Framing a wall: idiot edition

[shponglefan]

So I have this unfinished portion of my basement with one of the walls being framed/insulated.  However, there have been mold issues around the bottom of the wall (the prior owners shoved a ton of crap up against the wall trapping moisture).  I was hoping I could at least save the framed wall, but after pulling off the drywall I discover this:





Almost ever single vertical stud is too short for the wall!  Who the heck builds a wall like this??

Granted, it's not a load bearing wall or anything.  Although I had built a lumber rack on it, which now seems less of a good idea.  Oh well, new wall here I come...

[Howard_Casto]

Are there any signs of the basement skinning/cracking?  The only reason I could think of to have wedges like that is if at some point the stud wall separated in some way due to either the basement floor sinking, or the house above getting jacked up.  Either way rip that ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- out.  Any moron can properly frame a wall so whoever did that is a special kind of moron. 

[shponglefan]

Nope, no sinking, at least not to this degree.  One of the studs (thus far) is actually the correct length.  The rest are all random lengths, including one about 8 inches  (!) too short.  The horizontal spacing is a bit random too.  They seemed to be going for 16" spacing, but some are closer to 15", one is 18".  As a result the insulation they packed in doesn't fit properly either.

I think this wall was just made by someone who had no idea what they were doing.

[SlammedNiss]

Any moron can properly frame a wall so whoever did that is a special kind of moron.

From the looks of it, they used whatever they had lying around to make it work, instead of buying a few more 2x4's. And come on, let's face it, 2x4's aren't exactly expensive.

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah even with today's pricing they are what?  2.50 a stud?

[shponglefan]

Now that I've had a better look at it, it looks like they used reclaimed lumber from some other project.   There are all sorts of random holes and cuts in the various studs.  I'm still baffled why they didn't buy proper 2x4's and just cut them to fit though.  Surely it's more work to try to fit all these too-short pieces? 

And another gem from this wall:

[SlammedNiss]

Now that I've had a better look at it, it looks like they used reclaimed lumber from some other project.   There are all sorts of random holes and cuts in the various studs.  I'm still baffled why they didn't buy proper 2x4's and just cut them to fit though.  Surely it's more work to try to fit all these too-short pieces? 

Yup, called that one.

And, may I go ahead and add a... WTF?!?

[shponglefan]

Yes, SlammedNiss, yes you may.  I'll say one thing, though.  The construction of this wall has made it incredibly easy to tear down. 

And yet another marvel of construction brilliance, one of the studs had been sawed more than half-way through:

[crashwg]

Non load-bearing wall, against the foundation?  I don't see the problem.  Why not save a bit of scratch and use some used materials.  It might have looked a little nicer with a double bottom and/or top plate, but the construction seems perfectly useable given, again the non load-bearing wall against concrete...

[SlammedNiss]

Non load-bearing wall, against the foundation?  I don't see the problem.  Why not save a bit of scratch and use some used materials.  It might have looked a little nicer with a double bottom and/or top plate, but the construction seems perfectly useable given, again the non load-bearing wall against concrete...

Using used materials is perfectly fine, but c'mon, you can't tell me that you'd be perfectly happy if you tore down a wall only to find that behind it. There's no telling what other cost-cutting corners these people might have taken on the rest of the home.

BTW, the stud that was sawed 1/2 way through, I would of had no issues reusing it in the manner in what it was used, as it is a non load-bearing wall. However, all that other hacked-together garbage needs to go away .

[Vigo]

If I were to take my guess, I would say from the work that this is a quick flipped house you live in. As in the basement finishing was purposely added quickly to sell the house for a few more bucks.

I have seen this a few times. Any contractor worth their salt will not finish a basement if it doesn't pass a moisture test. I am guessing that the person doing the basement finishing was not an idiot, more just an A-hole that really didn't care. They probably were using scrap wood that was too short to begin with, and did a quick and dirty fill thinking that by the time anyone found out, it would not be his problem.

My advice is do a very thorough moisture test before putting drywall up again. Pick a number of possible problem areas and duct tape squares of clear sheet plastic, sealing all four sides with tape. Wait for a rainy patch of weather and check the squares up until a few days after that, they should all be perfectly dry. That way you will not be wasting drywall with you put wall up again.

[shponglefan]

Non load-bearing wall, against the foundation?  I don't see the problem.  Why not save a bit of scratch and use some used materials.  It might have looked a little nicer with a double bottom and/or top plate, but the construction seems perfectly useable given, again the non load-bearing wall against concrete...

Oh, I'm not saying it wasn't usable.  Minus the mold issue and the odd horizontal spacing of the studs, the wall has held up fine.  Rather it's the logic behind it.  It seems to me it would be so much more effort to build a wall this way as opposed to just cutting correct length studs.  Especially since they obviously nailed everything by hand.

[ChadTower]

Non load bearing... sure... but nontreated bottom plate is a big no no.  Big big one.  That's a big contributor to the mold. 

Now that I understand the inspection process (for non structural stuff) I get why the inspections can be important.  This is a clear example.  If that's a quick flip house, and the buyer had the sense to review permits on the newly finished basement, they could have either demanded remediation costs near closing or just walked away.

[TopJimmyCooks]

Not saying its good work at all, but they probably had the wood from something else salvaged, planned to use it on that wall, found it was too short, needed to finish that day, and decided to make do. 

The 45 degree cut 1/2 way through is a technique to straighten a warped stud.  It's rare these days but you see it in older work.  it's not a structural problem if used sparingly. 

Around here, any wood in contact with masonry/concrete has to be pressure treated- so that whole wall would need to be, not just the sole plate.

I am a GC and flip houses from time to time.  All my stuff is permitted, to code, etc. because I'm hanging my hat on quality.  Lord knows there's many total peckerwoods out there messing around, though. 

[shponglefan]

This wasn't a quick flipped house (at least not with respect to the prior owners).  Without going into all the details, I know the prior owners had this house for about 20-odd years, and I know the owners before them had this house for at least several years.

So I don't think the wall was built for show.  It's up against a 24 foot foundation wall, although the framed wall only spans about 16 feet.  I think it may have been put in for shelving (as there were old shelves on the wall), and possibly an attempt at insulation too.  But given all the insulation gaps due to the odd stud spacing and general lack of sealing, I don't think it was insulating very well.

Current plan is to put polystyrene right up against the wall (spanning the full 24 feet), seal it as best as possible, then frame in front of that.  My understanding is polystyrene makes a good vapour barrier if edges are properly sealed.  And I will be using pressure treated lumber for the base plate.

[ChadTower]

Use a concrete sealer paint before you put up the insulation.  It will help a good amount with surface moisture.  I used Drilok paint on mine.  I didn't have mold issues to begin with but figured why not if I have the chance in the process.  The rigid insulation will be either tongue and groove or overlapping edges.  Tongue and groove is better but I had a hard time finding it this year.  General caulk type adhesive will keep it on the wall for you.

Jimmy, in MA the code is anything in contact with the concrete needs to be treated lumber, but it also says the framing needs to be a couple inches away from the foundation.  That leads to only the base plate being in contact with concrete.

[Howard_Casto]

What he said.  Sealant is far more important.  Also I know you don't want to hear this, but the proper way to tackle a moisture problem is to do it on the outside... which means digging up all the ground around the basement and putting some sort of permanent vapor barrier.  I'm not sure what to recommend there... I'd check out This Old House... I'm sure they've done it at one point.

Remember that water has to go somewhere.  If you seal it on the outside it stays in your yard... which is perfectly acceptable, if you seal it on the inside it says in your wall, which will slowly but surely degrade the wall and lead to more leaks.  I would be careful about polystyrene as well... it is a good moisture barrier, but it's inherent insulation properties can lead to condensation...which is a whole different animal in terms of keeping things dry. 

[shponglefan]

I've been toying around with the idea of using a sealant, but keep reading conflicting opinions on using them on concrete.  Some think it's a good idea, some think it's a bad idea, and some think it really has no real effect.  FWIW, I haven't seen any obvious signs of seepage.  The only leak I've ever seen was through the hole where the gas line came in, but that was an actual hole, not seepage through the concrete itself.  I am going to do a test first using plastic, though (per Vigo's post).

Unfortunately, digging and sealing from the outside just isn't a realistic option right now.  Maybe in the future when I have the money for that.  I am working on the outside of the house to try to improve efforts to keep water away.  Grading is pretty good, although could maybe be improved a bit in the front yard.  I do need to extend the downspouts though, as the ones I have are pretty short (~2-3 feet).

[Dawgz Rule]

I've been toying around with the idea of using a sealant, but keep reading conflicting opinions on using them on concrete. 

I've noticed the same in regards to vapor barriers on basement walls as well.   Some say that a vapor barrier is an absolute must on studded walls in the basement.  Others say different because it will simply trap the moisture within the void between the studded wall and the concrete.

[ChadTower]

Is there a chance that mold is really from a flood and not seepage?

[Howard_Casto]

I've been toying around with the idea of using a sealant, but keep reading conflicting opinions on using them on concrete. 

I've noticed the same in regards to vapor barriers on basement walls as well.   Some say that a vapor barrier is an absolute must on studded walls in the basement.  Others say different because it will simply trap the moisture within the void between the studded wall and the concrete.

And both are 100% correct, which is the annoying thing.  If your outdoor barrier is pretty good then sealant is a good idea... it keeps moisture from within the room and/or very minor leaks via things like that hole he mentioned from collecting in the concrete (which takes a while to dry out).  But if you are getting a lot of moisture from outside leeching in, it will trap this moisture and lead to mold. 

I would look into what Chad said.  Treat your mold and clean it all out.  Then wait for a big storm and/or get outside with the garden hose and see if you get any significant moisture leakage. 

[shponglefan]

Is there a chance that mold is really from a flood and not seepage?

I don't think so.  I know there used to be a crap ton of cardboard boxes shoved against this wall, so I have a feeling it was simply a case of trapped moisture/condensation not being able to dry out.  And especially during this time of year, when the climate is pretty damp.

[Howard_Casto]

Oh one more suggestion.  Get a de-humidifier.  Even a small portable one will do wonders in a humid basement. 

[Dawgz Rule]

Oh one more suggestion.  Get a de-humidifier.  Even a small portable one will do wonders in a humid basement.

Great suggestion.  A dehumidfier makes a big, big, difference.

[ChadTower]

I wouldn't even call that a suggestion.  That's more like a Commandment.


Thou shalt have a dehumidifier in thy basement.

[Howard_Casto]

Fair enough... but I have seen dang fool idgits out there without one, so I thought I'd mention it. 

[shponglefan]

Way ahead of you guys, have one running as we speak. 

[SavannahLion]

Depending on where you live.  You can add a skirt around the house.

I've only ever seen it in the mountains,  you strip back about two feet of topsoil about six feet away from the house and lay down a thick layer of plastic and attach as appropriate to the house. Seal any edges.  We added a layer of rock to help with drainage. No drain pipe that close to the surface because of freezing in winter.

Note we sealed the concrete on the outside before backfilling and we do have a drain pipe below the frost line. The skirt was an added measure. It works perfectly if you don't pierce or remove the skirt. Until the skirt was inadvertantly removed recently, I never witnessed water from the drain pipe or seepage in the foundation.

In the valleys I think a drain pipe and gravel is sufficient to move water away from the foundation since there is no freeze cycle. The only other time I saw a similar system using a skirt was on Holmes on Homes where the skirt is much smaller and the drain pipe sits on top, rather than below in our case. I don't think he had to contend with a deep frost line though. YMMV.

You can use either as a temporary solution until you get enough cash to dig down and do the job proper.

[shponglefan]

So now I discovered this new wrinkle in my plan: building permits!

I originally wasn't expecting one to be required.  I know my city requires them for finishing a basement (floor to ceiling).  But in this case I'm not actually finishing anything, just insulting a single foundation wall.

So I went to the city office to check.  I was told that anything to do with insulation (i.e. replacing existing or adding new) technically requires a building permit.  Framing by itself does not, as long as I'm not making new living spaces.  And I was also told I can probably get away with replacing like insulation w/ like insulation without needing a permit.  Which is good, because I'd already had that done in one of the upstairs bedrooms.

They told me it's basically to make sure any new insulation meets or exceeds what was there prior.  Which is almost comical given how poor this basement is insulated (the finished portion has 1 inch styrofoam in between furring strips; no sealing, holes in it, etc).

I talked to a few people and one guy said while I "technically" need a permit to replace insulation, if I'm covering it back up with drywall nobody would ever know.  It was funny to hear that coming from a city official.

So now I'm wondering if it's worth going through the hassle of bothering to get a permit.  I know insurance can be an issue, and the electrical will be seperately permitted.  For just insulation and drywall though?  I'm really not seeing the value in what I'm getting for money here...  and if it's a matter of later selling, I can always rip it all out anyway.

[Howard_Casto]

Lol... as a guy that lives in WV I kind of laugh at permits.  Around there at least, only three actually count in a home, electrical, gas, and depending upon the situation, water. 

Here's the thing about permits (caution, opinion incoming).  Unless it's a new structure, there is absolutely no way they can prove that you've done any work to your house, unless one of the utility companies is involved.  It's not like an insurance company keeps a book of every re-modeling done to every house in the united states... they only know work has been done if YOU tell them it has.  This is why the city official gave you that advice imho... sometimes even though there is technically a law in the books, it isn't really enforced. 

[Dawgz Rule]

Agree with Howard 100%.....especially for insulation and drywall.   

[TopJimmyCooks]

As a GC I pull permits on everything - except my own house, sometimes.   As long as you don't add square footage or change life safety/egress, there's no way it can be an issue really.  It sounds like you're improving things - and you have tacit acceptance by the building department- so I'd go bareback on this one if I were you. 

[Howard_Casto]

I'm a big fan of safety, so if you need to get things inspected for safety's sake I'm all for it, but imho permits are a scam created partially to make a new industry and partially to pass the blame of an accident away from the utility company. 

Example:  Let's say the house next door was one of the first houses to get electricity... I mean the thing was hooked up to a Edison generator at one point.  You on the other hand, have a relatively new house.  The wiring hasn't been touched on either house since it was installed and both are on the grid.  The old house would have the exact same approval and accident insurance coverage as your house.  Why?  Because the Edison house was hooked up to the ac grid long before inspections were required, and it's never been unhooked.  So long as the electric company doesn't get involved it will always be covered, even with it's 100 year old wiring.  On the other hand, your house that was built in the 80's and you just recently had to disconnect the power when you swapped out the siding on the house.  Now even though you haven't touched the wiring at all, the electric company will require you to get the wiring inspected before they'll hook it up again, it's quite possible they will FAIL you as well, because the code in the 80's isn't the same as the code today.  So by doing absolutely nothing, you could fail inspection.  The house with the 100 year old wiring... it's still chugging along. 

This isn't a crazy over the top example either.... I know a person who was in a situation like this.

My point is, if you think the point of inspections is to ensure you have a safe home think again, the point usually is to give a GC trying to supplement his income some extra cash and to make sure the electric company doesn't get sued. 

[Dawgz Rule]

Well said.  I was going to add that permits can come in handy if one has no clue as to what they are actually doing. 

My wife and I were building a koi pond a few years back.  The pond itself would be the size of a normal in ground pool.  Went to the building department....no permit required.  No fence required either.  I explained in greater detail all of the work (pumps, electrical, etc.).  Again, no permit required because it is considered a "water feature".    Asked the guy what if I now call it a swimming pool?  Need a permit, inspections, fence, etc.  Too funny. 

[Howard_Casto]

Yup.... we've got a trailer on our property here.  It isn't "tied down" for insurance reasons.  What that means is, a thin gauge steel wire hasn't been attached to the frame and pounded into the ground, that would serve absolutely no real purpose in a natural disaster compared to the permenant cinder block piers I have it on.  The difference?  Because I don't have it "tied down" it is a temporary structure and is considered a mobile home, even though it's a 12 x 79 trailer.  Once I tie it down, it's a permanent structure and falls under normal home owners insurance. 

Ridiculous. 

[SavannahLion]

In rare form I agree with Howard. Permits are a pisser. In my town we have itemized lists for what requires permits.  Ceiling fans require permits,  light fixtures do not.  Stores won't even sell you a water heater without charging the permit fees (gas or electric makes no difference) but gas stoves have no such requirement.

I can see the original intent of permits but like the recycling fees on lumber, electronics, and paint the intent is out the door and it's now an unwarranted tax.

[SavannahLion]

Yup.... we've got a trailer on our property here.  It isn't "tied down" for insurance reasons.  What that means is, a thin gauge steel wire hasn't been attached to the frame and pounded into the ground, that would serve absolutely no real purpose in a natural disaster compared to the permenant cinder block piers I have it on.  The difference?  Because I don't have it "tied down" it is a temporary structure and is considered a mobile home, even though it's a 12 x 79 trailer.  Once I tie it down, it's a permanent structure and falls under normal home owners insurance. 

Ridiculous.

Ive heard the same thing happens in Oregon.  I have friends who use a tractor to pump water which is acceptable but install a well pump and they have to pay higher taxes. I'm told that that state ties property taxes to foundations, so living in trailers is common to keep property taxes lower.

[Vigo]

I agree with the above. Permit stuff is a money racket, and I wont get one unless my work is visible from the outside.

I have a 110 year house that I plan on selling soon. It simply needs to be re-shingled, but because of permit code, it would cost me $20,000 to 25,000 to have it done. I have a pretty small house, something like 15 X 80, but code states that the house must have specific rafter width and plywood decking to be to current code. That means if I get a roofer to come in and reshingle, he will be forced to redo the entire top of my house with all new material. I have had about 7 quotes and they all told me the same thing: My roof is sturdier than most modern roofs, but different from modern code standards and therefore would need to be completely replaced if I want new shingles up there.

When I sell the place, I will just drop 8k off the price as a counter offer to "cover the cost" of a new roof.

[knave]

In my town if you ask at all, "you need a permit", But you replace something like for like they'll never know. A toilet is a good example. Just like Howard I'm all for a permit if its a safety issue but sometimes it doesn't make any sense.

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah I think a lot of the problem lies in the fact that "city planners" or "councilmen" write up this stuff and they don't have a clue what they are talking about in regards to the history of home building.  I think the best example I can give is the fact that modern structural codes are based upon modern lumber and don't make exceptions for old lumber. 

My grandma's house is made out of 100+ old lumber.  First of it uses REAL sized lumber.  A 2x4 is actually 2 inches by 4 inches ect....  Secondly it comes from old growth trees.... back in the day they didn't "farm" the land by planting trees and cutting them down every 30 years or so, you'd cut down a 200+ year old tree and slice it up, because they still had those back then.  I've broken three blades on a saws-all trying to get through a single stud in her house... that's how dense the wood is. 

Yet I have to go by building codes intended for homes built on particle board floors and 1.5 x 3.5 new pine studs that are so flimsy I can drive a screw through them with a manual screw driver. 

It's one of those deals where they should really just make it really hard to get an inspectors license, ensuring only knowledgeable people get in and each house should be inspected on a case by case basis instead of going down a list of pointless technicalities.  Of course that has it's own problems, so I'm not even sure if a reasonable solution exists.