Dangerous Buildings

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nate DeMarse on March 4, 2008 at 12:10pm

This building is about 300 feet to the south of the building above. This is a building built in 1880 (year is on the cornice).

This is a "post-repair" overall photo of the building. The patched areas are shown above the garbage cans on the sidewalk and around the right corner on the front wall.

Close-up of the deterioration on the side 2/B wall. The masonry bearing wall is bulging severely out of plumb at the window frame. Stability of the building is compromised.

A close-up of the "repairs" conducted to the area shown above. The bulging bricks were replaced (in many cases with the same bricks) and new mortar used. The buildings stability is still compromised. The same 130 year old bricks were used and SOMETHING remote from the repair made the wall shift and bulge. The stability of this building during firefighting operations must be watched very closely and a heavy fire condition in the first floor store should render this building an outside operation.

Another view of a "repaired area". Note that most of the bricks have deterioration cracks through the center and some have literally turned to dust and dropped out of the wall. In this photo, shotty repair work included applying mortar into a void that previously housed a brick.

This building is a collapse waiting to occur. The building could collapse on any day of the week with NO fire situation. In a fire situation, interior operations should not be conducted or should be VERY LIMITED only to save a life.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nate DeMarse on March 4, 2008 at 3:51pm

Here are a few more. These are from Westmont, IL and were taken in 2002. Both of these buildings still stand today and remain hazards to the members that can respond to fight a fire in them.

Date: 2002
City: Westmont, IL
Location: 236 N Cass Ave X Naperville Rd.

We noticed the work being done on this building upon returning from an EMS run. We stopped to take a look at what they are doing. Our thoughts were confirmed in the following photos:

This is a view from inside the newly created cockloft created by the peaked-roof that is being constructed. The gravel below the horizontal lumber that you see at the bottom of the photo is the previous flat-roof of the store below.

This photo was taken a few weeks after the first two. It shows construction near completion. This photo is shot from the rear of the building. You can see the newly constructed peaked-roofs on both the front (over the store) and the roof of the second floor (rear) also. The two legs of the peaked-roof are resting directly on the parapet walls, significantly adding a dead load to the building. This building is no longer able to be vertically ventilated and the new cockloft can hide a significant body of fire.

Date: 2002
City: Westmont, IL
Location: 10 N Cass Ave X Burlington St.

Notes: A view from the front (Side 1 or A) of a typical "Main Street U.S.A." building. The roof firefighter(s) at this building will determine the outcome of this fire (see next photo).

A bow-truss roof is present on the rear half of the building and the apartments shown in the front of the building, do not extend to the rear. The door that you see in the rear actually serves as a "2nd means of egress" for the apartments in the front. That door enters directly through the truss-loft of the bow-truss roof and walks into the apartment building on the 2nd floor.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on March 4, 2008 at 5:05pm

I cant wait to get some pics of a couple building in our Town. I presented our documentation to our Village board about them and they basically said there is nothing they can do about them. I have three that are on the edge of collapse and the truth of the matter is they dont "want" to do anything about them. That would mean work for them and they dont want any part of that.

Right now our SOP for anything near those buildings is to stay away! They have been abandond for years and its only a matter of time before they collaps into the street.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jay Michael on March 6, 2008 at 8:47pm

Here are some photos from a moduar home under construction. I has been awhile since I took the photos but if I remember correctly the first and second floors each have two "pods" or moduars. I don't remember if they were built to HUD codes or local codes. It looks balloon frame but is platform. In this type construction the floor joists don't always run parrallel but the "pods" floor joists may fasten to a glue lam perpendicular to each other. From the basement you can tell you are in a modular as since the joists can run perpendicular the heat runs and cold air returns are ducted. They can't use the joist space for a cold air return.
Note they are installing the roof, it is built in a factory and hauled in the same as the "pods". The roof has no ridge board justs overlaps the otherside of the roof and nails down. This is much the same as two wall make a corner. Also note the overhang in the soffet ,facia area. Yes it just foolds over and is nailed (stapled) into place.
I mentioned HUD codes ad local codes. one basic difference is the HUD code allows boxless electrical joints buried in the walls where local codes all joints are made in electrical boxes or the wiring runs directly to the service panel. The pods coe completely finished, paint, wall paper, outlets and switches, kitchen and bath cabinets. The local contractor is responsible to meet the local code.
I am not saying this is anymore dangerous than any other lightweight construction method and some of these units are very big and nice. The units built to local codes seem to be more substantial than the ones built to HUD codes.

Attachments:

• P1010003.JPG, 888 KB
• P1010005.JPG, 894 KB
• P1010006.JPG, 873 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Scott Moore on March 9, 2008 at 4:21pm

These photos are from a residence located in the northern end of our district on Lake Ln in Nixa, Mo. The photos are of the basement foundation walls. The beams are designed to be a temporary support of the structure till repairs can be made. The floor has about 4 inches of water standing. Not your typical old home either. We were called to the area for a gas smell imagine the suprise when this was located. Something to think about when making your interior attack at the next basement home.

Attachments:

• IMGA1644.JPG, 1.5 MB
• IMGA1646.JPG, 1.5 MB
• IMGA1650.JPG, 1.5 MB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on March 9, 2008 at 5:18pm

These are pics of the buildings on our Main street. All of them have been classified as Dangerous Buildings in our district yet our Village board does NOTHING, nor do we get any legal support from the state fire marshals office.

On right side of the buidling that has already has has a truss failure and has the gaping hole in the roof is a community hospital clinic. When this buiding comes down it will surly bring down the common wall adjoining it and God forbid anyone is in the clinic when that happens.

Whats it take for people to listen to us.

Attachments:

• P1010009.JPG, 58 KB
• P1010007.JPG, 60 KB
• P1010008.JPG, 60 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on March 9, 2008 at 5:20pm

This is the pic from inside the worst of the buildings that shares a common wall with a hospital clinic.

Attachments:

• P1000966.JPG, 67 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jay Michael on March 10, 2008 at 5:26pm

Kirk, who pays the taxes on these buildings? It would have to be cheaper for them to pay the tax on a vacant lot. Our code enforcment people are a little lax, but I believe they would condem this thing. This might be too elementry but, did you try contacting the State of Illinois building and code enforcement?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on March 10, 2008 at 8:41pm

The owners have defaulted on the taxes, the village wont pay them because doing so means they own them and they wont spend the money to have them tore down.

I have been fighting this battle for over a year and NO ONE will take responsibility and have them demolished becuase it costs money.

Whats worse, our Fire District Attorney is also our Village Attorney and he has advised the Village to do nothing as was his advice to me. I informed him of the state law on dangerous buildings and what my obligations are and he said then as long as I have informed the Village and the owners of the situation I have done my part and no liability will fall in my lap.

Nothing but political double speak :( I have not given up but its getting old having every jurisdiction with authority shrug their responsibilities.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jay Michael on March 10, 2008 at 9:28pm

It would seem to me if the owners are in default, the village does own it. Ask the attorney what plan he has in place to prevent kids from entering the structure and getting hurt or worse. I am reasonably certain you have no liability, but I will guess the Village has more liability than they think they do. I believe Midland Texas found that out when Jessica fell in the well in 1987, I am not sure leagally but they spent a lot to get her out.
Good luck, seems they spend lots of money to get elected, then channel our money to their special interest groups. But it is still a great job in a Great Country.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nate DeMarse on March 11, 2008 at 2:00pm

In reference to the first set of photos in Dwight, IL I just realized this added danger to that specific wall:

I grew up about a block from this building, my parents still live there and I pass this building about 10 times every time I visit family. However, it took studying this photo to bring it out.

The overhang on the front of the wall in question is cantilevered into the "wall in question" by tie rods. This adds an extra force to an already weakened wall. As if the crack from the foundation to the parapet is not enough, the awning will also assist this wall in collapsing.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Barry, Sr. on March 27, 2008 at 12:00pm

Changes in occupancy and/or usage should be warnings of potential danger for firefighters engaging in suppression activities. This building in a neighboring community has undergone a change in usage, and is now developing tell-tale indicators of potential structural instability. Roof operations clearly should be evaluated carefully, as the area above the overhead door has developed a visible sag. Forcing entry through this door may not be the best choice as the decking in front of the door is also suspect.

Thoughts, comments welcome.

Be Safe,

Christopher A. Barry, Sr.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page