|
Home > Archive > Architecture > October 2006 > Porch railing height revisited
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Porch railing height revisited
|
|
| Sasquatch 2006-10-09, 5:25 pm |
| I found this image of a porch very similar to our new construction with
a railing that looks to be 24" high or 30" high at the most (not 36").
Look's nice to me! Looks nice and old fashioned. Is there anything
wrong with this that you can think of? Here's a link to an image...
http://rollex.chameleonpower.com/ch...ier=RFHOUSE01CC(size=(410,0),qfactor=(5,4))&sel=39297
Thoughts, please.
Thanks,
John
| |
|
| It's hard to say how high that railing is but it's besides the point. It
looks like that house pre-dates modern codes so it's a moot point.
We don't use the IRC in this part of the planet, but I'll bet that the
minimum ht is 36" if you are 30" or more above grade. If you're less than
30" above grade, then you may put in what you want although falling over a
low rail is more dangerous than falling with no rail at all.
"Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160420755.817684.267600@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I found this image of a porch very similar to our new construction with
> a railing that looks to be 24" high or 30" high at the most (not 36").
> Look's nice to me! Looks nice and old fashioned. Is there anything
> wrong with this that you can think of? Here's a link to an image...
>
> http://rollex.chameleonpower.com/ch...ier=RFHOUSE01CC(size=(410,0),qfactor=(5,4))&sel=39297
>
> Thoughts, please.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
| |
|
|
"Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160420755.817684.267600@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I found this image of a porch very similar to our new construction with
> a railing that looks to be 24" high or 30" high at the most (not 36").
> Look's nice to me! Looks nice and old fashioned. Is there anything
> wrong with this that you can think of? Here's a link to an image...
>
> http://rollex.chameleonpower.com/ch...ier=RFHOUSE01CC(size=(410,0),qfactor=(5,4))&sel=39297
>
> Thoughts, please.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
John, why do you say it's not 36" high?
If it's a 9' porch, it is most certainly 36" high.
Look like an 8' front door..but I admit it's not certain.
The railing going up the steps certainly isn't 24", and the railing at the
top seems to match.
John, how deep is your porch?
jojo
| |
| Sasquatch 2006-10-09, 5:25 pm |
| Our porch is 8' deep with a roof that's appropriate for our 9' ceilings
on the first floor.
jojo wrote:
> "Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160420755.817684.267600@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> John, why do you say it's not 36" high?
> If it's a 9' porch, it is most certainly 36" high.
> Look like an 8' front door..but I admit it's not certain.
>
> The railing going up the steps certainly isn't 24", and the railing at the
> top seems to match.
>
> John, how deep is your porch?
>
> jojo
| |
|
|
"Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160424846.979956.37370@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Our porch is 8' deep with a roof that's appropriate for our 9' ceilings
> on the first floor.
>
> jojo wrote:
>
One other comment about rail heights. A few years ago a client of mine asked
me to look at a house he owned and rented to students. The 2nd floor porch
rail was only 36", but was grandfathered. He did not replace it, a drunken
student tripped and smashed the rail out (he weighed about 250), landed on
his head and became a quadriplegic. The lawyer attacked saying that the rail
should have been brought up to Code and the insurance company settled for
$16,000,000 and canceled my guy's insurance on all his properties. Think
about what might result by not complying to Code.
EDS
| |
|
|
"eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:O7qdnRyz5LGVIbfYnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> One other comment about rail heights. A few years ago a client of mine
> asked me to look at a house he owned and rented to students. The 2nd floor
> porch rail was only 36", but was grandfathered. He did not replace it, a
> drunken student tripped and smashed the rail out (he weighed about 250),
> landed on his head and became a quadriplegic. The lawyer attacked saying
> that the rail should have been brought up to Code and the insurance
> company settled for $16,000,000 and canceled my guy's insurance on all his
> properties. Think about what might result by not complying to Code.
> EDS
36" is code for houses. That's not why they lost the suit.
| |
|
|
"JD" <laughingarchitect@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2BBWg.14502$7I1.4599@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:O7qdnRyz5LGVIbfYnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> 36" is code for houses. That's not why they lost the suit.
>
>
>
>
It was a rental property, 2 family. The guy was so drunk and big he would
have gone through any non metal rail. The insurance co. was afraid of a jury
seeing this mindless lump in a wheelchair and giving even more. The lawyers
were claiming 42" required height. The insurance caved in.
EDS
| |
|
|
"eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c7GdnfcsYNG7b7fYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "JD" <laughingarchitect@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:2BBWg.14502$7I1.4599@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> It was a rental property, 2 family. The guy was so drunk and big he would
> have gone through any non metal rail. The insurance co. was afraid of a
> jury seeing this mindless lump in a wheelchair and giving even more. The
> lawyers were claiming 42" required height. The insurance caved in.
> EDS
Whatever, but you implied that it was non-complying
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-10-10, 1:25 pm |
|
JD wrote:
> "eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:c7GdnfcsYNG7b7fYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Whatever, but you implied that it was non-complying
I think I read about that incident a few years back.
Anyway it's sounds like a shade of gray legally,
the hard part is the owner was making money by
renting, apart from being a residence, and has
more responsibility to comply. It's rather like a
business has a responsibility to keep floors from
being slippery for even it's dumbest customers, it's
held to higher level of compliance than say a party
guest in your home. IIRC the terms are liscensee
and invitee, respectively.
Ken
| |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1160500780.824193.297560@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> JD wrote:
>
> I think I read about that incident a few years back.
> Anyway it's sounds like a shade of gray legally,
> the hard part is the owner was making money by
> renting, apart from being a residence, and has
> more responsibility to comply. It's rather like a
> business has a responsibility to keep floors from
> being slippery for even it's dumbest customers, it's
> held to higher level of compliance than say a party
> guest in your home. IIRC the terms are liscensee
> and invitee, respectively.
> Ken
Where's the grey? 36" is code, period.
That said, I wouldn't doubt that the rail did not meet the lateral load
requirement. In fact, I'll bet that most residential rails don't and I've
never seen an inspector field test one.
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-10-10, 1:25 pm |
|
JD wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1160500780.824193.297560@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Where's the grey? 36" is code, period.
No, 36" for 2nd story balcony rental unit is too low,
my CG is well above that, 42" is safer.
> That said, I wouldn't doubt that the rail did not meet the lateral load
> requirement. In fact, I'll bet that most residential rails don't and I've
> never seen an inspector field test one.
Myself I build railing tops using 2x6 flat, that stops
humans. Anyway a jury would "likely" have found
that a reasonable expectation of the rental usage
requires the balconey to be safe, it wasn't.
Ken
| |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1160504220.287685.175620@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> JD wrote:
>
> No, 36" for 2nd story balcony rental unit is too low,
> my CG is well above that, 42" is safer.
Are we talking about the code or your preference? It doesn't matter if it's
a rental or not, if it's a dwelling, the minimum guardrail is 36".
60" is safer than 42".... so what?
>
> Myself I build railing tops using 2x6 flat, that stops
> humans. Anyway a jury would "likely" have found
> that a reasonable expectation of the rental usage
> requires the balconey to be safe, it wasn't.
> Ken
That 2x6 is only as strong as the pickets or posts holding it up and its
connection to same, which is where failures usually occur.
| |
|
|
"JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1QQWg.13227$6S3.4138@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1160500780.824193.297560@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Where's the grey? 36" is code, period.
>
> That said, I wouldn't doubt that the rail did not meet the lateral load
> requirement. In fact, I'll bet that most residential rails don't and I've
> never seen an inspector field test one.
Lateral load? LOL
Oh dear.
| |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1160504220.287685.175620@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> JD wrote:
>
> No, 36" for 2nd story balcony rental unit is too low,
> my CG is well above that, 42" is safer.
>
>
> Myself I build railing tops using 2x6 flat, that stops
> humans. Anyway a jury would "likely" have found
> that a reasonable expectation of the rental usage
> requires the balconey to be safe, it wasn't.
Same here.
My top rail is 2x6 and I've intentionally put a steep load on it to see what
it;ll take.
2x6 if more than adequate for normal stuff and maybe even a little more.
A 250 lb drunk idiot is a different story.
Maybe a block wall would have prevented darwin from presenting his award.
Codes can't save everybody for idiocy has no limits..........
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-10-11, 9:25 am |
|
JD wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1160504220.287685.175620@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Are we talking about the code or your preference? It doesn't matter if it's
> a rental or not, if it's a dwelling, the minimum guardrail is 36".
What's the code for apartment buildings?
> 60" is safer than 42".... so what?
Code is minimum standard, not sure it's
a legal protector, wish it was.
>
> That 2x6 is only as strong as the pickets or posts holding it up and its
> connection to same, which is where failures usually occur.
Yes, btw I've built a 30" balconey ~3' above ground,
4x4 posts supporting 2x6's every 5 feet at my place,
but warned people not to sit on it, though I often did.
Ken
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-10-11, 9:25 am |
|
Don wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1160504220.287685.175620@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Same here.
> My top rail is 2x6 and I've intentionally put a steep load on it to see what
> it;ll take.
> 2x6 if more than adequate for normal stuff and maybe even a little more.
> A 250 lb drunk idiot is a different story.
> Maybe a block wall would have prevented darwin from presenting his award.
> Codes can't save everybody for idiocy has no limits..........
This thread got me so paranoid I just went out
and measured my new porches on the 20x20,
the front 8x20 porch is 12" high but the back
4x8 porch is 23" high, to access that we have
a 4x8 ramp - instead of stairs - with a rise of 18".
Wife finds the ramp safer than stairs, especially
carrying groceries, and I plan to put a roof over
it to keep it dry and use artifical turf for traction.
Say Don, [don], how's that "miracle schedule"
going? Last I read was about base plates,
weather ok?
Ken
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:eghm0102o3c@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> Lateral load? LOL
> Oh dear.
I don't understand your comment. You are aware of the "sideways" load a rail
must resist aren't you?
| |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1160566639.452417.323070@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> What's the code for apartment buildings?
Public areas = 42"
Within each unit = 36"
>
> Code is minimum standard, not sure it's
> a legal protector, wish it was.
You can say this about damned near anything.
>
> Yes, btw I've built a 30" balconey ~3' above ground,
> 4x4 posts supporting 2x6's every 5 feet at my place,
> but warned people not to sit on it, though I often did.
> Ken
That's the other danger we have encountered over the years. Personally, I
don't like using a flat 2x6, not only because they warp and usually look
like crap in no time, but mostly becasue they are too tempting for butts and
would be balance beam walkers.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-10-11, 5:25 pm |
| "JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:FTVWg.15279$7I1.4538@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1160504220.287685.175620@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Are we talking about the code or your preference? It doesn't matter if
> it's a rental or not, if it's a dwelling, the minimum guardrail is
> 36".
>
> 60" is safer than 42".... so what?
I've lived in a number of apt.s and I don't recall any railings being
under 42", or anything other than metal.
It might not be "required by code", but given that (1) people of so-
called "normal" intelligence can be *profoundly* stupid and (2) juries
love to reward such stupidity and to penalize landlords and businesses
even if the klutz is completely at fault.
Code is one thing, the advisable CYA "unwritten code" is another.
When in doubt, CYA.
Even when not in doubt, CYA, because thre are a hell of a lot fo people
who try to use being stupid as a retirement plan, and a hell of a lot of
idiots on juries who are all to happy to accomidate that wish =:-p .
((I'm frankly surprised that nobody convicted of vehicular homicide has
yet treid to sue auto manufacturers for "enabling" drunk drivers; or
that no carjacker has yet tries to sue them for selling "attractive
nuisances"; or something else equally idiotic.))
>
> That 2x6 is only as strong as the pickets or posts holding it up and
> its connection to same, which is where failures usually occur.
>
>
>
| |
|
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:7VbXg.10127$o71.6024@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I've lived in a number of apt.s and I don't recall any railings being
> under 42", or anything other than metal.
code for apartments is indeed 42"
homes 36"
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-10-11, 5:25 pm |
|
JD wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1160566639.452417.323070@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Public areas = 42"
> Within each unit = 36"
>
>
>
> You can say this about damned near anything.
>
>
> That's the other danger we have encountered over the years. Personally, I
> don't like using a flat 2x6, not only because they warp and usually look
> like crap in no time,
Right, tho I used PT it warped a bit, I should have
inspected the quality better, (warped at a knot).
The other down side is it needed to be restained
every few years, sun (UV), acid rain, snow etc.
I've been thinking of putting linoleum around the
top, what do you think?
> but mostly becasue they are too tempting for butts and
> would be balance beam walkers.
That's me! Good drunk test.
Ken
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-10-11, 5:25 pm |
|
jojo wrote:
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:7VbXg.10127$o71.6024@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
[color=darkred]
> code for apartments is indeed 42"
> homes 36"
CG=Center of Gravity...
Yeah 42" comes up to my naval which is lower
than my CG. IIRC apartments I've been in say
20 floors up, had balconey's at about 48" equal
to my solar plexus, iron rod of course which
"feels" safe to me, one can trip over a cat or
get a shove, cause someone else tripped on
the cat or the door sill.
Ken
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-10-11, 5:25 pm |
| "jojo" <cgv_2000@*remove your hat*yahoo.com> wrote in news:mQcXg.13326
$e66.8528@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:7VbXg.10127$o71.6024@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> code for apartments is indeed 42"
Makes sense, given human nature ;)
> homes 36"
>
Thankfully, tho' the rail for the upstairs landing/"game room area" is
42" - my balance isn't all that great, esp. as I age.
The current "outdoor room" is a roofed patio, not an elevated proch or
deck, so all I am thinking of is some screening. Gotta put trees and so
on, right now just looking at a cheapo fence. But if I had a really nice
view from a deck or porch, I'd consider clear panels, or metal (since metal
balusters are stronger, and can be thinner, than wood ones). Of course, I
also tend to like more modern styles, so clear panels would be OK with
that. For traditionals, seems to me one is either stuck with railings, or
stuck with the risk of a huge lawsuit some day...
| |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1160600526.997458.13930@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> JD wrote:
>
> Right, tho I used PT it warped a bit, I should have
> inspected the quality better, (warped at a knot).
> The other down side is it needed to be restained
> every few years, sun (UV), acid rain, snow etc.
> I've been thinking of putting linoleum around the
> top, what do you think?
You're not serious!
How long is your rail? Why not replace it with one of those composite deck
boards?
| |
|
|
"jojo" <cgv_2000@*remove your hat*yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mQcXg.13326$e66.8528@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:7VbXg.10127$o71.6024@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> code for apartments is indeed 42"
> homes 36"
Which code?
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-10-11, 8:25 pm |
|
JD wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1160600526.997458.13930@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> You're not serious!
Of course I'm serious! My requirement is to build a
a balcony on a floor 12' above ground, ~ 4'-6'x24'.
The balcony would be handled by persons with
weak immunity systems, like kids who are doing
chemo therapy, thus it needs to be disinfected.
My thinking is to go 36" with 2x4's every 4', but
screen that with 1/4" stuff, so kids are safe, but
still have a good view. I want a balcony you can
eat off, so stained wood it out.
A heat gun wraps lino then I figure staple under.
Ken
| |
|
| "JD"> wrote
> "Don"> wrote
>
> I don't understand your comment. You are aware of the "sideways" load a
> rail must resist aren't you?
Uh, actually, no.
I'm not an arkytek, remember?
Come on JD, it hasn't been that long, dood. ;-)
Seriously, that lateral load stuff is a non issue for everything I work on.
My methodry is tried and true, spanning decades.
| |
|
| "Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
> Say Don, [don], how's that "miracle schedule"
> going? Last I read was about base plates,
> weather ok?
Was 36 degrees yesterday morning, they're predicting snow tonight.
Yes, I'm still wearing shorts......
The days are interspersed with rain.
So the project hasn't went as quickly as I had hoped.
I'm still waiting for other people to get their stuff done so I can get to
it.
Right now I have a footer, footer walls (48" high in the back - 16" high in
the front), 1 load of infill (bugdust) and another load of fill piled in the
driveway.
Yesterday the rough grading was completed on the driveway and backfill all
along the outer sides and back of the footer walls.
Gotta give credit where credit is due.
This excavation has been very challenging and I'm really glad the 2 guys
that are doing the heavy equipment work have balls of titanium and the
proper equipment and the long term experience to know how to use them.
Hopefully I'll have a slab poured by this coming monday and then my lumber
package and trusses will be delivered the next day.
Downside, my brother has been here since the 27th of Sep to help with the
framing and has basically sat on his XXX all this time while we're waiting
on this slab to get poured and he'll be going back to FL this coming Sat.
Then I'm on my own.
| |
|
|
"JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8M8Xg.13250$e66.9272@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1160566639.452417.323070@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Public areas = 42"
> Within each unit = 36"
>
>
>
> You can say this about damned near anything.
>
>
> That's the other danger we have encountered over the years. Personally, I
> don't like using a flat 2x6, not only because they warp and usually look
> like crap in no time, but mostly becasue they are too tempting for butts
> and would be balance beam walkers.
Agreed.
My current railing (36" h) has a vertical 2x6 and when I can get around to
it I'm going to put another 2x6 on top of it flat.
Its nice for sitting drinks on, as well as plants, bird houses and all that
stuff ball-n-chainz like to do.
(turn off the damn HGTV already!!!) heh
We have enough chairs sitting around on the porches that the inclination to
sit on the railing hasn't happened.
Its roughly 9' from the top of the railing to the ground, in the back.
| |
|
|
"JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:HzdXg.9472$TV3.7778@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1160600526.997458.13930@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> You're not serious!
>
> How long is your rail? Why not replace it with one of those composite deck
> boards?
Yep.
With a slight camber to the center so the water can run off.
| |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1160610398.792749.309650@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> JD wrote:
>
> Of course I'm serious! My requirement is to build a
> a balcony on a floor 12' above ground, ~ 4'-6'x24'.
> The balcony would be handled by persons with
> weak immunity systems, like kids who are doing
> chemo therapy, thus it needs to be disinfected.
> My thinking is to go 36" with 2x4's every 4', but
> screen that with 1/4" stuff, so kids are safe, but
> still have a good view. I want a balcony you can
> eat off, so stained wood it out.
> A heat gun wraps lino then I figure staple under.
Do it out of industrial grade aluminum and be done with it.
Eliminate as many of the horizontal members as possible to dissuade climbing
and make the whole thing 12' high.
Personally, I wouldn't touch such a thing with a 10' pole with a 50'
extension, in this litigious society we're caged in.
In the film noir era this would be called a *gut instinct*.
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> ((I'm frankly surprised that nobody convicted of vehicular homicide has
> yet treid to sue auto manufacturers for "enabling" drunk drivers; or
> that no carjacker has yet tries to sue them for selling "attractive
> nuisances"; or something else equally idiotic.))
Patience young Grasshopper, patience.
There are no questions, only answers...........
| |
|
| NNTP-Posting-Host: p-345.newsdawg.com
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.architecture:127909
"Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
> CG=Center of Gravity...
> Yeah 42" comes up to my naval which is lower
> than my CG. IIRC apartments I've been in say
> 20 floors up, had balconey's at about 48" equal
> to my solar plexus, iron rod of course which
> "feels" safe to me, one can trip over a cat or
> get a shove, cause someone else tripped on
> the cat or the door sill.
<shiver>
Gotta remember to take my basejump chute the next time I venture that high.
Wutta view!
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-10-11, 9:25 pm |
|
Don wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
In empathy...
[color=darkred]
> Was 36 degrees yesterday morning, they're predicting snow tonight.
> Yes, I'm still wearing shorts......
>
> The days are interspersed with rain.
> So the project hasn't went as quickly as I had hoped.
> I'm still waiting for other people to get their stuff done so I can get to
> it.
> Right now I have a footer, footer walls (48" high in the back - 16" high in
> the front), 1 load of infill (bugdust) and another load of fill piled in the
> driveway.
> Yesterday the rough grading was completed on the driveway and backfill all
> along the outer sides and back of the footer walls.
>
> Gotta give credit where credit is due.
> This excavation has been very challenging and I'm really glad the 2 guys
> that are doing the heavy equipment work have balls of titanium and the
> proper equipment and the long term experience to know how to use them.
Hear ya, my guy was nearly a brain surgeon
with his hoe, like a kid playin a video game.
> Hopefully I'll have a slab poured by this coming monday and then my lumber
> package and trusses will be delivered the next day.
>
> Downside, my brother has been here since the 27th of Sep to help with the
> framing and has basically sat on his XXX all this time while we're waiting
> on this slab to get poured and he'll be going back to FL this coming Sat.
----------
> Then I'm on my own.
Oh darn, guess it's time to ask your local contacts
for some framing help, for closure, because Nov is
close and not fun, or put your feet up for the winter.
A single guy would need to revise the assembly
procedure, but then there's a "rush" sense and
that tends to compromise the "labor of love", as
it is replaced by "get it done".
Anyway,
We're lucky to do minor's like insulating water lines
-little poop stuff, curtains etc.
Best with Luck as always.....
Ken
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-10-12, 1:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in news:egk4mf03q5
@news3.newsguy.com:
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>
> Patience young Grasshopper, patience.
>
> There are no questions, only answers...........
>
THat's what is so scary ;)
((And it's more like, "Nigh-on Old-Fart Grashopper <LOL!> ))
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-10-12, 5:25 pm |
|
Don wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1160610398.792749.309650@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Do it out of industrial grade aluminum and be done with it.
> Eliminate as many of the horizontal members as possible to dissuade climbing
> and make the whole thing 12' high.
> Personally, I wouldn't touch such a thing with a 10' pole with a 50'
> extension, in this litigious society we're caged in.
> In the film noir era this would be called a *gut instinct*.
My peeve is spending $20k + time on something that
isn't used. When the maintenance time is greater than
the pleasure/useful time then something doesn't add up.
My rationalization is resale, but what if you keep a place
for 5-10 years even that math get's flunky.
If it's not necessary procrastinate until it is, is my next
motto, when I get around to needing a new motto.
Ken
| |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1160610398.792749.309650@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> JD wrote:
>
> Of course I'm serious! My requirement is to build a
> a balcony on a floor 12' above ground, ~ 4'-6'x24'.
> The balcony would be handled by persons with
> weak immunity systems, like kids who are doing
> chemo therapy, thus it needs to be disinfected.
> My thinking is to go 36" with 2x4's every 4', but
> screen that with 1/4" stuff, so kids are safe, but
> still have a good view. I want a balcony you can
> eat off, so stained wood it out.
> A heat gun wraps lino then I figure staple under.
> Ken
Well you see, context is pretty important.
It seems that cost is a real concern but I'll throw this out anyway...
You can get aluminum retrofit caps that are intended for bleachers. The last
ime I priced them, I remember thinking that they weren't terribly expensive.
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:egk40h02i5@news3.newsguy.com...
> "JD"> wrote
>
> Uh, actually, no.
> I'm not an arkytek, remember?
> Come on JD, it hasn't been that long, dood. ;-)
>
> Seriously, that lateral load stuff is a non issue for everything I work
> on.
> My methodry is tried and true, spanning decades.
I don't doubt it. In fact, I would have no trouble believing that your
detailing is better than most plans with pretty little stamps on them.
That said, you can yell and scream all you want, some things need to be
verified with calcs.
BTW, did you realize that it's virtually impossible to get a permit in CA
without a stamp? State law may not require it but the local authority can do
as they please. Are you having to hire engineers more often?
| |
|
| "JD"> wrote
> "Don"> wrote
>
> I don't doubt it. In fact, I would have no trouble believing that your
> detailing is better than most plans with pretty little stamps on them.
>
> That said, you can yell and scream all you want, some things need to be
> verified with calcs.
>
> BTW, did you realize that it's virtually impossible to get a permit in CA
> without a stamp? State law may not require it but the local authority can
> do as they please. Are you having to hire engineers more often?
Yes, the rules are getting tougher all the time and no end in sight.
I maintain my prediction from a few years ago that eventually the only thing
that will be allowed to be built in southwest Florida will be concrete domes
anchored with 30' concrete pilings.
I'm not down *there* doing that anymore JD.
This past March we moved to Thoreau-ville in the woods of Brown County, IN.
Still doing design and production down *there* but nothing to do with
engineering and seals and stuff.
But I gotta confess that the whole thing is becoming less and less *fun* all
the time.
I just wanna sit on the porch and watch the animals.
I'm presently building my garage/workshop/office and it may take a year to
complete it. LOL
|
|
|
|
|