Whoppers Contractors Tell Wright Homeowners

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:06 pm

I am starting a thread listing Whoppers Contractors tell Frank Lloyd Wright Homeowners. My all time favorite is from a carpenter who told a Wright Homeowner that "Structural Engineers over design and over detail things. Structural Engineers are too conservative." Carpenters in general do not understand or appreciate wood structural creep because it extends over decades in very small increments. They typically do not observe their work after it is completed. When a structural issue arises with their work their first reaction is to dismiss it as being a prior condition or the foundation settled. "It is the other guy's fault". The problem with not following the drawings and specifications prepared by architects and engineers is that rough framing in historic preservation is relatively cheap. What is expensive is selective demolition to get at the framing, install temporary shoring and bracing, and putting in finishes, wood trim, cabinetry, etc. back in place. Very little dollars are saved when well meaning carpenters go about their merry way, ignoring drawings and details prepared by architects and engineers.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:36 pm

There is ample evidence, in photographs both older and newer, of movement in more than a few of Wright's earlier hipped roofs -- some with a heavy load of tile, others without. I suppose only a careful look at the framing plans would reveal whether those rolling hip-lines are the fault of the architect, or of contractors taking the architect's specifications into their own hands. I can attest, as a fussy and increasingly conservative designer, that it is all too easy to dismiss another's work when its particulars exceed even our own standard ! You're right -- it's always "the other guy's fault" . . .

All respectable builders know and believe that it's well worth "doing it right the first time." The factors which confound that practice are, as you suggest, of interest to any restoration architect, and to many an owner (and, one hopes, any builder and any architect).

SDR

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:42 pm

My favorite story to add to this thread is one I personally witnessed concerning the Feiman House when it was owned by previous (not the current) homeowners about twelve years ago.

I, and a friend, had arranged a visit with the homeowner. As we approached the sagging cantilevered porte cochere the owner was talking to a carpenter who said, just as were drew within earshot, "What you need here is a post to hold this up."

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:52 pm

It wouldn't surprise me if every single owner of a Usonian with a cantilevered carport roof had heard that advice, at some point, from someone -- sag or no !

It's still funny. Not everyone -- least of all a respectable if unimaginative builder -- "gets it." Paul Harding's point might be that it's the conservative builder who we should trust most ?

SDR

egads · Post by **egads** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:59 pm

It's my observation that overdone usually ends up being just barely enough over time.

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:04 am

Not so much a contractor, but a home heating oil provider, upon learning that I was going to remove a buried oil tank and convert the house to natural gas, tried to convince me that my house (Sweeton) could not be heated by natural gas as there was "not enough energy in the gas to overcome the heat loss of all of the windows". The same person also warned that the gas would leak into my ducts(!) and cause an explosion....this was said AFTER I explained that the house was heated with hydronic floor piping.

I'm very glad to be divorced from the home heating oil industry.

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:38 am

I think contractors have become more educated over time. The photo below shows the Jacobs House in Jan, 1983. The new owner of the house called a roofing contractor about the condition of the roof. They found 16 layers of built-up roofing - so many layers, that large pyramidal roof vents were added to remove the air pockets between the layers of asphalt laden felt during the summer months. His recommendation for a long-term solution? Add framing as needed to install a sloped, hipped roof and install asphalt shingles. "That's the only way to fix a flat roof".

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:52 pm

egads wrote:It's my observation that overdone usually ends up being just barely enough over time.

And then sometimes it's not...

My 1920s era garage was framed with 2x4s 24 inch o.c. for both the walls AND the roof. The amazing thing is there was not sag or deformation anywhere. My conclusion was that the quality of 2x4s was better then.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:23 pm

I'm not sure when the 2x4 began to shrink from its original dimensions, but . . .

There is less than 2/3 of the material (cross section) in a modern 2x4 (1 1/2" x 3 1/2") than in a full 2" x 4" stick.

SDR

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:32 pm

the size really hasn't varied much - at the turn of the century I've run into 1-5/8 x 3-5/8, but even that is rare - the current size has been in use for sometime. The big difference is that current pine framing is primarily produced on tree farms that regularly fertilize and are grown in close proximity to one another. The structural engineering groups are constantly reducing the strength of standard lumber - nothing like the old-growth stuff at the turn of the century. I'm quite sure that if you weighed a one foot section of 2x4 from 1910 to a current piece it would weigh at least twice as much.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:37 pm

The point of tree farming as you describe it is to produce straight-grain lumber with relatively few knots ?

SDR

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:39 pm

straight, knot-free as quickly as possible

peterm · Post by **peterm** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:22 pm

Having recently relocated from California, I was initially surprised when I read outside in referring to pine framing. In California it's mostly Douglas Fir. I would guess that pine is even structurally weaker than fir?

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:54 pm

Our 1901 FLW Davenport House had true 2" x 4" wood with very tight intense growth rings that is quite dense and heavy. Today's 2x4, actual 1 5/8" x 2 5/8', is more like balsa wood. Quality control on top of it all is lousy even with best grades.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:07 pm

2x4s here are 1 1/2" x 3 1/2" -- have been for a long time. And yes, they get lighter in weight. I wonder when LVLs will replace even these minimal members.

Of course, with changing R value requirements, more walls are being built with 2x6 studs these days. I wonder if the increased section would translate to increased spacing -- say, 24" instead of 16" ? Something tells me the answer is no. Every part of the building system, and its services, is represented by its own legislative lobby, I presume . . .

SDR