COVID and the housing market

Forum Sponsor
I think at one point someone mentioned it here before but all this highlights a possible solution.... Get some co-op students, have them check the listing pictures looking for stuff like this and flag the ones that look suspicious. Specially ones that have not been owned for long. Then do a permit search.... city and ESA etc. The cost is covered in fines etc. The only problem I see is the house could be closed before they get it checked in this market, buyer beware I guess.

Really a lawyer should do the permit search when buying, should they not? Specially for houses that have been renovated/flipped.

I am not sure I like the idea of making a mandatory city inspection as that could be a slippery slope. I think ESA offers an inspection (for money) for existing (ie not part of a notification/permit) maybe buyers could use, trying to find it...
 
backmarkerducati said:
I think at one point someone mentioned it here before but all this highlights a possible solution.... Get some co-op students, have them check the listing pictures looking for stuff like this and flag the ones that look suspicious. Specially ones that have not been owned for long. Then do a permit search.... city and ESA etc. The cost is covered in fines etc. The only problem I see is the house could be closed before they get it checked in this market, buyer beware I guess.

Really a lawyer should do the permit search when buying, should they not? Specially for houses that have been renovated/flipped.

I am not sure I like the idea of making a mandatory city inspection as that could be a slippery slope. I think ESA offers an inspection (for money) for existing (ie not part of a notification/permit) maybe buyers could use, trying to find it...
Click to expand...
They do...but all they'll come up with is there was no permit pulled on the property. Current owner can say 'this is how I bought it', and while the buyer decides someone else that doesn't care buys it.

I like your idea of the student doing the work though to compare previous to current photos for changes. This should include Google Maps as you'll see changes in the backyard also (pool installation for instance).
 
backmarkerducati said:
I think at one point someone mentioned it here before but all this highlights a possible solution.... Get some co-op students, have them check the listing pictures looking for stuff like this and flag the ones that look suspicious. Specially ones that have not been owned for long. Then do a permit search.... city and ESA etc. The cost is covered in fines etc. The only problem I see is the house could be closed before they get it checked in this market, buyer beware I guess.

Really a lawyer should do the permit search when buying, should they not? Specially for houses that have been renovated/flipped.

I am not sure I like the idea of making a mandatory city inspection as that could be a slippery slope. I think ESA offers an inspection (for money) for existing (ie not part of a notification/permit) maybe buyers could use, trying to find it...
Click to expand...
In this market, trying to protect yourself will guarantee you don't win. The only bar that works is the seller holds the bag. How to implement that is a reasonable question.

As for a house closing before the review process is done, maybe that's ok if unwaivable clauses are required in the agreement. New owner signs an affidavit that they haven't done anything (and they are SOL if they didn't anything prior to process being completed) and municipality has xx days after listing to complete their review. Costs for a failed review (and remediation) are paid by the seller. Problem is collecting from the seller isn't trivial unless they own another property in that municipality.
 
Last edited:
mimico_polak said:
They do...but all they'll come up with is there was no permit pulled on the property. Current owner can say 'this is how I bought it', and while the buyer decides someone else that doesn't care buys it.
Click to expand...
Hell, even in cases like this where it is obviously changed, seller just tells educated buyer to f off and picks the next sucker.
 
mimico_polak said:
How do I figure out if my fireplace / house center wall is a load bearing wall?
Click to expand...
First thing to do is see whether your roof is truss or stick framed. If it's a truss roof there's a really good chance the trusses only bear on the external walls - this of course only works if it's roof overhead.

If there's a second story, you can usually start in the basement, find the direction of beams then any walls above running parallel (within 2') are likely structural. If you're checking framing around stairway openings it can get tricky -- sometimes sistered up joists carry loads, sometimes vertical framing carried the loads.

Any journeyman carpenter could tell you whether your walls are structural. If you had a really custom-designed house, there could be some tricky engineering, but I suspect it's a regular suburban house, with several on your street using the same plan - so ask a carpenter.
 
careful thinking the truss assembly only matters on the outside walls , the bottom chord , while not load bearing may be supporting thousands of pounds of plaster board , sitting on a cross wall. Consult a carpenter , or at least a Polish handiman
 
GreyGhost said:
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?

W3568581_3.jpg
Click to expand...
Skylight is 2x4' at the sky, 4x6 at the ceiling. Based on the size of the house, it's probably fink-trussed on 24" centers, so only part of one bottom chord gets cut out. It gets cut between the bottom gusset plates, then a 12' strongback is nailed across 4 trusses at each end of the cut.

Getting a permit to do this would be easy-peazy. Now, did they get a permit? Was that an original house feature? Was it done at a time when permitting was not required?
 
crankcall said:
careful thinking the truss assembly only matters on the outside walls , the bottom chord , while not load bearing may be supporting thousands of pounds of plaster board , sitting on a cross wall. Consult a carpenter , or at least a Polish handiman
Click to expand...
Drywall and 3' of insulation is about 3lbs/sq', most trusses are designed for 10/sq' ceiling load so the ceiling wouldn't be a problem. The bigger issue would be live load pressure on the top where you get 20lbs/sq' in snow load.

Loads go in all directions for a truss, you can't remove any part without somehow sharing or restructuring the loads. In the case of a simple truss cutting the bottom, the chord reduces the capacity of the top chords and the remainder of the bottom chord. The lost load would be relatively small when cutting one truss, so sharing it over trusses on each side using a strongback would be the simplest solution.
 
Last edited:
Mad Mike said:
Loads go in all directions for a truss, you can't remove any part without somehow sharing or restructuring the loads. In the case of a simple truss cutting the bottom, the chord reduces the capacity of the top chords and the remainder of the bottom chord. The lost load would be relatively small when cutting one truss, so sharing it over trusses on each side using a strongback would be the simplest solution.
Click to expand...
Removing that wall in the white kitchen now means that close to 50% of the ceiling deadload that was on that wall (even it it wasn't officially loadbearing, the bottom chords would rest on the wall) are now carried to the perimeter. If it wasn't a structural wall, you probably aren't in danger of collapse but a saggy ceiling is almost guaranteed over time.
 
GreyGhost said:
Removing that wall in the white kitchen now means that close to 50% of the ceiling deadload that was on that wall (even it it wasn't officially loadbearing, the bottom chords would rest on the wall) are now carried to the perimeter. If it wasn't a structural wall, you probably aren't in danger of collapse but a saggy ceiling is almost guaranteed over time.
Click to expand...
Ceiling loads are quite small, drywall 1.6/sq', and about the same for insulation (nominal 3lbs/sq'.) Your roof is designed to take at >20lb live load without sagging -- your ceiling would need to be 12 sheets of drywall thick to reach that type of load.

Sag will not be a problem over such a small distance.
 
Sold, sold, sold! 1.85. May god have mercy on their souls.

EDIT:
Span of ceiling is ~40' now (aerial measurement, accuracy questionable). At L/360 (obc requirement) that would be 1.3" deflection for live load. Depending on person, light and ceiling finish, that is visible even if you are at half that.
 
Last edited:
GreyGhost said:
Sold, sold, sold! 1.85. May god have mercy on their souls.

EDIT:
Span of ceiling is ~40' now (aerial measurement, accuracy questionable). At L/360 (obc requirement) that would be 1.3" deflection for live load. Depending on person, light and ceiling finish, that is visible even if you are at half that.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing 23-24' span based on a Google maps aerial (the lot is only 50' wide, most mid-century bungalows are on 11'-6" x 2 wide platforms). The Arial view did raise a question about that skylight -- based on the direction of the roof slope, the top and bottom chords of the truss were cut. Not gonna fall down, but worth evaluating the framing above the drywall as that's is an unlikely original feature.
 
GreyGhost said:
Sold, sold, sold! 1.85. May god have mercy on their souls.

EDIT:
Span of ceiling is ~40' now (aerial measurement, accuracy questionable). At L/360 (obc requirement) that would be 1.3" deflection for live load. Depending on person, light and ceiling finish, that is visible even if you are at half that.
Click to expand...
Which house is that?
 
mimico_polak said:
Now that would be an interesting discussion lol.

I'm sure that house was completed renovated without a permit. And yes...the 'Polish' probably did it also. Bastards.

EDIT: If the gov't put in a simple plan that all houses sold had to go through a gov't inspection to confirm all work is up to code, you would see a very different market.

Work would have to be done properly, municipality makes money to confirm permitting, and the buyer is protected. What a concept.

EDIT #2:

3 building permits...in 1966..

View attachment 53113
Click to expand...
I used to have a pen pal in Switzerland and I gathered a house got a yearly visit from an inspector. He didn't seem enthusiastic about it, saying he had to be careful about what he did.

All it takes is a few fatal fires or collapses and we could be there. More idiots = more government made up of other idiots.

I don't want to have an inspection for every time I change a tap washer or paint a wall.
 
GreyGhost said:
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.

W3568581_5.jpg

W5474745_5.jpg


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.
Click to expand...
Vat yu meen no beam. We drink lots Jim Beam.
 
GreyGhost said:
In this market, trying to protect yourself will guarantee you don't win. The only bar that works is the seller holds the bag. How to implement that is a reasonable question.

As for a house closing before the review process is done, maybe that's ok if unwaivable clauses are required in the agreement. New owner signs an affidavit that they haven't done anything (and they are SOL if they didn't anything prior to process being completed) and municipality has xx days after listing to complete their review. Costs for a failed review (and remediation) are paid by the seller. Problem is collecting from the seller isn't trivial unless they own another property in that municipality.
Click to expand...
You go to court, win a judgement and spend the rest of your life chasing the money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom