Detaching facade - InspectionNews

Michael Thomas · #1 (**permalink**) 12-14-2007, 12:05 PM

Estimated cost to repair - including containment scaffolding and permits - 50K-70K + depending on the extent of facade detachment.

Michael Thomas · #2 (**permalink**) 12-14-2007, 12:14 PM

(Well... I guess that facade is "non-structural"... )

Bruce Breedlove · #3 (**permalink**) 12-14-2007, 03:28 PM

"Solid structure" is Realtorspeak. I doubt the Realtor is a structural engineer or has a SE's report to back up that statement. S/He may have opened her/himself to liability by making such a statement. But, hey, it may help sell the dump, er, property, a bit faster.

I know what you meant by "Well... I guess that facade is "non-structural"... " but I would call the facade structural because it is supporting its own weight.

Jerry Peck · #4 (**permalink**) 12-14-2007, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Breedlove

I know what you meant by "Well... I guess that facade is "non-structural"... " but I would call the facade structural because it is supporting its own weight.

Except that veneer and those facade items are offering no support to the structure, thus are not structural, and, in fact, are 'supported by' the structure.

Rick Cantrell · #5 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 05:04 AM

OK I'll show my ignorance here.

In Columbus there a many buildings similar to the one shown. Most are 3 story's tall, and built around 1920-1940. Over the years some have burned and been torn down, or rebuilt. On all, the brick was at least a foot thick.
So my question is; just from the photos, how can you tell that is veneer?

Michael Thomas · #6 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 06:37 AM

The brick is structural. The stone facade is "decorative". I posted that mostly as a reminder that "decorative" components can represent big liabilities for inspectors - I saw this building because a previous inspection apparently had not fully identified the problem, which was subsequently brought to everyone's attention by a contractor.

Eric Barker · #7 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 08:10 AM

"a previous inspection apparently had not fully identified the problem" Opps!

In the past couple of weeks I've run into two big misses by previous inspections. One involves a $25,000 suit and the other is about to be sued. It's one way to weed out the ranks. Go attorneys!

Michael Thomas · #8 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 11:15 AM

What was overlooked?

Eric Barker · #9 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 12:22 PM

The 25,000 was for missing flashing between addition and main house. Apparently the problem has existed for some time. The R.E., who seems really nice, and her office, have been pulled into the suit. The second was in Glenview, 2 yr $1.2m - stairstep cracks over the O.H. door running up into the second floor. Corner of the 2nd floor over the center of the O.H. door - no steel beam, just wood truss over the door. No squash blocks at the basement TJI's - ceilings all drywalled. Ouch! I don't know who the inspectors were but they have a problem.