Never applied for a building permit. It should also be added that the previous owner had already cut open the knee wall (made of standing 3-inch tongue-and-groove planks) on one side and recessed a bookshelf. The top of the bookshelf had a worrying downward bulge. When I recessed the post, I lifted the roof about 30mm using a jack. Directly under the post is a wall and under that, a masonry wall in the basement.
We recently moved into a house and this is what the original drawing looks like.
In 1965, there is a new drawing where it looks like the attic space has been removed
We have 1 attic space left on the right side of the drawing, but where it was removed in 1965 and became just a closet, there is no closet now, so it's completely open space.
Could something have been reinforced when this was removed? I, like the original poster, experience a lot of noise in the living room below when walking upstairs.
I only have a poor realtor's drawing which is very wrong in proportion. What is labeled as "loft" is now a bedroom without an attic space.
We recently moved to a house and here's the original drawing.
[image]
In 1965 there's a new drawing that looks like the "kattvind" has been removed.
[image]
We still have one "kattvind" left on the right of the drawing, but where it was removed in 1965 and became just a closet, there's no closet there now, so it's a completely open space.
Could anything have been reinforced when this was removed? I experience, like the TS, that it sounds very loud in the living room when someone walks upstairs.
I only have a bad realtor's drawing that's very wrong in proportion. What is labeled as "vind" is a bedroom now without "kattvind."
[image]
If it's held up for over fifty-five years, it's likely to hold up for a while longer.
Never applied for a building permit. It should also be mentioned that the previous owner had already cut open the attic wall (made of standing 3-inch tongue and groove plank) on one side and fitted a bookshelf. The top of the bookshelf had a worrying sag. When I fitted the post, I lifted the roof about 30mm with the help of a jack. Directly under the post is a wall and under that, a masonry wall in the basement.
I asked because if you had applied for a building permit, it would have been reviewed by knowledgeable people.
What you describe is an illegal alteration to the house that hasn't been reviewed by any engineer. In other words, you don't know if what you've done is correct or not…
Giving advice based on your unlicensed construction might not be entirely well-thought-out…
I asked because if you had applied for a building permit, it would have been reviewed by knowledgeable individuals.
What you describe is an illegal alteration to the house that hasn't been reviewed by any engineer. In other words, you don't know if what you've done is correct or not…
Giving advice based on your unauthorized construction might not be entirely well thought out…
Didn't give any advice, just shared an experience. I prefer
to make informed decisions myself rather than relying on "professionals."
The municipal building permit office might not exactly be the A-team of engineers either. Relying on them might not be entirely well thought out…
Didn't give advice, shared an experience. I prefer
to make informed decisions myself rather than relying on "professionals".
The municipal building permit office may not exactly be the A-team with constructors either. Relying on them may not be entirely thought out...
Building engineers are more trustworthy than amateurs. What I meant was that if you had remodeled the house legally by applying for a building permit, the building permit office would of course have required you to hire a building engineer so that it was built correctly. It's not like the building permit office does the calculations required...
That you're satisfied with what you've put together doesn't say as much as if a knowledgeable person has checked it out.
Yes, because the principle used is the same, the difference is only that the quite large systems of equations that need to be solved to determine the dimensions are solved in seconds with a computer. It could take a couple of days manually if you want to optimize....
No calculations are needed when you can easily read in the tables how coarse timber is needed according to the standard and the quality class of the timber required for different solutions. In the past, there were neither drywall nor tiled bathrooms, which today places higher demands on the stability of the house frame if you want to avoid ugly cracks in the future. And snow load? If you are careful to keep the roof shoveled at all times, the risk of something giving way in the roof structure is naturally reduced. It is not a thick snow cover alone that poses the greatest risk, but a thick new snow cover followed by heavy rain. 10 mm of rain corresponds to 100 mm of new snow. If it rains 20 mm in a typical day of rain on a 1000 square meters plot, 20 cubic meters of water have fallen, weighing 20 tons. A roof on a 100 square meter area has thus received 2 tons of water, which normally runs off but can be absorbed by the snow and remain on the roof. The risk is greatest in southern Sweden. Yes, I have seen damaged roofs; it is usually the roof truss overhang (the tass) outside the exterior wall that breaks first when a large wet snowpack slides down. Sliding wet snow is not good; remove the snow before the temperatures rise. Sometimes a small railing is put up on the roof to ensure the snow stays. Then the snow can also end up on cars, trellises, and flowerbeds, which don't perform well afterward.
Old churches (read about the new construction of the burned-down Råda church) have very ingenious roof constructions that have worked for 800 years. In those days, a lot was required of the designer; today, you just need to be reasonably literate.
I'm getting a bit paranoid myself. I could create a new thread but maybe it's a bit unnecessary.
We moved into our house at the end of 2015, and one of the previous owners had removed a kattvind from one of the bedrooms and instead installed some weak beam.
I'm wondering if that might have been load-bearing as well; on the ground floor, they had removed a load-bearing wall without supporting it.
We have a 1.5 story house with about a 40-degree roof pitch.
What's perhaps a bit strange is that we only have kattvind on half of the long sides; why is that?
Gave no advice, shared an experience. I prefer
to make informed decisions myself than to rely on "professionals."
The municipal building permit office might not exactly be the A-team with constructors either. Relying on them might not be completely thought through…
so you think that municipal employees belong to the B-team at best?
Now there have been many posts since I wrote mine, and even though I'm not defending ts's actions and yes, I have seen the "drawing," it is still interesting to know what ts has removed? Likely it's large timber and load-bearing but at the same time, we don't know. I've worked in older houses where the attic spaces in individual rooms were not load-bearing. It might have just been more robust constructions in the center of the house or something. There's nothing saying that they consistently used the same design in all "roof trusses" just because you see a sectional drawing from the side like that. This is because, depending on the house's age of course, they didn't work with prefabricated roof trusses that were lifted into place but rather built everything on site according to needs. Now, ts's house doesn't seem to be very old, but still. I tore down an attic space in a house once where it was just lightweight construction, but against the outer wall and in the wall of the room inward in the house, there were posts from above. So nothing was obstructed, but they were visible on the wall. Such a sectional drawing is also likely to show load-bearing functions.
Structural engineers are more reliable than amateurs.
What I meant was that if you had legally rebuilt the house by applying for a building permit, the building permit office would naturally have required you to hire a structural engineer to ensure it was built correctly. It's not like the building permit office does the calculations needed...
That you're satisfied with what you've put together doesn't say as much as if a knowledgeable person checked it.
In general, I don't disagree with what you're saying. But I'm open and transparent here on the forum, and people can draw their own conclusions from that.
Blindly relying on what a professional says is probably the most common mistake people make in general.
electroluxaren said:
so you think municipal employees belong, at best, to the B team?
If we're talking about structural engineers, that's both my generalized view and the established perspective.
But they're not the ones making the drawings and calculations? I think you need to read up a bit on who does what in these processes.
I know how it works. But there are construction engineers employed by the municipal building permit department, and that was what the question was about, right?
Now there have been many posts since I wrote mine, and even if I don't defend the OP's action and yes, I have seen the "drawing," it's still interesting to know what the OP has cut away. It's likely to be heavy timber and load-bearing, but at the same time, we don't know. I have worked in older houses where the attic spaces in individual rooms were not load-bearing. Perhaps there were only sturdier constructions in the center of the house or something like that. There's no rule that says all "trusses" were consistently the same, just because you see a sectional drawing from the side like that. This is because (depending on the age of the house, of course) they didn't work with prefabricated trusses that were lifted into place but built everything on site according to the given need. Now, it seems the OP's house isn't very old, but still. I once demolished an attic space in a house where it was only a lightweight build, but against the outer wall and in the inner wall of the room towards the house, there were posts from above. So nothing was in the way anyway, but still visible on the wall. Such a sectional drawing would certainly also show load-bearing functions.
I have something that seems quite substantial basically in the middle of the house's upper floor. But unclear if those who removed our attic space 50 years ago did it wrong.
Does this look like a rule supporting the roof?
Last edited:
Vi vill skicka notiser för ämnen du bevakar och händelser som berör dig.
Nissens said:
Minnie Mesola said:
