Would you ever do a structural assessment of a building in "bad shape"? 8

[Ben29]

Bad shape = 170 years old, 1-story brick masonry bearing wall building with steel roof trusses, partial roof collapse for at least 8 years, open to the weather, tree growing inside building, etc.

If you were going to do an assessment on this building, what legal precautions would you take to protect yourself?

 

[StrucPatholgst]

I think we're all forgetting that ASCE 11-90 doped this all out several decades ago.

 

[phamENG]

rb - there's always other options (well, almost always). Around here, we have historic tax credits. If you meet all the wickets, you can get tax credits back worth 40%+ of the construction costs to restore the building. There's a fair amount of red tape, but there are firms that do nothing but the paperwork for these credits. It's one of the reasons we have so many old industrial districts turned trendy apartment districts. Those old warehouses can be adapted to apartments with relative ease, and the developer saves quite a bit of cash vs. demo and building all new. So you could take this old building down, or you could pay $0.60 on the dollar to put a new roof on it and patch the walls.

 

[MotorCity]

It seems like the building being in bad shape would be WHY you would perform a structural assessment.

If the building was in good shape, why would someone want a structural assessment? (Unless maybe the use or occupancy of the building is to be changed).

As long as your assessment is honest and thorough, the condition of the building should not matter. Just report what you see and include any qualifications.

 

[Ron]

@RPMG....the way you frame your report can make you liable for the building.

 

[BAretired]

Would I ever do an assessment of a 170 year old building with a partial roof collapse, water problems and a tree growing inside the perimeter? Well I would definitely think twice about doing it, for sure. And perhaps think again before committing myself to the assignment.

It would depend, to some extent, on the purpose of the assessment. If the purpose was to give the client a rough idea of what remedial measures were required, I might consider it, but if the purpose was to satisfy a bank or lending institution who were considering lending money to my client to buy or repair the building, probably not. Banks want engineering assessments guaranteeing features about which the assessor cannot possibly feel certain.

BA

 

[dik]

Never use inspect... always review.

SRE: For a building of that time, I would make sure coupons were taken to determine what it was actually constructed of. Are there any heritage issues.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dhengr]

Ben29:
Even an old derelict building deserves a knowledgeable opinion as to its actual conditions, by an experienced Structural Engineer. How else will an inexperienced owner/buyer know what they have to deal with, and whether it is worth trying to buy or save? All of the above admonitions about contract language and our obligations, responsibilities, abilities and liability are absolutely applicable. But, owners still need an opinion from a knowledgeable third party who does not have a particular ax to grind. While there are plenty of good contractors out there, way too many of them will bias their opinions to the products or type of contracting services they offer. They are not really lying or acting fraudulently, but their opinion is not unbiased either. For example, you don’t often have a roofer tell you that you don’t need a new roof, after his free inspection. Although, this particular bldg. may actually need a new roof. Of course, you do have to be careful about what you offer or promise to do, about claiming what you can and can’t do, and about the wording of your report.

 

[Ben29]

Long story short, the owner of the adjacent building is trying to have this property condemned. A lawyer instructed my client to have a structural engineer give an assessment of his property "just in case". This assessment is not in conjunction with a sale or changing of ownership.

When I spoke to the client I said, "Are you looking for an engineer to tell you everything is fine? or do you want the facts?" I don't want to get involved with a client who is just looking for a certification letter. He said he wants the facts.

I budgeted 16 hours for the site visit and report, which I think is adequate given that this building is basically one big room with all structure exposed.

 

[Enhineyero]

Good discussion. Still torn on what would be the most suitable language to be used for this type of work. I'm abit uncomfortable using the word review as I feel most laypeople would interpret any review as a 'thorough' review.

Words that come to mind are: limited visual inspection, limited visual review, limited visual observation, 'i-walked-on-site-for-one-hour-and-noted-anything-i-saw-which-doesn't-look-right' report.

 

[rb1957]

the degree of "inspection" should be clear in the contract.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[Brad805]

In all my 30 years I have never had anyone answer the question, "Are you looking for an engineer to tell you everything is fine? or do you want the facts?," with anything but what you said they did. You need to do a bit of research to understand if the client is well financed, or just scraping by. Repair costs and losing money on an investment has a very interesting affect on people.

 

[BAretired]

Would you say this building is in "bad shape"?

BA