They also went crazy with pot lights. I personally dislike them but beyond that odds are they have way to many per circuit. Also are they rated to be in the ceiling insulation, plus two in the shower (which can be done if they are rated for there and on GFCI).
|
|
|
COVID and the housing market
- Thread starter mimico_polak
- Start date
I'm surprised that some manufacturer hasn't sold cheater pot lights. Step down from 120V to 12/24V to feed multiple heads but count as a single fixture.
D
Deleted member 50930
Guest
Greyghost is my new property inspector...
It's sad how easy it is to see gross failures from the pictures the agent decides to post.
D
Deleted member 50930
Guest
I dont see anything ☹
Housesigma makes it easy. As a starting point, look for things that have changed. Ask yourself why they were that way before. With very few exceptions, walls going in at least one direction in a house are holding it up. Often it's walls going in the long direction but not always.
Electrical panel requires 3 or 4' clear in front of it and that is sacred. IIRC, you can build a cabinet around it but the cabinet cannot have a shelf so you cant store things that block access.
If they added a ton of electrical devices (often potlights), high probability that they have exceeded the number of devices per circuit. Technical fail but if they are LED's, not likely a dangerous issue (except for in-shower light electrocuting you).
Just looking at that house you knew that they prioritized looks and gave a rats ass about bones. Fixing their work requires a gut with all the expensive finishes in the dumpster. Assuming similar lots, I would actually pay more for the burned down house than that turd. At least I know what I am getting with the burned down house and I know it will be built properly. For the polished house, I assume that they actively buried any issue found to save money.
Given the age of the house and that it is a ranch. The roof is likely just collar ties, rafter ties and roof joists.
The wall that was removed likely held up the rafter ties where they met side to side (too far for the tie to go from one side to the other). No second floor so fairly low downward load at this point. The rafter ties hold up the drywall, weight of the insulation above (downwards...) and most important they stop the roof from pushing outward at the bottom (they are under tension) on the outside walls and the house falling down. They "could" have buried a beam (does not need to be giant, ignoring code) and used joist hangers to mount the rafters ties to the beam. Modern code will likely require a beam much larger than is actually needed as old code is fine until you touch it.... Lots of "could" there though! The only good is they did not vault the ceilings which more times than not results in the removal of the rafter ties and....
Or the house could have had a truss scenario where the wall was a much bigger part of the structure.
The wall that was removed likely held up the rafter ties where they met side to side (too far for the tie to go from one side to the other). No second floor so fairly low downward load at this point. The rafter ties hold up the drywall, weight of the insulation above (downwards...) and most important they stop the roof from pushing outward at the bottom (they are under tension) on the outside walls and the house falling down. They "could" have buried a beam (does not need to be giant, ignoring code) and used joist hangers to mount the rafters ties to the beam. Modern code will likely require a beam much larger than is actually needed as old code is fine until you touch it.... Lots of "could" there though! The only good is they did not vault the ceilings which more times than not results in the removal of the rafter ties and....
Or the house could have had a truss scenario where the wall was a much bigger part of the structure.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
It's not like they took out a load bearing wall in the kitchen. . . . Oh wait. At least they replaced it with a beam. . . Oh wait.
There is a tiny tiny chance they installed the beam above the ceiling but location of potlights almost guarantees they didn't (if lack of permit was insufficient evidence). That house probably fails structural and plumbing and definitely fails electrical.
I doubt they removed structural walls, it appears to be a bungalow (look at the hall, and the sunlight). If that's the case, the trusses would only bear on the exterior walls (built anytime after 1960 would almost certainly be trusses for a small home), the framing removed would have only been partitions. Plumbing looks to be in the same place, so they are probably good there.
The electrical permit would not show at the building department, that's done thru ESA.
No red flags to me in these pics.
Plumbing for the washing machine was definitely redone as part of the renovation. I didn't look closely at all pictures to see if I could find problems.
You know ESA was not properly involved as panel access is horrendous. Hell, part of the panel is behind the tile. That would never have passed inspection. Appears to be mostly normal breakers even though every room seems to have had electrical touched. Not sure where the line is to trigger AF breaker upgrade. Some of the wires don't appear to have a staple within 12", etc etc. Higher res will expose more issues.
EDIT:
They bought the house with washer and dryer there and whole wall tiled. It seems like they relocated the panel to its current location. wtf.
Last edited:
How do I figure out if my fireplace / house center wall is a load bearing wall?
Structural drawings? Pics of framing above? Double top plate? Cut it and see if the ceiling sags?
1. Don't have structural drawings, and when I called Peel they said they don't keep more than 7 years.
2. What do I look for?
3. What's that?
4. No.
My assumption is I'll need to put a beam in (or a support post). Neighbour that did the same said it's structural, but couldn't explain to me exactly what he saw. Their ceiling appears to be starting to sag...they did the work 10+ years ago. Same layout as our house.
Figure out the direction of the joists above it. If they run parallel to the wall it is a partition. If they run perpendicular it likely is, specially if they stop there from each/either side and/or it is centred in the house. Check both sides for joists, one side of the wall may run parallel the other side may be perpendicular and resting on it (they changed direction, I have that one). Double top plate is also a sign but not always in older homes. You can also look in the basement to see what is under the wall, if that is load bearing odds are the one above is also.
Since you have fireplace/brick above it my guess would also be it is as this is a lot of weight but also a good structural point....
Not totally slam dunk but assuming the house is not square and is longer one way than the other.... Load bearing walls down the middle usually run the longer length of the house so the joists can be shorter and smaller in size (saves $$$$s). But the original architect could have been insane... so best to verify.
Last edited:
To me it looks like they moved the wall with the door to the right (or removed it outright), and the panel is in behind that wall. The sink was under the window, and now it's pretty far to the right.Plumbing for the washing machine was definitely redone as part of the renovation. I didn't look closely at all pictures to see if I could find problems.
You know ESA was not properly involved as panel access is horrendous. Hell, part of the panel is behind the tile. That would never have passed inspection. Appears to be mostly normal breakers even though every room seems to have had electrical touched. Not sure where the line is to trigger AF breaker upgrade. Some of the wires don't appear to have a staple within 12", etc etc. Higher res will expose more issues.
EDIT:
They bought the house with washer and dryer there and whole wall tiled. It seems like they relocated the panel to its current location. wtf.
Panel was probably always in the same spot...just behind that wall. They made the laundry room larger.
2. As per BMD/MM, what does the framing look like? Nails or prefab with metal plates joining the wood? What size is the wood the ceiling is attached to? Does wood on wall join to wood in roof or does drywall go straight through (wood probably joins to wood in either case but just interested)? If it's wood to wood, did they nail the roof to the wall or just rest it there? Is there something going up from that wall to support ridge (highly unlikely)? Are there beams set into beam pockets in your masonry chimney? etc etc.
3. Partition walls will have one 2x4 across the top of the studs. Structural walls normally have two. That staggers joints and lets loads fall between studs.
If I were you, I would probably leave a column even if it's not structural. That is a pretty big span in two directions with no support. Even if you do a half-assed job of spreading the load, that cuts your spans in half with minimal visual impact. Maybe a vertical fireplace? Pic is conceptual. I would want one visible from multiple sides.
Agree. So it was probably code-compliant and they ruined it (and moved electrical for the washer/dryer which requires a permit and inspection).
Last persons mess, not the current one, but how do they deal with the ties around that big ass skylight? Often you would put the skylight between them. In this case it looks like at least a couple are gone. I guess you could build perimeter beams around the skylight opening but the forces are going in ugly directions for that. I guess they just tie them in at an angle to something else?
It would have been work that also required a permit, no doubt IMO. AFAIK in most jurisdictions skylights are installed along the length of the joists (between) as you can usually do this without permits, even cutting and boxing in one joist (so up to say ~30 inches wide) is usually allowed.Last persons mess, not the current one, but how do they deal with the ties around that big ass skylight? Often you would put the skylight between them. In this case it looks like at least a couple are gone. I guess you could build perimeter beams around the skylight opening but the forces are going in ugly directions for that. I guess they just tie them in at an angle to something else?
You can see the roof line, this one has multiple roof joists cut and the rafter ties cut. I am sure it can be done with the right framing but???? Also makes removing that centre wall even worse without the correct engineering.
When I went into my neighbour's house to check out the way they took out (without a permit) the same chimney I have...they replaced the flue (?) in the roof with a skylight. Did they work 10+ years ago. It's leaked for 10+ years.
So they kept the framing in the roof as it was, just replaced the brick flue with a leaky skylight.
That could work (although you have replaced a support with a load so it could also fail spectacularly). The one in the middle of the kitchen was clearly not an existing framed hole.
|
|
|
|
|