Uneven drywall ceiling – new construction
Hello guys, we’re currently having a new tract home built in California built by one of the nation’s Largest home builders (emphasis on the L in large.) Needless to say, a lot of the labor has been very unskilled, it is clear they are throwing these homes up as fast as they possibly can and using the cheapest labor possible. I have already complained about a few things to the builder; some they have addressed and some they haven’t. The bowing drywall in the master bedroom is one of those that the are (so far) refusing to address. As you can see from the picture, the drywall is clearly bowed. I brought the issue up with our sales associate who took it to the construction superintendent, but now the ceiling has been taped and textured. They “floated” it a bit, but it’s still really noticeable and in my opinion looks like crap.
I am hoping to get the builder to agree to fixing this on the final walk though… I think the entire ceiling needs to be torn out and the whole thing furred-out. It’s clear that they did a poor job of shimming the trusses before hanging the rock. It’s 1/2 inch drywall over 24″ OC trusses.
Perhaps my expectations as to the quality of a tract home are unrealistic, but I am concerned that if we ever try and install crown molding or a custom paint color, the unlevel line between the ceiling and wall will be very apparent. Is this something that rises to the level of an actionable DEFECT under California law? Any advice on how I can force this with the builder on the walk-through. I have a sneaking suspicion that they’ll just shine me on, or just slap a bit more mud on the ceiling and call it “fixed.”
Replies
I'd say that's par for a cheap tract home (not that that's a good thing). That one joist was higher than the rest and they didn't shim it.
Until I remodeled it, the ceiling in our downstairs bath was 2" higher at one end vs the other, and the kitchen floor is still has a hump in the middle. (And this was a small builder, with a 2-man operation.)
There's nothing structurally wrong, so it's highly unlikely you can claim a "defect" under the law, unless there a statement of expected fit and finish in your contract.
what's the defect?
If you're expecting to force someone to do anything here, you'll first need to specifically describe how this cosmetic issue qualifies as an "actionable defect" under California law. That is most likely the same question a judge will want answered...if he or she doesn't throw your case out of the courtroom all together.
BTW, slapping more mud on could qualify as a reasonable fix. However, IMO removing all the drywall to shim a high spot on a textured ceiling qualifies as ridiculous.
Builder's definition of an actionable item
Thanks all for your input. Much appreciated.
Just downloaded a copy of the builder's warranty, which stipulates "A ceiling made of drywall that has bows or depressions that equal or exceed 1/2 of an inch out of line within a 32-inch measurement as measured from the center of the bow or depression running parallel with a ceiling joist or within 1/2 of an inch deviation from the plane of the ceiling within any eight-foot measurement is a deficiency."
It appears to me that there is definitely a 1/2 inch deviation from the plane of the ceiling. I will certainly know for sure when I bring a ladder and a 72" box level to the final walkthrough.
There is nothing wrong with filling a depression with compound. It's best to start with a perfectly flat surface before mud and tape, but finishers can work with worse than that.
Edit: I didnt read the part that that the ceiling is already finished. It can still be redone with compound if required.
You put your finger right on the problem. They did not fur/shim the bottom of the trusses before they put up the drywall and you got what the truss manufacturer sent them.
If the job super is not willing to fix it, I doubt it will be fixed unless you threaten not to close until they do.
Then it will depend on whether they think a year of delay (or whatever the case would take in court) is worth more than simply doing it right. They do have the option of simply giving you your money back and sending you down the road. They might believe it will be easier to sell the house again and get rid of a troublesome customer that will never be happy. That is not out of the realm of possibility and you trying to sue for "specific performance" is even more unlikely to result in a win.
More than just a small area
Here is a better picture to illustrate the problem. If it were just a raised area, I wouldn't have an issue, because that could be filled. But if you look toward the right hand wall, that area droops down about 1/2 - 3/4 inch off-plane (probably closer to 3/4") and is the lowest point of the ceiling. Ironically, on the other side of the room, the same thing occurrs, so the whole room has an ever so slight "dome" effect. (See the new photo for better illustration.) So, to actually "level" the ceiling, they would have to put about 5 gallons of mud the middle 70% of the ceiling. As others have pointed out, the builder probably will NOT budge on this, but I'm not going to give up without trying. My issue goes back to the crown molding though -- to me, if the ceiling is so off-plane that I can't properly install crown molding, it is a defect in workmanship and, as such, lowering my property value, especially if it's something that a home inspector may potentially flag on a future resale of the property.
Is the roof built with trusses? I know you mentioned trusses but it would be hard to imagine a truss crowning that bad. The times I have seen this is when the framers are either to lazy or to inexperienced to look for the crown on ceiling joist...
Yep, premanufactured trusses. I have some pictures that I took before the drywall went up. I'll have to see if there is something else they're nailing to on the right-hand side other than the trusses.
I've never seen drywall installed directly on trusses. All the houses I've worked on had 1 x 4" s 24" on center for the drywall to hang from. Low spots can be quickly shimmed in line.
Some builders will do anything to save a few bucks I guess. This is literally a few bucks too.
I can show you some..
Counting up here, looks like I have 38 experience mostly in Arkansas and have very rarely seen drywall not nailed to the trusses.
It can be made to work.
This isn't one of them...
Looks like the culprit is some badly crowned truss chords. Could it have been shimmed to plane out better for drywall? Sure; by a conscientious custom builder. But by a production oriented tract home framer? Not gonna happen. Just another example of getting what you pay for.
Here's a couple of solutions to consider:
1.Sounds like you're a person that expects a certain amount of precision in your life. I think that's great. But you're shopping in the wrong arena. My advice is to return your deposit, save your money, then hire a custom builder that can deliver a product that makes your life better and utimately makes you happier.
2. If you can't do that, than realize that you got what you paid for. I seriously doubt it is something that a home inspector would ever flag. The case your making for compromising the value of your asset is all in your head. Also, contrary to what you may think, crown moulding can easily be installed on your ceiling.... and made to look fine. If you're planning to paint very contrasting colors, that would be a mistake since you know the condition. Don't try to spotlight it. Stay monochromaic in your paint scheme; or close to it. Ony the most anal amongst us would be aethestically offended by it's presence in a tract home.
3. Try being real nice to your construction super on your job while it's still being finished up. Explain your OCD over a case of beer and a few extras bucks. He may just find a way to have his drywall/painter make it all look good for you in the end.
4. Lastly, buy some setting compound and fix it yourself after you move it. It will be a good story (with a happy ending) to share with friends over desert and coffee.
Good luck! And remember: There are some things to worry about in life. This isn't one of them.
With all due respect...
Thank you for your perspective, despite the slight appearance of dismissive condescention, although I'm sure that wasn't your intent. I guess since I'm only just spending a half milion dollars on an "entry level" home, I really shouldn't have much in the way of expectations or workmanship. I'll go an squirrel away another 2 or 3 million dollars so I can hire my own builder and pay a premium for him using a tape measure and a bubble level as opposed to "eyeballin' it." After all, the land and permits were about $100,000, labor and materials another $150,000-$200,000 give or take, so that only leaves a measely $200,000 for profit margin. And when margins are that tight, it's easy to see how a builder could justify not spening $10 in extra materials and $50 in extra labor to do things the "right" way. It's a "production home" after all, kind of like a 1985 Chevy Cavalier was a "production car." Save $5.00 per car and the savings realy multiply. And the best thing about it, nobody but overly picky people will even notice!
So, you didn't check this guy out before you hired him?
hardly
Doesn't matter what I imply; I'm not a mind reader and I'm not a party to the contract nor a lawyer representing either party.
Acutally the buyer here has already displayed a copy of the performance warranty terms...and has apparently had them all along. In fact, they are in line with NAHB's Residental Construction Performance Guidelines (3rd edition pg. 19 section 4-1-2) If I were a party to the purchase contract, then I would be bound by those objective metrics only. From what I've seen, this tract home builder is operationg within them and there is no issue to "correct" within the scope of his contract.
Chances are that a custom home builder would be more accomodating than NAHB's published standards and this would have not been a issue at all. Take any implication you'd liked from that statement.
Update
The warranty copy I have states that a bow or depression "within 1/2 of an inch deviation from the plane of the ceiling within any eight-foot measurement is a deficiency." I have measured the floor-to-ceiling height at the wall junction and, according to my tape measure, the ceiling has a deviation in plane between 1/2 and 5/8 inch over a very short span from left-to-right as shown in the photo. As such, the ceiling appears to be out of compliance with the parameters of the warranty and there will be an actionable issue to correct, should I choose to press the issue. I will wait until the final walk-through once the wall has been painted to decide whether or not I will be asking the builder to take corrective action to comply with their written standards.
I doubt it.
You're not measuring correctly. It's not an elevation measurement from the floor plane. The measurement is taken as deviation from the ceiling plane along the same axis in a straight 8' length. The deviation is what is measured in a perpendicular axis.
Framing tolerance can be applied seperately to the floor framing. That means that, theorectically, there can be up to 1" difference in absolute height between the subfloor and truss ceiling in any given 8' plane (parrallel to the floor and ceiling). FWIW, if your production builder is a member of the NAHB and is going by their performacne standards, then section 4-1-2 under Wall Framing states this:
"Observation: The wall is bowed.
Performance Guideline: Walls shall not bow more than 1/2-inch out of line within any 32-inch horizontal measurement, or 1/2" out of line within any 8-foot vertical measurement.
Corrective Measure: The contractor will repair the wall to meet the performance guideline.
Discussion: All interior and exterior walls have slight variances in their finished surface. On occasion, the underlying framing may warp, twist, or bow after installation."
Ceiling framing is not specifically addressed. However, (IMO) that is because it would be redundant; wall framing performance guideline can be applied to the ceiling framing simply by replaceing the axis along which you measure. In the case of a ceiling it would be a "horizontal" measurement rather than a "vertical" one. Further, the discussion point is put in there for legal reasons; not for giggles. It potentially relieves the contractor of a faulty workmanship claim.
Finally, this deviation is measured in the final finish. Your biggest gap is at a drywall butt joint in a pre-mudded condition. This area receives the largest quantity of mud which will surely close the gap that is shown here. It's interesting that you have not shown us a photo of the later stages of your "issue".
Your builder may fix your "issue" (if there is one) if they are good guys and want to close as sceduled with you. HOwever, I doubt they will be forced by an "actionable issue" as you claim. Either way, good luck with your concern.
OK, well...
However, assuming that the floor is level, it is still safe to assume that my preliminary measurements would still indicate a deviation from the plane of the ceiling. If I were to take a large box level and place it parallel with the ceiling across the affected areas, any perpindicular measurement of deviation in plane, that would be illustrated as a gap between the level and the drywall, would then be measured and would contitute the amount of the variance. Correct me if I am wrong.
Place the level AGAINST the ceiling and measure the gap between it and the ceiling. There's no other practical way to get it "parallel with the ceiling".
close
cybertoad wrote:
If I were to take a large box level and place it parallel with the ceiling across the affected areas, any perpindicular measurement of deviation in plane, that would be illustrated as a gap between the level and the drywall, would then be measured and would contitute the amount of the variance. Correct me if I am wrong.
...within 32" of length. The condition is considered a "bow". You don't need a large box level because "level" has nothing to do with the performance metric. Just a straight edge (i.e. a yard rule) would suffice for measuring acceptable devation. Please post a current picture of it for us with the yard rule in place so we can see what you're dealing with.
deadnut stop being a RICHARD.
what in the world do you think he was hoping to do with a box level? check the ceiling for level OR use it as a straight edge to be able to measure the "bow" in the ceiling??? (the subject of this entire thread)
yeah cybertoad, scrap your level...drive to michaels or joanns and buy a yard stick to measure your bow.
just because you hold others and yourself to the minimum standards of industry doesnt mean everyone else does. he is right, if there is more than 1/2'' bow in 32" and he is paying 1/2mil for a house he should be able to expect the decent looking ceiling in his bedroom.
suck eggs
As the O.P. indicated earlier, the builder's standards have already been specifically outlined. That is what he will be measured by in terms of expectations. I have seen no definitive evidence (thus far) that he has delievered outside of those performance standards. Conversly, I have seen evidence where the OP has misinterpreted those standards. Unlike your subjective drivel, I have addressed those relevant issues with facts and examples. You may not like them, but I could give a rat's a$$. Further my own building standards were never inferred, nor applied.
BTW, "decent" is a woefully inadequate and subjective term which doesn't have a place in anyone's performace standards--no matter the cost. I can imagine that even you believe your own work looks "decent".
Framing picture
OK, I dug up a framing picture and it's easy to see what the cause of the problem is. There is a different section of the roofline to the right-hand side, and the trusses are way out of plane -- not even resting on the top plate of the interior wall. Look at the difference in truss height. How hard would it have been to pull a plumb line and simply sister in some 2x4 or 2x6's to the sides of the uplifted trusses to get a LEVEL surface? Talk about lazy.
cybertoad wrote:
OK, I dug up a framing picture and it's easy to see what the cause of the problem is. There is a different section of the roofline to the right-hand side, and the trusses are way out of plane -- not even resting on the top plate of the interior wall. Look at the difference in truss height. How hard would it have been to pull a plumb line and simply sister in some 2x4 or 2x6's to the sides of the uplifted trusses to get a LEVEL surface? Talk about lazy.
You, sir, missed out on the sage advice that states "whenever you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging".
The trusses are not designed to rest (or bear) on the interior partition wall. If you look at your own photos closely you will see that the top plate is attached to each truss with a metal truss clip (similar to Simpson STC). This allows the truss to be locked laterally (in plan), but move in the vertical access with shifting roof loads (like snow) and natural setteling w/o adversely affecting the strucural integerity of your trusses. That "not resting" condition is perfectly normal. And going on about pulling a plumb line to sister joists? That's just plain crazy talk.
IMO your framing crew did a good job...and your builder does relatively clean work. It even looks like he has installed roof sheathing with a integral radiant barrier which is above par. You, on the other hand, clearly don't know what you're talking about... and appear to be a perpetual malcontent.
You are the proverbial pot
Wow, deadnuts, you really seem to be taking my workmanship critiques personally. It almost sounds like you're venting your frustrations toward your own past "malcontent" clients who were not happy with your own quality of workmanship, although I'm sure I'm wrong about that. Speaking of "sage" advice, I find it interesting how YOU are the only one on this forum who has been snarkishly refuting, nitpicking and dismissing nearly everything I say in a very troll-like manner -- to the point that others have actually called you on it.
My point in mentioning that the trusses were not resting on the interior wall was NOT to point out a structural defect; it was to point out that there is a difference in elevation between the bottom chords of the center trusses -- as opposed to the adjacent roof elevation to the right, where the shorter truss' bottom chords ARE level with the wall top plates. The bottom line is that the drywall is NOT affixed to a level surface, or a surface that is anywhere CLOSE to being level. As a result, the drywall has a *noticeable* bow because no effort was made to compensate for the differences in joist elevations. You can try and justify things and state that it's perfectly acceptable under such and such blah-blah-blah standards of "craftsmanship" not to have joints be IN PLANE before mounting the drywall -- but the end result is that the ceiling looks like crap to me and everyone I know who's been in the home and have shown the pictures to.
With regard to the "clean" work done by the framing crew, take a look at the pictures for a few examples of their work -- examples that I brought to their attention, they didn't fix, and so I've moved on. And as to the radiant barrior on the roof sheathing, this is not something "extra" the builder is doing -- it is required by California code. I'll guarantee that if it wasn't required, the builder wouldn't have spare an extra penny installing it.
And with that said, have a nice day.
cybertoad, i hope you find a reasonable compromise with your situation.
those pictures are pretty sorry, but the window one kills me!
what is a sad reality is that the IRC, NAHB guidlines and things like this are and have been established mainly to set up a basis to control proper building practices. Although some of these guidlines are standard in most cases, these are the bare minimum requirements to "pass".
Were we as an industry need better ourselves is always striving to meet our own standards and not just shooting for a passing grade.
I know that in my case, there are times when I have to do things simply because we are limited by a budget that does not allow for anything other than the bare minimum.
You are more than likely to invested in this home to back out of a closing but this is why it is important for a customer to do research about the builder, contractor, plumber...they will use. Everyone has different standards of acceptability and on the next go around you need to match up with someone who meets your own standards.
best of luck!
You complain about ..
the odd shaped blocking apparantly near some stairs? Granted, pretty ugly, but in no way appear to be a structural block of any kind. Therefore gaps and spaces make no difference. It is rough framing you know? You do realize that such blocks are covered by the drywall, right?
The only thing interesting is the fact that you've shown us just about everything BUT the finished textured ceiling that allegedly looks like crap.
cybertoad,
The mistake that was made is that the rock was screwed to the bottom chord near the wall. It should have been screwed to deadwood on the double out. Trusses will move with the seasons and the rock will move with them. I would fix this detail where ever the trusses cross a partion wall.
KK
Yeah, the most significant defect (though likely one the "spec" does not cover) is that the installation of the rock does not consider "truss uplift", and so it's likely that the wall/ceiling joint above that closet-like thingie will fail.
Just whan I thought I've heard it all from Dan...
So now you think drywall installation should be designed to handle "truss uplift". LIke what, during a tornado?
How near is too near?
At exactly what point are drywallers supposed to stop attaching ceiling dryall directly to trusses and attach to your suggested "deadwood"? Also, what specification guide references your detail? I ask because you have a vaild point of wanting to allow drwall attached to roof trusses to move independently from interior partition walls, but the concept is much easier to understand than to practice. Also a published specificaiton or performance guideline would help determine if absence of your dead wood practice is, indeed, a "mistake".
In reality, I doubt most production framing crews employ your technique after standing up and clipping interior partition walls. Not only because of the time factor, but also the amount of extra material needed to do so. Also, since success relies on both the framer AND, the drywaller, it would be hard apply responsibility for what you deem a "mistake"..
I will say that there are a multitude of nail pops and sheared corner taped joints associated with production framed tussed roof homes. Partially this isolation problem is to blame. However, it's usually is caused by poor weatherization of platform framing material during construction and can be remedied with retaping, point & paint once the home is well acclimated. It's also usually not considered a mistake or a warranty item.
What?
What is the "deadwood on the double out"? After 4O years framing and doing drywall I've never heard either term.
Mike,
We refer to the 2nd plate over the studs as doubleout. 1st is top plate. Deadwood is place on top of the double out to support the rock, usually when joist run parallel to the wall.
http://donan.com/what-goes-up-must-come-down-right/
KK
Thanks for the link coonass
Interesting article by Scott Warren, P.E. titled "What Goes Up Must Come Down…Right? A Truss Uplift Discussion". As usual, I'd like to challange it.
He states: "While the bottom chord remains warm and relatively dry in the winter, the top chord absorbs ambient moisture in the unconditioned attic air and begins to stretch. As the top chord “grows,” and the bottom chord “shrinks,” the truss changes shape and the bottom chord bows upward (Figure 1)"
Unfortunatly, I wouldn't give this article much credence as far as his explanation for truss arching because he lacks a basic understanding of wood science. Trusses can arch, but not neccesarily for the reason(s) cited. Here's why:
1. Truss chords lumber is subject to the same wood grain expansion and contraction properties as all other lumber. Lumber changes very little in length in the longitudial grain direction. You can throw a kiln dried 2x4x8' in pond and let it float there for a month. When you pull it out, it will still measure (for all intents and purposes) 96" in length. Radially the grain will have changed quite a bit...and tangentially even more. But radial and tangential moisture content movement does not effect truss chord length as the author describes.
2. The moisture content delta of truss wood in an attic will, in most cases, be negligiable. In my opinion, not enough to support substainal truss chord dimenional change* or truss geometery change...and certainly not enough to support truss arch action. Here's why: Moisture content of most truss lumber at the time of fabrication is somewhere in the neigborhood of 6-12%. Mold growth can be supported in framing lumber with a sustained moisture content of 19% or more. At most, there could be a 15% moisture content change in the top chord lumber before mold blooms could be sprouting all over the attic trusses... and roof sheathing. If this were happening, you'd have bigger problems than slight truss arching. An even if you let your attic propogate mold to a piont where you had an extreme 15% MC delta in a yellow pine chord, the net result in a 2x4 would be an 1/8" over its width and 1/16" over it's thickness. And none in its length.
CONCLUSION:
So truss arching can be a factor affecting drywall. However, not from moisture content changes. IMO it's usually a result of being loaded beyond working design capacity. Some examples could be extreme weather events (i.e. unexpected heavy snow loads, hurricanes, or tornados) or temporary heavy dead loads such as new roof shingles being stocked in an unbalanced or concentrated manor. The point being that truss arching is not normal...and not something, IMO, that regular drywall fastening schedules and "dead wood" blocking should necessarily or normally be modified or added for.
* that does not include changes in board length because, practically speaking, it just doesn't happen.
Thanks.
In Calif. we simply refer to it as a second top plate. What you call deadwood we call "drywall backing". I've only used this parallel to a joist or truss. Simpson makes drywall stops that can be used instead of backing. The edge of the lid is not nailed but supported by the rock on the wall. The stop keeps the lid from being pushed up. Often useful when backing has not been installed before a floor is sheathed.
most lively discussion here in quite a while
maybe stir a little more?
Only way to get a $2 mil house for $50K is to build it all yourself <G> DIY with judicious planning and purchases is about $10 sq ft (not counting diy labor) vs. $150 and up. <stir>
Lesse, on son's addition, it took us all of 15 minutes to shim one ceiling joist that needed it. Cannot have that waste of time on a tract home.
The original item that hit me in the thread was "1/2 DW on 24 centers" -- never have done 1/2 on 24, alsway have gone to 5/8, esp. on the walls. Of course, 50 sheets at $1.25 more a sheet is over $50, cannot have that type spendthrift in a tract home now can we?
That window pic was interesting, even hack DIYs usually are not that bad.
stir it up Marley
junkhound wrote:
The original item that hit me in the thread was "1/2 DW on 24 centers" -- never have done 1/2 on 24, alsway have gone to 5/8, esp. on the walls.
What advantage does hanging 5/8" gyp @ 24" O.C. on your top floor ceiling buy you? An unneccessary firecode rating, more dead load, and (perhaps) bigger muscles?
24" oc
1/2" will sag over 24". I used to always use 5/8. Now I use 1/2" ceiling board, available from a decent drywall supply. Not HD or Lowes.
mike mahan wrote:
1/2" will sag over 24".
No; it generally won't. USG rates it's regular 1/2" drywall for 24" O.C. framing when run perpendicular to the framing (as in this post). There are some limitations with regard to excessive, unsupported insulation and water based textured ceilings*-- but those are other issues that are exceptional.
http://www.usg.com/content/dam/USG_Marketing_Communications/united_states/product_promotional_materials/finished_assets/sheetrock-gypsum-panels-regular-firecode-cores-submittal-WB1473.pdf
We've hung thousands of sheets of 1/2" under this same spec linked above. I've never had one sheet sag or get a call back for such. However, we don't typically apply textures to our ceilings. GP does make a 1/2" ToughRock ceiling board, now, that is a lightweight gypsum panel specifically aimed at superior 24" O.C. perpendicular span performance. However, it is not required by code (or manufacturer specificaitons), you will pay more for it, and it is probably special order in most areas. IMO, manufacturers will invariably offer a 'cadillac' version of just about any commodity out there. Only you and your client can determine if the additional cost is worth it. I don't.
*original poster did indicate a textured ceiling was applied. It is debatable whether this particular finish would require a thicker or specialized ceiling gypsum panel for warranty purposes under his homes framing conditions. Only the specific drywall material manufacturer for this project could make that determination. However, I doubt it would be a local code inspection issue.
so ...
So you are going to build a $2,000,000 home with 50 sheets of drywall. Interesting. Even if you are only talking ceiling drywall you have 50 sheets times 32 sq ft each = 1600 sq ft. Wow a $2,000,000 house gets you a 1600 sq ft house. WOW. And 50 times $1.25 / sheet is not $50. You play a little loose with figures, would you not say?
And I would say even a 4,000 sq ft house has clse to your $50 k figure in framing mterials alone. I suppose you could cut your own trees and make your won shakes for a roof, and use a discarded horse watering trogh for a bath tub and ....
Why is the layout goofy?
yeah.....
I'm glad someone finally asked that.
Painted/textured picture
OK, here is the painted and textured picture.
I'm also throwing in another picture of their great "fit and finish" in a downstairs coat closet. Sure, it's "just" a closet, but that doesn't mean that this amount of bowing is acceptable. Oh, and did I mention that on our $5,000 upgrade cabinets, half of the drawer pulls are mounted crooked because the idiot who installed them didn't use a template. Guess they'll be replacing a bunch of door fronts.
well honestly this seems to have been a fairly good finishing job, the bow is very workable at this point. If they will not put in crown molding, you should consider getting some put in. it will pretty much eliminate rest of the issue.
just make sure the trim guy isnt the same guy that did the cabinet pulls...
The ceiling thing isn't nice at all. But if that's the worst you have, count yourself lucky. To fix it with mud now would be a mess. The contractor will be po'd if you make him do it and so he won't take the time to match the texture just right. Sorry.
The closet wall is horrible. I don't care if it is "just a closet." That shouldn't be like that. I see that they didn't cope the inside corners on the base trim. Is it that way throughout the house?
I hope you can get them to fix the drawer pulls. Watch out if they replace the fronts. The stain or finish may not match. Then you'll get to fight another battle. Watch out that he might try to add decorative washers that will cover the redrilled holes. Or, if he's extremely unscrupulous, he may simply fill the misdrilled hole with a dowel, then redrill. That will look like doo-doo but if there's nothing in the specs prohibiting it........
Talking with our Realtor
Didn't look at the other inside corners carefully, but I doubt they were coped. From what I've seen, it's a rare event to see that done out here these days with MDF baseboard. They just 45 it and slam-bam-thank you ma'am. Any baseboard miter out here with a 1/8" or less gap is "bueno" and they just glob on a bunch of Alex Plus and call it a day. And if you're really lucky, they might even fill in all of the nail holes prior to painting (but will usually leave the smudged glob of filler on the surface of the base.)
I was considering letting the ceiling slide, but after seeing the subsequent abysmal fit-and-finish workmanship in other areas, I've changed my mind -- especially since this issue was brought to the attention of the super when the drywall was first hung and they decided to proceed anyway without remedying the issue.
We have our national homebuilder's "new home orientation/walk through" on November 21 at which time I am going to bring up all of these items and insist that they be added to the pre-closing punch list (along with the SPECIFIC remedial action), to be completed prior to close of escrow. If they balk, next call will be to our Realtor who will communicate that closing is in jeopardy.
Thanks for posting finished photo cybertoad.
Looks to me like the ceiling has been featured and finished to be well within performance standard. FWIW, the other two finish conditions you show are unacceptable. IMO you have every right to expect these to be corrected.
Pic 284
Is that a UFO in your closet?