Structural engineer Site Conditions report prior to design work?
I’m in beginning stages of planning a renovation to our circa 1900 Boston suburb home. Should I get a Structural Engineer’s Site Conditions report (about $1200) before proceeding to discuss with architects/ design-build firms?
There are a number of obvious items such as sunken front porch, a broken joist in crawlspace, dips and sinking in floors, etc.
The Site Conditions report would call out potential foundation and structural issues, a report on level of the house, and other items after a non-invasive walk-through and evaluation.
My thinking is that I want to get a baseline of what we’d have to fix even before actual improvements are made.
Should I move forward with a Site Conditions report, or should I at least have a sense of what we’d like to do in terms of design?
Replies
Sounds like a wise thing to do. Is the architect/ design/build team aware of your observations? What have they said about it?
This is interior renovations or are you also adding on the building?
I have not retained an architect/design-build team yet but those who have visited have affirmed my observations (which are quite apparent).
The renovations will likely include a small addition (kitchen expansion plus interior staircase). It's a 2-family without a connecting staircase, and we want to soft-convert for single-family living (ie retain the two-family designation in case we want to do an in-law suite or rent out both units again in the future).
That sounds like a great price if it will include everything you mentioned.
Thank you.
Just to be clear, they'd only be evaluating current conditions--calculations on any additions/improvements wouldn't be included (or discussed in depth for that matter).
I agree the price seems fair.
A few thoughts. You would gain by also Identifying the architect you would be planning to use. Without formally engaging them, they could tell you what structural engineers they work with on projects of this sort. The nexus between architect and structural engineers is more involved and nuanced than most appreciate. The majority of residential architect even competent ones, lean on structural guys/gals more than most clients grasp. In the continuum of artists, designers, architects, builders, structural/civil engineers, most architects by training self selection and experience lean more and more to the left side of this line. There is more structural engineering input, than is often apparent as the architect often engages structural as a sub contractor and this dialogue goes on behind the scenes away from client. That said you can still occasionally find a deeply experienced committed framer (e.g., mike Guertin types) who knows what they are doing and and will be Abel to shore up that structure with old school framing legerdemain . They are increasingly few and far in between as framing is increasingly a commodity, even for ‘custom homes’…as an aside, just as I would identify an architect before i identity a structural engineer, I would identify a hood garner before I engage a builder. Unfortunately , it’s hard to sequence that way, that’s not typically how marketing/introductions work in the industry.
Not meaning to insult.
But, that was a mouthful.
I could simply have said, engage your architects structural engineer for this evaluation, but I’ve found even many builders don’t grasp the details/nuance/relationship I described. To expand, most architects have more than 1 structural on speed dial depending on complexity, costs, etc. yet they are not going to present that menu to th client, ie do you want the anal costly structural or the casual one that’s we’re simply purchasing his stamp and insurance for ? Or something in between?. But at all tiers, the architect has determined they can work well at the chosen level efficiently. . Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a slave to complexity detail and anality. Residential construction is rapidly evolving between a race to the labor costs/profit expectations/work habits, and improving technology and codes. I prefer to interact at several points directly with structural and architect, (e.g., we’ve got a tie down in this corner, what’s it going to cost to add it to all corners? What’s it going to cost to use lvl headers everywhere not just where it’s mandatory? Why not mid span brace all floor joists? Architects and structural engineers have no idea what costs a are, and builders aren’t typically transparent about costs, esp at the change order level. it’s mildly expensive and cumbersome often Balked at by both parties, but ‘go big or go home.’ Experience has taught me you should e either buy a spec house with your finished (Ie’ custom’) , hire and pay a mike guertin clone, or be deeply engaged in hall aspects of the build.as for architects , look at steve bazcks designs,drawings detail. I have very different tastes and style vs steve, but his detail simply blows away 99% of the plans - and we are talking $30 sf design fees even , you see in even custom residential design.he’s a rare architect who spent as much time on site as he does in front of his CAD programs, understands how houses are actually built.and how many structural engineers ever end up walking the house before drywall? I wish I could tell you building a house that will last several generations and justify the huge costs these days is simple and easy…..it’s not.
Whew.
How about we all chip in a few spaces, carriage returns, and a few trips to the spell checker.
He’s potentially way smarter than me.
But I’ll be damned if I can figure it out.
One thing I know for sure. I’m not asking him for directions on where to get a beer in Milwaukee.
my father-in-law tells me: "I asked for the time and you built me a clock."
With an existing home a good structural engineer's (SE) evaluation is going to be invasive. Even with extensive experience evaluating 1900s buildings he/she is not going to have x-ray vision. Peering behind finishes is essential.
That said, involving the architect's spatial vision of the finished product may or may not fit well within the evaluated structure.
Certainly getting a SE assessment of the structural shortcomings can work well with the architect's vision. Or not.
Now, all of that said, as an SE I also want to work with the hands-on guy (the builder). That person has acquired wisdom not taught in any school. Often, the best solution to a gnarly challenge involves a combination of hands-on wisdom and engineering design insight. All of which, of course, must work in tandem with the architect's spatial vision.
The ideal approach involves a cooperative combination of the previously mentioned (3) entities.
[MA licensed S.E.]