439 East 1st - Code Enforcement's Sneaky "Emergency" Demolition

[CCMjax]

Action News was there today.

Kim Pryor is on camera talking about this house.

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/neighbors-upset-after-home-built-in-1900s-came-down/151188684

I think Kim getting on the news helps raise public awareness.  It is a good small step.

[strider]

In the picture above, that wavy floor that was used as one reason that entire house had to go is supporting somewhere around 60,000 pounds. I was there yesterday and even with some of the piers missing, the crawl space was still intact.

Due to some of the issues recently with professional engineers and historic houses, perhaps a special course for them about historic structures and materials should be required prior to doing anything on a historic structure.  Either that, or they need to look up the meaning of ethics.  I hope the issue is the former but fear it is at least sometimes the latter.

[JaxUnicorn]

COJ's statement is:

"A city and private engineer evaluated the structure for safety and stability. After removing the rear addition, it was determined that the remaining structure was too unstable/unsafe to remain and was therefore also removed."

Interesting how they did what they wanted to anyway.  Sometimes I hate this city.

  That is because there are no repercussions for what happens in Springfield. It is the way it is. We can make a stink about it, get a little air time on the local news and a few days/weeks later....back to biz as usual.
  The only way to curtail this stuff is for everybody, I do mean everybody(not just 20 people) in the neighborhood to come together as one entity and get their shit together. Change laws. There has to be a landbank/nonprofit/preservation entity that all it does is buy/mothball/sell and fight for historic structures. We have to keep structures out of the hands of people who just don't care one way or another.
  I fear we're too fragmented though, except on FF's
  At least I got a couple dozen bricks out of this....

Preservation SOS tries...we really do.  We take the loss of these old gals personally as though they are a part of our family.  We spend countless hours trying to find ways to save them.  We fight and fight and fight long and hard and often times for the ones that no one else will fight for.  We try to convince private owners as well as the City of Jacksonville to protect these structures.  We work so hard for them because they are ALL important.  We do the very best that we can do with all we've got:  our voices and research skills and muscle and sweat equity and passion. 

Unfortunately our very small, truly non-profit organization has absolutely no money.  We are all volunteers who have separate full-time jobs.   I've searched for grants to help.  Of the grants I've found that we may qualify for, they all require matching funds....did I mention we have no money?   I think we've done a tremendous job so far with the resources we have.

If we had the means, mark my word:  we would scoop up every single one of these "ugly" gals and love and restore each and every one!

SAVE THE HOUSES!!

[02roadking]

I know ya'll do Kim.

[sheclown]

SAVE THE HOUSES

[CCMjax]

In the picture above, that wavy floor that was used as one reason that entire house had to go is supporting somewhere around 60,000 pounds. I was there yesterday and even with some of the piers missing, the crawl space was still intact.

Due to some of the issues recently with professional engineers and historic houses, perhaps a special course for them about historic structures and materials should be required prior to doing anything on a historic structure.  Either that, or they need to look up the meaning of ethics.  I hope the issue is the former but fear it is at least sometimes the latter.

As a structural engineer, I agree with your comment about a special course, or maybe better yet, a certificate to assess historic structures.  We engineers have all sorts of certificates/designations that we can obtain in addition to the PE license.  The two most popular for structural engineers in my experiences are LEED and Certified Threshold Inspector (in Florida) but I'm not aware of anything dealing specifically with historic structures.  Something like Certified Historic Structure Inspector might be good name.  And require any engineer doing an assessment on a historic structure to have this certification.  Requirements might look like this . . .

1.  Must have PE license
2.  Must have X amount of years experience as a licensed PE
3.  Must have X amount of years experience in assessing and inspecting historical structures
4.  Must have completed X number of hours in continuing education credits in the assessment of historic structures (or must complete X course in the assessment of historic structures certified by the X board of engineers) 
5.  Must submit X number of references, etc.

If these assessments or "reports" were done by an engineer with this sort of certification, it may give the public a comfort level with the results whether they are what the preservationists want to hear or not.  That comfort level clearly is not there now since everyone seems to be pointing fingers at the engineer saying it was his/her fault because nobody knows if they were really qualified to even be doing this assessment.  I too am curious about why they couldn't come to a conclusion until the back portion was removed, so the comfort level is not there with me either.

[mbwright]

Just because you are a PE, does not mean you know anything other than what was needed to pass the test.  I've talked to several that could not tell the difference in how floors were constructed, or when a a little fish pond became a barrow pit.  Most of the older houses are significantly stronger than newer construction, but don't have the hurricane straps and fancy insulation.  I'm sure there are some that are good, but the city is not using them.

[CCMjax]

Just because you are a PE, does not mean you know anything other than what was needed to pass the test.  I've talked to several that could not tell the difference in how floors were constructed, or when a a little fish pond became a barrow pit.  Most of the older houses are significantly stronger than newer construction, but don't have the hurricane straps and fancy insulation.  I'm sure there are some that are good, but the city is not using them.

It sounds like most people on this thread have dealt with mostly bad engineers.  I'm not surprised when it comes to single family houses, they do not generate very large fees for engineers unless it's a multi-million dollar home.  You get what you pay for, if you hire some guy working out of his house that's been let go from 3 or 4 companies, then you are probably not going to be pleased with the product or their knowledge.  And to address your first sentence . . . if you are an experienced engineer that actually practices engineering on a daily basis on a variety of project types then you will possess a hell of a lot more knowledge than what is needed to pass the test.   

[strider]

Just because you are a PE, does not mean you know anything other than what was needed to pass the test.  I've talked to several that could not tell the difference in how floors were constructed, or when a a little fish pond became a barrow pit.  Most of the older houses are significantly stronger than newer construction, but don't have the hurricane straps and fancy insulation.  I'm sure there are some that are good, but the city is not using them.

It sounds like most people on this thread have dealt with mostly bad engineers.  I'm not surprised when it comes to single family houses, they do not generate very large fees for engineers unless it's a multi-million dollar home.  You get what you pay for, if you hire some guy working out of his house that's been let go from 3 or 4 companies, then you are probably not going to be pleased with the product or their knowledge.  And to address your first sentence . . . if you are an experienced engineer that actually practices engineering on a daily basis on a variety of project types then you will possess a hell of a lot more knowledge than what is needed to pass the test.   

As an example, I have three experiences with three different firms/ PE's that illustrate my issues with using one on a historic house except in very limited capacity.  One was a case where the engineer obviously did not know the codes involving historic structures and insisted work needed to be done that was not required nor needed in any way.  The difference was between the project being feasible or not. Which is a large reason Historic Structures are exempt from many of the code requirements. The second was with a engineer hired by MCCD to evaluate a house where the owner took out a corner of the first floor. Per the MCCD and the engineer, the back "addition" had to come off unfortunately it was not an addition, it was an enclosed porch under a continuous roof so "take the addition then see if the house was OK" was code to take the entire house. I'm the one who pointed up and said WTF? By the way, the house was easily repaired and still standing. The third issue was more recent.  A potential client had a engineering "report" that stated the existing garage's roof structure had to be redesigned and rebuilt to support it's existing tile roof and to put a tile roof on the main house would require the design and installation of new structure to support it as it was obvious to the engineer it was never framed for a tile roof.  The problem is that the house did have a tile roof up until 1986 (so the first 80 ish years) and the garage's roof was in great shape needing very little and shows no signs of being sway backed or hog bellied after 100 years plus indicating any issue with how it was framed. The main house roof also does not show signs of any structural issues.

The first was carelessness.  Why bother to look up the real codes you need to deal with?  The second was, well, let's just say the PE knew who approved their checks.  The third I believe was a lack of understanding as to the differences in materials and construction as well as the codes.

Materials are actually becoming a big thing.  Today's wood is literally not what wood used to be  You can see proof of that in the 2014 codes.  The code writers reduced spans and loading on structural wood joists, etc. due to the decreasing strength being found today compared to perhaps even ten years ago. The old is much stronger and that is why these old girls are still here often after decades of neglect.

Which brings us back to the fact that no engineer should be able to walk around a historic house for a few minutes and say it needs to come down unless it is so bad it is falling down around him already.  This house on 1st was far from that point.

[JaxUnicorn]

I just uploaded the video of the conversation I had with the on-site Code Enforcement officer during the demolition.  It's a little difficult to hear at times, and the video is a little dark in places, but I think everyone will get the idea. 

https://youtu.be/iSXDnHpOwPU

[mbwright]

And the sad thing is that this guy seems to really believe what he was told, without question.  I'm sure there is a very detailed engineering report that support the said decision.

[JaxUnicorn]

I'm sure there is a very detailed engineering report that support the said decision.

This was facetious....right?

[mbwright]

yep!!  Full record of accountability.   

[bobsim]

  My understanding is they went to remove the porch and after doing so discovered more damage to the house? Pardon the short version.

  Did they use that excavator to remove the porch? If so that may be cause of the damage. A two man crew with basic tools would be much more cost effective and less intrusive to the existing structure. The thought of snatching a porch off of a house with heavy equipment makes me cringe. Unless of course the intent was to cause damage. Then the excavator would be right where you want it.

 

[strider]

You got it.  You do not take a excavator to just remove the enclosed rear porch and intend to save the main house.  The estimates for the removal of the porch and the stabilization was $24,000.00.  The complete demo was $34,000.00. The reason it was higher per SF for the porch only demo was the time it would take to do the selective demolition properly. The difference to us taxpayers was now the property is so contaminated with the liens it will sit for many years to come while by saving the house, there was a reasonable chance it could have been sold and rehabbed into tax producing property again.  The tax payers lost.  Wonder who won then?