Almost 55 years ago a very dear friend, after watching his grandmother pass, made a most profound statement that I never forgot, “Doctors differ patients die”. To this day I see that repeating itself over and over. We do not let a General Practitioner (GP) work on our brain, so why do we let Structural Engineers work on our restoration projects? At least 80 percent of their repair work is Rip Out and Replace, in accordance with solid “new build” principles. Not only is this derogatory to the fabric of the structure in question but it typically represents a 20-80% increase in cost and time on the project.
Europe, ahead of us when it comes to restoration, has classified Restoration as its own category in addition to the Structural and Civil categories. This is based as much, if not more, on experience than textbooks. However, their textbooks are also far ahead of us when it comes to restoration. We need to catch up in so many ways considering Europe is mostly Masonry, and the US is by far predominantly concrete. Our means, methods, and materials for stabilizing, fixing, strengthening and providing sustainable concrete repair solutions still leave a lot to be desired but when it comes to masonry and in-situ stabilizing, fixing and retroactive seismic solutions. As an analogy, we have not even made it to first base and Europe is standing on home plate.
As an owner of a building, it is always difficult to budget for the structural health of our assets, no matter how small. All we have to do is catch the daily, everyday news to see the issues with not budgeting and spending appropriately on our structures. Whether it is another building or garage collapse, a balcony shedding chunks of concrete due to repeated corrosion, even when repeated repairs have been made, leaking basements, elevator pits, subways and tunnels, they are all part of the problem.
Until we can first build sustainably then maintain this sustainability through the expected useful life, or beyond, of a structure, the results are going to be from bad to disastrous in both time, money and life safety.
As an example, consider, fire ratings are not to protect the building as much as they are to allow safe egress of the people in the building. Imagine a world where we could do both! Another example are city ordinances like FISP (formerly Local Law 11) in New York City, or Boston’s Façade.
Ordinance program. These programs guarantee not only inspections of building but the laws necessary to enforce the various means of repair. There are approximately 13 cities in the United States with these laws and one state (Florida). In Europe, there are complete countries such as Italy that initiate support and enforce the well-being of their structures. By the way these structures often have 3 and 4 figures in their age, unlike the U.S. where we have structures that are 250 years +/-at most and usually more like 50-80 years.
Getting back to my original point, I could write a book on the number of restorations that benefited from using a Restoration rather than a true Structural engineer, which is in line with my philosophy of “SIP vs ROAR”. But one I just worked on recently brings the point home.
PROBLEM – Flat Arch Terracotta Ceiling in distress in NYC Highrise involving Owner and upstairs neighbor (Bathroom)
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SOLUTION – Rip-Out-And-Replace with new concrete slab, traditional solution.
RESTORATION ENGINEERS SOLUTION – Holes are cosmetic not structural, fill open voids with firestop foam and repair over holes with minimal intervention.
If the difference isn’t obvious, one involves:
- Close to 7-figure cost.
- Many weeks even months to complete repair.
- Upstairs neighbor without a bathroom during that timeframe.
While the other involves:
- Significantly below low 6-figure cost.
- Time frame is a matter of days or even a week or two.
- Neither owner is deprived of the use of their area, neighbor zero, owner minimal.
Now consider the difference when it comes to garage restoration projects such as NYC Local Law 126 projects. The numbers for the Rip-Out-And-Replace are exponentially higher.
Another recent example involved the rebuilding of an exterior chimney. The original engineer recommended replacement, but rather it was stabilized with a structural stucco, you can imagine the differences in cost and impact. Last one, in a penthouse in Manhattan, during a renovation, there was a section of a single wythe interior wall observed during a renovation. In addition to being against code, it had a mural on one side that the owner wanted to save. Rather than lose the mural, again structural stucco was applied to the back surface of the brick wall making it code compliant!
Until we get serious across the board for the Structural Health of our Built Environment, we are just looking at the same philosophy as a Balloon Payment Mortgage, we will suffer in the end!
Patrick J. Morrisey – LinkedIn
President
