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.

**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....

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

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

yep that sounds pretty shoddy to me!

**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.

**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....

**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.

**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.

**poobert** · December-31-12, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by JenniferL

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.

I find this to be true anywhere. As for me, I wouldn't buy anything built after the Second World War...started...in Europe.

**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.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-31-12, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Gannon

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.

Blowhard, nothing. I've never seen signs posted for load limits on a balcony. Do you have signs posted within your own residence? A design load of 100 psf is quite conservative...the idea is to have a conservative enough design that such silly signs are not necessary. It's not like the average person would know what 100 psf looks like, even if a sign were posted.

But, of course, everything has to be some sort of conspiracy with you.

**Gannon** · December-31-12, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

But, of course, everything has to be some sort of conspiracy with you.

Of anything on this side of the boad, at least that which doesn't include a Kwhyme or McNamara or Ficano, this is the closest to a conspiracy that I can remember!

The evidence is the shoddy construction...the rush to build...the boasting of the builder to be anti-union...fact the corner unit sold with ugly HVAC engineering...with loose quality everywhere, including the construction of this very public eyesore of a balcony.

The balcony IS the tip of the iceberg here...and evidence of some collusion between the builder and at least a few employees of the city.

In our litigious society, I am quite surprised that newly-constructed residential balconies in the metro area do not have load limits posted...you are right that many have no idea what 100 pounds per square foot might be like. We don't have enough warning signs around...heh.

After the disasters they had in Chicagoland, it is a VERY expensive prospect to build balconies and rear stairways there...they inserted a firm requirement that all plans have to be drawn up by architects and engineers. Good on them...sorry people had to die for logic to enter the equation.

But here, it is clear that even WITH city oversight...this shod can be laid and declared worthy for sale at extraordinarily high prices. That building was not inexpensive for being so cheaply made.

So yeah, after reading the Patch comments section, I am sensing a conspiracy here...

**Zacha341** · December-31-12, 07:15 AM

Thanks for that link. What a bunch of match-sticks-and-elmers-glue basically! I bet the thing is really sound proof - like you can hear a mouse peeing on cotton... all for top prices. As someone commented to the article you need to check the construction of a building before you buy!

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

**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.

**Danny** · October-13-13, 08:25 AM

For over 5 years. The 111 Main St. and 11 Mile Rd lofts were poorly built. The Wood beams were in danger of collapse and the slum owner of the complex has giving people the run-around. Plus it ruined a little bit of the property values in the section on Royal Oak. Folks and businesses in Downtown Royal Oak don't want to see premature blight or an instant 'ghetto' in their area. Royal Oak city council will make sure those owners of any property in the business district will follow required building codes of face heavy fines. Royal Oak remains a friendly bedroom suburb, but with all the building development it won't be happy family home for long but a city filled the hipsters, homosexuals and whatever people.