Looking for some advice on an issue with a "wall thickness" issue I'm dealing with in a shower rebuild.

After teardown to studs of the existing shower, I can see that in previous work done on the house the original plaster/metal mesh make up of the walls (house built in 1959) has been replaced by a double thickness of drywall halfway down the walls. As a result the walls are not plumb, as the double drywall portion of the wall (bottom half of the wall) is approximately at least 1/4" thicker than the top half, meaning that if you're standing at the entrance to the shower the walls slant like:

\ / (luckily not at that extreme of a slant, but you get the idea)

The problem I now have is how to compensate for this as I rebuild the new show walls, as they are level and plumb in order to accommodate the new large format tiles and shower doors I will be installing - having a small subway tile and curtain allowed the previous build to cover up these inconsistencies.

So my question is: how do I bridge the gap where the new wall thickness of the shower does not meet up consistently with the thickness of the walls that meet it? drywall compound and a lot of feather and sanding to try to build up the low parts of the wall to meet up with the shower? Help!

On 10/22/2016 9:18 AM, Chris Jenkins wrote:
Looking for some advice on an issue with a "wall thickness" issue
I'm dealing with in a shower rebuild.

After teardown to studs of the existing shower, I can see that in
previous work done on the house the original plaster/metal mesh make up
of the walls (house built in 1959) has been replaced by a double
thickness of drywall halfway down the walls. As a result the walls are
not plumb, as the double drywall portion of the wall (bottom half of the
wall) is approximately at least 1/4" thicker than the top half, meaning
that if you're standing at the entrance to the shower the walls slant like:
....

I thought you'd torn back to studs--they're not plumb? Or do you mean
you've just exposed the previous underwall surface now?

If the latter, I'd recommend going back to the studs and then replacing
the drywall with rock designed for shower instead; then you'll have both
the water resistance should have as well as a suitable tile backing. If
there needs some shimming done, do it to plumb/square everything before
installing the sheeting.

"Chris Jenkins" wrote in message
...
Looking for some advice on an issue with a "wall thickness" issue I'm
dealing with in a shower rebuild.

After teardown to studs of the existing shower, I can see that in previous
work done on the house the original plaster/metal mesh make up of the walls
(house built in 1959) has been replaced by a double thickness of drywall
halfway down the walls. As a result the walls are not plumb, as the double
drywall portion of the wall (bottom half of the wall) is approximately at
least 1/4" thicker than the top half, meaning that if you're standing at the
entrance to the shower the walls slant like:

\ / (luckily not at that extreme of a slant, but you get
the idea)

The problem I now have is how to compensate for this as I rebuild the new
show walls, as they are level and plumb in order to accommodate the new
large format tiles and shower doors I will be installing - having a small
subway tile and curtain allowed the previous build to cover up these
inconsistencies.

So my question is: how do I bridge the gap where the new wall thickness of
the shower does not meet up consistently with the thickness of the walls
that meet it? drywall compound and a lot of feather and sanding to try to
build up the low parts of the wall to meet up with the shower? Help!

1. bevel grout along edge

2.cut narrow strips from the tiles with a bevel at top edge as caps

3. rondec
http://www.schluter.com/schluter-us/...ONDEC/p/RONDEC

"Chris Jenkins" wrote



As a result the walls are not plumb, as the double drywall portion of the
wall (bottom half of the wall) is approximately at least 1/4" thicker than
the top half


And someone graduated the joint compound
to blend the two halfs together? There are only
two options I can think of:

1) Bulid up the tile backer to just below the
higher level, leaving about 1/8" for thinset,
so that you can put tile on and have them
overlap onto the drywall slightly, sitting flat.
Then fill in compound in the section of the wall
that's slightly set back, feathering it back away
from the shower. That's typically necessary
to some extent, anyway, in cases where the tile
needs to end up flush on the drywall. The existing
wall is often not perfectly in line with tile backer
that's attached to studs.

2) Come up with some kind of transition piece,
such as a molding, that will be higher than
either side.

Normally I'd go for #1 unless it's something like
a budget rental apt job and there's a good molding
option. In many cases a molding will just look out
of place. And if your main wall is on two levels you'd
still be having that look odd where it meets the molding.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT), Chris Jenkins
wrote:

Yeah, option 1 seems to be the best answer, short of tearing out the walls of the
entire bathroom (very small room

If this was my project, I'd much rather replace all the sheetrock in a
small room than spend hours and hours trying to feather the mud to
match, and still have uneven walls in the end. When you take into
account the amount of time to apply all that mud and it's cost, it may
be cheaper in the end to just replace all the walls. After all, your
time has value too, and sheetrock is cheap.

Or, at least replace the sheetrock on the wall that adjouns the shower,
so you only have to match up an inside corner, and not the whole wall.
If I understand what you have there, it sounds like someone did a half
assed patch job, sometime during the past (roughly 60 years) since that
home was built, and now you have to try to match up to that messy patch
job.

Plus, if your tile will match the old walls, it will be noticably uneven
and require more tile cutting and "hack-work".

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 10:28:30 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 10/22/2016 9:18 AM, Chris Jenkins wrote:
Looking for some advice on an issue with a "wall thickness" issue
I'm dealing with in a shower rebuild.

After teardown to studs of the existing shower, I can see that in
previous work done on the house the original plaster/metal mesh make up
of the walls (house built in 1959) has been replaced by a double
thickness of drywall halfway down the walls. As a result the walls are
not plumb, as the double drywall portion of the wall (bottom half of the
wall) is approximately at least 1/4" thicker than the top half, meaning
that if you're standing at the entrance to the shower the walls slant like:
...

I thought you'd torn back to studs--they're not plumb? Or do you mean
you've just exposed the previous underwall surface now?

If the latter, I'd recommend going back to the studs and then replacing
the drywall with rock designed for shower instead; then you'll have both
the water resistance should have as well as a suitable tile backing. If
there needs some shimming done, do it to plumb/square everything before
installing the sheeting.

Sorry, I think I explained poorly; the walls of the old shower were plumb, its all the rest of the bathroom that's not, so I'm trying to figure out the best way to compensate. Everything in the shower is square/plumb/level, it's where it meets the not-plumb walls of the room where the issue is. It looks to me like in the past the lower half of the walls were torn out to upgrade plumbing and electrical, and the drywall they replaced it with makes those new walls thicker than they used to be.

This is our eighth year in this house and the last room to be remodeled, and I swear something like this has come up during every single project we've tackled...

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 10:48:41 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
"Chris Jenkins"


As a result the walls are not plumb, as the double drywall portion of the
wall (bottom half of the wall) is approximately at least 1/4" thicker than
the top half


And someone graduated the joint compound
to blend the two halfs together? There are only
two options I can think of:

1) Bulid up the tile backer to just below the
higher level, leaving about 1/8" for thinset,
so that you can put tile on and have them
overlap onto the drywall slightly, sitting flat.
Then fill in compound in the section of the wall
that's slightly set back, feathering it back away
from the shower. That's typically necessary
to some extent, anyway, in cases where the tile
needs to end up flush on the drywall. The existing
wall is often not perfectly in line with tile backer
that's attached to studs.

2) Come up with some kind of transition piece,
such as a molding, that will be higher than
either side.

Normally I'd go for #1 unless it's something like
a budget rental apt job and there's a good molding
option. In many cases a molding will just look out
of place. And if your main wall is on two levels you'd
still be having that look odd where it meets the molding.

Yeah, option 1 seems to be the best answer, short of tearing out the walls of the entire bathroom (very small room, so not an impossible task) and starting over so that everything is as it should be. In the original (or at least most recent) build they seem to have done exactly what you described, except for instead of using compound to feather out the depth difference where the wall is "low" they used the grout they used for the shower to fill in the "wedge" of space under the tiles above the low point of the wall. Figure I could do something similar with paintable caulk and just match to the new wall color, but I'm going to be doing some patching due to minor wall damage during teardown, so I figured it would be a better solution to try to build up that low point of the wall and feather out. Would this be with standard drywall joint compound, or would there be another recommended product?

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 10:46:53 -0700 (PDT), Chris Jenkins
wrote:

Sorry, I think I explained poorly; the walls of the old shower were plumb, its all the rest of the bathroom that's not, so I'm trying to figure out the best way to compensate. Everything in the shower is square/plumb/level, it's where it meets the not-plumb walls of the room where the issue is. It looks to me like in the past the lower half of the walls were torn out to upgrade plumbing and electrical, and the drywall they replaced it with makes those new walls thicker than they used to be.

This is our eighth year in this house and the last room to be remodeled, and I swear something like this has come up during every single project we've tackled...

Here in the West, Homes with tall walls, there is a method to get the
wall studs plumb. Using levels both horizontal and vertical, studs are
shaved with a wood planer and shims used to correct them. Something
I'd never seen back East. It may be an option for you. Is the
drywall sheets the same thickness in you shower?

Shave & Shim would mean having to remove the present drywall, though.
Normally, here, this is done before drywall is hung.

YMMV

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 2:00:58 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 10:46:53 -0700 (PDT), Chris Jenkins

Sorry, I think I explained poorly; the walls of the old shower were plumb, its all the rest of the bathroom that's not, so I'm trying to figure out the best way to compensate. Everything in the shower is square/plumb/level, it's where it meets the not-plumb walls of the room where the issue is. It looks to me like in the past the lower half of the walls were torn out to upgrade plumbing and electrical, and the drywall they replaced it with makes those new walls thicker than they used to be.

This is our eighth year in this house and the last room to be remodeled, and I swear something like this has come up during every single project we've tackled...

Here in the West, Homes with tall walls, there is a method to get the
wall studs plumb. Using levels both horizontal and vertical, studs are
shaved with a wood planer and shims used to correct them. Something
I'd never seen back East. It may be an option for you. Is the
drywall sheets the same thickness in you shower?

Shave & Shim would mean having to remove the present drywall, though.
Normally, here, this is done before drywall is hung.

YMMV

Studs both in the shower and the rest of room is level, the issue in that materials that make up the walls outside the shower (plaster on top, drywall in the bottom) are of differing thicknesses, so the walls are not plumb. Keeping everything plumb and level in the shower is taken care of, it's figuring out how to transition those new walls to the non-plumb old walls on either side

On 10/22/2016 1:13 PM, Chris Jenkins wrote:
....

Studs both in the shower and the rest of room is level, the issue in
that materials that make up the walls outside the shower (plaster on
top, drywall in the bottom) are of differing thicknesses, so the
walls are not plumb. Keeping everything plumb and level in the shower
is taken care of, it's figuring out how to transition those new walls
to the non-plumb old walls on either side

Unless I'm not following, if the studs are actually plumb (enough,
anyway) looks to me the best solution would be to just rip the outside
will back as well and start over clean instead of trying to cobble
something together.

"Chris Jenkins" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 2:00:58 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 10:46:53 -0700 (PDT), Chris Jenkins

Sorry, I think I explained poorly; the walls of the old shower were
plumb, its all the rest of the bathroom that's not, so I'm trying to
figure out the best way to compensate. Everything in the shower is
square/plumb/level, it's where it meets the not-plumb walls of the room
where the issue is. It looks to me like in the past the lower half of the
walls were torn out to upgrade plumbing and electrical, and the drywall
they replaced it with makes those new walls thicker than they used to be.

This is our eighth year in this house and the last room to be remodeled,
and I swear something like this has come up during every single project
we've tackled...

Here in the West, Homes with tall walls, there is a method to get the
wall studs plumb. Using levels both horizontal and vertical, studs are
shaved with a wood planer and shims used to correct them. Something
I'd never seen back East. It may be an option for you. Is the
drywall sheets the same thickness in you shower?

Shave & Shim would mean having to remove the present drywall, though.
Normally, here, this is done before drywall is hung.

YMMV

Studs both in the shower and the rest of room is level, the issue in that
materials that make up the walls outside the shower (plaster on top, drywall
in the bottom) are of differing thicknesses, so the walls are not plumb.
Keeping everything plumb and level in the shower is taken care of, it's
figuring out how to transition those new walls to the non-plumb old walls on
either side

You have drywall in your shower? Drywall in a shower is a disaster waiting
to happen. Rip it out and install cement board, shimming the studs as
needed to align it with the upper walls.

"Chris Jenkins" wrote

Yeah, option 1 seems to be the best answer, short of tearing out the walls
of the entire bathroom (very small room, so not an impossible task) and
starting over so that everything is as it should be. In the original (or at
least most recent) build


they seem to have done exactly what you described, except for instead of
using compound to feather out the depth difference where the wall is "low"
they used the grout they used for the shower to fill in the "wedge" of space
under the tiles above the low point of the wall.

Ick.


Figure I could do something similar with paintable caulk and just match to
the new wall color, but I'm going to be doing some patching due to minor
wall damage during teardown, so I figured it would be a better solution to
try to build up that low point of the wall and feather out.


Yes. building up grout or filling with caulking will
look tacky.


Would this be with standard drywall joint compound,
or would there be another recommended product?

I start with Durabond 90 for anything but light coating.
It mixes with water and dries to something like
non-brittle plaster. You can build up a thick coat on
the first coat and get a very strong base. (Normal
compound cracks easily in a thick coat.) I then finish
with lightweight joint
compound. Just the regular stuff. There's EZ Sand for
topcoating if you're in a hurry, but that doesn't sponge
well and costs more, so there's no real benefit except
where it all needs to be done in one day.

I agree with a total rip. Been there. When done you will be glad. Think about a new layout too. I moved everything.

"Thomas" wrote

|I agree with a total rip. Been there. When done you will be glad.
| Think about a new layout too. I moved everything.

But you don't know the details, so how can you
say that? No one could possibly make such a decision
without seeing the room, figuring out how much
work would be involved, and looking at the alternatives.
Have you ever demo'ed old fashioned plaster on
metal lath? It's 1 1/4" of what's essentially concrete.
A lot of work. A lot of weight.

Sure have. Paid once and regretted it. Do it yourself if capable makes a hurt back but not a hurt wallet.
Basement Accessible?

Further, if you have a flat tire, fix it or...

Gunner, advice?

On 10/22/2016 02:18 PM, Chris Jenkins wrote:

So my question is: how do I bridge the gap where the new wall thickness of the shower does not meet up consistently with the thickness of the walls that meet it? drywall compound and a lot of feather and sanding to try to build up the low parts of the wall to meet up with the shower? Help!


Would you want to buy a house that had a bathroom remodel hack like that?

"Mike Hollmmes" wrote

| So my question is: how do I bridge the gap where the new wall thickness
of the shower does not meet up consistently with the thickness of the walls
that meet it? drywall compound and a lot of feather and sanding to try to
build up the low parts of the wall to meet up with the shower? Help!
|
| Would you want to buy a house that had a bathroom remodel hack like that?
|

I'm guessing you live on the West Coast.
Where I am in Boston, most houses are 80+
years old. The house I live in was built in 1835.
Unless the building is gutted down to framing,
various "hacks" are done over the years to deal
with aging plaster and partial remodelling, to
fix cracks in old horsehair plaster, affix loose
plaster, and blend in new drywall with existing
walls.

There's nothing hack about leveling walls.
The wall described is made of drywall. Soft gypsum
composite wrapped in paper. That in itself is
arguably a hack. A layer of setting-type compound
over that makes it stronger, not weaker.

Without seeing the actual job and knowing
the budget you really have no basis for a
judgement.

It's an interesting issue. Much of what goes on
in construction these days could be called hack.
Vinyl disposable windows. Hollow doors made of
masonite. Crap flooring made of plywood with a
thin wood veneer. Veneer "bricks" for exterior. Walls
made of gypsum composite and paper. Cabinets
made of particle board. Sheathing made of flakeboard
that has no structural strength and may disintegrate
in a few years if the glue breaks down. (And if it does
we'll all say, "Who could have seen that coming?".
Everyone should see that coming. It's idiotic. No
one saw it coming that sprayfoam insulation would
offgas formaldehyde and eventually turn to useless
powder. Why not? And now we have new, improved
sprayfoam insulation. They use it on This Old House.
This time it's really good.... I bet.)

I'm looking at a job now where floor tiling was done
over the new-ish plastic waffle sheeting. The tilers
didn't fully fill in the waffle holes with thinset and
now the grout is coming out, after less than one year.
The idea of ceramic tile over a plastic sheet is about
as hack as one can get, yet it's now considered to
be cutting edge technology. In a world where construction
is meant to be disposable, and the next homeowner will
be ripping the whole thing out, anyway, I guess maybe it
is cutting edge.

I once lived in Tucson for a time, where cold
weather and dampness are not a problem. Their idea
of siding on new construction was to attach wire
mesh to plywood sheathing and put veneer stucco
over that. Instant regional/ethnic atmosphere. Then
the stucco cracks later. But at least they had real
sheathing. Maybe they can come up with a better
covering, like sandstone-themed contact paper.

All of the things I've listed are widely considered
to be adequate building practices. They're all hacks.
Leveling plaster is not a hack.

I'm in Central Florida, in a neighborhood that's been around since the 1920s. As I look at the scope of the work that we were already planning on doing (rebuild shower, replace toilet, replace standing sink with vanity) the argument for just removing the walls and starting over seems more and more compelling.

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:56:58 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
"Mike Hollmmes" wrote

| So my question is: how do I bridge the gap where the new wall thickness
of the shower does not meet up consistently with the thickness of the walls
that meet it? drywall compound and a lot of feather and sanding to try to
build up the low parts of the wall to meet up with the shower? Help!
|
| Would you want to buy a house that had a bathroom remodel hack like that?
|

I'm guessing you live on the West Coast.
Where I am in Boston, most houses are 80+
years old. The house I live in was built in 1835.
Unless the building is gutted down to framing,
various "hacks" are done over the years to deal
with aging plaster and partial remodelling, to
fix cracks in old horsehair plaster, affix loose
plaster, and blend in new drywall with existing
walls.

There's nothing hack about leveling walls.
The wall described is made of drywall. Soft gypsum
composite wrapped in paper. That in itself is
arguably a hack. A layer of setting-type compound
over that makes it stronger, not weaker.

Without seeing the actual job and knowing
the budget you really have no basis for a
judgement.

It's an interesting issue. Much of what goes on
in construction these days could be called hack.
Vinyl disposable windows. Hollow doors made of
masonite. Crap flooring made of plywood with a
thin wood veneer. Veneer "bricks" for exterior. Walls
made of gypsum composite and paper. Cabinets
made of particle board. Sheathing made of flakeboard
that has no structural strength and may disintegrate
in a few years if the glue breaks down. (And if it does
we'll all say, "Who could have seen that coming?".
Everyone should see that coming. It's idiotic. No
one saw it coming that sprayfoam insulation would
offgas formaldehyde and eventually turn to useless
powder. Why not? And now we have new, improved
sprayfoam insulation. They use it on This Old House.
This time it's really good.... I bet.)

I'm looking at a job now where floor tiling was done
over the new-ish plastic waffle sheeting. The tilers
didn't fully fill in the waffle holes with thinset and
now the grout is coming out, after less than one year.
The idea of ceramic tile over a plastic sheet is about
as hack as one can get, yet it's now considered to
be cutting edge technology. In a world where construction
is meant to be disposable, and the next homeowner will
be ripping the whole thing out, anyway, I guess maybe it
is cutting edge.

I once lived in Tucson for a time, where cold
weather and dampness are not a problem. Their idea
of siding on new construction was to attach wire
mesh to plywood sheathing and put veneer stucco
over that. Instant regional/ethnic atmosphere. Then
the stucco cracks later. But at least they had real
sheathing. Maybe they can come up with a better
covering, like sandstone-themed contact paper.

All of the things I've listed are widely considered
to be adequate building practices. They're all hacks.
Leveling plaster is not a hack.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 2:47:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT), Chris Jenkins
wrote:

Yeah, option 1 seems to be the best answer, short of tearing out the walls of the
entire bathroom (very small room

If this was my project, I'd much rather replace all the sheetrock in a
small room than spend hours and hours trying to feather the mud to
match, and still have uneven walls in the end. When you take into
account the amount of time to apply all that mud and it's cost, it may
be cheaper in the end to just replace all the walls. After all, your
time has value too, and sheetrock is cheap.


+1

Many times the path that appears more work turns out to be the same
of less work. And you know you're going to have it look right.
With attempts at patching, when it's done, tiled, painted, finished,
suppose you wind up still seeing a defect? How would you feel then?

"Chris Jenkins" wrote:


I'm in Central Florida, in a neighborhood that's been around since the
1920s. As I look at the scope of the work that we were already planning on
doing (rebuild shower, replace toilet, replace standing sink with vanity)
the argument for just removing the walls and starting over seems more and
more compelling.


It might make sense. But you're not replacing
the floor? Vanity and toilet are typically small jobs
by themselves.

If you decide to demo the walls you'll need to
decide whether to take it all down or just take
down the original plaster. Then you'll end up with
a wall that's either 1/2" or 1" (assuming you
doubled up new drywall to match the double
drywall section.) The original wall is probably 1 1/4".
So there might be an issue with the floor perimeter.
There'll also likely be an issue with trim. You'll need
to remove all of that and put it back, with spacer
pieces if necessary. And getting out that concrete
is going to need a sledgehammer. So if you demo
you may need to consider doing a new floor.

There are also possible code issues if you demo.
Wall insulation. Fan. If you don't have a ceiling
fan you'd need to put one in in most places, once
you demo, if you don't already have one. That may
be easy, or it may not. Sometimes it's nearly
impossible to vent them. And you might need an
electrician to set it up.

Then there's the lead-safe
law to consider if you're "disturbing more than 6
square feet". I've yet to see a contractor who's
working in accord with that law because it's just
so unrealistic. I haven't yet seen exterior painters
who are even using the required amount of plastic
dropcloths, much less the suits, masks, caution
tape and "danger" signs, and all the other complications
the law requires just to scrape paint. But I got a
license myself and do work in accord with it. I
figure that I can't afford to just hope the law won't
be enforced. I just turn down inside jobs where I
can't legally do the work. And I'll turn down
much outside work for the same reason. It's not
worth the trouble. I mainly have the license to give
me authority to test for lead, so that I can legally
do jobs where lead is not present.

I'm guessing the you don't intend to
accord with lead-safe law and I'd also guess that
you run almost zero risk of getting into trouble,
but the penalties *can* be outrageous. So far
they only seem to be going after big companies,
like Lowes. I don't remember exactly how it
applies to homeowners doing their own work,
but if I remember correctly even you would need
to get a license for your own work, which you'd
need to be authorized to test surfaces in order
to check whether there's lead. Then you'd need
to follow all of the protocols and buy yourself an
expensive HEPA vacuum in order to do the work.
Some states also regulate disposal of the debris.

Those are all considerations you might want to
think about. They may or may not be obstacles
in your case.