Wealthy Street Mega Thread

[Chester Cheeto]

27 minutes ago, Pattmost20 said:

Well they wanted $2800 per month for each floor. Funny, they show an intact building in the listing.

Heh... looks like the Google Maps street view car got into a tussle with a tree.

 

[MJLO]

1 hour ago, mielsonwheels said:

Heh... looks like the Google Maps street view car got into a tussle with a tree.

 

They did another sweep of the city during the latest art prize.  Somewhere on the east side they found a branch.  Half of the streetviews have that leaf.

[GRCentro]

16 hours ago, Raildude's dad said:

The "damage" is due to the DEconstruction of the east wall. It appears the contractor and that's a loose use of the word removed all the studs from what was a load bearing wall. I really don't know what is keeping the east half up. I could see a few interior columns but it sure looks like the east wall was load bearing.

I don't believe the exterior stud wall is actually load bearing in this case. I peaked inside and saw that all the floor joists run parallel to the East wall, bearing instead on a large steel girder that spans the entire width of the building. A steel post which supports the girder began sinking due to an insufficient footing. The girder is temporarily supported with jacks. I think the stud wall was removed intentionally so it wouldn't interfere with jacking the girder back in place. I would assume the jacking will be slow and take at least several weeks -- it's never a good idea to rapidly move a substructure.

[RegalTDP]

54 minutes ago, MJLO said:

They did another sweep of the city during the latest art prize.  Somewhere on the east side they found a branch.  Half of the streetviews have that leaf.

I noticed the branch too, it's on over a big chunk of the city. Doesn't Google do any quality control? 

[Raildude's dad]

59 minutes ago, GRCentro said:

I don't believe the exterior stud wall is actually load bearing in this case. I peaked inside and saw that all the floor joists run parallel to the East wall, bearing instead on a large steel girder that spans the entire width of the building. A steel post which supports the girder began sinking due to an insufficient footing. The girder is temporarily supported with jacks. I think the stud wall was removed intentionally so it wouldn't interfere with jacking the girder back in place. I would assume the jacking will be slow and take at least several weeks -- it's never a good idea to rapidly move a substructure.

I don't disagree with your observations because you apparently got a lot  closer than I was willing to. However, since the steel post was sinking and allowing the girder to drop, the east wall then became a load bearing wall. There was no need to remove it to jack the girder back up. I had a floor joist settle in my house causing distress in the wall between the half bath and master bedroom.  I didn't have to remove the drywall and studs to jack it up and install an additional support in the basement. I jacked it nice and slow, closed up the crack so nice i didn't even need to repaint the wall .

  I am still of the opinion that removing the wall seriously compromised the structural integrity of the building. 

[GRDadof3]

6 hours ago, Pattmost20 said:

Well they wanted $2800 per month for each floor. Funny, they show an intact building in the listing.

There's an application at the city planning commission for a chiropractic center to open on the ground floor:

http://grandrapidscitymi.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=2538&Inline=True

5 hours ago, mielsonwheels said:

Heh... looks like the Google Maps street view car got into a tussle with a tree.

 

I noticed that too, had to go a couple blocks to get rid of it. 

 

2 hours ago, GRCentro said:

I don't believe the exterior stud wall is actually load bearing in this case. I peaked inside and saw that all the floor joists run parallel to the East wall, bearing instead on a large steel girder that spans the entire width of the building. A steel post which supports the girder began sinking due to an insufficient footing. The girder is temporarily supported with jacks. I think the stud wall was removed intentionally so it wouldn't interfere with jacking the girder back in place. I would assume the jacking will be slow and take at least several weeks -- it's never a good idea to rapidly move a substructure.

Was this the opinion of a structural engineer or the contractor? 

[GRCentro]

3 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Was this the opinion of a structural engineer or the contractor? 

Neither. Being a builder myself, as well as a member of HPC, I made a visit out of curiosity but didn't have the opportunity to talk with anyone onsite. Here's a photo I took through the doorway. You can see the second floor joists bearing on the steel beam which itself bears on a steel post, completely independent of the wood stud wall. After my visit I made an inquiry with the City and was told that the footing around the post (which had previously settled unevenly)  began to sink even further about four weeks ago. I was assured that the City is monitoring the project, but as of yet, there is no anticipation of demolition.

Just now I reviewed the application that came before HPC early last summer. The architectural drawings describe new windows and new siding on the entire East elevation, as well as substantial repairs to the foundation and the possibility of re-framing the entire wall. It would seem that serious structural problems were known in advance, though it is all playing a bit more dramatically in appearance.

I don't know the building owner or contractor, but I'd rather not whip up a hailstorm of fury based only on a presumption of negligence.

[GRDadof3]

47 minutes ago, GRCentro said:

Neither. Being a builder myself, as well as a member of HPC, I made a visit out of curiosity but didn't have the opportunity to talk with anyone onsite. Here's a photo I took through the doorway. You can see the second floor joists bearing on the steel beam which itself bears on a steel post, completely independent of the wood stud wall. After my visit I made an inquiry with the City and was told that the footing around the post (which had previously settled unevenly)  began to sink even further about four weeks ago. I was assured that the City is monitoring the project, but as of yet, there is no anticipation of demolition.

Just now I reviewed the application that came before HPC early last summer. The architectural drawings describe new windows and new siding on the entire East elevation, as well as substantial repairs to the foundation and the possibility of re-framing the entire wall. It would seem that serious structural problems were known in advance, though it is all playing a bit more dramatically in appearance.

I don't know the building owner or contractor, but I'd rather not whip up a hailstorm of fury based only on a presumption of negligence.

 

No offense GRCentro but I think just being a "builder" does not qualify you to make a judgement here. I know a lot of builders who readily admit that they are not structural engineers, and lean heavily on structural engineers when it comes to tricky situations. 

That picture strikes me with even more concern. Those posts look like they can barely hold the weight of the steel I-beam, much less the entire 2nd floor above. What are they, two pressure-treated 6x6's? Or just 4x4's? That's what I used to hold up the deck I built, not a 1700 square foot 2nd floor of a building.  

[GRCentro]

1 hour ago, GRDadof3 said:

 

No offense GRCentro but I think just being a "builder" does not qualify you to make a judgement here. I know a lot of builders who readily admit that they are not structural engineers, and lean heavily on structural engineers when it comes to tricky situations. 

That picture strikes me with even more concern. Those posts look like they can barely hold the weight of the steel I-beam, much less the entire 2nd floor above. What are they, two pressure-treated 6x6's? Or just 4x4's? That's what I used to hold up the deck I built, not a 1700 square foot 2nd floor of a building.  

No offense taken, GRDad. By the same logic, however, just being "not a builder" doesn't give anyone a strong stance from which to make extreme statements about the owner or contractor's credibility based on a photograph. Old buildings often come with unusual surprises. There is an architect for this project and an established contractor (Copperrock, I believe), plus diligent City staff making sure the public is safe and building code satisfied. I say let's give them all the opportunity to do their jobs before reaching for the tar and feathers. But, maybe that's just my optimism.

As far as the 6x6s, I'm guessing they are plenty for temporary support. I just looked up the compressive strength of two 12' unbraced 6x6: about 35,000 lbs.

[Raildude's dad]

I'm tending to agree with GRDof3 on this one. Pressure treating a timber introduces water into the wood reducing it's strength properties. If I was working there I would want an engineered backup support system in case my jacking timber failed. As soon as one starts jacking, the load is 100% on 1 post. That cuts your looked up capacity in half. I see icicles. How much water has been added to the second story. One cannot be too safe in this type of situation. I'm not sure the floor joist system in the front portion matches the section that's visible in the rear. The ceiling in the front is above the bottom of the rear joists.

I hope all involved have done their due diligence and calculations for those that are working under the second floor.

[GRDadof3]

11 hours ago, GRCentro said:

No offense taken, GRDad. By the same logic, however, just being "not a builder" doesn't give anyone a strong stance from which to make extreme statements about the owner or contractor's credibility based on a photograph. Old buildings often come with unusual surprises. There is an architect for this project and an established contractor (Copperrock, I believe), plus diligent City staff making sure the public is safe and building code satisfied. I say let's give them all the opportunity to do their jobs before reaching for the tar and feathers. But, maybe that's just my optimism.

As far as the 6x6s, I'm guessing they are plenty for temporary support. I just looked up the compressive strength of two 12' unbraced 6x6: about 35,000 lbs.

When I was looking at the building at Cherry and Lagrave that they tore down, I talked with one of those companies who moves buildings in West Michigan (I think it was Dietz), and they told me that they had a building fall over while they were hydraulic jacking it up, and it was reduced to a big pile of bricks for the owners. And it seemed completely structurally sound. Two beams might be able to hold 35,000 lbs in a lab, but that second floor might be like a 35,000 lb bowl of jello.

If I owned the building next door, you'd be getting a letter from my attorney, and I would temporarily conduct my business elsewhere (at your expense). 

But hey, not my monkeys, not my circus. 

 

[Chester Cheeto]

So this building has 1740 square feet of second floor.  Assuming, conservatively, the second flooring weighs 20 psf, which in my line of work a wood framed mezzanine that weighs 20 psf is considered very heavy, that's 20 psf * 1740 = 34,800 lbs.  That means those two 6x6 posts could support the entire second floor by themselves if needed, not that any self respecting engineer would ever dream of doing such a thing. I'd think it's safe to say that a significant chunk of that weight will go to the three remaining exterior walls, so those two posts shouldn't be seeing anywhere close to their 35,000 lb capacity.

Does anybody know how the roof is framed out? Are there any load bearing walls on the second floor?

 

[GRDadof3]

15 minutes ago, mielsonwheels said:

So this building has 1740 square feet of second floor.  Assuming, conservatively, the second flooring weighs 20 psf, which in my line of work a wood framed mezzanine that weighs 20 psf is considered very heavy, that's 20 psf * 1740 = 34,800 lbs.  That means those two 6x6 posts could support the entire second floor by themselves if needed, not that any self respecting engineer would ever dream of doing such a thing. I'd think it's safe to say that a significant chunk of that weight will go to the three remaining exterior walls, so those two posts shouldn't be seeing anywhere close to their 35,000 lb capacity.

Does anybody know how the roof is framed out? Are there any load bearing walls on the second floor?

 

You might be right. FYI, that unframed wall is 70' long, and the I-beam is about 26' across, assuming it spans the entire width. Looks like maybe an 18" steel I-beam? What does that weigh? 2000 lbs by itself? 

The roof is flat, does it have a tar and gravel roof? Asphalt? 

Doesn't appear to have gravel:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/746+Wealthy+St+SE,+Grand+Rapids,+MI+49503/@42.9558444,-85.6498056,52a,20y,180h,41.72t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8819ad98bfc4458b:0xfda8d6079b19e5e!8m2!3d42.955359!4d-85.649856

 

[x99]

8 hours ago, mielsonwheels said:

So this building has 1740 square feet of second floor.  Assuming, conservatively, the second flooring weighs 20 psf, which in my line of work a wood framed mezzanine that weighs 20 psf is considered very heavy, that's 20 psf * 1740 = 34,800 lbs.  That means those two 6x6 posts could support the entire second floor by themselves if needed, not that any self respecting engineer would ever dream of doing such a thing. I'd think it's safe to say that a significant chunk of that weight will go to the three remaining exterior walls, so those two posts shouldn't be seeing anywhere close to their 35,000 lb capacity.

Does anybody know how the roof is framed out? Are there any load bearing walls on the second floor?

Good.  Someone ran the rough calcs.  But I have to think the roof also bears on this unless it spans the full 70 feet.  20psf is probably overstated.  10psf would be more typical for woodframe construction, and this does not appear to have those crazy 3x14 floor beams some of these old buildings have.  The beam ought to have only half the weight, so 17,000 pounds.  So they should be fine, but even still, I would build temporary support walls and have two jack points since this situation is going to be ongoing during the jacking.  

A single unbraced 2x6 holding it and attached to the beam by who-knows-what is sketchy.  If something slips, it's game over.  That's what would worry me.  Their manner of doing this is dumb and dangerous.  Any house mover worth his salt would be sh---ing his pants under this thing.  Cribbing and temporary support walls are no brainers.

[Raildude's dad]

Not to beat this to death but the roof photos show evidence of ponding. Yes the charts show that capacity for 6x6's untreated and for a stated timber grade. Is that grade available at Menards? Fortunately timber values are very conservative due to the variability in trees. Any building with that much distress in a wall has serious issues. I personally would not be working in that building as is shown in the photos.

[GRDadof3]

2 hours ago, Raildude's dad said:

Not to beat this to death but the roof photos show evidence of ponding. Yes the charts show that capacity for 6x6's untreated and for a stated timber grade. Is that grade available at Menards? Fortunately timber values are very conservative due to the variability in trees. Any building with that much distress in a wall has serious issues. I personally would not be working in that building as is shown in the photos.

I would do exactly what building movers do: I would run two steel I-beams probably 20 - 30 feet apart from the center of the building that run from the EXTERIOR of the now non-existent wall all the way to the exterior of the West side of the building, supported by some kind of steel support structure at both ends. Maybe even like sawhorses? I would then do the jacking from that new structure. 

Not only is weight bearing DOWN on these two 6x6 posts, I would venture to guess it's bearing to the East now. Even if it's slight, those posts aren't braced sideways at all. If 17000 or 35000 pounds is pulling sideways on walls that are all just parallel 2x4s or even 2x6s, they aren't designed to take that kind of lateral stress. 

If anyone thinks they KNOW what a 100+ year old 2nd floor of a building is doing or going to do, I'll put money down today on it. Imagine for a minute that this building was originally built by shoddy construction workers. It's very possible. Just because something is old doesn't mean it was built well.

[x99]

14 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

If anyone thinks they KNOW what a 100+ year old 2nd floor of a building is doing or going to do, I'll put money down today on it. Imagine for a minute that this building was originally built by shoddy construction workers. It's very possible. Just because something is old doesn't mean it was built well.

More often that not, that means it wasn't.  You don't even need steel beams here.  You just need to do what is SOP for removing a bearing wall:  Build temp walls on either side.  Jack on the current jack point, and shim up the temp walls as you go up.  Then if you slip with a  jack post, no biggie.  My guess is they will get away with this, but if I owned this building, I would be beyond angry at the risk to the building being taken here.   And before I forget ... A bottle jack?  No steel screw jacks welded or at least clamped to the beam? Really? 

[WMrapids]

On 1/22/2017 at 7:07 PM, GR_Urbanist said:

1201 Wealthy was a subject of an inter-neighborhood presentation last week. The developer gave some details on what their plans are for the currently empty lot. Originals are here:

https://www.facebook.com/eastowngr/photos/pcb.1630274883942262/10154773475746501/?type=3&theater

A story was shaved off, which is ok. It's more important to fill that corner in. Looks like a winner overall!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just saw some equipment on site

[GRCentro]

On 2/11/2017 at 5:05 PM, GRDadof3 said:

I saw a post on FB that the only thing that can be saved is the facade. Anyone know if this is true? It was from a local business owner right down the street. 

Well, this is a surprise. 

Looks like your source was right, GRDad.

[GRDadof3]

2 hours ago, GRCentro said:

Well, this is a surprise. 

Looks like your source was right, GRDad.

Wow! 

<

[Chester Cheeto]

14 hours ago, GRCentro said:

Well, this is a surprise. 

Looks like your source was right, GRDad.

I have to say I find it highly appropriate that the last two things standing are the much maligned 6x6 wooden posts.  Keep standing little fellas, nobody believed in you!

[GRCentro]

6 hours ago, mielsonwheels said:

I have to say I find it highly appropriate that the last two things standing are the much maligned 6x6 wooden posts.  Keep standing little fellas, nobody believed in you!

Ha - right! One of them was even knocked over while I was watching, but the beam still didn't fall. The operator tried working around it for a while, but too much debris was in the way. He gave up for the day.

...but all without HPC permission or even a demo permit from the city. So much for my "let's give 'em a chance" optimism. 

[x99]

1 hour ago, GRCentro said:

Ha - right! One of them was even knocked over while I was watching, but the beam still didn't fall. The operator tried working around it for a while, but too much debris was in the way. He gave up for the day.

...but all without HPC permission or even a demo permit from the city. So much for my "let's give 'em a chance" optimism. 

Yeah... Someone paid $225,000 for this all of 8 months ago.  This seems like a DIY job gone horribly wrong.  

[GRDadof3]

13 hours ago, mielsonwheels said:

I have to say I find it highly appropriate that the last two things standing are the much maligned 6x6 wooden posts.  Keep standing little fellas, nobody believed in you!

Here's what was approved for this building back in August:

http://grandrapidscitymi.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame&MeetingID=3518&MediaPosition&ID=2549&CssClass

[Raildudes dad]

The east wall didn't look to bad before they started. Now we know who the architect was.. i looked for an engineer in the packet but couldn't find one. That might be the problem (rolls eyes). I can't believe they didn't get a demo permit but maybe the building dept said take it down, it's unsafe.