it was mentioned in the newspaper that no contractor will"touch the project" because of the condition of the remaining structure.
did the owner provide written statements from the contractors as to why they would not touch it?
the city should require that the owner get written statements from the contractors as to why they would not do the project
the city would be able to see the level of experience the contractors would have
the city has worked with many contractors and know their skill levels
writtens statements from 'larrys septic cleaning', 'bobs auto repair' and 'two guys with a hammer' would not qualify as valid
the foundation was sound prior to removal of the second floor or the second floor would not have been removed and the owner would not have purchased the property
the front section is sound
those would be the only major concerns
the three walls removed (two side walls and the back section) can be rebuilt with wood framing
the two side walls can be connected to the front section of brick
the city could require that the owner get a structural engineer to evaluate the front section
if it is sound then rebuild the three walls (2 sides and the back wall)
if the front section needs additional work to make it stable then get an estimate
the owner may have to get a contractor that does brick work to take care of the front section
and then he may need a seperate contractor that has experience in wood framing for the two side walls and the back
the two side walls and the back are only a single story structure - straight forward construction
it would ben nothing more than a larger version of a backyard one story shed - simple framing for an experienced contractor
Is there some type of bond or insurance that could feasibly be acquired to essentially entice a contractor to attempt to save and remodel the existing building?
there should have been a bond prior to removal to protect the adjacent building
the bond should be used to fix the over aggresive removal of the solid first floor walls by the demolition contractor
if the contract stated that only the second floor brick walls be removed then that is all that should have been removed
the brick walls have been removed all the way down the the first floor
example: you hire a roofing contractor to remove the old shingles on your roof and put on new shingles all stated in a written contract
the roofing contractor has inexperienced workers and they use a chainsaw and cut thru the roof structure
the roof collapses and does damage to your second floor home
do you let the contractor walk away from the damage he caused?
or do you require that he fix all the damage to the roof and your home?
the written contract should indicate the work that needed to be done
anything damage above that is the responsiblity of the contractor
it would seem that the contractor that removed the second story may not have had enough experience to know that the first floor walls of brick would need to be braced so that they would not come down when the second floor walls were removed
the walls that were to be removed and the walls that were to stay should have had a 'relief' cut so the soild wall sections of brick would remain while the 'bad sections' of brick would be the only sections removed
If the building can't be saved,
if the foundation is sound - it should be sound or the partial demolish would not have been attempted
if the front facade is sound - it should be sound or the partial demolish of the second floor would not have been attempted
with the foundation sound and front facade sound the only task to move forward is to build a one story wood structure
Personally, I do not find the idea of preserving only the facade appealing. Isn't that a rather inefficient use of the property?
if the facade is sound a simple one story structure to replace the unfortunate false removal of the solid first floor brick walls should be the best option
If the building is completely raised and the property left vacant and fenced off, I simply can't imagine anything being erected on the parcel anytime in the future. I do not think the argument "the property is too valuable to go unoccupied" is realistic.
if the building is completely removed a new struture may not be able to be built there under new building codes
Even though the downtown properties are privately held, they really are community assets. I have faith that the community has enough creative capital and resources to fix the situation without leaving a vacant unoccupied lot behind.
the business owners on linden street could 'loan' the owner of 29 linden enough money to frame out the one story wood structure to preserve the project
place a lien on his primary residence until 29 linden has the one story structure built
once the one story strucuture is built the lien is removed from his primary residence
if the current owner has no interest in the building then all he needs to is frame out the one story structure and sell it to someone else
a vacant lot has no value
a brick facade structure with a framed one story weather tight envelope would allow a 'new owner' to finish off the interior that fits their needs
if the front facade is sound and the foundation is sound it can be saved