Shoddy construction in Royal Oak?

**rb336** · December-27-12, 04:39 PM

Went by 111 N. Main today - saw that there was some temporary beams on some of the balconies. I thought the construction looked a bit shoddy when it was being built. What is it - maybe 7 years old?

**detroittrader** · December-27-12, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

Went by 111 N. Main today - saw that there was some temporary beams on some of the balconies. I thought the construction looked a bit shoddy when it was being built. What is it - maybe 7 years old?

If you are talking about the building on the northwest corner of 11/Main I know exactly where you saw that. It has been like that for at least 2 years. Seems the owner on the third floor had too many "guests" on the balcony and it dropped a foot and they had to prop it up with a beam.

**DetroitPlanner** · December-27-12, 06:14 PM

yep that sounds pretty shoddy to me!

**Honky Tonk** · December-27-12, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by detroittrader

If you are talking about the building on the northwest corner of 11/Main I know exactly where you saw that. It has been like that for at least 2 years. Seems the owner on the third floor had too many "guests" on the balcony and it dropped a foot and they had to prop it up with a beam.

Maybe he needs thinner guests?

**Gannon** · December-27-12, 07:32 PM

Everything about that building is suspect. Cheap-ass construction throughout.

I know the fellow who owns that upper corner unit. I've spent a ton of time there, many nights back when Memphis Smoke was still happening. He got soaked for it, too.

I was there the night he took possession. Had to MacGuyver a fix for the roar of the heater...stupidest engineering I'd ever seen. Saved the night, he was pretty bummed to hear it everywhere in the loft...which was an echo chamber before he brought in furniture and window treatments.

For a while, he was renting it to Hollywood executives [[before Snydley destroyed that revenue stream), and they had a few parties there. I'm sure it could've been a disaster, if the whole smoking section spilled into the intersection.

Haven't talked with him in a while about this place...he might've dumped it. I'm sure he'd like to...

**nain rouge** · December-27-12, 07:53 PM

When they were building that apartment, there were actually protests because they were using nonunion labor. While that in and of itself shouldn't be a big deal, the general impression I've gotten is that the builders cut every corner possible, resulting in the mess you see now.

I was told by one Royal Oak citizen that the apartment in question is in fact a wood frame building with a brick facade. And, of course, assuming that is the case, they certainly aren't charging wood frame prices, but something much higher.

I also find it suspicious that the North Main Apartments on the other side of Main can't get any tenants in its ground level retail space. That should be prime real estate, but for some reason no one will bite....

**Honky Tonk** · December-27-12, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Gannon

Everything about that building is suspect. Cheap-ass construction throughout.

I know the fellow who owns that upper corner unit. I've spent a ton of time there, many nights back when Memphis Smoke was still happening. He got soaked for it, too.

I was there the night he took possession. Had to MacGuyver a fix for the roar of the heater...stupidest engineering I'd ever seen. Saved the night, he was pretty bummed to hear it everywhere in the loft...which was an echo chamber before he brought in furniture and window treatments.

For a while, he was renting it to Hollywood executives [[before Snydley destroyed that revenue stream), and they had a few parties there. I'm sure it could've been a disaster, if the whole smoking section spilled into the intersection.

Haven't talked with him in a while about this place...he might've dumped it. I'm sure he'd like to...

Makes you wonder where or what the city inspectors were inspecting.

**softailrider** · December-27-12, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Makes you wonder where or what the city inspectors were inspecting.

They were making sure everything was code or beyond. As long as regulations are met they could care less if cheap shit was used in the construction.

**Bham1982** · December-27-12, 09:48 PM

My general anecdotal impression is that Royal Oak has been an anything-goes city of pro-development, whatever the costs.

There seems to have been an orgy of construction of cheap-looking condos and townhouses, and I don't get the potential buyer profile.

Royal Oak is a perfectly decent community, but I don't understand the appeal relative to other older communities, especially considering the situation with taxes, schools, and downtown weekend drunk-a-thons.

**Honky Tonk** · December-28-12, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by softailrider

They were making sure everything was code or beyond. As long as regulations are met they could care less if cheap shit was used in the construction.

Cheap shit is cheap shit, but this has to do with structural integrity and design. A balcony dropping onto the unit below is more serious then a faulty light switch. Also, as detroittrader posted "It has been like that for at least 2 years", makes me wonder if something else isn't going on below the surface in RO? Financial stress?

**Gannon** · December-28-12, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Cheap shit is cheap shit, but this has to do with structural integrity and design. A balcony dropping onto the unit below is more serious then a faulty light switch. Also, as detroittrader posted "It has been like that for at least 2 years", makes me wonder if something else isn't going on below the surface in RO? Financial stress?

Although I have zero insider knowledge of this, I'm betting the delay is due the slow crawl of the courts...surely someone is being sued for this. The deck is fake wood, and never was really finished properly. There has never been any form of load limit posted on it, either.

This 'neo-loft' has one of the best sunrise views in the area, though. Always thought it would be a great location for a sunrise yoga series...but they've association politics that would surely get in the way. The real estate agent could barely get permission to post a sign when he decided to sell the first time.

Same dude owns one of the best sunset views of Metro Detroit over Pine Lake, too, oddly enough.

Cheers!

**Gannon** · December-28-12, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

There seems to have been an orgy of construction of cheap-looking condos and townhouses, and I don't get the potential buyer profile.

I'm not sure they thought that far, either. Remember, these were all borne out of the greed over the falsely-inflated real estate values during the mortgage scam years. It is amazing they got completed. I'd love to compare bank foreclosure rates between these units and the general neighborhood surrounding 'em. It got pretty sparse in there after 2009...and I saw one fancy SUV in the parking lot on blocks once, missing the 30-inchers they were sporting the night previous.

**JBMcB** · December-28-12, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Makes you wonder where or what the city inspectors were inspecting.

Unionized code enforcement officers letting a non-union work-site slide on building codes? I think not.

**rb336** · December-28-12, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

Unionized code enforcement officers letting a non-union work-site slide on building codes? I think not.

are they, in fact, unionized?

**DetroitHabitater** · December-28-12, 11:59 AM

as I recall from walking past it a year ago it wasn't even built/designed properly.

The joists were not cantilevered, they were just jack joists hung with brackets...totally not code. This should of never been sealed by an architect, never approved by a building commission, never built by a builder and never signed off on by an inspector.

But then again I got a parking ticket for backing my truck into a parking spot there, so at least they are on top of that.

**mikeg19** · December-28-12, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

I also find it suspicious that the North Main Apartments on the other side of Main can't get any tenants in its ground level retail space. That should be prime real estate, but for some reason no one will bite....

I've never understood that either. You'd think that those spaces would have been snatched up before the place opened.

**Goose** · December-28-12, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitHabitater

as I recall from walking past it a year ago it wasn't even built/designed properly.

The joists were not cantilevered, they were just jack joists hung with brackets...totally not code. This should of never been sealed by an architect, never approved by a building commission, never built by a builder and never signed off on by an inspector.

from viewing it today, you are correct, although they do seem to be tied to lam beams on either end, the most exterior lam beam appears to have failed and/or looks delaminated possibly due to water

funny thing is they have to posts put in to temporarily support the balcony that rest on the balcony beneath it but the load is not carried further down to the foundation...

but I guess they probably told the owners not to set foot on these balconies....

**JenniferL** · December-30-12, 06:28 PM

If anybody is seriously considering buying a home in Royal Oak, older is better. Forget the overpriced newer condos and lofts and invest in a nice old house with good, strong bones.

**Patrick** · December-30-12, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

When they were building that apartment, there were actually protests because they were using nonunion labor. While that in and of itself shouldn't be a big deal, the general impression I've gotten is that the builders cut every corner possible, resulting in the mess you see now.

I was told by one Royal Oak citizen that the apartment in question is in fact a wood frame building with a brick facade. And, of course, assuming that is the case, they certainly aren't charging wood frame prices, but something much higher.

I also find it suspicious that the North Main Apartments on the other side of Main can't get any tenants in its ground level retail space. That should be prime real estate, but for some reason no one will bite....

ha, come to Northern Virginia and you will see dozens of new, multi-story apartment buildings built with wood frames and cheap brickwork and shoddy materials. This isn't just a Royal Oak thing...this is happening all over. It's like these buildings were built with the intentions that they would be taken down after 20 years.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-30-12, 11:09 PM

I have not seen, nor am I familiar with, this particular problem. Nor have I been involved in the design, bid or construction of this building. In general terms, though:

Gannon, there are "load limits". Building Codes specify a minimum design load for balconies of 100 psf. For comparison, the floor of a single-family residence is typically designed for 40 psf.

DetroitHabitater, I'm curious to know what your qualifications are to make this statement. Which section[[s) of the building code were violated, and by whom? There are no requirements for cantilevered joists, nor are hangers outlawed. In engineering parlance, "If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't."

Originally Posted by DetroitHabitater

as I recall from walking past it a year ago it wasn't even built/designed properly.

The joists were not cantilevered, they were just jack joists hung with brackets...totally not code. This should of never been sealed by an architect, never approved by a building commission, never built by a builder and never signed off on by an inspector.

If you can casually walk past a building and determine at a glance that it wasn't designed and built to Code, then you're a far better engineer than I am.

There are a few possibilities here:

1. Exceeding the design live load of the balcony, in which case, the occupant of the property would be at fault.

2. Improper design, whether insufficient live load capacity or improper connection detailing, on behalf of the Engineer of Record.

3. Improper construction by the contractor: a deviation from the signed-and-sealed construction documents and shop drawings.

These kinds of things can't be determined unless a qualified engineer examines the problem in person. I'm only enumerating the possibilities before more wild-ass speculation and egregious finger-pointing takes place.

**rb336** · December-30-12, 11:24 PM

here's more detail:

http://royaloak.patch.com/articles/s...#photo-9956370

Structure Tec has some serious issues with the construction

**ghettopalmetto** · December-30-12, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

here's more detail:

http://royaloak.patch.com/articles/s...#photo-9956370

Structure Tec has some serious issues with the construction

According to the article, it sounds like there may be some design issues as well.

Unfortunately, this kind of thing does happen. It's important to let the investigation run its course to find the facts, and let the involved parties determine how to remedy the situation, based on those facts. I just hope nobody gets hurt.

It does worry me a bit, however, that Royal Oak allows bracing/shoring to be installed without a permit. An unwitting property owner might end up transferring load to another portion of the structure that is unable to support the additional load.

**Gannon** · December-31-12, 02:40 AM

Of course there exist engineering limits for construction, don't be such a blowhard. I said none were ever POSTED on this particular balcony. I've spent a great deal of time on it, believe me, nothing has ever been indicated by any signage.

**adamjab19** · December-31-12, 03:48 AM

There was in fact a water problem too. At least a couple of years ago there were massive amounts of ice below the corner and side balconies. At first they took off the metal and then there was black plastic.

**Honky Tonk** · December-31-12, 05:18 AM

"An unwitting property owner might end up transferring load to another portion of the structure that is unable to support the additional load."

WTF does THAT mean? Like a dummy I actually walked out onto my balcony, and it started to come off of my apartment? So it was never meant to be actually used, it's there for aesthetic purposes only, or just to make a sale? And the door leading to this balcony was never meant to be actually opened and walked through? Interesting concept. If you ask me, either RO has some of the weakest construction codes in the area, or someone's palm was greased to "look the other way while I put a few nails in these 2 X 4's". If this building was in Detroit, by now this string would be 5 pages long regarding City incompetence, and how all this is really Coleman Young's fault.