mgbinspect

It appears the floor slab is poured through and over the foundation wall. The crack was pretty much inevitable, since most of the slab is floating, but that portions rests directly on the foundation and footing. Just patch it, forget it, but expect it to continue to crack. That's my two cents. I wouldn't make a federal case out of it, that's for sure.

That is precisely what my old log cabin looked like inside. The only difference; my logs were al hand hewn. It was merely a two story two room cabin - an upstairs and downstairs. The kitchen and bathroom were added on later in an addition that was so poorly constructed that the shower curtain used to freeze solid to the steel shower stall floor. (Unfortunately the bathroom faced right into the almost never ending wind that blew through the pass formed by the mountains around Harpers Ferry, WV.) Heating was seven cords of wood cut, split and burned in an Ashley Wood stove and a Copperclad kitchen stove. Thanks for the fond memories. Mine was built around 1879 and is still standing. It had a field stone fireplace, which was no longer in use, but I installed a thimble into the throat of it, for my wood stove.

You're probably right, because the chimney is only about 13" x 21" leaving a flue of about 5" x 13", which is not a typical flue demension even in colonial times. Eight inches seems to be about as small as one ever sees as a depth of a working flue. And, the work seems to be pretty consistant - no obvious mismatching mortar. My guess is that it's an architectural feature - a dummy.

That's an awesome modification! What a dramatic change in the total appearance of the property. Very nice, Steven! That's exactly the kind of stuff we used to do, as well. There's no limit to what the rich and famous will do. We actually had a lady once, who moved into town because her husband passed away and she didn't want to live so far away from town anymore. They were wealthy and owned a big farm. She bought a nice home and lot, and came to us saying, "I don't want my home to front to the street. I want the front to be the back and the back to be the front." Um, OK... So, the dining room became the grand foyer, with an entry foyer addition and the back yard became a circle driveway up to the grand entrance. And, she began farming... a little flower and vegetable garden in the center of her circle driveway. The original little foyer became a mud room. And, we threw some dormers on the back side of it (a cape). She was a bit eccentric, but a real joy to work with - very upbeat old lady. It was my job to get her ideas on paper and off to the architect after we had it pretty much designed and priced, for final drawings and a stamp. I can't help but wonder if the next buyer didn't turn the house back around again? or.. if the next home inpsector reported that the house was backwards... [:-tophat]

It's for the person that has loose bowel syndrome... [:-snorkel

What web site did you find that on Mike? What do ya wanna bet it's a US Army document? My pleasure, Mike. Happy to be of service.

The detail you show, is a bit unique in that the stone is very square, and the joints are quite tight. In this case, yes, if you wished to maintain a cavity, you could probably do it, because of the stone's shape. Typically, stone is so irregular in shape that it relies more heavily on the mortar to stay together while green. Stone, in general, will absorb and tolerate very little water during installation, before it becomes as slippery (in the wall) as a greased watermelon. And, the more pressure you add to the system (weight), the more slippery they become. What's even funnier is that once this begins to happen, the more you monkey with it, the worse it gets. In other words, if you've started with to wet a mix, and it begins to get unstable, you have two options: 1. stabalize it with temporary bracing. 2. knock off and come back tomorrow when the mortar has set. That being said, If you presented me with that particular detail and showed me a pile of very square stone insisting it had to be done that way, I could. But notice the note in the detail: "Open Cavity (if a sawn stone with a controlled bed depth)" I rest my case. [:-thumbu] My experience is with more typically random stone shapes, such as field stone. While most stone is actually quaried, there is a term for stone that is more square. I believe it is "quarried", but it's been too long. You'd still need the stone mix I described or mortar would begin to ooze out of the lower joints as you piled on the stone. Your photos appear to show some classic granite and the stone shapes are random enough and the joints big enough that I doubt theres a cavity.

Yeah, I understand, Mike. And, please don't think I'm being too terribly judgemental. I'm not. My statement has more to do with my own inner feelings than other's motives. My way around some of what you're saying is that I won't do a re-inspection during the hours that I could normally do a home inspection, unless the week is so slow that I know there will be no conflict. As I said, I'm probably too cheap - leaving some dollars on the table. I guess in the long run, Jiminy Cricket's mantra still haunts me - "Let your conscience be your guide." (Definitely dating myself)

Regarding pricing for re-inspections - no doubt, I'm probably low. Yet, the angel on my right shoulder has me constantly checking myself regarding the difference between charging what I'm worth, and hosing someone simply because I can... There's a vast differance between inspecting a home and confirming whether the repairs have been done acceptably. I don't know guys... I'm having a hard time with this one...

An interesting and deceptive thing about stone and mortar: Sometimes you'll see stone veneer that looks like it was laid up with wet mortar, because the joint is struck. In cases like that, the stone was STILL laid up with mortar as I describe and raked (a special tool that scrapes out the stone mortar to a prescribed depth, when it's almost completely set up but soft enough to still scratch out). Then, when the work is set, the wetter mortar is pointed in and struck. You can't lay stone with wet mortar. It's impossible - I promise. [:-graduat If the mortar used to lay up stone is even the slightest bit wet, it's disaster in just a few vertical feet. In other words, when you see stonework laid up with that classic "V" joint: it was added later. Trust me...

About the only way you could install a real stone veneer with weeps, would be to lay it against a drainage plain, which didn't exist back then.

FWIW, Back in the day, we always installed weeps in brick veneer - open head joints every fourth brick or so. But back then, Mike, unlike brick veneer, stone masonry was always solid right to the wall sheathing. That was the typical installation. It was 30# felt over plywood, OSB or Sturdybrace. The stone veneer was laid up and solidly packed to the felt with stone mortar and chinking - no cavity, Mike. There really can't be a cavity. While the stone work is setting up, it needs something as sturdy as the wall framing to rest directly against. (It just ain't at all like brick or blockwork). Wall ties secured the stonework to the framing. Of course, stone mortar isn't like brick mortar. If you tried to use brick mortar in a stone install, it would collapse for two reasons: 1. Brick mortar works with bricks because they're dry and immediately absorb some of the moisture out of the mortar, which is actually a part of what makes the two bond so well. Stone isn't porous (well, not very) so it won't absorb much moisture at all. 2. Because of #1, brick mortar would stay wet too long, and the weight of the stone would soon gush the mortar right out of the wall. So, stone mortar is portland and sand mixed just wet enough that if you grab a handful and squeeze it, it stays together in a clump. That's perfect stone mortar, but you still can't go over about three feet in vertical height with stone (thirteen feet max with brick) in a day. Bottom line: If the house has any age on it, weeps aren't likely, because a cavity behind the stone is VERY unlikely. It's darn near impossible to intall stone veneer with a cavity behind it. It'll fall down, before it sets.

IMHO, I can't imagine stone veneer that thick not being on a ledge and supported by the foundation. That's way too much weight for paste and stick. It was EXTREMELY common for us to be left installing 6" of stone veneer on a 4" ledge, which while being a pain in the ass to get started off of, is fine in terms of support. As I've hashed over too many times: masonry has an extremely easy life in a residential setting. The tallest masonry structure is in Philadelphia, PA and it's about 54 stories of solid masonry. Of course some of it's walls at the base are a staggering twenty-two feet thick. [:-bigeyes But, heck brick in the residential arena is kinda like Hulk Hogan hanging out on a playground. The only paste and stick stone installation I ever (consistently) saw done during my career, was done by South American immigrants, and I never cared for it: They used to lay up flag stone (like you'd see in flat work), held tight temporarily against the wall with furring strips. Tie wire was nailed to the wood framing and pulled through the stone veneer, to be twisted tight around the furring. When the stone was set, they'd snip off the ends of the tie wire and remove the furring. There was no expanded metal lath behind it! (exclamation point appropriately employed [:-party]). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that's not going to last very long. I saw that done in the late 80's, and I bet some child has probably been hurt or crushed by it coming off the wall already. I HATED that installation, and can't understand why local building departments ever blessed it.

Where my folks lived, that was also true (Naples, Florida). Every time a house sold, in their neighborhood, it was dimolished to build one typically two to three times bigger.

I see 'em, now and then, on 100 amps here. I haven't seen 60 amp service on a house since I first started inspecting - the last time being probably twelve to fourteen years ago

I guess that's the difference, I always let the buyer do the arguing. I'm just there to inform them of the quality and completeness of the repairs. If the work is bad, I'll distiguish between cosmetic bad and bad with real consequences. Then, I just step back and let them decide how they want to handle it. Often, they'll ask me point blank what I would do if it was my home. If they do, I tell them honestly what I would do. Everyone seems to be perfectly satisfied with that approach.

I have always done re-inspections for anyone that asks for a flat fee of $75.00 non-negotiable. If it's a lot to inspect, it's $100.00. It typically takes about 30 - 45 minutes, plus drive time and gas, so I'm not making a killing. I don't OFFER the service, but about one in twenty-five ask for it, and I always say, "I'll be happy to, but there is a fee.". No one in 19 years has ever called me back to belly-ache about repairs that I re-inspected. If the work sucks, I tell them so, and make sure they understand that this is their last chance to either accept or reject the work. I had to do that yesterday - a lousy wood filler repair. I told her, "This is not what I hoped for, but all of the wood decay is gone and as long as you keep this primed and painted, it will be fine for years. It just could have been done better."

I hear ya. Most folks rarely think about modifying a home by adding upward. In the 50's adding another story to the back side of a Cape Cod was a really popular thing to do. It seemed, in the neighborhood that I grew up in, that about one in every ten homes was modified in that manner. It's an unconventional addition that requires some demolition, but when you start crunching the numbers, it starts looking pretty good - all carpentry. [:-graduat

Thanks Mike. It is a concrete foundation. There will usually be two or three beams supporting the main floor. 8X8 rough-cut posts nailed in under the beams. Perimeter walls are concrete, with Douglas fir 2X4 pony walls above the ground level.The house is a modified pyramid. I'm sure they could raise it on two I-beams. If they tear that roof off and build up, they will ruin the place, no doubt. Jim, it is three blocks to sidewalk coffee shops, three blocks to the beach, ten blocks to downtown. There are no vacant lots, so they buy these old places for inflated prices. Then they shiver through the winters cuz there's a ban on woodsmoke. [] Well, a concrete foundation can handle even more weight psi than masonry, so its ability to handle another story isn't even worth discussing. But, as Jim says, the real question is: can the soil and footing handle it? Still, the cheapest direction to go is always up. Excavation, footings and foundation account for a great deal of the average addition, and removing those factors from the cost of an addition is a substantial savings.

The foundation usually isn't the problem, it's the size of the footing. Around here, anyway, footings from that period were on the small side and our soil isn't exactly bedrock. To add a story, you often have to start by underpinning the footings. Yes, I suppose that is the ultimate question: can the footings handle twice the weight they are now.

In very general terms - I ran the math in another thread, regarding masonry foundations. The average 8" masonry foundation could easily support about fifty more homes stacked one upon another. Adding another story to a masonry foundation is like throwing another gnat on the pile. When I was in the business of selling and designing additions and renovations, going up was usually the cheapest direction to go in - no excavation, footings or foundation work, and usually everything existing can easily support another story. But, then I realize you are talking about post and beam. This is not a masonry foundation?

Now that's funny. I was going to question the bends, but hated to ruin the mood of the thread... Copper is a bit more tolerant than aluminum regarding bends, yes"

It does look lovely. I see such artwork now and then.

Rats... I was hoping to learn of its composition. Yeah, I saw the same $39.00 report... What!? $39.00?... nah... Lol...

Can you brief us? Input....