Is this building OBVIOUSLY bad?

[Slimmons]

I see these in metal warehouses at the Port of Long Beach.

I just reread this whole thread. Kind of a cool looking building inside and out. The inside aesthetics were ruined by the foam. The more I see this stuff the less I like it exposed.

So it looks like an interior structure properly built using the existing as a non structural shell is the going forward answer. Save any money to be spent on engineers for what was done, and attorneys to put towards the solution. The solution may end up costing as much as the original building save for maybe windows and a percentage of roof and siding.

Building this 'endoskeleton' inside to me is the best answer. Back a few pages someone suggested a large beam or 3 perpendicular to the rafters essentially making them purlins has a good thought. IDK much about metal buildings but new trusses on new posts set in between the skinny ones might solve the roof aspect and add back some aesthetics.

That and some additional wall bracing might save this.

Out here in the West having commercial space with all the mechanicals exposed has been popular for at least 2 decades. Conduits of electrical, HVAC, sprinklers and other plumbing all exposed against a black background above and liberal use of sheet metal products on the walls like corrugated galvy steel or even decorated chain link. Murals on vinyl and things like that.

Then with lighting focused downward the above stuff just blends into some kind of infrastructure. Actually, a lot of planning goes into the lighting. I see this turning out quite nice if done right.

Haha, yeah, the spray in foam did nothing for the looks. BUT, the plan was never to leave any of this exposed. It WAS going to have all sheetrock over everything, but now I'm going to go with something much lighter. And I haven't done that yet because of the water leaks. So, at the end of all of this, if I still have a building standing, there won't be any exposed conduit or anything.

 

[CraigStu]

Re; walls and shear strength. I wonder how much it would help if they were covered w/ osb or plywood properly screwed to the existing steel tubing.

 

[Zeke]

I seriously doubt the original builder knew about the sheetrock plan. That's a ton of weight.

 

[Fixr]

I seriously doubt the original builder knew about the sheetrock plan. That's a ton of weight.

Looking at the photos in the beginning of the thread, I think there was a whole lot the builder didn't know about. Like, how to build a large shed-roof building. The roof trusses just look bizarre, with effectively near-zero triangulation.

 

[andyvh1959]

Yeah, building a structure inside now is the easy answer, structurally. But the leaks potential is as big an issue. To address potential roof issues almost means something on top, outside of the current roof, something you know does not leak. A coating? Rubber roofing? But then, that's more weight again, on top of a questionable structure. At this point, what is there is barely more than an oversize fancy carport, if that.

 

[Joemctag]

I seriously doubt the original builder knew about the sheetrock plan. That's a ton of weight.

I advise you to leave all of the steel-building “ envelope “ accessible from the interior. You have a whole lot of space = cu. Ft. Please don’t build out right to the exterior walls. Leave 3’, +\~ to monitor and keep an eye on.
Good luck. A lot of us have “been there”. You’ve got probably hundreds of us wanting you to get a workable outcome , after it’s all over with . And, you’ll e a much wiser and experience’d person , than most of us could be, after it’s all over with . Good luck! We’re all wishing you the best. Again, you didn’t really make any mistake that caused all this.

 

[PugetDude]

Any updates on this fiasco?

 

[Slimmons]

Any updates on this fiasco?

A small amount. I found a builder who is also an engineer. He's going to give me 3 plans with quotes.

1st plan: Tear down the building and rebuild.
2nd plan: Do what he would do and tear out the insulation/metal exterior, and fix it correctly
3rd plan: Build structures on the inside of the building to make it "strong enough"

I'm then going to try to talk the original builder into paying for #1, which I'm certain won't happen, then #2, which I'm hoping will happen, and if all else fails, #3. Honestly, I'd be happy with #3 at this point. The plans for making this structurally sound from the inside aren't insane. They aren't simple or cheap, but it's not like I'm tearing down the building.....which does seem insane. I don't have the plans or prices yet, but I have an idea how much #3 will cost. If the original builder does not say he'll do at least #3, and sign something saying he will, then I will buy another house, and live in that while I sue.

 

[Dig Doug]

There is a lot Wrong in this thread !!

The contractor isn’t going to do anything because he doesn’t believe anything is wrong with His design & build
the builder doesn’t have anything in writing to hold against him

You can get 10 engineers out there and you’ll have 11 different designs

The OP should have received drawings and structural calks prior to starting any build, so much unknown - from the slab, to the walls, to the roof. All these connections need to be documented

I feel, at this time your stuck and need to build a case

Start looking for issues, make a log book and record data weekly
make your case -

Review pics and footing depths, rebar, hold downs, concrete tickets from the pour

get a string line on every truss and measure defection
get a string line on every post ( below the truss ) and measure for deflection, possible bow out
get a laser level and make sure the corners are plumb
check door openings for square
etc

a lot of data can be made/ generated over time

after finding deficiencies and documentation of each, you can then go after the builder
he can fix it or pay to have it fixed
or sue for negligence

in court

You’ll get someone that says it’s bad

he will get someone that says it’s good
and
then you’ll be out a bunch of cash and he will file BK

once you get legal counsel involved - he will shut down and not respond and cut off all communication

I hope Your made whole and get the garage you paid for !

 

[Hank11]

A small amount. I found a builder who is also an engineer. He's going to give me 3 plans with quotes.

1st plan: Tear down the building and rebuild.
2nd plan: Do what he would do and tear out the insulation/metal exterior, and fix it correctly
3rd plan: Build structures on the inside of the building to make it "strong enough"

I'm then going to try to talk the original builder into paying for #1, which I'm certain won't happen, then #2, which I'm hoping will happen, and if all else fails, #3. Honestly, I'd be happy with #3 at this point. The plans for making this structurally sound from the inside aren't insane. They aren't simple or cheap, but it's not like I'm tearing down the building.....which does seem insane. I don't have the plans or prices yet, but I have an idea how much #3 will cost. If the original builder does not say he'll do at least #3, and sign something saying he will, then I will buy another house, and live in that while I sue.

Go ahead and hire a lawyer to make whatever demands you have. That will get the contractor’s attention much quicker than you can. Its obvious at this point that your complaints mean little to him.

Your state’s laws are vital to your claim and local qualified legal advice is imperative. In most all of the U.S. what you have described are legitimate causes of action with remedies available. Do not take legal advice from the internet.

 

[strength_and_power]

Long read but definitely shows the supportiveness of the GJ members.

Which direction did this end up going?

 

[Slimmons]

@strength_and_power It's not completely resolved, but what's essentially happened with the structural side is that we're building a pole barn on the inside. Wooden framing on the inside as directed by a structural engineer. Instead of using new ceiling joists though, we've built a wooden structure on the inside that supports the existing joists halfway, so these now only span 20' instead of 40'. The engineer has dubbed it not perfect, but "good enough". It's basically myself and the original builder meeting in the middle. He has paid for all repairs.
As far as the water leaking goes, we're still working on that. The original builder has hired an army of handymen and window/door installers to figure out a good solution. None of them have come up with anything solid yet, but as of right now the builder has also said once they come up with something he'll pay for it.
Nothing so far has been a 100% fix, but I think for all of this we'll get "good enough". And yes, the support I got through this thread was fantastic, and endlessly helpful.

 

[readhead]

Sounds like you have a solid and workable solution. Kudos to the builder for not abandoning you.

 

[john.k]

Ive been in some incredibly flimsy framed sheds .....the old jam factory had a huge storehouse built of 1" waterpipe frame , it had lasted 60 years ........In 2016 I nearly bought a place with giant haysheds ...and I mean big...........again flimsy framing of a 30ft high tin shed (2 actually)..........and again over 50 years old.

 

[slim_grim]

Nothing so far has been a 100% fix, but I think for all of this we'll get "good enough". And yes, the support I got through this thread was fantastic, and endlessly helpful.

Right on. Good to see you finding a solution that you can live with. Everytime I get grumpy about codes, I remind myself that they exist for cases like this. Here's hoping for a speedy resolution to your leaks

 

[Two Pump Chump]

I didnt read all this . .. . . . .. . Were permits required and pulled for this ? And was it ever inspected by agency if yes ?

 

[Mattilac]

I didnt read all this . .. . . . .. . Were permits required and pulled for this ? And was it ever inspected by agency if yes ?

Why not read it?

 

[Two Pump Chump]

I missed it when I read the first several pages. No inspections or permits required. So. Let the buyer beware. Even BFE Idaho requires permits and inspections for almost anything.

 

[PugetDude]

I missed it when I read the first several pages. No inspections or permits required. So. Let the buyer beware. Even BFE Idaho requires permits and inspections for almost anything.

Remember when Boundary County eliminated their building department and did away with permits and inspections? State still required electrical work to be permitted.

 

[Mr. D]

Just because no inspections or permits are required by the local government (a good thing) the owner can hire their own inspector / engineer as required.

 

[Thirdyfivepickup]

glad progress has been made. Hope this works out. What a ***********

 

[Mr onetwo]

Something that was mentioned awhile ago, but not addressed...you need to find out what metal was used on the roof(both manufacturer and profile). To my knowledge, most exposed fastener roof panels need a minimum roof pitch of 3/12 unless special measures are taken.Was the roof installed to the manufacturers specs?Were the lap joints installed properly? If not you are going to have problems. https://www.westernstatesmetalroofing.com/blog/low-slope-metal-roof-panels