Open up the room - tear down interior wall

[Jennie Blomqwist]

We are going to open up a room, a small closet space will become part of the room.
There used to be a door there, and we have now removed the door frame and started to open it up.

Then we saw that the beam at the top is "below" the ceiling, so there's a difference in level.

Can we cut the beam in the ceiling right where we want to open up? (Red)
Same with the beam on the left against the outer wall, we should be able to remove it without problems right? (Blue)
And the beam on the right, we will move out to where the plasterboard ends and cut it on the floor. (Green)

 

[Mats-S]

Answer YES to all three questions, they have no function if you tear down the door etc.

 

[Jennie Blomqwist]

Answer YES to all three questions, they have no function if you remove the door etc.

It is not the upper rule set for the door frame, but the one above it I mean.

 

[Chefred]

It's not the upper rule set for the door frame, but the one above it I mean.

I wouldn't touch the top rule, you should cover it.

 

[Jennie Blomqwist]

I wouldn't touch the top beam, you should cover it up.

Okay, why do you think it shouldn't be touched? Do you think it's structural?
The room is about 4m long and then there's an open area of 10m before the next room. There are no more beams along the length on the upper floor.

 

[Discoman]

If you have a floor plan, you can usually see what is load-bearing.

 

[Chefred]

Okay, why do you think we shouldn't touch it? Do you think it's load-bearing?
The room is about 4m long and then there's an open room of 10m before the next room comes. There are no more beams along the length of the upper floor.

It's hard to say how load-bearing it is, the stud you're thinking of cutting isn't load-bearing. But the standing ones might have some load-bearing capacity.
It could also just be a framework that the wall is built on.
A bit hard to know just from seeing pictures.
Is it just the doorway that's supposed to be made a little bigger, or is the notch against the outer wall supposed to be removed too?

 

[Jennie Blomqwist]

It's hard to say how supportive it is, the stud you plan to remove is not load-bearing. But those standing may have some load-bearing capacity. It can also just be a stud framework that the wall is built on. It's a bit difficult to know just from seeing pictures. Is it just the door opening that will be made a little bigger, or is the section against the outer wall also going to be removed?

Our floor plan is from 1975 and does not match how the house looks, so it's difficult to rely on it. The idea is to open up and enlarge the door opening. The stud on the right is not load-bearing as it's not solid at all. The plan is to remove it towards the outer wall as well. Similarly, the one in the ceiling where the opening is made should be cut so that the ceiling level is uniform. The beam is now about 1-2cm below the ceiling level.

 

[Jennie Blomqwist]

If you have a floor plan, you can usually see what is load-bearing

It's from '75 and not complete, it doesn't match the current layout either

 

[pacman42]

It's from '75 and not complete, it doesn't match how it looks currently either

However, it does show the house's construction, which is what we want to see

 

[Jennie Blomqwist]

However, it shows the construction of the house, which is what we want to see

Image 2 shows how the wall goes now, the green line. That's what we want to open up towards the window where there used to be a door. An opening of about 1.5m

 

[pacman42]

So the wall was not in the original?

Additionally, it runs in the length direction of the house. And in the attic, if I interpret the drawings correctly.

No, it is not load-bearing.

 

[Jennie Blomqwist]

So the wall wasn't in the original?

Moreover, it runs along the length of the house. And in the attic floor if I interpret the drawings correctly.

No, it is not load-bearing.

1.5-story house. That part of the house is an extension that was done in '75.
These are the floor plans submitted to the municipality and they do not match how it was built.
Yes, it runs along the house. About 4m and the house is around 18m long. The only longitudinal wall on the upper floor.

 

[pacman42]

1.5-story villa. That part of the house is an extension that was done in 75.
These are the plans that were submitted to the municipality and they do not match how it was built.
Yes, it runs along the house. About 4m and the house is around 18m long. The only longitudinal wall on the upper floor

As I said, it is not load-bearing. But since it's an "attic floor" you should be a bit observant for movements sideways. When you remove the stud, check how it's attached above, it might be good to place a plank there as this stud may have acted as a substitute for lateral bracing. I'm being a bit overly "worried" here, but it's "better to be safe than sorry."

 

[BirgitS]

Additionally, it runs in the lengthwise direction of the house.

I agree with your conclusions, but I don't understand the above; it's rather an indication that it could be load-bearing.

Yes, it goes along the house. About 4m and the house is about 18m long. The only longitudinal wall on the upper floor.

Kattvindsväggarna exist as well. Have they been opened up for anything like storage?