maintenance needs identified. | Complete exterior painting program. | Was complete repainting required for certification? |
| Sealants | Deficiencies identified in certain locations. | Extensive sealant replacement. | What criteria were used to determine the extent of replacement? |
| Balcony Repairs | Balcony-related deficiencies identified. | Extensive balcony restoration and waterproofing work. | What engineering analysis or findings led to doing anything beyond the original report? |
| Waterproofing & Coatings | Various maintenance items identified. | Broad waterproofing and coating program. | What portions of this work are required for certification? |
Our Conclusion:
In our opinion, Falcon Engineering’s role extended well beyond assessing the building’s condition and determining the work required to support certification. Having already played a role in the process that led to the selection of the contractor, Falcon was subsequently permitted, with the Board’s apparent acquiescence, to determine the additional work to be performed and the extent to which the project’s scope would expand.
Therefore, the concern is not that Falcon exercised its professional engineering judgment, but that the Board failed to establish meaningful limits, independent oversight, or adequate justification for the resulting expansion of the project and its costs. In effect, the Board surrendered meaningful control over the scope of a multimillion-dollar project to the very engineering firm involved in the process that led to the contractor’s selection.
The result is a multi-million-dollar scope of work being undertaken with Association funds that appears to extend well beyond what the engineering documents reviewed identify as necessary to achieve building certification. Rather than maintaining a clearly defined scope tied to the certification requirements, the project appears to have evolved largely at Falcon Engineering’s direction, with the Board approving or accepting its expanded recommendations and Castle Management allowing the process to proceed.
In our view, the above represents a fundamental failure of oversight: the engineer retained to help determine what was necessary for certification was effectively allowed, without meaningful limits or independent scrutiny, to shape the extent of the additional work to be performed—and, consequently, the amount owners would be required to spend.
September 2026: Balcony Work at Matthew Roth’s Unit 2105
On September 3, 2026, substantial amounts of concrete were removed from around three balcony posts at Unit 2105 through jackhammering and chipping. Videos taken on September 3, September 16, and September 17 document the demolition work and the condition of the affected areas approximately two weeks later.
Watch the September 3, 2026 video — Concrete Demolition
Watch the September 16 videos
Watch the September 17, 2026 video — Balcony Condition
Structural Analysis & The Oversight Concerns Behind This Work
The videos above document more than what appears to be a deficient repair; they raise serious questions about the effectiveness of project oversight. When a Board allows an engineering firm to play a significant role in contractor selection and then relies on that same firm to determine and oversee the work performed, the system of checks and balances is compromised. The engineer’s role as an independent professional responsible for protecting the Association’s interests becomes difficult to distinguish from that of a participant in a process in which the scope and cost of the contractor’s work may continue to expand without adequate independent scrutiny.
What the videos above show is a direct, real-world consequence of this unsupervised partnership:
- Destructive Demolition Without Documented Justification (September 3 Video): The contractor used heavy mechanical jackhammers to remove substantial amounts of concrete from around three balcony railing posts at Unit 2105. This aggressive demolition was carried out without prior Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) scanning. What engineering findings justified the extent of this removal? In the absence of such documentation, the necessity of demolishing this much concrete remains in question. Moreover, mechanical demolition can cause cracking and other damage to the concrete left in place, raising additional concerns about the integrity of the remaining structure and the quality of the completed repair.
- Severe Weather Exposure (September 16 Videos): The contractor left these raw, freshly chipped structural cavities completely uncovered and open to the elements for two weeks. During this fourteen-day window, local meteorological data records that 2.97 inches of cumulative rainfall fell while the balcony wall remained exposed and unsealed.
- Repair Grout Applied After Rain Exposure (September 17 Video): The contractor proceeded to place the final structural repair grout into the exposed cavities following their prolonged exposure to rainfall. At the September 29 Town Hall, when questioned about protecting the reinforcing steel, the contractor asserted that applying a brush-on “rebar treatment” was sufficient. No moisture testing or other assessment of the concrete’s condition was mentioned in the contractor’s explanation, leaving unanswered questions about how the suitability of the exposed substrate for the repair was evaluated.
The Engineering Reality: A Potential Corrosion Risk
Concrete is porous and can retain moisture. When structural repair grout is placed into concrete cavities that have been exposed to rainfall, the condition of the substrate and its suitability for the repair become important technical considerations. If moisture, chlorides, and other conditions conducive to corrosion are present around reinforcing steel, corrosion may develop or continue. As corrosion products accumulate, they can cause cracking and spalling of the surrounding concrete, potentially compromising the durability of the repair.
The concern is that these repairs may have been performed without sufficient attention to the conditions necessary for their long-term durability. When substantial concrete is removed, the exposed areas are left unprotected from rainfall, and repair grout is subsequently placed, the adequacy of the preparation, treatment of the reinforcing steel, and condition of the remaining concrete become critical questions. Without documented evidence that these issues were properly addressed, owners have no sound basis for confidence that the repairs will provide lasting protection against deterioration—or that they will not face the expense of correcting deficiencies in the future. Given Falcon Engineering’s involvement in the process that led to the contractor’s selection and its subsequent role in overseeing the work, the Board should not simply assume that the work was properly performed. It should require clear technical justification, supporting documentation, and meaningful independent verification to protect the Association’s investment and prevent owners from bearing the cost of avoidable future repairs.
The Town Hall Explanation and Breakdown of Transparency
During the official Association Town Hall meeting on September 29, 2026, Falcon’s Mr. Kolar and PG’s representative were directly questioned regarding their aggressive treatment of Unit 2105. It was pointed out that these three posts were not identified as requiring remediation in Falcon Engineering’s earlier inspection.
When asked to explain why substantial amounts of concrete were subsequently removed around these posts using jackhammers, Mr. Kolar suggested that perhaps “something else was noticed on the front of the balcony.” He indicated that images documenting the condition would be provided.
That explanation raises a fundamental technical question: If the concern involved a defect on the vertical front face of the balcony slab, what specific condition justified removing substantial amounts of concrete from around the railing posts on the upper surface? A defect on the front face does not, by itself, explain the need for such extensive demolition elsewhere. The engineering rationale, together with the promised photographs and any supporting inspection records, is necessary to determine whether the work performed was justified.
⏳ Timeline of Outstanding Documentation
- September 29, 2026: At the Town Hall, Mr. Kolar suggested that a condition on the front face of the balcony may have prompted the demolition and indicated that supporting images would be provided.
- October 8, 2026 (9 Days Later): No images, reports, or engineering data have been provided. Ms. Wright, Property Manager, stated that she had forgotten to request them from Falcon, but would do so.
Public Record: Correspondence with Property Management
In an effort to maintain total transparency and force accountability, formal follow-up correspondence was sent to Property Management on October 8, 2026 and responded to on October 9, 2026. It is published below for all owners to review. We will update this section the moment the promised “photographic evidence” is produced.
Date Sent: October 8, 2026
To: Ms. Wright/ Property Manager
Subject: Following Up: Requested Engineering Images for Unit 2105 Balcony Work
Ms. Wright
Thank you for speaking with me today, October 8th, regarding the balcony repairs at Unit 2105.
Per our conversation, I am writing to confirm that I am awaiting the structural images of the front face of the balcony that were discussed during the September 29th Town Hall meeting. You mentioned today that you had forgotten to pull them but would send them over.
Please forward those images along with the corresponding Engineer’s Field Log for that date as soon as possible so I can review them.
Thank you for your assistance,
Matthew Roth
On Friday, October 9, 2026 at 12:24:42 PM EDT, Tricia Wright <propertymanager@mptower500.com> wrote:
Mr. Roth,
Thank you for the follow up. I reached out to Falcon and requested the information yesterday. Once received, it will be forwarded to you.
Best Regards,
Tricia Wright, LCAM
General Manager