Old house, 2 story craftsman, 1925 square foot, built in 1910. Had roof
replaced last November (a must!), but there are many things that need
doing:

1. Foundation replacement. Current foundation is conglomeration of stone
and mortar, some concrete, some brick. The house is not bolted to the
foundation, a big problem in Berkeley, CA, where it's 1.5 miles from the
most dangerous earthquake fault in the USA (the Hayward fault), in terms
of the estimated damages and likelihood of serious rupture (up to 7.3 on
Richter Scale 70% likely within the next 30 years). Considerable
settling in the middle of house, especially noticeable downstairs.
Unmistakable to anyone but a sleepwalker.

2. Removal of brick and stone cosmetic siding from all 4 sides, first
story (they tell me that will have to be done before the foundation job,
in order to protect the workers). The current brick, besides being
dangerous to workers replacing the foundation has mortar like sand
(mostly you can remove it with your finger nails!).

3. Obviously, the removed siding needs to be replaced with some type of
siding, probably after installation of sheer and insulation. I'm
thinking I might be able to do that myself - cedar shingles, if I rent
scaffolding.

4. Replumb entire house - remove the old galvanized hot and cold water
pipes (the ones I've seen are very badly corroded inside, and give off a
LOT of rust when unused for a few days).

5. Replumb all the drains. I assume all the drains should be replaced. I
had the drain to the upstairs bathroom sink bust a couple of weeks ago
(water poured out of the downstairs ceiling!) and can't use that sink
nor the tub in that bathroom (because it's clogged).

6. New electrical service. In the attic you can see knob and tube wiring
(much of it blatantly illegal) and none of the outlets are grounded.

7. Exterior paint badly needed.

8. There's no central heating, so I'd like to install.


OK, so I have a neat deal where the town will give me a no-interest loan
of $50,000 I don't have to pay back until I either sell the house or 30
years passes. I qualify because of my age and income.

$50,000 won't pay for even just the foundation and siding. I got a quote
for $64,000 for that, but the contractor didn't plan to have drainage
for his new reinforced concrete foundation. If I want that, I'll have
to pay more. His bid includes removal of current siding and replacement
with board-like concrete horizontal lap-siding.

I have some money, but it's invested and is my only source of income,
currently and hate to tap into it. I'm hoping I will get a job.

I'm wondering if it's reasonably practical to put off the foundation,
leveling and siding work and do the other stuff now. Would it make more
sense to do it all now? I was going to ask this question of contractors,
but think I may get a more unbiased response posting here. I asked the
woman I'm dealing with for the loan monies yesterday (she works for the
city, but has a degree in architecture) and she said she thought it
didn't matter. I'm not sure I trust her opinion on this. She has her own
perspective on things. I've heard some talk that electrical is best done
when the plumbing is done, etc. When the exterior brick and stone (all 4
sides of the house, on the first story) is removed, wouldn't that make
it easier and more economical to replace the plumbing, do the new wiring
and install central heating?

There's a lot of other stuff that needs doing, but I've only mentioned
the crucial stuff. Things like remodeling the bathrooms, interior
painting, window replacement (well, some of it should maybe be done when
the siding is done), refinishing floors, replace garage roof and replace
one wall of garage, removing an upstairs wall, etc. can all wait until I
can afford to do them.

If I put off the foundation work and can do just the plumbing,
electrical, heating and exterior painting, I figure I can maybe do it
with the loan money and not spend my own, for now.

I'm thinking I should find a real good general contractor to coordinate
this stuff, especially if I do the foundation and siding now (that will
all be a lot to coordinate). How important is it to coordinate these
things or are they pretty independent?

I know a few general contractors who seem to have very good reputations,
and plan to start making calls in a couple of days (Monday). These are
guys who I've talked to in the past who have been here. I have to act
soon, because the loan money has to be used within a year or so, I
believe. Thanks for considered advice!

Dan

Dan_Musicant wrote:
Old house, 2 story craftsman, 1925 square foot, built in 1910. Had roof
replaced last November (a must!), but there are many things that need
doing:

1. Foundation replacement. Current foundation is conglomeration of stone
and mortar, some concrete, some brick. The house is not bolted to the
foundation, a big problem in Berkeley, CA, where it's 1.5 miles from the
most dangerous earthquake fault in the USA (the Hayward fault), in terms
of the estimated damages and likelihood of serious rupture (up to 7.3 on
Richter Scale 70% likely within the next 30 years). Considerable
settling in the middle of house, especially noticeable downstairs.
Unmistakable to anyone but a sleepwalker.


$50,000 won't pay for even just the foundation and siding. I got a quote
for $64,000 for that, but the contractor didn't plan to have drainage

Ok, so I've also been in foundation hell myself this summer. Why so
expensive for a foundation? I've completely replaced my sill plates
around my entire 2000 sq ft foundation for $4000. Once your house is
jacked up, replacing whatever foundation needs help should be really
cheap (a few thousand if that), then just drop (ok, gently lower) the
house back on the sill plate (with newly reinforced/replaced
foundation) . Bolt or don't bolt onto the foundation. I don't get the
cost. My house is built on stacked stone, with brick and mortar used
between the studs for insulation (house built around/before 1800), so
it's not exactly simple/easy to jack. Why so expensive where you are?
Am I just missing something about CA? I'm in upstate NY farm country.

I've been going through the same thing with a 1901-or-so (records
disagree) 1600 square foot 2-story in Washington State. Obviously
construction costs differ regionally, but even so, it cost us less than
$20,000 to jack up the house, have the old foundation torn out, and
install a new foundation that exceeds seismic codes for Alaska and
California.

If you can get your trades coordinated, there's never an easier time for
replumbing, rewiring, or rot replacement than when the house is up on
blocks with no foundation walls in the way. We figure that cut many
days' labor off our other renovations.

Getting the new foundation in definitely goes before almost anything
else -- if you do siding, doors, windows, etc. before the new
foundation, things won't be level when you get the foundation done.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

Dan_Musicant wrote:
Old house, 2 story craftsman, 1925 square foot, built in 1910. Had roof
replaced last November (a must!), but there are many things that need
doing:

1. Foundation replacement. Current foundation is conglomeration of stone
and mortar, some concrete, some brick. The house is not bolted to the
foundation, a big problem in Berkeley, CA, where it's 1.5 miles from the
most dangerous earthquake fault in the USA (the Hayward fault), in terms
of the estimated damages and likelihood of serious rupture (up to 7.3 on
Richter Scale 70% likely within the next 30 years). Considerable
settling in the middle of house, especially noticeable downstairs.
Unmistakable to anyone but a sleepwalker.

2. Removal of brick and stone cosmetic siding from all 4 sides, first
story (they tell me that will have to be done before the foundation job,
in order to protect the workers). The current brick, besides being
dangerous to workers replacing the foundation has mortar like sand
(mostly you can remove it with your finger nails!).

3. Obviously, the removed siding needs to be replaced with some type of
siding, probably after installation of sheer and insulation. I'm
thinking I might be able to do that myself - cedar shingles, if I rent
scaffolding.

4. Replumb entire house - remove the old galvanized hot and cold water
pipes (the ones I've seen are very badly corroded inside, and give off a
LOT of rust when unused for a few days).

5. Replumb all the drains. I assume all the drains should be replaced. I
had the drain to the upstairs bathroom sink bust a couple of weeks ago
(water poured out of the downstairs ceiling!) and can't use that sink
nor the tub in that bathroom (because it's clogged).

6. New electrical service. In the attic you can see knob and tube wiring
(much of it blatantly illegal) and none of the outlets are grounded.

7. Exterior paint badly needed.

8. There's no central heating, so I'd like to install.


OK, so I have a neat deal where the town will give me a no-interest loan
of $50,000 I don't have to pay back until I either sell the house or 30
years passes. I qualify because of my age and income.

$50,000 won't pay for even just the foundation and siding. I got a quote
for $64,000 for that, but the contractor didn't plan to have drainage
for his new reinforced concrete foundation. If I want that, I'll have
to pay more. His bid includes removal of current siding and replacement
with board-like concrete horizontal lap-siding.

I have some money, but it's invested and is my only source of income,
currently and hate to tap into it. I'm hoping I will get a job.

I'm wondering if it's reasonably practical to put off the foundation,
leveling and siding work and do the other stuff now. Would it make more
sense to do it all now? I was going to ask this question of contractors,
but think I may get a more unbiased response posting here. I asked the
woman I'm dealing with for the loan monies yesterday (she works for the
city, but has a degree in architecture) and she said she thought it
didn't matter. I'm not sure I trust her opinion on this. She has her own
perspective on things. I've heard some talk that electrical is best done
when the plumbing is done, etc. When the exterior brick and stone (all 4
sides of the house, on the first story) is removed, wouldn't that make
it easier and more economical to replace the plumbing, do the new wiring
and install central heating?

There's a lot of other stuff that needs doing, but I've only mentioned
the crucial stuff. Things like remodeling the bathrooms, interior
painting, window replacement (well, some of it should maybe be done when
the siding is done), refinishing floors, replace garage roof and replace
one wall of garage, removing an upstairs wall, etc. can all wait until I
can afford to do them.

If I put off the foundation work and can do just the plumbing,
electrical, heating and exterior painting, I figure I can maybe do it
with the loan money and not spend my own, for now.

I'm thinking I should find a real good general contractor to coordinate
this stuff, especially if I do the foundation and siding now (that will
all be a lot to coordinate). How important is it to coordinate these
things or are they pretty independent?

I know a few general contractors who seem to have very good reputations,
and plan to start making calls in a couple of days (Monday). These are
guys who I've talked to in the past who have been here. I have to act
soon, because the loan money has to be used within a year or so, I
believe. Thanks for considered advice!

Dan

Dan-

DTBT.......I own a 1930 classic home in Santa Ana. Luckily I have a
concrete foundation & I don't have nearly the seismic exposure that you
have.

Honestly the commericial restoration of a old home is not an easy or
inexpensive project.

IMO you've either got to be really handy (& have the time & desire to
do the work)
OR
have a fairly long time frame
OR
have sizeable chunk of $'s

I'd do the foundation work first or concurrently with the other
work.......you'd be pretty bad off if you did all the work (less
foundation) on the house & it got destroyed by an e/q before you got to
foundation!

If the siding is coming off; that's a good time to do the electrical,
plumbing & insulation. I have stucco, so my "siding" most likely won't
be coming off (at least in my lifetime) so my plumbing & lectrical will
be soemwhat more trouble if I want to preserve (& I do) my artist
textured plaster intact.

Do you have the experience / skills to act as your own GC?

Search through this newsgroup....there is a fellow in Berkeley who
posted (& got answered) a ton of questions about old house work. He's
in Berkeley as well

I think this is one of his first posts....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...b 720acc0c967


My suggestion would be to look him up, he's got a whole lot of
experience under his belt by know & he's put a lot of thought into the
process

cheers
Bob

Dan_Musicant wrote:
Old house, 2 story craftsman, 1925 square foot, built in 1910. Had roof
replaced last November (a must!), but there are many things that need
doing:

I'm cheap, and handy, and usually try to salvage things that almost
no-one else wants because of my "don't waste" philosophy. But your
house sounds like maybe it would be better off just starting over. I
mean, really, what exactly are you salvaging here? Just the frame and
roof. Or, parts of it anyway -- you mention taking out some walls, and
a new garage roof.

But if you do have some other reason to restore (that loan, or
historical value, etc.)... I would guess you need to do that foundation
first. The drain side of plumbing can't be done until the house is
level, if it really is as out-of-level as bad as you say. The
electrical can be done while the siding is off, too.

And just to be su you aren't planning on living in this house while
the work is going to be done are you? There will be no electricity,
water, or plumbing for likely many days or weeks. At some point, you
will basically have just a frame (raised in the air, no less).

-Kevin

Dan:
Rip everything out first, siding, sheetrock, etc.. and get it down to
framing. Foundation is first after that. Now it's easy to do your
electrical, plumbing, AC.

Sometimes it's cheaper to start from scratch because construction
people can get much more accomplished not trying to fit a square peg
into a round hole. That's why renovations typically cost more than new
construction.

Either way, it's sounding like $100-150k depending on your material
choices. Don't do cedar shakes. I have it, and they're very expensive
and labor intensive ($400 /sq) for materials alone. For that much, I
went with hardi shingles and I'll never have to worry about warping,
checking, splitting..

good luck



Dan_Musicant wrote:
Old house, 2 story craftsman, 1925 square foot, built in 1910. Had roof
replaced last November (a must!), but there are many things that need
doing:

1. Foundation replacement. Current foundation is conglomeration of stone
and mortar, some concrete, some brick. The house is not bolted to the
foundation, a big problem in Berkeley, CA, where it's 1.5 miles from the
most dangerous earthquake fault in the USA (the Hayward fault), in terms
of the estimated damages and likelihood of serious rupture (up to 7.3 on
Richter Scale 70% likely within the next 30 years). Considerable
settling in the middle of house, especially noticeable downstairs.
Unmistakable to anyone but a sleepwalker.

2. Removal of brick and stone cosmetic siding from all 4 sides, first
story (they tell me that will have to be done before the foundation job,
in order to protect the workers). The current brick, besides being
dangerous to workers replacing the foundation has mortar like sand
(mostly you can remove it with your finger nails!).

3. Obviously, the removed siding needs to be replaced with some type of
siding, probably after installation of sheer and insulation. I'm
thinking I might be able to do that myself - cedar shingles, if I rent
scaffolding.

4. Replumb entire house - remove the old galvanized hot and cold water
pipes (the ones I've seen are very badly corroded inside, and give off a
LOT of rust when unused for a few days).

5. Replumb all the drains. I assume all the drains should be replaced. I
had the drain to the upstairs bathroom sink bust a couple of weeks ago
(water poured out of the downstairs ceiling!) and can't use that sink
nor the tub in that bathroom (because it's clogged).

6. New electrical service. In the attic you can see knob and tube wiring
(much of it blatantly illegal) and none of the outlets are grounded.

7. Exterior paint badly needed.

8. There's no central heating, so I'd like to install.


OK, so I have a neat deal where the town will give me a no-interest loan
of $50,000 I don't have to pay back until I either sell the house or 30
years passes. I qualify because of my age and income.

$50,000 won't pay for even just the foundation and siding. I got a quote
for $64,000 for that, but the contractor didn't plan to have drainage
for his new reinforced concrete foundation. If I want that, I'll have
to pay more. His bid includes removal of current siding and replacement
with board-like concrete horizontal lap-siding.

I have some money, but it's invested and is my only source of income,
currently and hate to tap into it. I'm hoping I will get a job.

I'm wondering if it's reasonably practical to put off the foundation,
leveling and siding work and do the other stuff now. Would it make more
sense to do it all now? I was going to ask this question of contractors,
but think I may get a more unbiased response posting here. I asked the
woman I'm dealing with for the loan monies yesterday (she works for the
city, but has a degree in architecture) and she said she thought it
didn't matter. I'm not sure I trust her opinion on this. She has her own
perspective on things. I've heard some talk that electrical is best done
when the plumbing is done, etc. When the exterior brick and stone (all 4
sides of the house, on the first story) is removed, wouldn't that make
it easier and more economical to replace the plumbing, do the new wiring
and install central heating?

There's a lot of other stuff that needs doing, but I've only mentioned
the crucial stuff. Things like remodeling the bathrooms, interior
painting, window replacement (well, some of it should maybe be done when
the siding is done), refinishing floors, replace garage roof and replace
one wall of garage, removing an upstairs wall, etc. can all wait until I
can afford to do them.

If I put off the foundation work and can do just the plumbing,
electrical, heating and exterior painting, I figure I can maybe do it
with the loan money and not spend my own, for now.

I'm thinking I should find a real good general contractor to coordinate
this stuff, especially if I do the foundation and siding now (that will
all be a lot to coordinate). How important is it to coordinate these
things or are they pretty independent?

I know a few general contractors who seem to have very good reputations,
and plan to start making calls in a couple of days (Monday). These are
guys who I've talked to in the past who have been here. I have to act
soon, because the loan money has to be used within a year or so, I
believe. Thanks for considered advice!

Dan

On 30 Sep 2006 17:43:23 -0700, "BobK207" wrote:


an-
:
TBT..

Done that been there?

:.....I own a 1930 classic home in Santa Ana. Luckily I have a
:concrete foundation & I don't have nearly the seismic exposure that you
:have.
:
:Honestly the commericial restoration of a old home is not an easy or
:inexpensive project.
:
:IMO you've either got to be really handy (& have the time & desire to
:do the work)
:OR
:have a fairly long time frame
:OR
:have sizeable chunk of $'s

I have some of all those, but not in spades.
:
:I'd do the foundation work first or concurrently with the other
:work.......you'd be pretty bad off if you did all the work (less
:foundation) on the house & it got destroyed by an e/q before you got to
:foundation!

Yes, I'm gambling if I roll the dice and just hope a devestating
earthquake doesn't upset my apple cart. Am I mixing my metaphors? Well,
the meaning's there.

:
:If the siding is coming off; that's a good time to do the electrical,
lumbing & insulation. I have stucco, so my "siding" most likely won't
:be coming off (at least in my lifetime) so my plumbing & lectrical will
:be soemwhat more trouble if I want to preserve (& I do) my artist
:textured plaster intact.

The siding is most definitely coming off. I have stucco on 2nd floor.
Half of the upper floor siding is shingles. Those are painted, some in
poor condition and ideally they would all be replaced... especially if I
install shingles on the first floor. Maybe the stucco can remain.
:
o you have the experience / skills to act as your own GC?

It would be a stretch, a huge stretch. Yes, I could, but I'm afraid I'd
make serious mistakes. I know several GC's (3, at least) who could
probably do a much better job.
:
:Search through this newsgroup....there is a fellow in Berkeley who
osted (& got answered) a ton of questions about old house work. He's
:in Berkeley as well
:
:I think this is one of his first posts....
:
:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...b 720acc0c967

I've made friends with him - Wayne Whitney. We've helped each other a
bit and visited each other's house several times. He's quite impressive,
a very bright guy and very level headed. His posts here tend to be
informed and well worth reading. The work he's done (and is doing) on
his house is top notch.

:
:My suggestion would be to look him up, he's got a whole lot of
:experience under his belt by know & he's put a lot of thought into the
rocess

I couldn't agree more. We've done a lot of email correspondence.

One of the guys I'm considering to do my foundation (and maybe act as my
GC) is the guy who did Wayne's foundation and new basement. That
contractor gave me literally hundreds of local references! Talk about
experience!

Dan

:cheers
:Bob

On 30 Sep 2006 17:58:42 -0700, "kevin" wrote:

:
an_Musicant wrote:
: Old house, 2 story craftsman, 1925 square foot, built in 1910. Had roof
: replaced last November (a must!), but there are many things that need
: doing:
:
:I'm cheap, and handy, and usually try to salvage things that almost
:no-one else wants because of my "don't waste" philosophy. But your
:house sounds like maybe it would be better off just starting over. I
:mean, really, what exactly are you salvaging here? Just the frame and
:roof. Or, parts of it anyway -- you mention taking out some walls, and
:a new garage roof.
:
:But if you do have some other reason to restore (that loan, or
:historical value, etc.)... I would guess you need to do that foundation
:first. The drain side of plumbing can't be done until the house is
:level, if it really is as out-of-level as bad as you say. The
:electrical can be done while the siding is off, too.
:
:And just to be su you aren't planning on living in this house while
:the work is going to be done are you? There will be no electricity,
:water, or plumbing for likely many days or weeks. At some point, you
:will basically have just a frame (raised in the air, no less).
:
:-Kevin
I don't know about living in the house during the dark ages of its
renovation. I guess maybe I could live with my sister for a few weeks.

I'm also cheap and handy (The "new" sinks I installed in the bathrooms a
month or so ago are ~55 years old (American Standard), but this work is
far beyond my resources. I can't do my own foundation. I don't have the
expertise to do my electricity, although I suppose that isn't impossible
if I do the homework.

Starting over? That was the foremost question in my mind when I first
considered buying the house. I was already a tenant. I knew the owner
had to sell it, and I had the house evaluated by an experienced GC I
knew. Later in the day he gave me a tentative bid to fix "everything"
(well, all the major stuff... not including the garage). $150,000,
beginning of 2000. Of course, it would cost a lot more now. How much
more, I'd like to know and I'm going to call him and see if I can get
him interested. He wasn't last year, but the housing market is cooling
off FAST and I hear he's not too busy, so who knows? He may be willing
to change his mind and do some GC instead of the mostly window
installation work he's been doing the last few years. His take was that
the house is very solidly constructed, much more so than today's houses.
He said there is old growth redwood in the main supports (I'm not too
sure of that. It might really be Douglas Fir). Anyway, the house does
have a lot of character. The question is how expensive it will/would be
to restore it to its former glory, or some semblance of that? I'm not a
preservationist. The house has been seriously altered and I have no
aspirations to maintain an authentic architectural statement, assuming
that's even possible at this point. I don't want to make it into an
absurd combination of architectural/stylistic elements, but I want to be
practical. Residing with brick and stone would be prohibitively
expensive, certainly.

I'm told that living in the house while they are doing the foundation
won't be a real problem (by Wayne Whitney, discussed elsewhere in this
thread), but if the electricity and plumbing will be unusable for any
length of time, I will probably be living elsewhere temporarily.

Thanks for everyone's comments!

Dan

On 1 Oct 2006 04:58:42 -0700, "tim1198" wrote:


an:
:Rip everything out first, siding, sheetrock, etc.. and get it down to
:framing. Foundation is first after that. Now it's easy to do your
:electrical, plumbing, AC.

There's very little sheetrock here. It's almost all lath and plaster.
But a WHOLE LOT of that plaster is disintegrating. I haven't evaluated
it carefully, but there are very very many places where it's crumbling
or has obviously come loose from the lath. Bulges, big cracks, etc. In
fact, most of the downstairs and some of the upstairs plaster was
covered with paneling, which I'm removed, almost entirely (exposing the
plaster problems). Maybe most or all of that plaster should be ripped
out, such as you say, prior to the foundation, plumbing and electrical
work. Then, I suppose it could either be replastered or else sheetrock
could be put up. Don't know if the lath should stay or not, if it's
sheetrock. Maybe not, since that would probably interfere with
installation of an updated electrical system, a central heating system,
and plumbing. I suppose that would mean the house would be a mere
skeleton prior to even the foundation work. Clearly, I'd have to live
elsewhere. AC I won't need (Berkeley), but heating, yes!
:
:Sometimes it's cheaper to start from scratch because construction
eople can get much more accomplished not trying to fit a square peg
:into a round hole. That's why renovations typically cost more than new
:construction.

By scratch I assume you mean what I described, not tearing the house
down, but I'm not sure.
:
:Either way, it's sounding like $100-150k depending on your material
:choices. Don't do cedar shakes. I have it, and they're very expensive
:and labor intensive ($400 /sq) for materials alone. For that much, I
:went with hardi shingles and I'll never have to worry about warping,
:checking, splitting..

So, you removed your cedar shakes? Or you have a combination with "hardi
shingles?"

:
:good luck

Thanks!

On 30 Sep 2006 17:27:21 -0700, wrote:

:Ok, so I've also been in foundation hell myself this summer. Why so
:expensive for a foundation? I've completely replaced my sill plates
:around my entire 2000 sq ft foundation for $4000. Once your house is
:jacked up, replacing whatever foundation needs help should be really
:cheap (a few thousand if that), then just drop (ok, gently lower) the
:house back on the sill plate (with newly reinforced/replaced
:foundation) . Bolt or don't bolt onto the foundation. I don't get the
:cost. My house is built on stacked stone, with brick and mortar used
:between the studs for insulation (house built around/before 1800), so
:it's not exactly simple/easy to jack. Why so expensive where you are?
:Am I just missing something about CA? I'm in upstate NY farm country.

I'll need a lot more than replacement sill plates. They have to jack up
the house, remove the current foundation, excavate for a new foundation,
place rebar and pour concrete. Then new sill plates, lower house and
bolt to the foundation.

The bid for $64,000 included one day devoted to leveling the house as
far as they reasonably can. It didn't include provisions for drainage,
and I think that could be a serious mistake. He said I could have
drainage installed later if it was determined to be advisable. I don't
know how practical that position is. We do get rainfall normally about
22"/year around here. The lot is pretty level (from side to side), maybe
some back to front slope.

If that bid is high, well, I can get some more bids. I did have one guy
over to bid on the foundation and in talking to him I mentioned the
$64,000 quote I already had and the guy just said "jump on it. I'm
telling you as one homeowner to another, you should get all over that
one. We couldn't come anywhere close to that" and he left. He seemed
sincere. That was a year ago. The housing market has cooled considerably
since, and I don't doubt that I could do better now. How much better, I
don't know, but hope to find out in the coming weeks.

Dan

PS I got another bid for close to $80,000 a year ago for similar work
on the foundation, siding and front porch and steps. He was going to
install stucco where the bricks and stone had come off. The guy who made
the $64,000 bid was going to install concrete lap-siding.

The order in which you build a house should be the order you do a major
remodel such as you have stated.
Although house moving tec. has advanced raising and setting back down
which you whould need to do for this project will most certianly
produce some interior movement. Being that the house is currently out
of level in several areas when the new foundation and stem wall is in
place and the house is lowered it will shift ever so slightly but just
enough to crack tiles on floor, walls, drywall, or plaster in your
case. Getting the foundation out of the way first is the only way to go
otherwise your just rolling the dice on if the improvments you have
already made will survive the lift.. If you are in Berkely the eng.
required on the foundation project is going to be though the roof cost
wise lots of footing and lots and lots of rebar...welcome to
California... One other coment I read below quickly something about a
window guy doing the GC on you project....if thats what I read please
give this a second thougt..yea it looks easy to be a GC and it can be
but to be a good one and not cost the owner MORE money if is a very
complicated undertaking that requires experiance and organization
otherwise when the plumber gets ****ed that the framers are not done
with the bathroom wall fix and he has to re adjust his other work which
may cost him money or another job somewhere else...ect..ect for each
trade.
If you would like another bid for the foundation contact me via e-mail.
we have done several in that area and are familiar with the red tape
involved.




Dan_Musicant wrote:
Old house, 2 story craftsman, 1925 square foot, built in 1910. Had roof
replaced last November (a must!), but there are many things that need
doing:

1. Foundation replacement. Current foundation is conglomeration of stone
and mortar, some concrete, some brick. The house is not bolted to the
foundation, a big problem in Berkeley, CA, where it's 1.5 miles from the
most dangerous earthquake fault in the USA (the Hayward fault), in terms
of the estimated damages and likelihood of serious rupture (up to 7.3 on
Richter Scale 70% likely within the next 30 years). Considerable
settling in the middle of house, especially noticeable downstairs.
Unmistakable to anyone but a sleepwalker.

2. Removal of brick and stone cosmetic siding from all 4 sides, first
story (they tell me that will have to be done before the foundation job,
in order to protect the workers). The current brick, besides being
dangerous to workers replacing the foundation has mortar like sand
(mostly you can remove it with your finger nails!).

3. Obviously, the removed siding needs to be replaced with some type of
siding, probably after installation of sheer and insulation. I'm
thinking I might be able to do that myself - cedar shingles, if I rent
scaffolding.

4. Replumb entire house - remove the old galvanized hot and cold water
pipes (the ones I've seen are very badly corroded inside, and give off a
LOT of rust when unused for a few days).

5. Replumb all the drains. I assume all the drains should be replaced. I
had the drain to the upstairs bathroom sink bust a couple of weeks ago
(water poured out of the downstairs ceiling!) and can't use that sink
nor the tub in that bathroom (because it's clogged).

6. New electrical service. In the attic you can see knob and tube wiring
(much of it blatantly illegal) and none of the outlets are grounded.

7. Exterior paint badly needed.

8. There's no central heating, so I'd like to install.


OK, so I have a neat deal where the town will give me a no-interest loan
of $50,000 I don't have to pay back until I either sell the house or 30
years passes. I qualify because of my age and income.

$50,000 won't pay for even just the foundation and siding. I got a quote
for $64,000 for that, but the contractor didn't plan to have drainage
for his new reinforced concrete foundation. If I want that, I'll have
to pay more. His bid includes removal of current siding and replacement
with board-like concrete horizontal lap-siding.

I have some money, but it's invested and is my only source of income,
currently and hate to tap into it. I'm hoping I will get a job.

I'm wondering if it's reasonably practical to put off the foundation,
leveling and siding work and do the other stuff now. Would it make more
sense to do it all now? I was going to ask this question of contractors,
but think I may get a more unbiased response posting here. I asked the
woman I'm dealing with for the loan monies yesterday (she works for the
city, but has a degree in architecture) and she said she thought it
didn't matter. I'm not sure I trust her opinion on this. She has her own
perspective on things. I've heard some talk that electrical is best done
when the plumbing is done, etc. When the exterior brick and stone (all 4
sides of the house, on the first story) is removed, wouldn't that make
it easier and more economical to replace the plumbing, do the new wiring
and install central heating?

There's a lot of other stuff that needs doing, but I've only mentioned
the crucial stuff. Things like remodeling the bathrooms, interior
painting, window replacement (well, some of it should maybe be done when
the siding is done), refinishing floors, replace garage roof and replace
one wall of garage, removing an upstairs wall, etc. can all wait until I
can afford to do them.

If I put off the foundation work and can do just the plumbing,
electrical, heating and exterior painting, I figure I can maybe do it
with the loan money and not spend my own, for now.

I'm thinking I should find a real good general contractor to coordinate
this stuff, especially if I do the foundation and siding now (that will
all be a lot to coordinate). How important is it to coordinate these
things or are they pretty independent?

I know a few general contractors who seem to have very good reputations,
and plan to start making calls in a couple of days (Monday). These are
guys who I've talked to in the past who have been here. I have to act
soon, because the loan money has to be used within a year or so, I
believe. Thanks for considered advice!

Dan

On 1 Oct 2006 10:38:53 -0700, "Italian Mason"
wrote:

:
:The order in which you build a house should be the order you do a major
:remodel such as you have stated.
:Although house moving tec. has advanced raising and setting back down
:which you whould need to do for this project will most certianly
roduce some interior movement. Being that the house is currently out
f level in several areas when the new foundation and stem wall is in
lace and the house is lowered it will shift ever so slightly but just
:enough to crack tiles on floor, walls, drywall, or plaster in your
:case. Getting the foundation out of the way first is the only way to go
therwise your just rolling the dice on if the improvments you have
:already made will survive the lift.. If you are in Berkely the eng.
:required on the foundation project is going to be though the roof cost
:wise lots of footing and lots and lots of rebar...welcome to
:California... One other coment I read below quickly something about a
:window guy doing the GC on you project....if thats what I read please
:give this a second thougt..yea it looks easy to be a GC and it can be
:but to be a good one and not cost the owner MORE money if is a very
:complicated undertaking that requires experiance and organization
therwise when the plumber gets ****ed that the framers are not done
:with the bathroom wall fix and he has to re adjust his other work which
:may cost him money or another job somewhere else...ect..ect for each
:trade.
:If you would like another bid for the foundation contact me via e-mail.
:we have done several in that area and are familiar with the red tape
:involved.

The only floor tiles I have are in the downstairs bathroom, and you
should see them! They are already so cracked it's ridiculous. The wall
tiles in there are ALL cracked with little cracks and the floor has
wide, long cracks. The shower surround (tiles) was recently torn out and
redone with cultured marble, the old shower piping replaced with copper,
and new shower fixtures installed, but the agency said they can't afford
to do my floor now (they were going to install the original linoleum, an
environmentally friendly product). So, the floor will have to be done
later. Anyway, I explained that to show that the foundation shift over
the years has already done damage. Yes, I agree, that the foundation
work should preceed almost, and probably everything.

The $64,000 quote I got on the foundation was within Berkeley's
technical specs and actually he said he'd go one size larger rebar than
the specs. The contractor advised against hiring an engineer. Berkeley
said they didn't necessarily require a signoff by an engineer on the
foundation replacement as long as it meets their spec, and the
contractor said it would be OK. He's evidently pretty much a foundation
specialist, and he said he's well familiar with Berkeley's requirements.
He said he'd work with 3 other guys.

The GC who did the original inspection total-house-bid for me in Nov.
2000 is specializing in windows now, yes, but he used to do a lot of GC
work and I was very impressed when he did the inspection with his
knowledgability on all things construction. Admittedly, I was
inexperienced and he was probably trying impress me, obviously. He
succeeded. He told he he'd done "8-9 houses similar to" mine - old
houses needing major work in many areas, was the implication, and I
assume that included foundation work in most cases. I've seen some
finished interior carpentry work he did on my sister's house - very nice
work. He's also done major remodeling work for some of her friends. My
sister said that if anything the problem with him can be that he
sometimes gets a bit obsessed with everything being just so and she has
to prod him not to worry about that and get on with it. So, if that's
still the case, the concern from my viewpoint would probably be cost
overruns more than crummy work. He himself lives in a wonderful house,
big with a pool, in great shape (now), and I know that he's done or
supervised or contracted a lot of work on it. I had a look a couple of
years ago when I went to a party there.

He's taken to doing windows because it's easier than GC work, and
especially foundation work. He said it's hard, dirty and evidently
relatively depressing work. He told me that all good contractors he
knows who used to do foundations had moved away from them (into other
trades) and that for these reasons it's very hard indeed to find people
who do quality foundation work. Well, he was coming from a different
space when he told me that - he was telling me he wasn't interested in
doing my house any longer. This was around 3-4 years ago, in the midst
of the red hot housing boom around here and it must have been easy for
him to find easier work. He's getting older, and probably doesn't have
the energy he used to for whole house renovation that he used to, is my
take on all this. Anyway, I guess I'll call him and see if he at least
returns my call this time! I value his opinion and input even if I can't
get him to take on the role of GC for the_project.

Back in 1999, I was impressed that this guy was well up to coordinating
things - he said he knew a good mason for the fireplace/chimney,
recommended an engineer and termite inspector (I had them both do
inspections for me. I'm sure the engineer is permanently retired by now
.... he was semi-retired then), and he obviously had lots of experience
subcontracting work on his projects. He's undoubtedly _relatively_ of
out of that loop presently.

I'll probably email you as you suggest and see about having you bid on
my foundation. Thanks! Where are you located?

Dan

On 2006-10-01, Dan_Musicant wrote:

I'm wondering if it's reasonably practical to put off the
foundation, leveling and siding work and do the other stuff now.

No, I don't think so, for the same reasons as others have mentioned.
The foundation and leveling are the first order of business. Since
you will have to partially remove the siding to do the foundation,
residing should be done shortly thereafter.

Now an important question is whether the plaster on the interior of
the exterior walls should be retained or not. If it is generally in
good condition, I suggest simply patching it as necessary. In this
case, your access to the inside of the exterior walls is only while
residing, and so any plumbing/electrical/insulating work in those
walls should be done before residing.

If, on the other hand the interior plaster on the exterior walls is
generally in bad condition, and you want to replace it all (I suggest
blueboard and veneer plaster), then it will be simpler to do the work
in those walls from the inside. Then just go ahead and get the
foundation and exterior shell updated as one extended project, and do
the interior work as another extended project.

As to the question of living in the house while replumbing and
rerunning the electrical, it is possible to do without a huge amount
of trouble. The basic idea is that you'll be installing entirely new
electrical and plumbing systems, so you run the new systems parallel
to the old systems, and when the new systems are (almost) complete,
you cut over to them and stop using the old systems. Cutting over
should only take a couple days and be bearable. This won't really
work for the DWV, as the pipes are so big, but since you have multiple
bathrooms, the DWV replacement can be done in stages. As to the
electrical, it may also be convenient to do the work in stages, with
just one or two rooms shut off at a time.

Those are my thoughts, of course I'm in the middle of doing all this
right now. When I've finished I'm sure I'll be able to give a better
answer. :-) I elected to retain the interior plaster, it was in good
condition, so I'm presently insulating and resheathing the exterior
walls from the outside of the house. It's a slow process for one
person, right now I'm racing against the coming rains. So I'm quite
busy, sorry to have delayed in responding.

Cheers, Wayne

On 2006-10-01, Dan_Musicant wrote:

I'll need a lot more than replacement sill plates. They have to jack up
the house, remove the current foundation, excavate for a new foundation,
place rebar and pour concrete. Then new sill plates, lower house and
bolt to the foundation.

In my case, a single story house with a crawl space, the way my
foundation contractor replaced the foundation didn't involve any
jacking or moving the house. The floor joists were independently
supported on two long beams sitting on cribbing inside and outside the
crawl space. Then the existing foundation was demolished, leaving a
trench for worker access. The sill plate was replaced and nailed into
the cripple studs from below, and the form work and bolts for the new
stem wall were hung from the new sill plate and the existing cripple
wall, respectively. Of course the cavity between the forms was thick
with rebar. The inverted T-shape foundation was done in a single
pour, with the footing portion just poured against the earth the width
of the trench. After the pour, the forms were stripped, the drainage
system was installed on the outside, and the trench was filled.

Cheers, Wayne

On 2006-10-01, Joshua Putnam wrote:

I've been going through the same thing with a 1901-or-so (records
disagree) 1600 square foot 2-story in Washington State. Obviously
construction costs differ regionally, but even so, it cost us less
than $20,000 to jack up the house, have the old foundation torn out,
and install a new foundation that exceeds seismic codes for Alaska
and California.

A 1600 square foot 2-story has a footprint of 800 square feet, which
is maybe 25 by 32, for a perimeter of 116 feet, call it 120 and it's
$166/foot. Sounds like a good price, I think costs are a bit higher
here in California, maybe $200/foot, not sure lately.

Cheers, Wayne

On 2006-10-01, BobK207 wrote:

My suggestion would be to look him up, he's got a whole lot of
experience under his belt by know & he's put a lot of thought into
the process

Aw shucks, I think you are giving me a little too much credit too
soon, I'm still in the middle of my rehabing my house, I'll feel more
confident when I've completed this house.

Cheers, Wayne

On 2006-10-01, Dan_Musicant wrote:

On 1 Oct 2006 04:58:42 -0700, "tim1198" wrote:

: Sometimes it's cheaper to start from scratch because construction
: people can get much more accomplished not trying to fit a square peg
: into a round hole. That's why renovations typically cost more than new
: construction.

By scratch I assume you mean what I described, not tearing the house
down, but I'm not sure.

I believe he meant demolishing the whole house. Wayne

Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2006-10-01, BobK207 wrote:

My suggestion would be to look him up, he's got a whole lot of
experience under his belt by know & he's put a lot of thought into
the process

Aw shucks, I think you are giving me a little too much credit too
soon, I'm still in the middle of my rehabing my house, I'll feel more
confident when I've completed this house.

Cheers, Wayne


Sorry Wayne

but I put a great deal of faith in planning & thoughtfulness tempered
by experience

cheers
Bob

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:23:39 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

:On 2006-10-01, Dan_Musicant wrote:
:
: I'll need a lot more than replacement sill plates. They have to jack up
: the house, remove the current foundation, excavate for a new foundation,
: place rebar and pour concrete. Then new sill plates, lower house and
: bolt to the foundation.
:
:In my case, a single story house with a crawl space, the way my
:foundation contractor replaced the foundation didn't involve any
:jacking or moving the house. The floor joists were independently
:supported on two long beams sitting on cribbing inside and outside the
:crawl space. Then the existing foundation was demolished, leaving a
:trench for worker access. The sill plate was replaced and nailed into
:the cripple studs from below, and the form work and bolts for the new
:stem wall were hung from the new sill plate and the existing cripple
:wall, respectively. Of course the cavity between the forms was thick
:with rebar. The inverted T-shape foundation was done in a single
our, with the footing portion just poured against the earth the width
f the trench. After the pour, the forms were stripped, the drainage
:system was installed on the outside, and the trench was filled.
:
:Cheers, Wayne

Yes, when I said the house would be jacked up, I really didn't mean that
they would elevate it, just that it would be supported by jacks until
support beams (2 parallel, possibly 3, I'm not sure) could be placed and
the house _lowered_ down from the jacks onto the beams. It would rest
there until the foundation was poured and ready for attachment,
presumably to be lowered a tad in the process. Thanks, Wayne.

Dan

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:26:31 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

:On 2006-10-01, Joshua Putnam wrote:
:
: I've been going through the same thing with a 1901-or-so (records
: disagree) 1600 square foot 2-story in Washington State. Obviously
: construction costs differ regionally, but even so, it cost us less
: than $20,000 to jack up the house, have the old foundation torn out,
: and install a new foundation that exceeds seismic codes for Alaska
: and California.
:
:A 1600 square foot 2-story has a footprint of 800 square feet, which
:is maybe 25 by 32, for a perimeter of 116 feet, call it 120 and it's
:$166/foot. Sounds like a good price, I think costs are a bit higher
:here in California, maybe $200/foot, not sure lately.
:
:Cheers, Wayne

In my case the costs associated with a foundation removal/replacement
will be higher because of the necessity of first removing all the brick
(3 sides of the bottom floor) and stone (the other side of the first
floor), and the subsequent installation of new siding of some kind. That
factored into the figures I stated. The two bids I've gotten included
all that.

Dan

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:27:45 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

:On 2006-10-01, BobK207 wrote:
:
: My suggestion would be to look him up, he's got a whole lot of
: experience under his belt by know & he's put a lot of thought into
: the process
:
:Aw shucks, I think you are giving me a little too much credit too
:soon, I'm still in the middle of my rehabing my house, I'll feel more
:confident when I've completed this house.
:
:Cheers, Wayne

I can vouche for Wayne. He can talk the talk but he can do and has done
considerable impressive work on his house. He researches his subjects
thoroughly and is elequent in discussing them. I haven't seen him
cutting corners. I want to see what he does with his kitchen. I'm
confident he will do a great job on it. He's currently residing with
cedar shingles, and I'm sure it will come out great.

Dan

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:29:14 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

:On 2006-10-01, Dan_Musicant wrote:
:
: On 1 Oct 2006 04:58:42 -0700, "tim1198" wrote:
:
: : Sometimes it's cheaper to start from scratch because construction
: : people can get much more accomplished not trying to fit a square peg
: : into a round hole. That's why renovations typically cost more than new
: : construction.
:
: By scratch I assume you mean what I described, not tearing the house
: down, but I'm not sure.
:
:I believe he meant demolishing the whole house. Wayne

It's something I've wondered about. In fact, when I had a GC over to
evaluate everything it was really the fundamental question I had in
mind: Is this a tear-it-down and start all over again property or is
this house worth saving? The GC didn't seem to think it the fundamental
question, although I may not have voiced my thought. His take was
clearly "this is a fundamentally well constructed house. If you spend
$150,000 on it now, it can be undated including foundation, siding,
electrical, plumbing, remodel kitchen and bathrooms, new roof, a new
central heating system (including ducting), paint inside and out,
refinish the downstairs hardwood floors, repair the chimney. I'm sure I
left out something!

Dan

--- Posted and emailed ---

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:37:23 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

:On 2006-10-01, Dan_Musicant wrote:
:
: I'm wondering if it's reasonably practical to put off the
: foundation, leveling and siding work and do the other stuff now.
:
:No, I don't think so, for the same reasons as others have mentioned.
:The foundation and leveling are the first order of business. Since
:you will have to partially remove the siding to do the foundation,
:residing should be done shortly thereafter.
:
:Now an important question is whether the plaster on the interior of
:the exterior walls should be retained or not. If it is generally in
:good condition, I suggest simply patching it as necessary. In this
:case, your access to the inside of the exterior walls is only while
:residing, and so any plumbing/electrical/insulating work in those
:walls should be done before residing.

Yes, I'm not sure how viable that plaster is. Of course, assuming the
lath is solid, the old plaster could be removed and new plaster applied
to the old lath. It seems to me that would be easier and cheaper than
removing all the lath and installing blueboard and applying veneer
plaster. It's not all bad looking, just a lot of it. I think some walls
look pretty OK. Some of the ones with some problems look look like they
can be repaired without wholesale removal of all the plaster.
:
:If, on the other hand the interior plaster on the exterior walls is
:generally in bad condition, and you want to replace it all (I suggest
:blueboard and veneer plaster), then it will be simpler to do the work
:in those walls from the inside. Then just go ahead and get the
:foundation and exterior shell updated as one extended project, and do
:the interior work as another extended project.

Coordination would be less of a problem with that scenario. The more
coordination is a problem the more I think I should have a GC involved.

:As to the question of living in the house while replumbing and
:rerunning the electrical, it is possible to do without a huge amount
f trouble. The basic idea is that you'll be installing entirely new
:electrical and plumbing systems, so you run the new systems parallel
:to the old systems, and when the new systems are (almost) complete,
:you cut over to them and stop using the old systems. Cutting over
:should only take a couple days and be bearable. This won't really
:work for the DWV, as the pipes are so big, but since you have multiple
:bathrooms, the DWV replacement can be done in stages. As to the
:electrical, it may also be convenient to do the work in stages, with
:just one or two rooms shut off at a time.

Thanks for these comments. They are reassuring and sound quite sensible.
I take it DWV refers to drainage/sewer stuff.

:
:Those are my thoughts, of course I'm in the middle of doing all this
:right now. When I've finished I'm sure I'll be able to give a better
:answer. :-) I elected to retain the interior plaster, it was in good
:condition, so I'm presently insulating and resheathing the exterior
:walls from the outside of the house. It's a slow process for one
erson, right now I'm racing against the coming rains. So I'm quite
:busy, sorry to have delayed in responding.
:
:Cheers, Wayne

Good luck. BTW, they say things will get wet tomorrow, or somewhat
likely (Wednesday!).

Dan

"Dan_Musicant" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:23:39 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

(snip)

Yes, when I said the house would be jacked up, I really didn't mean that
they would elevate it, just that it would be supported by jacks until
support beams (2 parallel, possibly 3, I'm not sure) could be placed and
the house _lowered_ down from the jacks onto the beams. It would rest
there until the foundation was poured and ready for attachment,
presumably to be lowered a tad in the process. Thanks, Wayne.

You almost never want a house sitting lower on the lot. For a foundation
replacement, they usually do lift, but only a tiny bit, an inch or so. But
that is so they utilities don't break. Since you are changing all those
anyway, it sounds like, that isn't a worry. Once the jacks are there, an
extra six inches only means one more layer of cribbing under the needle
beams, and that extra six inches makes it a lot easier on the mason.

Your place is on a crawl, right? Replacing the foundation is a convenient
time to gain a little extra clearance to make working down there easier. If
you had a basement, it is a good chance to change a head-banger cellar into
a usable basement.

aem sends...

On 2006-10-04, Dan_Musicant wrote:

Yes, when I said the house would be jacked up, I really didn't mean that
they would elevate it, just that it would be supported by jacks until
support beams (2 parallel, possibly 3, I'm not sure) could be placed and
the house _lowered_ down from the jacks onto the beams. It would rest
there until the foundation was poured and ready for attachment,
presumably to be lowered a tad in the process.

No, I don't think there would be any net lowering at all. The
temporary beams and cribbing would be tight against the floor joists,
and the new foundation would be poured right to the underside of the
new mudsill.

Cheers, Wayne

On 2006-10-04, Dan_Musicant wrote:

Yes, I'm not sure how viable that plaster is. Of course, assuming
the lath is solid, the old plaster could be removed and new plaster
applied to the old lath. It seems to me that would be easier and
cheaper than removing all the lath and installing blueboard and
applying veneer plaster.

I'm not sure that's true. Veneer plaster is a one or two coast
process, 1/8" to 1/4" thick, while plaster over lath will be quite a
bit thicker. The extra material and labor to install it may match the
cost of replacing the wood lath with gympsum board plaster base.

I take it DWV refers to drainage/sewer stuff.

DWV = drain/waste/vent.

Cheers, Wayne

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:17:08 GMT, wrote:

:
:"Dan_Musicant" wrote in message
.. .
: On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:23:39 GMT, Wayne Whitney
: wrote:
:
snip)
:
: Yes, when I said the house would be jacked up, I really didn't mean that
: they would elevate it, just that it would be supported by jacks until
: support beams (2 parallel, possibly 3, I'm not sure) could be placed and
: the house _lowered_ down from the jacks onto the beams. It would rest
: there until the foundation was poured and ready for attachment,
: presumably to be lowered a tad in the process. Thanks, Wayne.
:
:You almost never want a house sitting lower on the lot. For a foundation
:replacement, they usually do lift, but only a tiny bit, an inch or so. But
:that is so they utilities don't break. Since you are changing all those
:anyway, it sounds like, that isn't a worry. Once the jacks are there, an
:extra six inches only means one more layer of cribbing under the needle
:beams, and that extra six inches makes it a lot easier on the mason.
:
:Your place is on a crawl, right? Replacing the foundation is a convenient
:time to gain a little extra clearance to make working down there easier. If
:you had a basement, it is a good chance to change a head-banger cellar into
:a usable basement.
:
:aem sends...

The crawl space isn't the tightest, but it is a definite crawl. I don't
believe you could do more that sit on your ass in there with your head
up, and maybe not even that in a lot of places. In truth, it isn't
entirely level under there. The worst part is that it's all dirt. The
book I'm reading ("Renovating Old Houses" by George Nash, 2003 edition)
suggests that this is a problem because moisture inevitably enters the
house due to evaporation of moisture from the soil coming up from the
ground table water. I've had problems over the years during rainy season
with excess humidity in the house. Now, there's no central heating, so
that's certainly a factor. But the condensation I typically get in the
winter months is certainly a problem and there's a certain amount of
fungus activity evidenced by the odors in certain rooms, especially at
certain times. I don't see it on the walls, but I can smell it. I do all
I can in practical terms to reduce the humidity. I've given up cooking
soupy concoctions for long period on the stove, for the most part, and I
try to get things as dry as I can in practical terms in my bathroom
after taking a shower.

Maybe something can be done to reduce moisture in the house when the new
foundation is placed. Of course, a drainage system can be installed, but
in addition to that, perhaps something can be done to prevent
evaporation from the ground water from entering the house. Obviously,
it's not impossible to excavate and create a true basement. At the very
least, a layer of polyethelene could be put down and covered with gravel
or some other substance.

One foundation contractor said he could make additional space under the
house to accommodate a central heating system. Someone else said there
is already plenty of space for that. I don't know who's view was the
wiser. Truthfully, I've had a few experts take a good look but I'm not
confident in the information I've gotten. Everyone has had a different
take on things. I wish I could get George Nash under the house. He said
he was formerly a "foundation doctor."

As you say, there's a real advantage in lifting the house when replacing
the foundation so that it isn't so hard on the workers. I presume that
would render my plumbing inoperative for a while. The electricity comes
in at the roof level, so I assume it wouldn't be affected.

Dan

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 04:04:47 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

:On 2006-10-04, Dan_Musicant wrote:
:
: Yes, when I said the house would be jacked up, I really didn't mean that
: they would elevate it, just that it would be supported by jacks until
: support beams (2 parallel, possibly 3, I'm not sure) could be placed and
: the house _lowered_ down from the jacks onto the beams. It would rest
: there until the foundation was poured and ready for attachment,
: presumably to be lowered a tad in the process.
:
:No, I don't think there would be any net lowering at all. The
:temporary beams and cribbing would be tight against the floor joists,
:and the new foundation would be poured right to the underside of the
:new mudsill.
:
:Cheers, Wayne

I haven't an idea how it's done, I was just guessing. I've heard that it
would be supported on parallel beams, that's all I know. I suppose the
can manage that with very little movement, and also little movement when
the house is bolted to the new foundation. Obviously zero movement is
impossible. Anyway, to get the weight on the beams, there has to be a
transferance of load and a means of determining (I would think) that the
beams are indeed bearing all the load before they start tearing out the
old foundation!

Dan

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 04:18:21 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

:On 2006-10-04, Dan_Musicant wrote:
:
: Yes, I'm not sure how viable that plaster is. Of course, assuming
: the lath is solid, the old plaster could be removed and new plaster
: applied to the old lath. It seems to me that would be easier and
: cheaper than removing all the lath and installing blueboard and
: applying veneer plaster.
:
:I'm not sure that's true. Veneer plaster is a one or two coast
rocess, 1/8" to 1/4" thick, while plaster over lath will be quite a
:bit thicker. The extra material and labor to install it may match the
:cost of replacing the wood lath with gympsum board plaster base.
:
: I take it DWV refers to drainage/sewer stuff.
:
WV = drain/waste/vent.
:
:Cheers, Wayne

Thanks. I just looked up DWV, yep. You may be right about the veneer
plaster over blueboard. I think that once I got good at it, I would see
the advantage over 2 or 3 coat plaster systems. There would be a LOT
less plastering, and it would probably go a lot faster all in all. I
don't think the cost difference would be a major factor, either. I made
a lot of calls a month or so ago and see that Truitt and White does sell
blueboard.

Dan

On 2006-10-04, Dan_Musicant wrote:

I haven't an idea how it's done, I was just guessing. I've heard
that it would be supported on parallel beams, that's all I know. I
suppose the can manage that with very little movement, and also
little movement when the house is bolted to the new
foundation. Obviously zero movement is impossible.

No, that's my point, zero movement is possible. The temporary beams
are wedged up tight to the floor joists, and the new foundation is
poured right up to the new mud sill, with the bolts hanging in place
from the mud sill before the pour. The foundation is wider than the
mud sill, so that provides an opening between the top of the forms for
the concrete to be pumped in.

Cheers, Wayne