Hi,
I am building 4 townhomes in Los Angeles under a Small Lot Ordinance that lets me place them as close to 5″ to each other instead of the normal separations between single family homes.
My question concerns the walls between 2 typical homes. Since both walls are exterior walls, they need to be weather proof, but not finished (since you won’t be able to see into the 5″ gap anyway). How do I go about building these walls when I can’t get into the 5″ gap?
The construction is wood framing with typical gypsum, etc. They also have to be 2HR fire rated each.
I am considering making the walls out of CMU instead (forget concrete…too expensive in L.A.) and rolling the weather proofing on, but I prefer to use studs. If I use CMU block, I will have to furr it out and I’ll end up spending more.
I’ve attached a study render that I had done some months ago so you can see what I’m talking about.
Any ideas or thoughts?
Thanks,
Danny
Replies
Will the code allow you to simply connect the two buildings.... even if it's just the siding and roofing that connects? That'd be the easiest way out. 5" is a handful to deal with.... too close to be practical and too far apart to ignore. On condo projects in the past we were able to span the small (12") space with fire rated sheathing... so from the exterior they appeared to be one building but were 'techinically' two.
That would be my suggestion too. 5" is ridiculous.
Could you possibly build that wall finished then stand it?
that there is pretty stupid if you ask me. It seems you would be just asking for trouble.
That's typical in San Francisco where building lots are 25 feet wide. I only built one house there. I was shown as standard practice to build the property line wall on bracing at about a 45 degree angle. Put 5/8 drywall on it, then T-111 lapped to be waterproof. Then a lot of muscle to stand it up. The facade was stucco or some sort of better material with a piece of trim at the corner. There are miles of these. You can actually pull a house out and move it if you wish.
The whole set up seemed kind of hokey to me. Thought it would be better to have common walls like the poster above said.
John
Take a look at his drawing. If I'm not mistaken the 'break' is on that front section there... between the two first floor entry doors. That wall has got to be about 30' tall and pretty cut up. Not a great candidate for complete finishing and then standing. View Image
Hello all,Thanks for the lively discussion and responses. Yeah, building it flat and standing it up is not really an option since the firewalls are 4' stories high. I have seen two projects done like this in San Diego, but I haven't been able to find out how yet (working on it though), so I know it is possible.I think I can probably build one floor at a time and stand up the wall, but the material on the "exterior side" is what is going to be tough.
I would argue in favour of a common CMU wall that weather can't get too the middle of. No need for thermal insulation then, only sound protection.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I finally came up with an idea. After the two units are built, build a 35' tall fence. Make it 5" wide and make it out of caulk! Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Any ideas on the history of such a code allowance?Seems to me that at some point, any exterior wall would need maintenance. Impossible to do with a 5" gap.
Darrel,This ordinance was passed in 2005 so its relatively new. The approval process is taking like 18 months so there aren't any examples like mine. The projects that have been done are different in that they're buildings average 5' to 6' apart.
What do you do when termites eat the t111? Or a rat? Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
I don't have any ideas. I do have a thought.
I think CA has once again proved that they are incapable of producing sensible legislation.
How is the inspector going to get down 30 feet to verify that you aren't 4 7/8" instead of 5" ?
That is just a goofy law.
Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
The gap is too small for obese homeless people to fit into. That's discrimination. Why should only skinny people be able to sleep in your alley?
Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Termites and other vermins seem like a real concern. They can't be treated in the future. I would treat this area with a layer of concrete or deep layer of loose gravel.
I am just a rookie talking, but can you build the wall in sections (half and half, thirds, quarters per story), side with metal roofing or 1/4 inch cement board and flash the joints with aluminum? Next upper section can have the siding that's 3 inches overlap to the siding below and caulk any foreseeable gap with fire stop sealant? The flashing can be bent so that may be the sidings don't have to overlap at all.
I am just having fun with academic exercize, but hope this helps.
Hi K1c and others,the 5" gap will be closed off entirely with metal flashing, etc when the two walls are erected. That is precisely to guard against vermin, trash, etc that some have mentioned. That should also take care of most of the water issues, but as you all know, water always finds a way. I know someone mentioned how crazy this ordinance is, but other than allowing buildings to get ridiculously close (like mine), its a great ordinance. It lets you take a 5000 sf lot, that is normally zoned for only 1 or two homes and lets you subdivide it. Since each new smaller lot is essentially its own lot, what buyers are buying is not a condo, but a true single family home with no HOA fees, etc. So where you would normally have to add several hundred dollars to a mortgage payment here you don't have to. It also makes the project exempt from mulitfamily parking requirements, and from handicap accessibility requirements because under our code a single family home doesn't have to be accessible nor have guest parking. It also lets you go taller without having to have two forms of egress, which is the bane of a townhouse I'm sure you will agree.I don't have to make them this close, but with my particular lot, it's a necessary evil.This will be a challenge, but I think it can be done. I'll be sure to come back and post how we ended up doing it. BTW, I'm moving into one of the units, so over time I'll be able to tell where we succeeded and where we missed the mark.Thanks all!
If you build two units so close together that there is no way to repair or maintain the exterior walls, you may make money. I would consider it irresponsible. Whoever buys from you will not know that. Imagine how unhappy they will be a few years down the road if they have to deal with the consequences.
Go with pre fab units why stick build it?
Wallyo
The only thing I can think of besides CMU would be some sort of SIP, craned into place. Or (same difference) prefab the walls and crane them into place. Note that you'd only have to do this with one wall.
(I wonder how they inspect something like this? Do they take your word that everything is fire-caulked?)
BTW, how much gyp board does it take to achieve a 2-hour rating? Knowing this would help me visualize the problem better.
With a 6" stud, you will need 2 layers of 5/8" gyp on both sides.I'm not sure how they inspect it, but I'm sure I'll find out. SIPS are a very good idea. Hmmm.
My other idea would be DIY panels consisting of a layer of exterior plywood, two sheets of gyp sheathing board, then another layer of ply. The two gyp would be offset from each other horizontally and vertically by 2-3 inches (whatever the inspector allows) and similarly offset from the ply so that you have a tongue and groove joint between panels.Erect the stud wall, hoist the panels over the wall with a small crane or jib pole, then fasten in place with screws and cleats. Use fire caulk in all the joints.
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. --Bertrand Russell
Maybe I'm wrong, but I had the impression that the two hours was from living space to living space, so the two walls combined have to meet a two hour standard - each being designed to be a one hour wall.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Okay...so now it's time to get serious...now that I know you're going to cap it instead of leaving it open. I'd use galvanized steel siding....like they use on pole barns. I'd do the fastening from the inside with stainless rivets or whatever and spray foam the wall. No sheathings. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
11:42 pm is a funny time to get serious.
I agree...lets just go back to filling it with caulk. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
sheath the walls and fill the 5" with concrete...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
Yes...it's not part of the house..it's a 5" concrete fence! Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
yup...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
My thoughts
I am not sure that CMU is going to cost more than two separate surfaces double layered with drywall and weather proofed. Number crunching time.
I would look at the CMU in 4", then separate individual walls with 1/2" airspace for each side. Vertical fire stopping wouldn't be hard to achieve.
With the CMU you shouldn't need to drywall the CMU side of the walls so it become standard construction.
I don't have any idea how this would work out for seismic code though.
Yeah, seismic code would be a bear. You'd at least need to rebar and core fill a CMU wall, I'd guess, or use steel on the inside surface to reenforce it.I wonder how you even build foundations 5" apart?
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. --Bertrand Russell
build one wall....
foam core the 5"...
use the 1st wall as an ankor....
good reason to use ICF's....
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
In the late 80's I designed several commercial buildings that were 2" off the lot line with neighboring buildings within a foot. On one they used brick veneer laid from the inside, the other concrete block. I thought it was going to be difficult, but the Italian masons just laughed at me.
The real fun were the foundations that had eccentric footings and sacrificial formwork that was designed to be buried. You might want to make sure you have thought through the implications any choices you make from foundation to roof.
If they allow you to flash the opening so there really isn't an opening, would they let you build one unit and then build the other unit starting with "firring" of PT 2x6's or steel against the exterior wall of the first unit (2 or 4 feet on center), then applying the siding material of the second unit to the firring, then building inward from there? (In other words, building from the exterior skin inwards on that side of the second building instead of outside last as is normally done.)
The main trouble I see with this approach is attaching the exterior "siding" to studs or flanges or blocking or whatever without causing lots of potential spots for air and water leaks. Guess you could use the rain screen concept--besides, how much driving rain or wind is going to get into a five inch spaced that is sealed at the edges? You could also make sure that the flanges or blocks fastened to the sides of the studs line up with the firring so your fasteners go into the firring.
I suppose you could even build with CMU's and put a rigid waterproof sheet on the firring that's on the outside of the first unit's wall and butter the outside of each CMU with some sort of waterproof sealant or mastic and press it against the sheeting, or waterproof as you go--do a row of block, reach down with a sprayer nozzel and waterproof that row (or a couple rows) then lay up the next couple rows, etc. Could do that without the firring and waterproof sheet.
I actually thing the last idea is best; lay up several courses of block, spray waterproofing on the outside of those, lay up several more, etc.
What about grouted cinder block, more money earthquake issues, engineering but no upkeep chance of rot etc. Still don't understand why not one common wall? At five inches lets suppose there is an even slight earth quake damage even to the foundation of one unit. How are repairs to the one made with out touching the other.
What do you do with the footing how does that not become shared?
Back to my prefab the attached pictures are of modular units on a foundation, they were lifted by crane into place. But the size of your project and conditions may not make it viable.
Wallyo
Once again...a very lively discussion with some good ideas posted.As to why not one wall, per the ordinance, each unit has to be structurally independent in order to qualify as a traditional, single-family, detached home. If they share a wall, then they're essentially one building with two units in it, i.e. an apartment or condo. In that case all bets are off and it just becomes another multi-family project that has to go by the same rules as usual.The ordinance was passed because here in West L.A. space is at a premium and the current zoning regulations make building so expensive that developers have no choice but to charge outrageous prices in order to compensate for underground parking, etc. By relieving some of those requirements, these projects can provide a single-family home, at a "reasonable" price (at least reasonable for West L.A which I know others around the country find ludicrous).Back to the construction question, I think the CMU idea of laying a few courses and weather proofing is promising. As for the footings, my structural engineering firm (Buro Happold from England) says that its no big deal. They do projects in big cities all the time that have similar constraints. I also like the idea of attaching furring strips to one unit's 'exterior' walls and then building "in." Very interesting.Once again, thank you all for the ideas.Oh yeah, to Sasquatch, in an earlier post I wrote that I am buying and moving in to one of the four units, so any decisions that I make will affect me too so I have a keen interest in building something that is not a maintenance hassle, thus I would hardly consider myself irresponsible, but your point is well taken.
At five inches apart doesn't the footing become shared even though the walls aren't.I realize this happens all the time when building to the 0 lot line in larger cities just never thought on how you don't share a footing.Wallyo
Edited 5/22/2008 1:45 pm ET by wallyo
View Image
Close Window | Print Window
Fire and Sound Assemblies — Wood-Framed Wall
View Image
View Image
View Image
Base Layer: 5/8" ToughRock Fireguard gypsum board applied at right angles to each side of double row of 2x4 wood studs 16" o.c. on separate plates 1" apart with 1 7/8" 6d coated nails 24" o.c. Face Layer: 5/8" ToughRock Fireguard gypsum board or 5/8" Dens-Shield Fireguard tile-backer applied at right angles to each side with 2 3/8" 8d coated nails 8" o.c. Stagger vertical joints 16" o.c. each layer and side.
Sound Tested Sound tested with 3 1/2" glass fiber insulation stapled to studs in stud spaces on one side.
View Image
Fire Rating
Fire Test Reference
Sound Rating
Sound Test Reference<!--
Part. Thickness
Weight per Sq. Ft.
-->
Products Used
2 Hour
FM WP 360GA WP 3820
55-59 STC Sound Trans.
NGC-3056 <!-- 10 3/4" --><!-- 13 -->
5/8" ToughRock Fireguard
View Image
Legend
Abbreviations
Key
FM
=
Factory Mutual Research Corporation
View Image
2 x 4 Wood Stud
View Image
5/8" ToughRock Fireguard/DensArmor Plus Fireguard
View Image
View Image
View Image<!-- --><!-- Technical Service Hotline: 1-800-225-6119 (M-F, 8-5ET) --><!-- --><!-- -->
the sketch shows the plates 1" apart, changing to 5" is no problem. DensArmor is designed for exterior use, so getting it up in rough weather shouldn't be a problem. You could also consider using Shaft Liner.carpenter in transition
Hi timkline,This is interesting. My concern is that to the city, this may count as only one wall assembly and per the ordinance the units have to have their own "four" walls, if you know what I mean. However, if I can use shaft liner in that 5" gap, that may do the trick.Good stuff!
our viewpoints here are moot.
you need to hire an architect that will provide the design with your guidance on what is most feasible.
carpenter in transition
But you can't depend on an archy to come up with the right idea in the first place, so it's better to have some viable alternatives going in.
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. --Bertrand Russell
Since you mention earthquakes, I will mention that I experienced the 1965 Alaska earthquake in Anchorage. Cars in our parking area were swaying and bumping into each other. I saw trees sway and smack into each other and cross each other while swaying.
I can only imagine what two three-story buildings will do when they are 5" apart. I assume that they will destroy each other, especially if the walls are cinder block.
The hardest thing to believe is that CA will allow this type of construction in the first place.
You mean the 5" apart? When I mentioned cinder, I meant fully grouted and rebar filled with bond beams. As to earthquake I was trying to come up with some type of damage that may happen to one foundation but not the other. But the closeness would make repairs next to impossible. If both buildings are to be independent, I still don't see on how the footings are not to be tied together?Wallyo
If you've ever seen a vehicle plow into a CMU wall, you know how quickly it can turn to dust. Rebar embedded in concrete, beams, ties, and so on are necessary, especially in a wall that tall, but the lateral force of a foundation following the movements of the earth are very powerful. In addition, the ground moves in a wave. A single structure that is designed to survive a quake has a good chance of surviving intact, but two buildings that close together are a recipe for disaster. If they were to move in exactly the same way together, they would not knock into each other, but the chances of that are like throwing down a coin and expecting it to end up standing on its edge. I guess it could happen, but have never seen it in my lifetime.
Lots and lots of side by side houses survived the '06 quake.
View Image
Some even held each other up.
View Image Mike
Trust in God, but row away from the rocks.
I wonder who's living in that center one in the lower photo now.
I wonder who's living in that center one
Whoever it is probably paid a couple million, leaning or not. Mike
Trust in God, but row away from the rocks.
In earthquake areas, it is preferably to have buildings of similar materials adjacent to each other than not. Depending on the type of seismic wave, direction, amplitude, foundation material, height of building, mass of building, shape, and structural stiffness, if the resonance of the buildings are the same, you may see little or no damage because the buildings will sway with each other. If the are different, then you will see the buildings slam each other apart.
Also, if the period of the seismic waves matches that of the building, even a stand alone building can be shaken apart due to the fact that its resonance can be amplified by an earthquake.
Earthquake design is an interesting topic. Been a dozen plus years since I studied it, but somethings stick.
OP needs architect/engineer input on this.
Impossible is an opinion.
I understand and agree. I also am a former engineerguy. Being an engineer does not make anyone an expert in engineering or in common sense, though. The field is too broad.
I just know that when I managed some large projects in CA, the structural engineers in CA had to have qualifications in seismic topics. Even the structural steel fabricators had to have a special California certification. For one facility, a San Diego firm that had years of experience in the state was in danger of losing their contract because their structural steel provider in LA did not have his certificate.
I think we all agree that this is a completely nutty code where political pressure led to a new building code that mandates a round square. Or a four sided triangle.
The permitting section of your building department won't help-- they will just look for the requirements for a round square or a four sided triangle. I have actually seen them approve things that are not possible in three dimensional space.
But you actually have to build it and be responsible for it. If the code calls on you to do something that will absolutely fail and you do it, you can still be sued. Trial lawyers live for this kind of thing.
In the early 80's after the oil shocks, the new code in our area called for ridiculously tight structures with vapor barriers on both sides of the outside walls. People who rigorously followed the code had horrible black mold. And they got sued and driven out of business.
The builders who survived had smart inspectors who told them not to pay attention to the double vapor barrier requirement. Or they pulled it out themselves right after the inspector had signed off on it.
I would suggest you work this whole thing out with your building inspector.
You have several concerns that have been noted in these posts if you build these places with a true five inch air separation. That 5 inches is nothing but a prescription for trouble. Maintenance, pests, vegetation, water intrusion, etc. etc. But being in California, your biggest concern is seismic. As someone else noted, 5" is just the perfect distance for those two adjoining buildings to smack into each other during a quake. On the other hand, if you connect them with a party wall, they both become seismically stronger.
Eventually, you will talk this over with your inspector and one of two things will happen.
If your inspector keeps saying that it should be "built per plan", you are just going to have to deal with that 5" of airspace somehow. I would put all my concerns in writing and get that inspector to put all his judgements in writing so you have some backup in court.
If your inspector listens to the problems that the 5" is going to cause, and he is senior enough to have his own opinions, he will tell you that what he would like to see is some kind of rational party wall system there.
My suggestion is that you shop around for the most flexible, most senior inspector in your area and work out the problem one on one.
Seems that there's a potential here that the maintenance/engineering hassle of the 5" gap may outweigh the code frustrations with building a multi-unit dwelling with shared walls in the first place.
Now that should be a crime - a bureaucratic crime!
Why is everyone in such a tizzy over this? Here in San Francisco, my house is about 1" from the house next door, it's been here over 100 years, and there is no evidence of any problems in that exterior wall. The whole city is built like this- seems to work OK. Maybe 5" is too far apart.Bill
Sounds to me like an architect has, once again, designed something that can't be built.
Build the first wall and finish it off then build the second wall, go back to the first wall and cut access holes in it every few feet or so, that you can reach through, to finish the second wall?
Don't scoff at it till you give it a try then report back so that we all know how you did it!
This is why SF burnt to the ground, every house that caught fire caused the neighboring house to burn too.
Edited 5/23/2008 5:01 pm by woodway
That's easy. Just look at the model.
Get giant sheets of white Strathmore paper and a truck load of 55 gallon drums filled with Elmers Glue and you're good to go.
Runnerguy
PS: And don't forget only residents with white cars can live there. Make it a property covenant.
Looks like a fun project. Are you the first one to build under this ordnance? If not, I'd get the name of someone who has already faced this problem and see what they came up with.
Maybe its the day I'm having but....
This sounds like a multi-unit mcmansion on a single family lot. How is that a good idea. You don't have to provide reasonable parking? That'll be good for the neighborhood. C'mon over to mine where the street is filled with illegal tri-plexes with no parking....sure is fun.
This doesn't sound like sensible infill housing either-is this located next to a transit hub? Is it in a 'walkable' neighborhood?
You get to build them taller than the existing buildings? Legally mandated out of charector and out of scale buildings? That'll be good also.
This sounds like an equally stupid SF law that allowed cheap live-work 'units' to be built without all the pesky safety features a real condo devlopment would need. Made a bunch of real estate developers rich thats for sure....
I do have a helpfull suggestion. After the buildings are finaled fill the space between with closed cell foam. It'll insulate and lock those buildings toghether like a mofo.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
Actually, these are nothing like McMansions. Let me straighten you out here please.The lot is zoned R3, which means that by code, given the lot size, I can put 7 units, i.e condos or apartments on here. The height limit is 45' with no gimmicks or variances. All around me that is exactly what you see: 45' boxes with multiple units (condos and/or apartments. The guy who was bidding on this site besides me told me that if he had acquired the property that is exactly what he would have built. The parking requirement for 7 units, in this area, per the local zoning would have been 16 cars.This is what I'm doing. - (4) Townhomes. Not 7. 1100 SF to 1450 SF 3 Bedrooms. That's pretty small by today's standards in L.A. for a 3 bedroom.
- 31' high, except for a portion of the Master Suite that sticks up another 7'. This is about 1/3 of the building profile. The lower height is facing the street, not the high side.
- 8 parking spots (2 per unit); not 16. This is an increase of only 6 cars given that the current house counts as 2 spots already.Before I even considered going to the city with plans, etc, while I was still in escrow, I went to the neighborhood council, although I didn't have to, I wanted to have them give me a vote of support. Without it I would have walked away rather than get into a prolonged fight. I'd rather concentrate on the projects I can do and not the ones I can't.There were 13 council members. The vote was 11 in support. 1 Against. 1 Abstention. I don't think many of the condo developers around me would have gone to this extreme to create a project that is viewed positively by the neighborhood.I am deconstructing and demolishing the existing house. 75% of it will be recycled. The existing concrete pad will be ground up into small 6" - 8" diameter chunks and will be re-used as a rock wall / fence (a little tough to explain, but its going to be very cool).And L.A. is incentivizing green projects, which I know is starting to be almost fad-ish, but I hope to get at least a LEED Silver rating.In short, I think I am being very responsible and mindful of what I'm doing.Incidentally, as an aside I am working on a position paper that hopes to analyze how this ordinance has worked during the 3 years it has been in force. I don't know what the result of that is, but I hope to conclude my research and write the paper around August of this year. I'll post it here if anyone would like to read it.I don't know what your definition of a transit hub is, but there are two major streets to the North and South of this street with countless bus lines going to and fro.Safety. This project has to satisfy all of the building and safety codes. What gave you the idea that it didn't? Believe me, I'm going to get grilled by L.A. Building & Safety.Rich? Not this developer. My projects are always small and architecturally rich (I hope). Sure, I make a profit, but I ain't rich...just ask my wife.Lastly, I love your foam insulation idea...that's actually pretty neat!Take care Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
guess the fence idea didn't catch on...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming
WOW!!! What a Ride!
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
I know where I'd be dumping all my ground up concrete...and chunks of drywall! Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
I would think SIP is the way to go if you can't reach an agreement with the owner of the adjacent building to join the two. There are a bajillion SIP builders in California. If you used a Urethane core SIP, you would also achieve your fire rating. And there is no saying that you have to go 5". In fact the last FH had a great "skinny lot" house. If your design requires that you have a finished wall 5" away from your neighbors wall, it's a bad design. It is more appropriate for sound, fire saftey, maintenance, looks and cost to connect the house with a soundproof wall that will act as a fire curtain as well.
Using a stick wall here would be insanity. Something that might cost you more up front is going to save you a TON of heartache in the long run.
I've been giving this concept more thought since I realized that he can put 7 units onto the lot. I still think the city would be wise to allow common walls but...since they don't...I'd probably be thinking of building the walls in some form of easily removable components. I just haven't figured out which ones. I'd want to have the option to yank out a component to get to the exterior from inside and be able to do it easily. But I still like the steel option. If the building is 40' tall, I might think about a tongue and groove type building exterior out of galvanized material. In 100 years, I could hire a crane and yank the panels straight up to replace them using a pile driver. All this stuff is way out of my league. Pay no attention. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Just an idea. Build the first and third or fourth units conventionally. The remaining units fabricate the adjoining walls off site including exterior finish, may be balloon frame them and set them with a crane. Then fill in the floor structure, front and back walls, and roof conventionally.
Ok outside the box thinking.
Really outside the square "Box".
Design the building with the common walls as arcs. They can be 5" apart at the closest point and that would still allow for painting etc. of any common siding.
Hey all,Here is an article that appeared the other day in the L.A. Times which highlights the ordinance I am using for my project.http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-small5-2008jun05,0,6419091.storyTake care.
The article didn't mention why they wanted to make each house five inches smaller instead of making common walls. I still don't understand why leaving five inches is serving the public's best interest. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
This system has always intrigued me.
Don't know if it's code for earthquake city or not but would give you the concrete facing between buildings.Of course I read everything on BT and haven't a clue how you guys can be so smart.oops forgot.... http://www.allwallsystem.com/Pete
Edited 6/13/2008 8:49 am ET by gotcha
Pete have you used this all wall system? The site reads like a bad translation of a foreign language.Wallyo
No, I haven't.
The site I pull up is very detailed and to me understandable. Considering I know little of actual building the system, it seems very doable for many buildings
Pete
If, on the off chance, you are still active on this forum 15 years later -- how did you end up doing this? I'm working on a similar project now (city is requiring separation of garage and house exterior walls, and ~ 6" of separation keeps walls of our sizes/design safely apart in the case of earthquake racking... which is crazy, but we decided to move forward to maximize the size/usefulness of our home), and would love to see how it was done, how you maintain it, and how it's holding up.